wolflars
Posts: 184
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline
|
Christ, why am I bothering?
Note: Mr Rinkleff, read the entire thread for the happy ending. I apologize to all for the unnecessary length.
I know I said I was done here but…I think, despite the obnoxious behavior (some of which is proudly mine) Mr Rinkleff has finally gotten around to the crux of his complaint.
I honestly wish this discussion was going better because I have no problem with minor issues being revisited for discussion. New and inexperienced players like Mr Rinkleff can sometimes bring fresh and new ideas into the fray against what is, and I agree with this kid on this point, a very entrenched community. But again, I suggest to Mr Rinkleff that he take a good hard look at his stance to determine if he is just being obstinate or if the complaint is valid.
But before I get down to brass tacks, I feel the need to entertain myself by trolling, elfing or whatever he calls it—sorry not too familiar with all the hip new D&D lingo all the cool kids are using these days.
@ the King of Canada  , I like the new pic and keep up the smiley faces. This kid has accused you of immature BS which pretty ironic when you read his or anybody’s posts. The King simply reminds us that we are all full of **** and some people take themselves way too seriously.
@Mr Colin
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This is cute. You apparently have no idea what stalking is. I've been subjected to far worse than you've gotten to date --
He is right about this…I’m outside his house right now…Good morning Colin.
@Mr rhinobones
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
quote:
Norm Koger is a veteran of the US air force.
US Air Force, wow! That's almost like being in a military service.
It also explains a lot about the problems with land and sea combat.
Regards, Rhinobones, USMC
I laughed at this. Go over to strategypage.com and find the joke called Military rules, by Service.
@Mr Rinkleff, Colin’s question of “what precisely” is obviously what you have trouble with here. Listen kid, if you want to pin down what you are trying to get at stop talking about realism, doughnuts, trolls, and magic click and say what you mean. Kid, you are obviously not stupid but you seem to have a hard time explaining why you think this is a problem, if it is at all. I told you earlier: stop getting so flustered. You let these guys get under your skin too easily and you have responded with a kind of whining tone that makes most of us want to take your lunch money. It’s not productive.---by the way if you are the same Rinkleff who wrote the scathing review of wikipedia, kudos to you. I teach a whole segment on why wikipedia threatens liberty, it’s a pet peeve of mine. Furthermore, since I was the one who brought this off topic item up, let me assure you I am not stalking you. Actually, how I came across it was when I was looking for the thread on Veers and trolls. I copy pasted “Adam Rinkleff troll” into Google instead of the forum search and it came up with all the stuff about “Adam Rinkleff is a troll” blah blah blah. You have to admit after all of your troll accusations, it is funny.
Now here is---finally---this Mr Rinkleff’s point (correct me if I am wrong kid)
quote:
ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
quote:
Lemay: This isn't just an issue of convenience. If the turn ends early, you can find all your air units in "rest" for the duration of the enemy player turn. That means spending the enemy turn without air support, even if you have air supremacy.
I agree, although it is an issue of convenience, it is not merely one; the problem is also unrealistic and disrupts the game -- scenario designers should have the ability to create more durable air units, rather than being forced to use units which require constant micro-management.
Finally.
Okay, first throw out convenience. That is irrelevant. It’s not even a point of bad UI. TOAW is complex, it is supposed to be. In terms of UI it’s average—with the possible exception of the event editor. You got nothing here kid.
Does it disrupt the game?
It can, but the more important question is whether or not it is supposed to. Evidently, it is intentional. So, the disruption is intentional. You got nothing here kid.
Unrealistic?
Here is where conjecture comes in on all sides. No game is realistic. I have a back full of shrapnel, none of it came from a game. Now, doughnuts, trolls, commanders calling airfields and all that non-sense aside we should be trying to determine if the model is as realistic as is reasonably possible. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of explaining reason into the mechanism (eg the model exists, so therefore it is realisitic, therefore the units going into rest MUST represent some kind realistic and necessary action). Again, I teach logic, trust me this does not work. You have to start from the left side of the equation, so to speak. We must ask ourselves, if we were to build a model from scratch, in the end, would it look like this?
Mr Rinkleff wants to build air units (aka the Iron Eagle group) that are capable of doing unrealistic feats yets complains that the way existing units perform is unrealistic. Weird? Yes. However, we don’t know what kind of scenario he is building, so how can we say he is absurd. I know some of his scenarios are fictional based and some are pre-20th century so he probably has good reason for wanting air units that are relentless. Specifically, we don’t know and he hasn’t said.
Critiquing Mr Rinkleff for wanting this is absurd too. Many designers have done “weird” things in order to get the existing system to do what they want it to. If he is building a France 1940 under normal circumstances, for example, then we can perfectly well say he is wrong for wanting this but otherwise we simply don’t know. Regardless, however, Mr Rinkleff must be brought to realize that the TOAW engine was initially designed to simulate Operational Warfare—mostly ground—in the middle 20th century. If he is trying to stretch the engine, great.
But, he has to be prepared for possible disappointment. Look at the Waterloo scenario. Good attempt, really puts the engine to the test but I don’t think it works. It’s just not fun. And despite what some might say, TOAW is a game, games are supposed to be fun. (note: I meant no slam to Bob’s work, Waterloo just doesn’t do it for me, CFNA is one of the best however.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
scenario designers should have the ability to create more durable air units,
No doubt—but I also think scenario designers should have the ability to do a lot of stuff they can’t but this does not mean the system is broken or wrong (bigger map, more units slots, breakdown limits, in game command/formation exchange etc, river hexsides AND river hexes). This has to do with expectations however. The game provides very intentional limitations. Those limitations are not up for discussion in the present engine. It does what it was intended to do. The Iron Eagle Group is clearly outside of what is intended by the original design. TOAW is not, nor has it ever been, a 100% cure all-does all wargame construction kit capable of simulating every type of warfare. It has a window, a very specific one and as narrow as it is, that was its promise from the very beginning.
If Mr Rinkleff wants to explore the unrealistic vs realistic aspect further, we really need to look at the equation. Where is Ralph? Further discussion on this topic is moot without a precise examination of the formula (s) used to determine when and how air units revert to rest. The “why” in this case is irrelevant because the best anyone can do is feed explanations back into the existing model, this does not work and is largely pointless.
Note: I still regard the feature as it exists as being the best solution but am always willing to entertain new ideas provided they are reasonable. As is I think it introduces a welcome variability in regards to early turn endings.
This is not crippling no matter how you look at it, the supply system is the real joke. How this affects Mr Rinkleff is dependant on what kind of scenario he is building. If TOAW were supposed to be all encompassing and without limitations I would agree with his desire to somehow override this feature. However, TOAW is not and the only area that is can be truly debated is the when and how of air units going into rest. As ridiculous as any unit with 100% proficiency, supply, etc might be, they should, theoretically be largely immune to the engines attempt to re-direct orders. Then again, you should never get more than one round with these types of units too since they would literally fly until they fell out of the sky.
< Message edited by wolflars -- 11/19/2007 1:16:52 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: why do air units rest so much? - 
RE: why do air units rest so much? - 
I'm shocked that you would not belive him. Actually, from you, I'm not that shocked. 
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