RE: Angels over Sadogashima

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: Angels over Sadogashima

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Angels over Sadogashima

Page: << < prev 207 208 [209] 210 211 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/29/2012 11:10:59 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

Here is the overriding theme that has now projected itself into the tech Forum.

Rader uses overwhelming force to run over Greyjoy == brillant play
Greyjoy uses cunning and wit to pull of something most of us would not dare and moves hence forth destroying the IJ == Bug in the system ..

I have the conplete context in which to interpret the rationalizations of a scenrario #2 and ahistoric allied moves ...

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6241

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/29/2012 11:23:29 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Here is the overriding theme that has now projected itself into the tech Forum.

Rader uses overwhelming force to run over Greyjoy == brillant play
Greyjoy uses cunning and wit to pull of something most of us would not dare and moves hence forth destroying the IJ == Bug in the system ..

I have the conplete context in which to interpret the rationalizations of a scenrario #2 and ahistoric allied moves ...

I don't understand your point mate

...sorry but it's not always easy to read between the lines when english is your mother-language

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 6242

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/29/2012 11:25:24 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

I was off for work, came back, peeked into the thread and read something about Kamikaze carriers......made my day.

Good yer stepped back from that one or I would have posted this

Who ever said i am Theon? Couldn't i be Victarion greyjoy?

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/a/a3/Victarion_Greyjoy.jpg

You're too clever to be Victarion. And considering that your bold plans meet with success you're clearly not Theon. So that leaves you as Asha, or quite probably Euron.

And dumphair?

(in reply to House Stark)

Post #: 6243

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 12:31:41 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Thats "damphair"...

unless you meant "dumphair"...

which you might have...

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6244

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 12:59:24 AM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Here is the overriding theme that has now projected itself into the tech Forum.

Rader uses overwhelming force to run over Greyjoy == brillant play
Greyjoy uses cunning and wit to pull of something most of us would not dare and moves hence forth destroying the IJ == Bug in the system ..

I have the conplete context in which to interpret the rationalizations of a scenrario #2 and ahistoric allied moves ...

I don't understand your point mate...sorry but it's not always easy to read between the lines when english is your mother-language

Sorry .. I was just pointing out when you have come up with a masterful play its ahistorical, gamey, or a bug in the game from the perspective of the IJFB's yet you endured being run over by the ahistorical scenario and used your resources to beat em back ..despite all the home rules!

I am in awe ...

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6245

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 1:51:21 AM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Still, you have to admit, putting Soviet troops on US Navy ships would be tantalizingly close to "co-location".

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6246

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 2:12:44 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

Its an interesting idea from Alfred. In historical realism this would be an absolute no-no. In 1945 in Europe there was very serious concern that the Soviets would just blitz us as well, such was the level of apprehension about Stalin's motives.

On the other hand I have to question at which point this scenario departed from historical anyway........ it is debatable that the 7th December was the starting point........

Ho hum.

Roger

Roger,

I understand fully your POV but let me put forward a few historical facts which makes the idea historically realistic. Certainly no less than the twaddle we get from the other side.

1. Britain and the Soviet Union both cooperated in occupying and administering Persia.

2. Lend Lease was largely delivered on non Soviet ships to Soviet ports.

3. The entire Soviet capability to maintain mobile land operations was heavily dependent on the use of American trucks, foreign oil lubricants etc. In other words Soviet logistics was dependent on the provision of equipment by others. Think of the provision of the American landing craft as just another logistical assistance provided, similar to that of American trucks.

Alfred, (honorary Soviet consular official tasked with furthering comradely relations with the peace loving peoples of the world)

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6247

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 3:58:20 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

If the US stood any chance of winning against Japan without Soviet help they wouldn't ask for it. There wasn't much that could be done about Eastern Europe, but Churchill and Truman certainly strove to prevent any partition of Japan along Capitalist/Communist lines.

Quite frequently the issue of the threat from the Soviet Union comes into debates about the necessity of using the atom bomb. As in, if the US did not end the war quickly, the USSR might swoop in to enlarge its sphere of influence in the area. Thus necessitating use of the bomb. The worst case scenario for the US would be if the USSR gained a legitimate (or semi-legitimate) claim on part of mainland Japan. Then there would be no getting rid of them.

