Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 1:33:52 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I don't think moving the guns violates Newtonian physicis. I mean the guns are no longer there in reality. They have been moved.  In WITP while the guns were being removed from USA postions for them are being prepared. And once they relocate in order to be used they must again become static.

It is good to experiment. Also I think the more experianced players should just let the new players figure it out on their own.  (better then them thinking we are picking on them)
The most important thing is to have fun.  It does not matter who agrees or disagrees (other then your opponent)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to itsjustme)
Post #: 31
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 2:22:38 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Was away for a day so only just checked this thread again. I'll deal with the posts in order:

1. Aztez,
A. I listed the issue of the exploitation of movement into a hex to cancel movement orders only because it was an example of how inconsistent standards are applied by people on this forum to similar situations when the sides and players vary. Consistency is the hallmark of fairness, inconsistency isn't.


B. I have said publicly in this very thread that while it DID breach our pre-game agreements I figured it cancelled out any bonus I got from landing at Johore Bahru ( which you objected to after the fact) since it takes 2 days to march from Mersing and you exploited this issue to stop my movements for three days. Since it cancelled it out I figured we were even so I didn't make a big deal of it at the time.


C. We had a clear pre-game agreement that in return for banning Shock Attack + Pursue that you would not take advantage and move units into hexes just to cancel movement orders. You broke this pre-game agreement by moving units ( including on one day just a base force) into Johore Bahru purely to cancel movement orders. After the first day I asked you not to do it again. You agreed not to in email to me. Then it happened again on the 2nd day. After the 2nd day I told you that if it happened again I would shock attack + pursue in order to stop it happening a fourth time. On the third day it happened again so on the fourth day I Shock Attacked + Pursued to prevent it happening on a 5th, 6th and further days.

Those are the facts of the issue. There was an agreement not to do this. In email you admitted you were doing this at Johore and you did this on 3 separate days. Those are facts. You can engage in wordplay as much as you want Aztez but those are the facts. Am I bothered overly by it? No, as I said it gained you 3 days and so, IMO, fully compensated you for me landing at Johore instead of Mersing ( which most people seem to figure is a no-no) so I figured that given that most people thought the Johore landing was questionable that this compensated for it ( also don't forget that I had a standing offer that I would redo turn 1 if any landings occurred which you objected to... I heard nothing about the objections to the landing at Johore Bahru until several days into the game. If you had said it to me after turn 1 I would have honoured my undertaking to redo the turn 1 without that landing... Hell, in my current game when I listed turn 1 Johore Bahru as a possibility my opponent stated that he didn't think this was viable so I stopped the invasion fleet just off Mersing ( which is acceptable as a turn 1 landing) and then ran into Johore to land there on Day 2. ). So, I don't really see how I can be fairer than that.

Now, since you chose to make an issue of it I invite you to do the following:
i) prove that what I've said above is not true, that we did not have such an agreement and that you did not break it ( the combat report txts do, BTW, show Japanese units attacking Allied units moving into Johore Bahru from the hex just north of it for several days running so this is factual proof of what I've said) and
ii) point out ANY pre-game rule we agreed to which I broke. Now, operating to the maximum leeway of a rule isn't breaking it so, for example, you agreed to me landing "just north of Singapore" and I took that to mean Johore and Mersing were both fine. I think this is an eminently reasonable interpretation of your agreement. If you had said "you can't land at Johore" I'd have just stationed my ships at Mersing and then run into Johore on Day 2 as I did when my next opponent objected. So, point out ANY point in our game where we agreed A or B and I broke that clear pre-game rule please.

I freely admit to operating to the maximum extent of my forces' capabilities and I would never deny that if anyone asked and if that means flying a plane to 12 hexes cause the game says I can while some players think it might only have flown to 10 then that's what I'll do (unless I AGREE a house rule to only fly it 10) or if that means bypassing the Phillipines even if my opponent never considered that possible and is thus blind-sided, then that's what I'll do or if that means getting as much benefit from the turn 1 bonus within the parameters my opponent agrees to then that's what I'll do BUT if my opponent and I agree to a specific limit then I'll NEVER breach that. It is not, however, my problem if you agree to a game with me, after reading my AARs and thus knowing full well what you are getting yourself into in terms of my play style, get slaughtered and then decide it isn't the sort of game you want to play. Fine, I'll respect your decision not to continue the game and I'll respect the fact that you want to play a different style of game BUT to try to make out like I've been unfair to you is, IMO, inconsistent with the objective reality of the situation.

And do I think the fact that you lost 160+ ships in 8 days including, basically, the entire US Pacific Fleet had anything to do with the fact that after 1 week of play you represented me with an ultimatum of areas I was not allowed to invade etc etc ( which we had previously agreed were open for invasion if I could manage a succesful invasion). Obviously it did. It would be strange and unbelievable to assert that the game situation had nothing to do with your wish to renegotiate what I was and was not allowed to do.


D. Yes, your idea of what is semi-historical and mine are very different. You want areas ruled off limits by a stroke of the pen. I think that if you want something to be beyond my reach then you need to commit the men and material to make it impregnable. But seriously, you've read my AARs you knew what type of game I play and I specifically agreed with you, before the game, that ONLY Aden would be off-limits... After agreeing that I don't see how you can be surprised by the fact that I was going to try to take India. Hell, we discussed before the game started what impact the Soviet activation on 1st January 1943 would have on my need to invade India quickly so after pre-game discussions of an Indian invasion and an agreement that all of India was a viable target ( only Aden safe from invasion) I just don't see how you can have been surprised that that was my goal. Our entire pre-game negotiation about the Soviet Union was predicated on the fact that I was allowing the Soviets to attack me on 1st January 43 in return for the ability to knock the Indians ( and mostly the Ozzies) out of the game prior to that time. I would have to be stupid to agree to the Soviets being allowed to initiate attacks in 1943 while, at the same time, agreeing to leave India and Australia as active theatres.


