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: Intel reports

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Intel reports Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:39:29 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

Midway was the presumed target "AF". It was estimated that 4 carriers would spearhead the assault. Now as for allied intel being weaker than historical, I would agree with that statement. The allies for the most part knew every Japanese formation and its commanders, where they were, where they were going (but not in all cases and not always when they needed this info). I am not disputing any of this.

My contention is that the Japanese player in the GAME deserves more than "heavy volume of radio signals at San Francisco". And the other examples of failures I pointed out to show that the allies indeed did not know everything, that their information was as faulty on occasion as it was accurate at other times. Seemingly some people seem to think everything the allies did in the war was based on rock solid intel, and this simply was not the case.

The simple FACT that Tokyo Rose on occasion after occasion reported forces that were heading to a beachead shows the Japanese player SHOULD BE awarded some kind of signals intel in the game. That FACT can not be disputed. (Ed: except by AFBs that dispute any kind of a change that would make the game more even or in other words "help" the Japanese player without justification for their opposition).


Like I said, know what you are talking about.

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 11:40:26 AM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 91
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:56:00 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Which doesn't mean you're arguing for stronger Allied intel in game. Otherwise your first post would have been "Should SigInt for both sides be improved" instead of arguing for (near) parity as you did.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 92
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:01:16 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline 		I'm not. All I am saying is the Japanese should get SOMETHING. Are you saying they shouldn't?

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 93
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:03:41 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		They do get something, it's less than in real life, but it's the same for the Allies, so yes, I'm saying they shouldn't get any more.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 94
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:04:41 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline

Enough said then

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 95
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:09:38 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		What exactly is the problem with that stance ? Either you argue for historical capabilities for both sides, or you argue for weakened capabilities, but in proportion to what they had in real life. Arguing for historical capabilities for one side while accepting weakened capabilities for the other seems to be a bigger problem.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 96
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:18:22 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline 		Explain these 2 things (reasonably):

1) How did the Japanese know the units date and time of the Kiska landings. You presume Japanese intel was useless yet you can't explain how they had this information.

2) How did the allies NOT know that the Japanese had pulled off the island 3 weeks before the landings? You presume that allied intel was so good they knew everything yet sig int and aerial recon both failed to detect the lack of Japanese troops on the island for 3 weeks! With a landing force on the way to invade the island, they had no idea the Japanese had pulled out. Explain it.

So explain it AFB. Then tell me again how the Japs should get no more than they have and yet the allies should get more. I need the laugh. Ed: Know what? don't bother. Just going to green button you as well.

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 12:25:54 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 97
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:31:44 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Just in case you haven't green buttoned me.
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

Explain these 2 things (reasonably):

1) How did the Japanese know the units date and time of the Kiska landings. You presume Japanese intel was useless yet you can't explain how they had this information.


I gave a possible alternative explanation. Actually, at least one other person already did so before me. I also said that it was possible that they got the information by SigInt, though there is no proof for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: War History
2) How did the allies NOT know that the Japanese had pulled off the island 3 weeks before the landings? You presume that allied intel was so good they knew everything yet sig int and aerial recon both failed to detect the lack of Japanese troops on the island for 3 weeks! With a landing force on the way to invade the island, they had no idea the Japanese had pulled out. Explain it.

So explain it AFB. Then tell me again how the Japs should get no more than they have and yet the allies should get more. I need the laugh. Ed: Know what? don't bother. Just going to green button you as well.


I never said Allied SigInt was perfect, it is kind of strange to hear such a misrepresentation of my posts from a person who was attacking me because I was allegedly doing the same. I only said Allied SigInt was better in RL then it is in game, just like the Japanese SigInt.

I never said the Allies should get more, I said either they both get more, or neither gets more.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 98
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 1:08:37 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Now now guys, just take out that aggresion on your PBEM opponent

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 99
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 1:22:57 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline 		Well, like I said to Mike before I hit the green button on him, when someone is going to approach something like this with a totally closed mind, all you can do is hit the button and move on

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 100
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 2:49:58 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline 		Hmmm ... shutting out dissenting voices ("green buttoning") because they are not open minded enough seems just a little contradictory ... makes you wonder who's really open minded ...

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 101
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 2:55:31 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

Hmmm ... shutting out dissenting voices ("green buttoning") because they are not open minded enough seems just a little contradictory ... makes you wonder who's really open minded ...

i am not certain to whom you are referring here,

However, since you have made the comment just after the person i greenbuttoned: i shut out this particular person in this discussion as he insulted me, continually attributing bad motives to anything i said, as well as continually misquoting me, etc.

This is the only person i've felt compelled to deal with in this manner in ~2 years.

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 102
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 2:58:30 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline 		I'm referring to War History, after he green buttoned both Mike Scholl and Smeulders.