If you ask me, from a historical perspective Greyjoy has already won. He has taken a pretty much unassailable position in Hokkaido. If Japan did not sue for peace after such a decisive loss, then it would only be a matter of time until the bombing campaign and eventual atom bombs force Japan to surrender. After all, some AAR games are played with house "victory conditions" that define the level of victory based on the number of Allied airbases in proximity to Japan. By that standard Greyjoy would certainly win, and in very impressive time.

So, with history out the window, (since I believe Greyjoy has already won historically) arguments pertaining to the historical use of Soviet forces are somewhat null and void. That's why by this point of the game, I'd say just about anything should be fair game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6248

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 4:20:42 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

Its an interesting idea from Alfred. In historical realism this would be an absolute no-no. In 1945 in Europe there was very serious concern that the Soviets would just blitz us as well, such was the level of apprehension about Stalin's motives.

On the other hand I have to question at which point this scenario departed from historical anyway........ it is debatable that the 7th December was the starting point........

Ho hum.

Roger

Roger,

I understand fully your POV but let me put forward a few historical facts which makes the idea historically realistic. Certainly no less than the twaddle we get from the other side.

1. Britain and the Soviet Union both cooperated in occupying and administering Persia.

2. Lend Lease was largely delivered on non Soviet ships to Soviet ports.

3. The entire Soviet capability to maintain mobile land operations was heavily dependent on the use of American trucks, foreign oil lubricants etc. In other words Soviet logistics was dependent on the provision of equipment by others. Think of the provision of the American landing craft as just another logistical assistance provided, similar to that of American trucks.

Alfred, (honorary Soviet consular official tasked with furthering comradely relations with the peace loving peoples of the world)

I think it pretty much depends on whether or not the US thought it needed soviet troops.
The US government pretty clearly preferred to unilaterally control Japan (no postwar sphere for the soviets like Germany for example), but objectively speaking the same thing was likely true of germany and we ended up partitioning that. Difference was that historically, the US couldn't take German w/o soviet help, whereas historically the US could, and did, defeat mainland Japan w/o needing soviet help (since there was no invasion).

Historical invasion plans for the mainland like Coronet envisioned using largely US troops with a smattering of commonwealth ground formations and a large mixed naval presence. There were no historical provisions to bring in soviet troops because, again the US didn't think it necessary and for policy reasons we're rather not partition Japan.

All that said, different facts on the ground would have produced a different policy decision. If the US had *needed* soviet troops to invade the mainland, we'd have partitioned Japan with the soviets and used US naval forces and or lend/lease equipment to facilitate a soviet landing.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6249

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 4:33:15 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

CV LexII
CV HornetII

What?! no CV House Stark, House GreyJoy etc???

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6250

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:01:09 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

CV LexII
CV HornetII

What?! no CV House Stark, House GreyJoy etc???

Terje

Have to admit that i thought a lot about renaming them...but everytime i tried to do so i felt guilty of ruining the athmosphere of the game...so in the end i simply left the original name...

Lexington II would have become "Lady-Brienne"
Saratoga II the "DawnSword"
Hornet II the "Iron Victory" and so on....

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 6251

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:01:41 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

Thats "damphair"...

unless you meant "dumphair"...

which you might have...

Oh...LOL

(in reply to Xxzard)

Post #: 6252

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:02:58 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Ok guys...Rader is back...tonight we're gonna have our beloved turn...

I'm gonna have a busy working day so i won't be able to get back to you since 24:00 GMT....

Have a good day!

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6253

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:13:09 AM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

LOl, like your new job title Alfred.

Was not having a go at your idea, merely using it to point out the Star Wars in the Pacific scenario's absurdities.

However, I'd just point out that 2 and 3 are both essentially 'giving' stuff to Stalin to use as he sees fit. And its mechanical kit that doesn't have any proletarian or bourgeois aspects to it its simply kit. Lots of very questionable regimes are happy to receive kit from other states, they are not happy to have even an 'adviser' on their territory.