E. Lunacy games... You consistently say they had no rules. This is incorrect. They did have rules, no air-mining, no sub invasions, no exploiting of clear bugs, no breaches of newtonian physics, no uncounterable/uninterceptible actions ( this was the rule under which air-mining was banned) etc. There were FEW rules but there were rules. Two of the rules were that there should be no breaches of Newtonian Physics or uncounterable actions. Teleporting immobile, hundred-thousand ton+ fortresses from the American West Coast into a besieged city in India instantaneously is, IMO, a fairly clear breach of Newtonian physics and represents something which is uninterceptible. As such I consider it a major breach of the rules we agreed on. My opponent in that game doesn't. I respect his right to have a different interpretation and while he does seem to bear a bit of a personal grudge over this ( as can be seen by his recent posting) the way I view it is that, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, we had different ideas, weren't able to reconcile them mid-game and the whole thing ended up in a very messy, regrettable situation. When push comes to shove he was a PBEM opponent and not a dear friend or a work colleague or anything like that and that sort of relationship is, realistically speaking, insignificant enough that I'm not going to raise my diastolic blood pressure 1mm of mercury over it. I'm certainly not going to bother harbouring a grudge against someone I'll never meet ;). That's ridiculous and is the sort of thing that gets people referred to me ;). How you or my previous opponent choose to proceed with what is, when viewed in the context of the issues of real life, a completely insignificant issue is your own business.


F. Ah my game against Przemcio... Yeah, I got spanked in that game when Allied airplanes hit Japanese carriers with 19 times more bombs and torpedoes per strike plane sortied than the elite Japanese pilots could manage. If I remember correctly some 34 or 35 US planes scored 5 times more hits on the Japanese carriers than about 140 Japanese Vals and Kates did on the American fleet. Do I have a problem with Przemcio's play? Nope. Does it mean I have a problem with the Nikmod version under which that result was achieved? Absolutely. I conducted tests and published the results on the forum. These showed that the effects of FlaK on planes flying naval strikes caused excessive disruption to low-durability planes ( such as the Japanese fly) such that their attacks ( while many planes leaked) resulted in very few hits and a massive underperformance relative to historical norms. (I set up a Coral Sea engagement in order to test this IIRC.)

I note that several of the changes in the newer Nikmod versions have actually, independently, corrected the modelling of naval AAA vs naval strikes such that the effect of naval AAA on these strikes is MUCH less than it was under the mod in question. So, if complaining about the AAA effect being too large vs low durability planes ( in terms of disruption) when the mod author ends up reducing the AAA effect later on is unreasonable then, yeah, call me unreasonable. I do, however, think you should post less emotionally and with more factuality. I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out. At the time Przemcio tried to convince me to continue but I was so disgusted at the outcome of the battle ( and what it boded for in later years) that I resigned. I was pretty unhappy with the veracity of the model. I do think I probably bitched at Przemcio too much for asserting it was a reasonable result but, like, I said, I was pissed off. Still, he didn't deserve to be bawled out for arguing it was reasonable ( even though I still disagree that it was a reasonable result). So, for bitching at him I'm sorry ( we all make mistakes and I'm far from immune on this score) but for bitching at the mod and the result I'm not. I think recent changes to the mod have borne out my complaints.



Rob,

Ah well so long as you agree that you know what you're letting yourself in for I would be delighted to play you. As to playing a 1941 scenario... No need. I have absolutely no desire to be told I'm cheating again for operating the Japanese to their full capabilities and winning victories.. OTOH I've been harrassing the RHS people to make a 1943 or 1944 scenario and would love to play that . I'd like to play as Japan since I always prefer to play the underdogs ( which is what Japan is even in the 41 scenario despite what people tend to spout... looking at dominance over 6 months to 1 year in a roughly 50 month game is likely to lead to quite erroneous analysis and is not in keeping with the objective reality of the entire situation. People who look at just 41/42 when determining dominance are akin to the fighter pilot whose eyes never leave the his instruments. They have lost all situational awareness and without SA and a knowledge of context one makes mistakes) PLUS so long as the Japanese don't win anything ( massively unlikely in 43/44 I don't think forum dwellers are going to bitch about them being operated to their full capabilities so that is also a factor.

So, if you ever feel like pitting the might of the Allies against a "backs against the wall" Japan in 43 ( RHS or CHS or somesuch as the uebercap just ruins the game in stock IMO, especially in 44/45 as one can see with PzB) then drop me a line. I'm all about the challenge and don't give a toss about the ephemeries of "winning" or losing so a 43 game would be interesting.


As far as Johore Bahru goes... Well, in my game against Aztez he did have a standing offer that I'd redo my turn 1 to remove any landings he objected to after viewing the turn. He didn't object to any at that time. I think my offer was pretty fair. I've learnt though and in my new game I gave my opponent approval of all my targets before even sending Turn 1 so when he objected to two of them I removed them from my planning. I think that's pretty fair but I'm sure Aztez and a few others will, undoubtedly, find something therein which proves I'm a "bad, bad man" ;). Emotionality ruling objectivity again, a pet hate of mine.

As to the other point. I'll defo say hi to her. She will definitely remember your name.



itsjustme,
We have very different views on this issue. I disagree with yours but respect the fact that you honestly arrived at them. Its a pity you are unwilling to do the same but, when push comes to shove, it is your blood pressure and if you choose to hold a grudge its your loss.



Mogami,
Aye I see your point and while I would agree one can argue for it being reasonable I think that much of the rationale for that argument goes out the window when we are talking about a besieged city... and yes I'm aware we differ on what "besieged" means in WiTP. Still, I think that Karachi is an obvious outlier. it simply does not behave as Manilla, Singapore or other cities on the map behave when "besieged" and that led to this issue arising as a problem. That's why i am so much in favour of the Aden solution. Let everything arrive at Aden and give the Allied player the trivial issue of shipping it to Karachi in return for avoiding the whole Karachi clusterf*ck which we've seen happening when India is invaded.

Sure, Aden has to be ruled off limits by house rules but since it is out of fighter and bomber range that's an easy enough rule to agree to.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/22/2006 2:31:11 AM >

(in reply to itsjustme)
Post #: 32
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 2:51:15 AM   
itsjustme

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		No grudge (and real life serves to elevate my blood pressure, this is just a game), just irritation that I wasted so long on a game in which you had advanced farther and with more success than 99.9% than any other player and when I am in the process of playing by the rules which you suggested and agreed to to achieve a halt to your expansion you insist on a change to the rules.  Just don't like the slant that puts you in the right when its clear that you got frustrated that things weren't going your way with the rules and exploits you agreed to.

Your continuing ranting about newtonian physics is growing old when you didn't abide by them at the start and even note in your AAR that teleporting units around the map is perfectly acceptable.

