Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. with vehemence And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. with vehemence And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. with vehemence And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

Okaaaaay. I don't think I was calling anyone names and I certainly wasn't intending to. In fact I think the last time I called anyone a name was back one day when Mr.Frag was being particularly uncooperative about answering a simple question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Okaaaaay. I don't think I was calling anyone names and I certainly wasn't intending to. In fact I think the last time I called anyone a name was back one day when Mr.Frag was being particularly uncooperative about answering a simple question.

Could you be more specific on this point?

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
However, as I've tried to say - I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. So I still want this discussion to be about PLAY BALANCE - hence the reset on the subject. The thread is well behaved, but references to JFB and AFB are still inciteful and should cease.

Is there some preferred terminology for players who prefer to play one side or the other? I never thought of JFB or AFB as being particularly incindiary in themselves..., though the "trash talk" that sometimes surrounds them can be off-putting.

I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time.

I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In stock, the Japanese are eventually going to lose, so long as production remains fairly historical for the Allies, but Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor and go after Java, New Guinea, the Phillipines with an expectation of losing.

Actually, they did expect to lose some of their early gains. You can't "bleed" the other side without engaging them..., not impress them with your troops "willingness to die to the last man" without doing so a few times.

The Japanese were a member of the Axis powers and really thought Germany would push Russia out of the war and link up with them. Japan could have freed a lot of troops she was saving to watch the Russians.

Actually, the Japanese "used" their Axis Allies. Hitler loyally (and stupidly) declared war on the US..., but the Japanese carefully "weaseled out" of any reciprocal activity. And Japan had a lot more troops tied down dealing with the Chinese than with the Russian threat...., and with the continual need to garrison virtually every area she had expanded into during the last 40 years. Japanese economic and occupation policy being totally exploitive (and generally much harsher than the Europeans had been), whatever sympathy or admiration she gained by beating the Colonial powers were rapidly squandered by attrocities and forced labor.

Maybe a mod needs to be done based on Russia being completely neutralized, Germany being allowed to send some of its' eastern front units thru Russia, and maybe even some of her ships via the northern route?

Or maybe a mod needs to be done requiring much heavier "occupation forces" be kept in the entire "expansion area", which would eat up the great majority of the troops Japanese Players use to invade India and other farfetched and historically unlikely events.

In hindsight, we can think of a lot of reasons it was not possible, but in December 1941, maybe it was really thought possible?? Nobody but a fool engages in a war they are not WILLING to win.

The Japanese DID "plan to win"..., but they based their hopes on the total fallacy that their "fighting spirit" would somehow make up for the Allies superiority in material. The idea of being willing to die for the Nation and the Cause was (unfortunately for the Japs) not an exclusive one..., and the great Allied superiority in material meant that they could easily use tons of ordnance to kill each of the Emporor's soldiers --- while the Japanese could only afford to toss pounds in the other direction.