Personally as an avid reader of this thread I'd like to see the Russkies do this, but it ain't 20th Century history.

Beam me up Scotty........

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson II -- 1/30/2012 8:53:02 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6254

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 8:48:50 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Well, our friend GJ has certainly won a moral victory for overcoming some naively accepted HRs and taking Japan's northern island by mid-44 after utter and complete humiliation in China and the subcontinent (well, not complete humiliation in India). From here it certainly would be good to see a no-holds-barred contest using the game's mechanics to utmost advantage, especially considering as the playing field has been leveled somewhat by IJ's uber-fighters appearing ahead of their time and the untimely parking of a good chunk of Allied flattop tonnage in Davey Jones's locker.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6255

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 2:31:56 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

LOl, like your new job title Alfred.

Was not having a go at your idea, merely using it to point out the Star Wars in the Pacific scenario's absurdities.

However, I'd just point out that 2 and 3 are both essentially 'giving' stuff to Stalin to use as he sees fit. And its mechanical kit that doesn't have any proletarian or bourgeois aspects to it its simply kit. Lots of very questionable regimes are happy to receive kit from other states, they are not happy to have even an 'adviser' on their territory.

Personally as an avid reader of this thread I'd like to see the Russkies do this, but it ain't 20th Century history.

Beam me up Scotty........

Roger

quote:

If the US stood any chance of winning against Japan without Soviet help they wouldn't ask for it. There wasn't much that could be done about Eastern Europe, but Churchill and Truman certainly strove to prevent any partition of Japan along Capitalist/Communist lines.

I think you hit the point Roger .. The real key from my understanding, was thatroosevelt wanted a "why can't we just get along strategy" the same strategy that limited our ship building before the war. The opposition argued for a new Post WWII strategy of going back to carrying a big stick and projecting power. The Soviets took full advantage of the former readily accepting US sent supplies and BTW alllowed us to station bombers on thier soil ..until it was no longer advantagious ... the latter is justified in Western history books ..

One thing I note . a Western interpretation of of history post WWII .. Alfred explains a few facts that lays the groundwork for understanding ..

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6256

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 2:38:03 PM

MateDow

Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

MateDow, thanks for popping up and finding the time to drop your suggestions. They are most welcome, wise and logical. And i thank you for being here! feel free to keep on giving suggestions, thoughts...or just to pop up and slap my face when i do stupid things

thanks for joining

Sorry I came across as slapping your face, that wasn't my intention. Although reading it again, I did come off that way, so I apologize.

I am in awe at your attention to detail that you have demonstrated in planning and analyzing the intelligence that you receive. I don't have the patience for that, and that is the reason that I stick to playing the AI. Never had the bravery to pit myself against a real person.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6257

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 3:29:39 PM

Alchenar

Posts: 360
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Here is the overriding theme that has now projected itself into the tech Forum.

Rader uses overwhelming force to run over Greyjoy == brillant play
Greyjoy uses cunning and wit to pull of something most of us would not dare and moves hence forth destroying the IJ == Bug in the system ..

I have to say, myself and some other people are reading this AAR from... somewhere else and this is the universal opinion. For a veteran player like Rader to play Scenario 2 against a complete newbie like GreyJoy and still demand new House Rules every time Grey does something that works comes across as incredibly unsportsmanlike.

Rader is playing dirty as hell and it certainly comes across that his conception of balance isn't to make the game fair but to tie Grey down with Houserules until it's literally impossible for the US to create any kind of dominant force parity. Which is why Rader is running about with planes a year before he should have them and Grey is HR'd out of being able to do anything close to historical strategic bombing despite having Airbases on mainland Japan.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 6258

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 3:44:52 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

"Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases. "

Well, this is the HR Rader requested. My understanding is that it covers up almost every kind of coordinated fighting effort between the russians and the western allies.
An HR is like a contract. Its interpretation can always be stretched to some degrees. I could, for example, use 99 american/british APA, and 1 Russian cruiser to create an amphib convoy under the USSR Navy flag and land a russian army in Honsu, interpretating it as an extension of the Land Lease act... it's an interpretation that obviously tries to elude or evade the inner meaning of the HR which is clear: Russian and Western allies are two separate forces both enemy of Japan but that operate separated.