The Lunacy game is ongoing and my opponent is making progress at Karachi (albeit at a cost), but its ashame you couldn't finish what you started.  Besides, he's still got 30 days till the big guns from the west coast show up.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 33
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 3:01:50 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ah and as for the strategy of isolating Pearl Harbour ( which is strategy talk and the sort of thing I wish we could keep these AAR threads to):

Yeah it seems to be pretty succesful. My new opponent is making much more of a fight of things and in the current game I've lost roughly triple the shipping (a large portion of this being AMCs) as I decided that in order to vary things up a bit ( I used 95% of the same setup as in my game vs Aztez) that I'd actually just bypass Johnston and Midway and land forces under the cover of my CVs and the fast transport groups which accomplished the landing at Palmyra.

So I landed, initially, at Kona and should take Lahaina on about the 18 or 19th December 41 by land assault. I've also taken 1 of the Size 3 ports ( I made an error in not taking one initially and that has cost me 3 or 4 damaged ships around Hawaii) and 2 of the other islands. In short order only PH and the unoccupied base south of it ( which will be used for training purposes for the air garrisons of Hawaii) will remain. I've got 100 Zeroes, over 100 Betty and Nell torpedo bombers and am shifting my Sallys over via the land bridge of occupied islands ( I've just taken Midway and Johnston in order to facilitate this land bridge). Between them these planes should destroy whatever tried to flee PH and destroy whatever stays. I will then land my divisions ( only a small force, 4 or 5 divisions in size) sometime in early 42 and take PH at quite a low cost...

I wanted to try this because I read Admiral Laurent's invasion of PH and thought it was far too bloody to be judged truly effective and robbed his force of much of the strength it needed to push through other invasions in the Pacific and Australia/India areas. So, after a bit of thought I fastened on the "isolate it and then land on the cheap" strategy as being the most force-efficient way to take PH. The only serious force-committment will be KB x 2 weeks and 6 BBs, again x 2 weeks... although, to be fair, 4 of the BBs were bombarding Wake, Midway, Johnston etc for the first week and so are only joining up with the PH forces on Day 10 ( just in time to replace the initially committed surface groups 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 CLs, about 15 DDs and 8 AMCs which have almost all been rendered combat ineffective ( 1 BB & 3 DDs are still in fighting shape) by the vicious night-time surface battles. We've had BB vs BB battles, BB vs DDs, PTs vs BB etc several nights running in the waters around PH.

Still, the total isolation of PH ( which will be complete within the week) will have ended up costing me 11 vessels ( 6 AMCs, 2 DDs and 3 merchants). All in all the Allied BB, CA and CL losses alone add up to more than that, nevermind the improved strategic position so I think this strategy ( with FT TFs sprinting in to FFS etc on turn 1 from KB's starting positions and transports, supply convoys and AO convoys moving in more slowly from farther north) is proving quite efficient and might be something other players might incorporate into their gameplan.

Obviously some will raise the issue of what will happen if the Allies run reinforcement and resupply convoys in under CV cover... My response is simple, 100 Zeroes + 100 Nells and Bettys + 200 to 300 Sallys will happen. In fact I WANT the Allies to try to reinforce PH. Operating within range of LBA is suicidal in RHS. I've just lost a CVE today in my first probe of the Indian defences. I had 4 x CVEs and only managed to turn back 4 of the attacking planes with my CAP. Quite fun even though it will cost me a CVE...

The nice thing is that under RHS I, essentially,don't go within LBA range of any Allied bases unless I have the full strength of KB with me. It is just too damned risky and I think the fact that that feeling is missing from stock is a real shame.

(in reply to itsjustme)
Post #: 34
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 3:35:55 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		itsjustme,

Teleporting around the map IS fine... just not into besieged cities in an uninterceptible way ( remember the ban on uninterceptible moves we agreed to before the game which banned aerial mining but which we both agreed would apply to other uninterceptible situations as they arose... well, it applies here since massive troop movements into a port city under siege would have to be either by land, sea or air... all of which are subject to interdiction in reality. The teleportation into besieged cities is not subject to interdiction and is thus, by our pre-game agreement, outlawed ). I have been consistent about this when asked that specific question even if I can't be expected to put every caveat down every time I mention teleporting.

As to me getting frustrated at things not going my way. Not at all. Logically the deal you offered for a hold in place till 10/43 was very favourable to me and the strategic situation was vastly more favourable to me than for most players at the same gametime. Even if I'd taken your 10/43 deal I had more than enough force to take Pearl Harbour, NZ and Australia and render the situation at Karachi pretty much moot ( since I could have invested 5 divisions into holding you in that urban hex and done the job pretty much forever) before moving on to attack the Soviet Union in early 43. And if there is one thing anyone here ( even those who intensely dislike me) would have to admit it is that I DO do rational, objective assessment of capabilities and don't let emotions interfere with the objective reality of the strategic situation so if I say that the above was possible given the game situation then that's my assessment of the objective reality of the situation.  HOWEVER the reason I didn't want to play you with said teleportation into besieged cities going on had nothing to do with the objective reality of the strategic situation. It had to do with the fact that when it came to choosing between using an uninterceptible teleportation into a besieged city ( which I consider to have been clearly banned) and choosing on not using it you chose to use it and, IMO, broke our pre-game rules.

As to the thing about turn 1 not abiding by newtonian physics... We clearly agreed, pre-game to excuse the turn 1 teleport from that rule. it is there in my AAR so if you're going to prosecute your grudge I'll thank you to, at the very least, avoid statements which are plainly factually incorrect. There's more than enough grey areas where you can cast aspersions on me over how I interpreted a grey area without having to go and make **** up.

Now, at least I am willing to accept that you arrived at your position honestly. You are the individual who keeps on posting in various threads maligning the other person involved and casting aspersions on their motivations, personality etc. I've always gone out of my way to draw a clear distinction between how I viewed your in-game actions ( which I feel clearly broke the rules we agreed to) AND the fact that I believed you arrived at them in good conscience. It is a pity you are unable to make the same distinction between decisions and the possibility of reasonable motivations behind those decisions but that blinkeredness is, in the final reckoning, your problem and not mine.

As to you not bearing a grudge... LOL!!! Just look at your posts. If they're not evidence that you haven't moved on and gotten over it then I don't know what is. Just saying something doesn't make it so.

As to the game continuing... I wish you and your opponent a good game. So long as you and he see eye to eye then I hope it goes well for you.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 35
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 3:47:22 AM   
itsjustme

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		My post in this thread was in response to your comments above. Seems to me that you keep bringing our game and the circumstances surrounding it into your discussions.