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 103
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 3:16:15 PM   
AirGriff


Posts: 701
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline 		I think the intel feature is fine as it is. It's no doubt less than what either side had, but like someone earlier said, if it was as accurate as history no one would play the Japanese, even with the very rare gem the IJ picked up from their woefully poor intel resources relative to the Allies (which I think everyone here has admitted). No, if I was an IJ player, I should be very happy to leave the intel as it is, because if it was improved for the IJ, then Allied players would necessarily and very rightly demand their's be proportionaly bettered. Intel is sufficiently watered down so that the Allies don't get a historical level of very vivid data on IJ operations. Makes for a better game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 104
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 3:25:10 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

I'm referring to War History, after he green buttoned both Mike Scholl and Smeulders.


Well as I said nothing they said really has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Both admitted that the Japanese got the information they had through sig int yet both say that the Japanese player shouldn't get sig int data. When they say one thing and yet fight tooth and nail against what it is they just said, there is no longer any point in paying any heed at all to what it is they have to say. I'm not saying no one else should or should not listen to them, but at this point I see what they are doing as trying to bait me, and I'm not biting. I choose to ignore them. That is my choice. Thank God for American freedom of choice (of which I gave 11 years of my life to defend). I elect to use that freedom.

And actually its 3. rtrapasso made the list after I proved him to be a hypocrite as well. I seriously don't understand people that admit the Japanese broke codes, had fairly good sig int and yet say that the player shouldn't be afforded the same chance to use it. Mike claims that the Japanese player shouldn't get it because real war (according to him) the Japanese didn't use the information effectively. This opinion certainly has merit as arguments can be made both ways on this point (didn't do anything vs couldn't do anything), however the point of the game is to give the players the tools and let THEM make the mistakes, no? And since real war Japanese did indeed have the capability...

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 3:48:14 PM >

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 105
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 4:01:10 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

Well, like I said to Mike before I hit the green button on him, when someone is going to approach something like this with a totally closed mind, all you can do is hit the button and move on



Why not say in public what you said in "private"?

War History just sent you a private message at 10/31/2010 11:28:43 AM:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
really
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jesus ****ing christ, how stupid are you really?

The allied troops called her "Tokyo Rose". The references to "Tokyo Rose" I cite
are allied troops reporting what they heard radio Tokyo report. If Radio Tokyo
knew then clearly they got their info from Japanese intel. Also, just as clear,
not everything Jap intel knew went to radio Tokyo. Now, seriously, unless you
are willing to stop your everything in the game has to be pro-allied bullshit,
Im seriously tired of hearing it. Back up what you say, I do. I dont spout
meaningless dribble on and on and on and on like you do. Dont think the Japs
should have any intel in the game? Fine, then cite sources that say that the
Japanese had no idea ever what the allies were doing. Or shut the **** up.


----------- End of Private Message (PM) -------------

As I said previously, "Show me the Carfax!". All of the examples you cite seem to come from "Orphan Ann" propaganda broadcasts, not any actual military actions demonstrating code breaking. I don't say anything I'm ashamed of, so I don't have to hide my identity.....

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 106
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 4:36:32 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

Hmmm ... shutting out dissenting voices ("green buttoning") because they are not open minded enough seems just a little contradictory ... makes you wonder who's really open minded ...


At the moment about half the forum has told him that the SigInt in game is fair in proportion to real life, or even biased in the favour of the Japanese. Despite that our open-minded individual keeps insisting on making the Japanese SigInt beter while leaving the Allied unchanged. On top of that he has green-buttoned every one who spent more than 3 posts arguing him. I think the answer to your question is obvious.

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 107
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 5:00:58 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

Well as I said nothing they said really has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Both admitted that the Japanese got the information they had through sig int yet both say that the Japanese player shouldn't get sig int data. When they say one thing and yet fight tooth and nail against what it is they just said, there is no longer any point in paying any heed at all to what it is they have to say. I'm not saying no one else should or should not listen to them, but at this point I see what they are doing as trying to bait me, and I'm not biting. I choose to ignore them. That is my choice. Thank God for American freedom of choice (of which I gave 11 years of my life to defend). I elect to use that freedom.

And actually its 3. rtrapasso made the list after I proved him to be a hypocrite as well. I seriously don't understand people that admit the Japanese broke codes, had fairly good sig int and yet say that the player shouldn't be afforded the same chance to use it. Mike claims that the Japanese player shouldn't get it because real war (according to him) the Japanese didn't use the information effectively. This opinion certainly has merit as arguments can be made both ways on this point (didn't do anything vs couldn't do anything), however the point of the game is to give the players the tools and let THEM make the mistakes, no? And since real war Japanese did indeed have the capability...

Your accusation of people admitting the "Japanese broke codes" is a total misrepensatation of what people are conveying and trolling in its finest form.
Deal me in please, my green button list has a total population of zero but it would be great if we can both reciprocate the option.



< Message edited by SuluSea -- 10/31/2010 5:08:01 PM >

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 108
Re-read forum rules - 10/31/2010 5:44:54 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		No personal attacks - forum rules - locked.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 109
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Intel reports Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

2.563