Will for sure be a subject to be discussed, but i will not feel particularly strong in arguing the right of my interpretation of the rule

"

GreyJoy,

I have largely refrained from commenting on your opponent's approach and I won't fully unleash now, but he has always treated you, and the rest of the forum as fools. Nothing he puts forward to justify his actions has any validity, he misuses historical data, he misrepresents how the game operates, he misrepresents how he suffers from game mechanics. He might be a lovely individual in real life but he is not the saint you depict him as a player.

There is a very easy "legal" loophole around that "contract". Part of it you have already identified as sailing under a Soviet flag. The other leg is that you transport the Soviet army to a base on Hokkaido and the first day you land the first Soviet troops you change the base to Soviet command and move out all non-soviet forces.

GreyJoy, there is an old Spanish saying which is very applicable to you. He who makes himself of sugar, gets eaten by flies.

Alfred

I have been saying this from day one. Alfred, as always

, words it far better than ever.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6259

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 4:40:51 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Game of thrones rpg

So funny. Only interesting if you have read the books.

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 1/30/2012 4:42:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 6260

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 5:14:05 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
"Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases. "

Well, this is the HR Rader requested. My understanding is that it covers up almost every kind of coordinated fighting effort between the russians and the western allies.
An HR is like a contract. Its interpretation can always be stretched to some degrees. I could, for example, use 99 american/british APA, and 1 Russian cruiser to create an amphib convoy under the USSR Navy flag and land a russian army in Honsu, interpretating it as an extension of the Land Lease act... it's an interpretation that obviously tries to elude or evade the inner meaning of the HR which is clear: Russian and Western allies are two separate forces both enemy of Japan but that operate separated.

Will for sure be a subject to be discussed, but i will not feel particularly strong in arguing the right of my interpretation of the rule

"

Hi GreyJoy,

My two bits worth:

1. If you haven't already agreed to any such prohibitive force restrictions re: the Soviets, don't. With all due respect, if English isn't your native tongue, you can be manipulated by what the 'spirit' of the agreement is. Don't address the spirit and dispute the (English) language used.

2. If you had a HR regarding the Soviets and it can be loosely interpreted, I would have no problem with your interpretation you've provided above.

How about building the heck out of Sagoshima, evacuating all non-Soviet Allied forces and then hand the base over to the Soviets when they come in theatre, when it's been maxed out? The Japanese are unlikely to be able to take it, as it would require ship commitments to transport their LCUs.

They can use this base (or another of your choosing on Northern Honshu, similarly evacuated) for their follow-up invasions of Honshu. Of course, your amphibious TFs-that you've exemplified above-will comprise almost exclusively of non-Soviet ships, but I don't see any ruling on your Amphib TF makeup yet.

I'll avoid the somewhat uncharacteristically ascerbic and (I feel) unfair remarks by Alfred on your opponent's behavior. I don't believe that these constitute a basis for productive discussion.

I'm pleased that both you and your opponent are enjoying the game as much as we are entertained by your game and gameplay, GreyJoy.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6261

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:31:13 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

I could quote the entire post #12 from the tech support sub-forum and go through point by point and justify my comments on rader but instead I will only quote this small excerpt

Even if it was perfectly historical, it is just not good for the game IMO. I would rather play a balanced game that gives both sides options than one where once the allies get into range of Japan, the game is effectively over. Strategies that have no counter just aren't fun or balanced in a game setting.

He wants a balanced game. Not possible if there is any attempt at representing accurately WWII in the PTO. There is no balance in war. There would be no victors in war if there was balance. Japan lost WWII badly.

In the PTO force power and projection was asymmetrical. Rader was quite willing to accept the benefits of asymetry when it favoured the Japanese. Not a squeak from him to voluntarily disdain from using the benefits. Indeed quite to the contrary, he wrung every possible benefit out of the game system. Where was his concern that the poor Chinese lacked any equipment to meet on equal and balanced terms his use of tanks in China. Did the Chinese then have a counter to his strategy. Was it fun for GreyJoy that he had no effective counter then. Now when the asymmetry favours the Allies he cries for balance.