I don't think I ever agreed that the teleportation on turn 1 was an exception to any rule. I agreed to an anything goes game with some rules that you put in place.


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 36
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 4:59:57 AM   
marovici

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 5/12/2005
From: NYC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

As to AARs... I won't be doing another AAR like this after my experiences here. EVERY time I've done an AAR from the Japanese perspective I've been jumped all over and labelled a cheater etc etc. Who needs that in their life?


Too bad, it was always an interesting read.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 37
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 8:56:02 AM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		 <- Nemo! That is the only reply you deserve since I have already explained to you everything before.

You just can't get over somethings. The only reason why I responded here was the fact that you pretty much "insulted" me.

I'am actually sick and tired of bullshit and crap. If you are going around insulting people than that is your business. Just remember that "what goes around, comes around"

Btw, It is also somewhat "iffy" thing to have your GF read othersides AAR's. Unless that GF is yourself... I mean you being a doctor and all  

Have a nice life Nemo. I will not read what you post in your threads anymore since that is definately not worth it.



< Message edited by aztez -- 8/22/2006 8:59:06 AM >

(in reply to marovici)
Post #: 38
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 9:10:00 AM   
goodboyladdie


Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline 		It's a shame this AAR came to such an acrimonious end. I was enjoying it and learned a lot. I believe a valuable counter to any over-reality turn 1 moves by the Jap player would be to have no surprise and allow turn 1 defensive posture changes by the Allied player. The British knew that the Japs were at sea and heading for Northern Malaya after all, but didn't do enough about it until too late. If any invasion happens anywhere south of Kuantan or south of the North Coast of Borneo, I think that surprise should be lost. Any first turn moves on the Hawaiian, Line Islands or Suva/Noumea would attract a similar penalty. The KB and it's air component would get pretty chewed up if all fighters and bombers were ready for it (and B-17s can fly to Hawaii from the US on turn 1), even with the zero bonus. All of the PI (except the west coast and Jolo), Menado, Kendari, Amboina, Sorong, New Britain and the east coast of PNG I would also consider as reasonable turn 1 targets that would not trigger the loss of surprise penalty.

As for transferring large fixed forts, I have to say I agree with Nemo. It was a major engineering undertaking to build these forts and it took a great deal of time in reality. Any other LCUs are acceptable.

< Message edited by goodboyladdie -- 8/22/2006 11:37:16 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 39
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 9:11:36 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out


The recent Nikmod change had nothing to do with bomber disruption and accuracy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 40
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 3:49:54 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		itsjustme,

Yes I do mention the rules aspect of our game as it was a great learning experience for me as to how two honourable people with good intentions can get themselves into a gordian knot because each thought they were agreeing to different things due to insufficient communication. So, as something I learnt from ( and which has completely changed my approach to the issue of house rules... I am now in favour of them being negotiated to pretty much the nth degree pre-game) it is something I do mention when people ask about advice re: pre-game rules and negotiations. I think it is natural to draw from one's experiences when giving advice and to illustrate that advice with concrete examples so the newer players ( who seem to be the ones asking for this advice) can see exactly why the advice is warranted.

I'm sure you illustrate advice with examples from your own experience also, I think that's natural and that's all I'm doing.

As to turn 1 moves being allowed with no limits. Yes, you did agree to that and, as you say later in your post, you also agreed to other rules ( no breaches of newtonian physics, no uninterceptible actions ( e.g air-mining) and no exploitation of clear bugs).



Aztez,
My girlfriend couldn't tell a B29 from a Zero but since it is natural for a couple to take some interest in eachothers hobbies she has taken to asking about my PBEMs and, on occasion, reading the threads ( I, in return, have gotten to know about all the personality disorders in the Big Brother house ). She's an independent person and I neither force her to do it nor forbid her from doing it. If the concept of an independent individual making an independent decision to partake in a hobby their partner enjoys is beyond you and you wish to create a paranoic fantasy in which I order her to gather intelligence for me (intelligence I simply didn't need. I had enough recon all over the place that I could see everything you were doing in any area of interest and had overwhelming force available to punish you for anything you attempted) or read your AAR myself then that's your choice and quite a maladaptive personality trait ( speaking in a professional sense for a moment). Your crushing losses can simply be explained by the fact that I had a good plan, your reactions to it were flawed and you continued with your reactions when it was obvious they were not going to work, thus feeding more units into the fire unnecessarily. There's no need for a paranoic fantasy when solid in-game reality explains it perfectly well.

As to you not reading anything I ever write again. Fine. That also is your choice and I wouldn't dream of interfering with your right to make such a choice. I do, however, note that you weren't able to address the two issues raised re: your breach of our pre-game rules and/or finding a single occasion in which I breached them. I play right up to the line but I don't breach.



Goodboyladdie,
I agree with you wholeheartedly as re: the 1st turn Japanese moves being countered by turning surprise off. I offered Aztez and my latest opponent the option of either limiting me to 1 port attack and having surprise on OR turning surprise off but then allowing me to order whatever attacks I wanted ( including port attacks on Singapore etc) but with them having greatly increased ability to defend against such attacks... Neither Aztez nor my current opponent chose to play with surprise off but I offered precisely what you are suggesting.

I mean Aztez conveniently glosses over it but I offered him a lot of options ( play with surprise off and unlimited Jap attacks or surprise on but only 1 port attack, redo turn 1 if he objected to any landings etc). He chose not to exercise these options and, IMO, that was a mistake on his part but my responsibility is to make the offers I think are fair, not to advise my opponent to make the moves in their best interests. If my opponent chooses to make a bad decision in turning down an offer I've made then that's his business and not my fault... that's how I see it anyways. As the Allies if I was offered the option above I would always play with surprise OFF and allow the Japanese unlimited port attacks since the benefits of rebasing far outweigh the benefits of limiting the Japanese to just 1 port attack. As the Japanese player I was happy to see them turn down the offer and go for Surprise On and 1 port attack as I think that was the inferior choice. Again though, it's a game and my job as their opponent is to take advantage of mistakes they make, not to point them out.

If an opponent made the argument you made I would definitely agree to turning surprise off with the 1 caveat that I would be allowed unlimited port attacks on turn 1 ( so if he was sensible he'd sortie his ships). However none have asked for what you made an argument for and when similar things were offered to them they turned them down...