Time after time rader puts up his version of real world historical facts regarding equipment capabilities. Always without exception, he is the beneficiary of his argument. Go back to the first sentence I quote from his post: Even if it was perfectly historical, it is just not good for the game IMO. This means in the final upshot the historical reality should always be overthrown if it is not good for the game. So why does he bother to hamstrung the Allied play on the basis of historically accurate facts but then completely turns around and claims they should be disregarded when he can't equally find historically accurate facts to strengthen the Japanese capabilities.

Go and read the whole of that post #12 in that thread. He puts up reasons why he can't counter the Allied airforce but conveniently does not mention other tactics which he can employ, tactics I might add which he used much earlier in the war when it benefitted Japan. He argues that the Allied time frame for the reduction of Japanese industry took a long time, conveniently using non matching data sets to make his point. Based on the long range bombing of japan from Saipan he baldly states that Allied bombing from nearby Hokkaido should produce the same results as the historical bombing from Saipan.

He is able to still produce equipment because he has a bank of Heavy Industry points. That is a mechanic only available within the game, not in real life. Where, in the interests of balanced play, is his concern about this? He is able to maintain the combat power of his LCUs because of the bank of Armament and Vehicle points. That is a mechanic only available within the game, not in real life. Where, in the interests f balanced play, is his concern about this? His aircraft and engines which are in his pools cannot be destroyed. This is a mechanic only available within the game, not in real life. Where, in the interests of balanced play, is his concern about this?

Return to his post #12 in that thread. Note what he says about the results of the Allies lodging in Hokkaido. That is a very unsubtle threat to GreyJoy that he will abandon the game if there is no fun in it for him. Then reread what I have quoted above. Where is the difference in attitude between rader and those other Japanese players who abandon the game in 1942 if the KB is sunk.

Whose fault was it that the opportunity for GreyJoy to capture Hokkaido and the Kuriles was presented? No Allied lodgement in Hokkaido, no bombing of Japanese industry, which by the way is quickly repaired but rader never mentions that. He is much more comfortable bringing to our attention the difficulties he labours under when his industry is damaged. Historically, damaged Japanese industry was not repaired as quickly as it can and is done in the game. Why is that fact never incorporated into his "historical" analysis.

Anyway enough for now, I said I wasn't going to go through point by point.

Alfred

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6262

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:38:15 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Wow. You might have won me over on this one.

Still these two have forged a good relationship out of this game, and GJ's acceptance of these rules IMHO has made this particular game better, not worse. It has led him to be creative and sneaky and to surprise us all by pulling out what seemed an impossible task.

It's not worth it to stand on principle now if the history of this game and the future of it depend on finding a compromise that suits both players. GJ continues to argue this, and yet you may win him over to talk it out with Rader as well. That is okay, as long as they decide what happens together.

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/30/2012 7:45:41 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6263

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:40:21 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
GreyJoy,

I have largely refrained from commenting on your opponent's approach and I won't fully unleash now, but he has always treated you, and the rest of the forum as fools. Nothing he puts forward to justify his actions has any validity, he misuses historical data, he misrepresents how the game operates, he misrepresents how he suffers from game mechanics. He might be a lovely individual in real life but he is not the saint you depict him as a player.

Alfred,

Sorry, but I'm not buying the justification for your inopportune and injudicious choice of words. I'll quote the above polemic. You don't fully unleash...right up until the point where you do.

Rader is not treating everyone on the forum as fools.

Some of his arguments are valid from his point of view, as are his arguments to justify his actions.

There's not enough detail in your other personal attacks to justify a response.

Ad hominim attacks are unbecoming to a usually well-spoken individual such as yourself. I'd advise stowing your inexplicable venom for Rader personally. In my opinion, it's unjustified and unnecessarily angry and hostile. I'd hate to see this hostility detract from this or Rader's AAR further.