Nikademus,
Am I not correct though in stating that since 5.0 there have been significant changes made to AAA modelling in particular and also aircraft durability? This was certainly the impression I got from reading the FAQs.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 41
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 4:15:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


Nikademus,
Am I not correct though in stating that since 5.0 there have been significant changes made to AAA modelling in particular and also aircraft durability? This was certainly the impression I got from reading the FAQs.


There were some changes to naval AA in the recent mod, but not for the reasons you gave, nor were they inspired by your game with P. The changes did not involve bomber disruption and accuracy. The only recent DUR changes involved fighter and fighter bomber aircraft.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 42
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 4:28:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Oh I'm sure the changes weren't made because of such an old game. Still the reduction in naval AAA WILL have the impact of increasing the effectiveness of the typical low-durability Japanese early-war strike plane, which was my point.

Might it have been your intention in making the change? No but it will be a ramification of making the change. I'm quite sure no-one will be able to find an example, under the new mod, of a small US strike making 19 times more hits per sortie than a full strike from KB ( both groups of pilots well rested) in December 1941.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/22/2006 4:29:49 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 43
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 4:33:54 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


Oh I'm sure the changes weren't made because of such an old game. Still the reduction in naval AAA WILL have the impact of increasing the effectiveness of the typical low-durability Japanese early-war strike plane, which was my point


No. It wont.



_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 44
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 4:54:54 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ok can you explain how the decrease in AAA effectiveness, which plays a direct role in how many planes are damaged and disrupted, will not impact on the hit rate of these planes?

It seems pretty obvious to me that if the AAA fire is less intense and thus less effective fewer planes will be shot down or disrupted and thus more hits will be achieved or are you saying that the hit rate is unaffected by the intensity of AAA? One good paragraph-sized explanation could clear this up an awful lot better than a 1-line statement...

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 45
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 5:15:39 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


or are you saying that the hit rate is unaffected by the intensity of AAA?


Yep.....just like i said in the FAQ.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 46
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 5:42:19 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

3) item: AA modification: DP and AA weapons have had effect rating increased by 50% Purpose: compensate for aircraft DUR change. **removed for sea based flak guns** Testing showed that it overcompensated for DUR increase, particularly for Japanese carrier planes attacking late war TF’s (1943+ Proximity period)


Well this was precisely what I identified as the problem in my game vs Przemcio... I even identified, in my testing, that it would be at its worst with Japanese planes attacking late-war US TFs and posted this finding to the forum... You may hold that accuracy wasn't impacted ( which I disagree with since disruption definitely is increased by more effective FlAK) but even if ONLY losses were increased this would result in fewer planes surviving to drop bombs and thus your change HAS, at the very least, increased the number of planes which act to drop bombs... which would increase the hit rate per sortie and do so disproporionately in favour of the side with lower durability planes ( aka the Japanese for most of the war) which was, again, what i posited all along.


So, can you explain precisely why disruption is not tied to the effectiveness of a FlAK defence since in every game I play the stronger the FlAK defence the lower my hit percentage. What you are suggesting runs directly contrary to my in-game experience. You can defend your position with 1 line posts or you can prove it with facts and test data. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong by test data etc and will learn something new about the game if you post such test data showing that 1000 flak guns with effect of 1000 result in the exact same number of ship hits as a 10 flak guns with an effect of 10 but a one-line post saying that you've said something in an FAQ is not even close to proving your assertion.

It seems contrary to all logic and in-game experience that the effectiveness and strength of a flak defence does not impact the number of hits achieved.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 47
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 5:53:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


Well this was precisely what I identified as the problem in my game vs Przemcio... I even identified, in my testing, that it would be at its worst with Japanese planes attacking late-war US TFs and posted this finding to the forum...


No....what you said was:

quote:


I conducted tests and published the results on the forum. These showed that the effects of FlaK on planes flying naval strikes caused excessive disruption to low-durability planes ( such as the Japanese fly) such that their attacks ( while many planes leaked) resulted in very few hits and a massive underperformance relative to historical norms


You then said:

quote:


I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out


Hence my clarification. The recent adjustments did not concern bomber disruption and accuracy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 48
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/22/2006 6:03:32 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I have answered those before so no need to repeat myself.

Goodbye and good luck.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 49
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 8:09:00 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Nikademus,

In the first quote above I was referring back to the initial thread where I listed the effect on late-war TFs as arising from the results I was seeing... I was not referring to this thread. I mean we can all use semantics to poke holes if we're willing to ignore the meat of the argument. let's not stoop to that level eh?

So let me put it very succinctly, since 5.0 naval AAA effect vs naval strike aircraft has been reduced. Yes or no. ( the FAQ seems to talk about a 50% reduction in effect).

Since the effectiveness of FlAK is related to its EFFECT rating the effectiveness of FlAK has been reduced ( maybe by 50%, maybe not. I don't know the exact figure but it has been reduced in effectiveness).

Since the effectiveness of a FlAK curtain impacts on bomber disruption a reduction in the FlAK curtain should, reasonably, result in a reduction in bomber disruption. Yes/No.

If not could you actually explain yourself rather than giving an unsupported statement... If I'm proven wrong but learn something more about how the game works that's fine by me but no-one can accept a blank assertion unsupported by logical explanation.



Aztez,
No, you never openly answered to the issue of breaching our pre-game rules on 3 consecutive days of an 11 or 12 day game. I don't think it had a major impact and therefore didn't make a big issue of it in-game but I do object to you misrepresenting what happened and, now, dodging the issue. Again saying something is a certain way does nothing to make it a certain way.

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 50
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 8:23:31 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline






(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 51
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 8:38:13 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		You may snore but, again, I note you didn't answer.

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 52
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 8:42:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


If not could you actually explain yourself rather than giving an unsupported statement... If I'm proven wrong but learn something more about how the game works that's fine by me but no-one can accept a blank assertion unsupported by logical explanation.


There seems to be some confusion on your part over my purpose for posting here. I'll post that intention one more time; I posted on this thread to clarify some misconceptions that you had posted in regards to the origin behind recent changes made in Nikmod 8.0. Thats all. Most anyone else would have gone..."oh, ok...my mistake" and moved on, however such an action seems beyond your capability just as you seem incapable of ceasing to argue with all your ex-PBEM opponents. [Pattern anyone?...]
I do not need to justify my changes to you in order to clarify information regarding recent changes. You also don't have to agree with my views either. Its a free country after all.



_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 53
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 9:11:03 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ok. OTOH  part of clarifying misconceptions would be to EXPLAIN why something is a misconception and not simply to state that it is. We'd still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth if those promulgating that view didn't have to explain themselves.

All I'm saying is, can you explain how the change in EFFECT does NOT increase disruption since, logically, it seems that it would since, after all, a more effective AAA weapon should create a more effective FlAK defence and thus more disruption. Why is a request for a simple explanation such a difficult thing for you to countenance that you have to drag things down to the level of personal mud-slinging?

And, no, I'm not going to go "oh my mistake" just based on you saying "it has no effect" but the instant you EXPLAIN how and why it has no effect I'll happily own up to any misconception and also have learnt something new. I think that's a reasonable viewpoint for anyone to hold. Explain and show a misconception and I'll happily admit I was wrong but to assert something without proof and expect reasoning, intelligent individuals to accept such an unsupported assertion is ludicrous. I've given you three simple yes/no questions which can, with a couple of sentences of explanation each clarify this issue completely, why are you so resistant to just posting such a minor explanation?

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/23/2006 9:16:45 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 54
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 9:13:05 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

You may snore but, again, I note you didn't answer.



Ok. You do deserve an answer again.

First off I have been raised to be polite and to respect others. Those are the principles I'am going raise my daughter to live up too.

But you... well you do not insult people directly but you do imply A LOT.

First off WE started this thing off to be Historical style of game with oppurtunities to gain more with Japan! ...BUT with historical realities!!! I cannot help you IF you don't understand your NATIVE language???

For you the historical game means that EVERYTHING goes!!! Reading your stuff Japan could have seized the whole globe, right??? We did have discussions about houserules which I would like to limit too! BUT since you do want gain maxium gains from the game engine so those do not count unless EVERYTHING is spelled out for you!

Japan never could have the Intel you had on turn 1 (I did not even look at the Japanese side on RHS since I personally consider that gamey. Nor have looked the CHS setup before we started off with Sardaukar).

I hardly consider giving you a free shot on 2/3 OZ, NZ, 2/3 India, Hawaji, Alaska, China and Russia too much limiting? That is utter crap IF you think that Japan could never in their wildess dreams think about capturing these kind of terrotories! Again what is historical for YOU?

As for Malaya fiasco. I actually wanted Singapore to be captured but you prefered neutralized! Fine! Than you did the massive landings at Johore Bharu... Well that is gamey and I SHOULD have objected it since you did offer redo on turn 1. BUT I wanted to be a good guy and left it alone! Than It became obvious that you wanted to expoloit the game system by December-January invasion of India! That was fine than BUT once you pretty much implied on GARRISONING requirements you wanted to enforce than that was just a bit too MUCH. Basically how you see history is that most of those Japanese troops where free to leave there same going for CHINA and RUSSIA. This is utter bullocks. We have VERY diffrent views on what is reasonable and what is not! I mean we are talking about HUGE countries with millions of citizens!

Yeah, I tried to move at least couple of brigades to Singapore since there where no AV present there! Since It is very IFFY if it had fallen on December 10th or such!!!

As said these things are quite a lot coming from a GUY who abandoned Lunacy game (which again had no rules againts Teleportation as istjustme stated) due to you timetable tossed to carbage can! The second came where you are implying that NIK's Mod is flawed due to the fact you had lost your KB! Well tough luck... and I can say that NIK Mod is one of the best mods around these forums. (Many AAR's to prove it)

But the most absurd thing is that as I said you imply a lot on these forums about your fellow members. Which is something I personally DISLIKE. No, you never say anything directly but you really don't have to! THIS is MOST important what I dislike in an person. And as said hopefully my daughter will get better manners.

I actually do wait an apoligize from YOU but since you are blind enough to see when you have "insulted" other people I have forfeited that hope.

There you have it. I'am sick and tired of repeating myself to a person who obviously have such an ego that he could choke on it.

As good luck whatever you do!


Best regards,


Aztez a.k.a Jari

PS: To put it blunt. Stop posting bs and respect other peoples in these great forums. Thank you

PS2: Also I would really appreciate If you could STOP refering to me and posting questions. I do not see any worth of replying to you anymore. And by the amount Private Messages I got I´am not the only fed up with you ego.


Now Goodbye!





(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 55
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 9:20:48 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Is this game over?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 56
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 9:28:40 PM   
itsjustme

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		LOL Mogami!!!

Understatement of the year.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 57
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 10:14:48 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Is this game over?



LOL

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 58
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 10:34:33 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Aztez,

quote:

well you do not insult people directly but you do imply A LOT.


Hmm, people read things as they wish them to be. In all portions of communication there is what is actually said, what is intended and what is interpreted. I control my intention and what I say. How the factuality of what I say is interpreted is completely out of my control. I don't ever intend to imply any insults. If I think someone is a low-down dirty cheater I will say that. If I think that I disapprove of their actions but can see how others wouldn't then I say that. I always try ( sometimes not succesfully) to differentiate between my feelings and the objective reality of the situation since that's an essential part of my job. It is completely irrelevant what my wishes and feelings are when I am treating a person who is bleeding to death from a knife wound or gunshot wound. I do my job to the best of my ability and they live or die based on whether I make the right choices quickly enough PLUS an impact from the severity of their injuries... some people simply can never be saved, no matter what I do, by the time they reach me. So, if you think I imply something then ask me to clarify it. I will always try to explain it irrespective of whether my view will be popular or unpopular ( since popularity is another irrelevancy to me) in a manner which leaves no room for error.


quote:

 I cannot help you IF you don't understand your NATIVE language???


Again, more emotional assumptions and completely unresearched assertions. English is not my native language, it is my 3rd language. If you're going to engage in vitriol at the very least you could try to tone down the completely unresearched assertions.



quote:

For you the historical game means that EVERYTHING goes!!! 


Within the capabilities of the forces modelled within the game ( so long as they are interceptible and not obviously bugged), yes. I find it surprising that you could be surprised by this after reading my AARs. Just how the hell did you NOT know that was my style? It is so obviously my style that in my current game my opponent's only question is how soon I am going for India and not whether or not I am going for it.


quote:

those do not count unless EVERYTHING is spelled out for you!


Pretty much correct, and I've never pretended otherwise... The only caveat is those areas which arise mid-game which weren't foreseen in pre-game discussions. However if something was foreseen in pre-game discussions then I will ALWAYS stick within the parameters outlined pre-game BUT if something isn't outruled then its fair game IMO. My view is that the rules should outrule EVERYTHING which one doesn't want to see happen but that everything which isn't outruled is allowed. You may differ philosophically from this viewpoint but I would hope that in the same way as I allow you to hold your views without personally attacking you for them you will allow me to hold mine without personally attacking me for them... for a change.

To be fair though, when I play as the Allies I let my Japanese opponent have the exact same leeway as when I play as the Japanese so it isn't as though I'm setting up one set of rules for one side and another set for the other just in the search for advantage. So, the rules under which I'm playing my current RHS EOS game as the Japanese will be precisely the same rules under which I'd be happy to play an RHS EOS game as the Allies.


quote:

Yeah, I tried to move at least couple of brigades to Singapore since there where no AV present there!


There are, IIRC, 2 Brigades there at game-start so the last part of your above statement is factually incorrect. And you moved 3 Bdes and some BF there and blocked my move orders in a manner which clearly BROKE one of our pre-game rules. Was it a huge issue? No but I do think it is rich of you to talk about me breaking rules etc willy nilly when you are unable to come up with one example of a pre-game rule I broke and I have one obvious one which you broke repeatedly.

You are trying to make out that I was unfair to you because I did things which were not explicitly banned but when you repeatedly did things which WERE explicitly banned you gloss over it. I believe that is a double-standard. See, no insinuation. When I think it I say it, you need not parse my words for meaning, the meaning is quite clear and nothing is hidden.


quote:

Well that is gamey and I SHOULD have objected it since you did offer redo on turn 1.

Yes, if it was an issue for you you SHOULD have objected. I would have happily redone turn 1 if you objected since I was surprised that people were so strongly against the Johore Bahru landing AND when my next opponent objected to it I DID redo my turn 1 and there was no Johore Bahru landing. You didn't object at the time though so you missed that opportunity which I offered you and casting aspersions on me is pointless. You should blame yourself for not being objective and taking advantage of my offer to redo the turn without any invasions you objected to. There is nothing NICE or NOT NICE about accepting a turn 1 you are unhappy with. If you are unhappy with the turn 1 and think it is gamey then it is stupid to continue the game IMO. You should have asked for a redone turn 1 without the Johore landings and I would have happily granted this.



As to the Lunacy game... Well we agreed that we would apply the rules of uninterceptibility and newtonian physics to issues which arose in-game. There was no specific rule against teleporting into a besieged Karachi because I simply didn't know it was possible to do such a thing. If I'd known I'd have asked for it to be banned. Is that right or wrong? Neither. its just a personal preference and I don't try to brow-beat anyone into changing their personal preferences in just the same way as I'm disappointed that you and others seem to feel you have the right to attack me over an issue of viewpoint. I'm happy to let you live with your viewpoint ( and disagree with it) but it seems the same courtesy isn't extended to me. It is, of course, simply another example of the group mentality of attacking "the other" in action on these fora but is, nonetheless, still frustrating to see in action. And to post that it was abandoned due to a timetable tossed to garbage is factually incorrect and a contention difficult to understand given that I've explained my exact reasons behind that whole thing in this very thread. itsjustme... I'm only mentioning our game here to answer a point Aztez raised. No more, no less.


quote:

The second came where you are implying that NIK's Mod is flawed due to the fact you had lost your KB! 


That's a factually incorrect assertion. I am stating ( not implying) that NikMod WAS flawed in the version I played because in December 1941 Allied naval strike groups did not achieve 19 times more hits per sortie than the elite Japanese naval strike groups. Now if Nik will EXPLAIN why his mod isn't flawed then I'm more than happy to accept the explanation and admit my analysis was wrong. However, so far, I've gotten assertions and little explanation of how and why. I think most reasonable people would agree that an assertion without explanation of how and why is not usually an acceptable answer to a complicated issue like this.


quote:

I can say that NIK Mod is one of the best mods around these forums. (Many AAR's to prove it)
 
It may well be one of the best mods around NOW. On the other hand my issue is with an old version of the mod. The current mod is improved and, I think, eliminates the issue my analysis pointed to. OTOH no mod ( or stock game) is perfect and so while NikMod is a very good mod it is NOT perfect and I don't see anything wrong with pointing out what my analysis of a Coral Sea-like test raised as a major issue.

I also feel constrained to point out that one CAN criticise a product without meaning any disrespect to the author. One can criticise my gameplay, my work etc etc without implying any disrespect for me. If I, factually, choose an incorrect course of treatment and one of my patients dies then criticising me for choosing the incorrect choice of treatment is absolutely valid, correct and completely impersonal. I am criticising NikMod's results in 5.0something and pointing out where I think a flaw in the combat model lay. There is nothing personal in this and, several times, when asked about this I've made it clear that there is a difference in criticising the mod and the man. I don't see why people are getting so worked up over a criticism of an old version of a mod. It is a histrionic over-reaction.

As to the man... Yes, I've criticised him over his lack of willingness to set the whole thing to rest by engaging in 10 or 15 minutes of typing 2 or 3 posts which try to explain how effect and disruption in air combat are related and why the changes made result in no change to aircraft disruption. I do feel that people have an obligation to explain their actions ( which is the only reason why I post when I'm challenged or asked to clarify myself by posts like yours). I don't particularly enjoy responding and I DO think it is a complete waste of bandwidth and your time and mine ( and the readers) since it will, in the end, solve nothing BUT I feel an obligation to explain if questioned. Simple.


quote:

you imply a lot on these forums about your fellow members.

 
Nope. That's simply your fantasy and interpretation. If I think anything of a forum member I'm more than happy to say it straight to their face. I detest people implying things about other people almost as much as I detest people substituting emotionality for objective reality. No, if I think something of someone then I have absolutely no problem stating it publicly and clearly irrespective of the reception it would receive. I wouldn't bother trying to imply anything at all since I'm quite comfortable saying whatever I think publicly and clearly.
 
So, if you think things are implied that is simply something which is occurring in your own head and not in mine. As such, it is your problem and not mine.
 
 
quote:

you are blind enough to see when you have "insulted" other people I have forfeited that hope. 


Believe me, when I want to insult someone there's no doubt at all about it having happened because I am more than happy to come right out and say "I believe you are an x or y" etc and, if later, I turn out to be wrong I will apologise. However you want apologies for things you've read into what I've written but which I never intended to be there. I can only be responsible for what I write, not what someone else wishes to project onto it.


quote:

As good luck whatever you do!

And to you... I honestly don't understand why you are getting so emotionally overwrought over this whole thing. I really do think you are reading things into what I'm writing that aren't there and you should, instead, just assume that I mean precisely what I say, no more, no less and wouldn't be bothered with implications and hidden meanings. Now, we all sometimes make mistakes cause this is the net and we don't proofread what we type 50 times but if you THINK I'm implying something just ask me and I'll happily explain myself and 90% of the time what you or others might think is being hinted at simply isn't being hinted at at all... However it helps IMMEASURABLY if you ASK and don't just assume while you are letting emotionality over-rule logic.


Aztez,
Well if you stop responding and raising issues I feel bound to address in explanation then this will soon come to a halt. OTOH so long as you raise new issue I do feel an obligation to explain. It may well be that no-one is willing to accept that someone can try to parse these things as logically as I can and that people want to keep believing that there are ulterior motives and hidden implications but I view it as my responsibility to try to clear up misunderstanding ( hence my feeling an obligation to respond) and NOT my responsibility to ensure others actually see the reality of the situation. If people want to mislead themselves then they will.


It is becoming clear, however, that there is a simple fundamental chasm between what I intend to communicate and others' perception of what I intend ( some of this is undoubtedly due to the time and manner in which I learnt English and some is due to the fact that people's interpretations are coloured by what they WISH and/or expect to hear) and also of what I value vs what others ascribe to me. I'll make 1 effort to explain this.

I think a story would help you understand where I'm coming from better... Anything I write below is purely factual and there are no insinuations or anything. If you read any into it then it is your own mental process doing the insinuating...

A few years ago I was asked a question in one of those truth or dare games we all play when we have a few drinks in us. It was the perennial "who would you save"... The question was if my parents, my kid brother and my girlfriend at the time were in a building and the building went on fire whom would I save. Now, for me, the answer was obvious. My parents are nearing retirement and have contributed as much to society as they are going to contribute. My brother is young but when he finishes university he will contribute a lot to society in his given career and through, generally, being a good person. My girlfriend at the time was also young but unlikely to contribute as much to society as my brother. So, for me, the only true answer was that I would save my brother because he had a greater chance of contributing meaningfully to society. Neither my parents or brother were there, only my girlfriend so many people would have, for a quiet life, said they would have saved their girlfriend. However that isn't what I would have done so I said that I'd have saved my brother and gave my reason ( I do have enough sense to add the caveat that my parents wouldn't want to be saved if it meant my brother dying so I did add that.). End result: GF at the time was very pissed off at me but I really do try not to do emotionality or make-believe or playing for popularity. I always try to give the most honest, logical answer or argument I can, consequences bedamned. Do I sometimes fail, yes but if you ask for clarification I'll give it and the chances of there being some intentional implied insult is pretty much zero.

As to the fact that I don't accept unsupported assertion... Simple, I regularly had to make calls over who got life support machines and who didn't ( and thus died). Sometimes this meant telling families who were waiting on other family members to show up to "say goodbye" that we didn't have time anymore, that someone else who could benefit from the machine needed it and that we had to switch it off and let their loved one die so that someone else who MIGHT survive if they got that machine DID get that machine. At other times it meant telling them that we weren't going to treat their relative except in a supportive manner for reasons of likelihood of survival or availability of resources etc. In such a situation, when you are the one going into families to tell them you are turning the machine off at half past the hour or refusing to send this person in for such and such an operation which the family, wrongly, believes might save them then you had BETTER have more than an unsupported assertion to back you up. You had better be able to PROVE that you were doing the right thing ( for the overall patient base) by turning off the life support and condemning that individual patient to death and some of his family to a lifetime of "I never got to say goodbye".

I once ( only once) gave in and let an 18 year old boy get put on life support because his mother and father couldn't agree on whether to let him die or not. This decision was made, not for the sake of the 18 year old, he was definitely going to die one way or the other, but because I felt that if I refused to put the 18 year old on the machine and his mother blamed his father on this their marriage might split apart... and we only had four and a half minutes to make the decision because the kid was in respiratory arrest when I left the room to have the discussion with the parents. I figured we could talk to her the next day and when she was less emotional and we had more than four minutes she could make a more appropriate decision. My consultant, the next day, berated me for putting the kid on life support. He remonstrated that I SHOULD have let the kid die the night before and family dynamics bedamned. That criticism he made wasn't personal ( same as my criticism of nikmod isn't personal). it was simply a statement that I'd made the wrong decision and should have known better. He was right to make that criticism and I was wrong to let an emotional issue cloud my judgement ( and if I thought I was right I would have argued with him and if I'd proven myself right he'd have backed down. This is the way good medical teams work. You stand up for yourself, argue the facts and the ones with the wrong facts give way. Simple, objective and good for the patients.). I should have let the kid die overnight and if I had it to do again I would let the kid die overnight. So, you may not understand my unwillingness to let emotion cloud the objective reality of the situation but it is a completely impersonal thing.

Now when you've looked into the eyes of families and told them you are, effectively, going to kill their loved ones because of a resource shortage and had to weather them calling you every name under the sun then, maybe, you'll understand why I don't see any point in putting on a pretence in this forum and wouldn't bother implying an insult. I've said FAR, FAR worse to people straight to their faces in real life so I'm not going to balk at telling someone I'll never meet that I dislike them personally ( even if any personal emotional interaction is just another irrelevancy... except insofar as a dislike of someone can lead one to prejudge what they are saying and interpret it incorrectly in order to avoid any conflict with one's prejudices.).

As I said, much of what you read into what I write exists only in your mind although, to be fair, my writing style is very different to most English speakers' writing styles but that's because I only learnt it quite late and mostly from quite classical writings ( early 20th Century books and the like). I didn't read my first "modern prose" until 3 or 4 years after I started learning English. Again though if you'd just bothered to ask and seek information before jumping to baseless assumptions you'd have known that.


< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 8/23/2006 10:57:52 PM >

(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 59
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 10:56:51 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Nemo, I really like your AARs and comments on the game, and I feel many of the points you have made regarding your games' end were valid, but you have to drop it.

I would really enjoy reading an AAR of yours rather than seeing you argue with your former opponents, be you right or wrong.

regards.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875