GreyJoy: sorry for the (again) unnecessary diversion to your AAR.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 6264

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:50:46 PM

House Stark

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline

I don't think Rader's a bad guy or anything like that trying to tailor the rules to his favor so that he can win. I think he just notices and is bothered by things such as the nuclear 4Es and his solution is HRs. I get the feeling that some of Rader's advantages have come from un-HRable, abstract things such as taking China and most of India and abusing the research to advance planes, both of which Greyjoy was unprepared for. I also get the feeling that Greyjoy is just less likely to want to HR things that bother him then Rader. This, combined with the fact that Rader's ruthless tactics and Greyjoy's fast learning curve have resulted in a very unhistorical game, that's why Rader is the asking for new HRs more often about Greyjoy. But this is a poor subject for discussion, bring on more game updates Greyjoy!

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6265

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:55:25 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Nuclear 4Es?

You mean historical results, that he can't stand seeing destroy his empire? So he handcuffs them..

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to House Stark)

Post #: 6266

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 6:56:49 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

I don't think Rader's a bad guy or anything like that trying to tailor the rules to his favor so that he can win. I think he just notices and is bothered by things such as the nuclear 4Es and his solution is HRs. I get the feeling that some of Rader's advantages have come from un-HRable, abstract things such as taking China and most of India and abusing the research to advance planes, both of which Greyjoy was unprepared for. I also get the feeling that Greyjoy is just less likely to want to HR things that bother him then Rader. This, combined with the fact that Rader's ruthless tactics and Greyjoy's fast learning curve have resulted in a very unhistorical game, that's why Rader is the asking for new HRs more often about Greyjoy. But this is a poor subject for discussion, bring on more game updates Greyjoy!

I don't see how this leads to or justifies Rader asking for these kinds of HRs.

(in reply to House Stark)

Post #: 6267

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:10:27 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Guys (and i mean all of you dear readers and contributors),

you know how important for me has always been your judgments, your suggestions, you "backing me up" throughout the whole game.
You know (and in case you don't, well, now you know

) how much i esteem (!?) your words, your logic, your thoughts in general.
This community - and especially, for what concerns me, the inner community grown inside this AAR thread - has earned my biggest and deepest respect: here i know i'm facing, arguing, jocking with true men of true intelligence, knowledge and honour.

That's why it's really hard for me to ask you, in the most polite and whispering way, to refrain, from now on, on commenting about my opponent.
I ask you please...
...i'm in the very strange and unpleasent situation of being the only (well, not the only one but...) voice that stands in his defence in this AAR (a place that he cannot read and so he cannot defend himself properly).
And i'm not the best defender he can have...first because my lack of competence in english, secondly - and obviously - because, despite i try to be as much objective as possible, i am nonetheless on the other side of the hill and my view cannot be completely "super partes".

This is a game after all...a game which requires a great investement of time and efforts...and i agree (i truly do) with Rader that a game to be fun needs to be as balanced as possible.
The HRs don't really matter as long as we both have our fun... and i had the best possible gaming experience of my whole life. The challenges of the HRs have made this game even funnier for me cause through the "slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune" you really experience what means the struggle for victory.

Anyway, i know that me and Rader can find an agreement that suits both of us...and we can keep on playing, having fun and, thorugh our AARs, maybe let you taste a bit of "this" fun... but the attitude that has grown in the forum against Rader is really putting me and him in a strange and unplesant situation...a situation where he feels guilty for advocating his POVs (fearing that me and the community could feel he's abusing me) and where i cannot defend my own position cause i feel i need first to defend my opponent, my friend.

I don't deny that it's probably also my own fault...at the beginning of the match i felt so "abused" (due to my lack of experience probably) that i felt good when someone pointed out that our HRs weren't fair... So i apologise for this bad attidute...towards Rader and towards you all.

But now please, for the goodness of this gaming experience...for the goodness of this AAR... let's simply move over and leave the whole HRs stuff to be decided just by me and Rader.

Hope (sincerly hope) you all understand.

Thanks

GJ

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6268

RE: Angels over Sadogashima - 1/30/2012 7:13:11 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline