RE: 661 4E`s shot down

RE: 661 4E`s shot down (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Nikademus -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/16/2006 9:03:53 PM)
quote: "Jap sub commanders attacked everything they saw"...I think in reality, attacking merchant shipping was discouraged by beating up sub skippers about wasting torpedoes. Officially, they weren't supposed to use more than one per ship; unofficially, since sinking merchants wasn't "cool" I suspect it wasn't worth the hassle for the sub skipper to (1) Account for the torps, (2) Risk his boat for something he isn't going to get any thanks for It was more because of the mission assignements given to sixth fleet and then continually altered to go chasing after the latest contact resulting in the subs spending more of their time racing into position vs. hunting. Like the US in 42, Japanese submarines were often placed in areas where merchants were infrequent but were warships were expected to be. result = few merchant kills. When the Japanese conducted dedicated anti-commerce missions, while not always successful (whenever is it?) they did score some notable successes, particuarily in the IO and off Eastern OZ. It is true that the West Coast foray was unsuccessful overall, but Boyd/Yoshida (IJN sub force and WWII) do not mention anywhere in their book about sub captains being "chastised" for wasting torpedoes on enemy merchantile targets. Rather they suggest that during the West Coast operation a certain "leisurely attitude" was evident among a number of the sub captains and that despite lack of defenses encountered the patrols were fairly desultry in their having been carried out. They also didn't stick around...most returning from their dec41 deployment between 11-15 Jan 42. In other words there was hardly a 'total war' mindset going on at the time. Later anti-commerce operations were taken more seriously and scored some decent tonnage. (for stat freaks.....only about 34,299 tons were sunk according to the Japanese official history) Players should be free to choose their assignments for the Sixth fleet same as for the USN subs. (i've never played any game, AI or PBEM with the doctrine button on for IJN or USN subs)

bradfordkay -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/16/2006 9:15:32 PM)
Ron wrote: "The Japanese conducted quite a bit of mercantile warfare, and having this game doctrine on screws it." Ron in my present game (CHS most recent version) which has reached June '42 vs Japanese AI, I am playing with both US and Japanese sub doctrine on. The IJN subs have sunk 6 non-combattant ships and 7 combat vessels (if you consider an ML as a combat vessel). I think that this shows that using Japanese sub doctrine does not nerf the attacks agaisnt merchantmen. It does show me that I need to ground some of my bomber squadrons flying ASW along the barrier reef! Juliet7Bravo wrote: "Somewhere, I think I saw figures for the number of torpedoes the IJN had on hand, by type, at wars start. I don't think they had the torps for "unrestricted submarine warfare" on hand, and you're talking about something that was as complicated by 1941 standards as an ICBM is by todays. Personally, I think torps should be manufactured/stockpiled or have a whacking big supply cost to reload...for both sides. The USN had a huge torp shortage for the first year or so across the board, and the loss of the SS torps at Cavite was dang near crippling." I would also be happier with some limitation on torpedo supplies; surface, submarine and aerial. ElCidAgain wrote:"But the KB and a few Allied TFs at sea get a bit of free fuel - more or less in compensation for each other - because either they get that - or they must begin in port." I have always wondered why these TFs couldn't have a lower amount of fuel aboard at start. Since squadrons can have fewer a/c than their max at the game start, why can't ships have less fuel or cargo than max at game start? Note: I have never looked at the editor. There's too many of you guys who are much better at that than I out there creating the mods I enjoy. No need for me to screw things up...

Grotius -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/16/2006 11:33:23 PM)
quote: PDU isn't the problem. Replacement rates aren't even the problem, although I am sure some of them are probably off by a good bit. The problem is that aircraft don't wear out, they repair too quickly (especially 4E), and they suffer too few ops losses. That leaves too many airframes available to put into squadrons. Additionally, the ease of conversion of aircraft manufacturing plants makes it possible to boost production too quickly. PDU was and continues to be a reasonable change to the game. If the Japanese player manages to achieve results superior to historical results in the beginning phases, they should have more freedom to change their airgroups to newer airframes. The value PDU provides to the game is masked by a lack of attrition in airframes. Nicely put, Oznoyng. I pretty much agree. And PDUs are optional in any event. By the way, Pasternaski, I've played and enjoyed "Birth of America." It's a good game, but it's not perfect either. (No wargame is.) In fact, I find it far less interesting than WITP, which of course is imperfect too. I'm still playing WITP two years after its release; I doubt that will be true of BoA.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 12:05:36 AM)
quote: Somewhere, I think I saw figures for the number of torpedoes the IJN had on hand, by type, at wars start. I don't think they had the torps for "unrestricted submarine warfare" on hand, and you're talking about something that was as complicated by 1941 standards as an ICBM is by todays. Personally, I think torps should be manufactured/stockpiled or have a whacking big supply cost to reload...for both sides. The USN had a huge torp shortage for the first year or so across the board, and the loss of the SS torps at Cavite was dang near crippling. I'm all for this kind of stuff. Applied to aircraft as well. Anti sub/net defences for ports (like fortifications) to combat the generously allowed torpedo attacks by bombers in ports. Stricter rearming/refueling restrictions for warships. No reason this sort of stuff can't be done simply.

rroberson -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 12:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: Somewhere, I think I saw figures for the number of torpedoes the IJN had on hand, by type, at wars start. I don't think they had the torps for "unrestricted submarine warfare" on hand, and you're talking about something that was as complicated by 1941 standards as an ICBM is by todays. Personally, I think torps should be manufactured/stockpiled or have a whacking big supply cost to reload...for both sides. The USN had a huge torp shortage for the first year or so across the board, and the loss of the SS torps at Cavite was dang near crippling. I'm all for this kind of stuff. Applied to aircraft as well. Anti sub/net defences for ports (like fortifications) to combat the generously allowed torpedo attacks by bombers in ports. Stricter rearming/refueling restrictions for warships. No reason this sort of stuff can't be done simply. Agree, honestly as detailed as WITP is in "some" parts (individual pilots for instance) I never understood why they didnt just take logistics to that next level.

juliet7bravo -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 1:15:20 AM)
All of which could be handled by "Naval Base Force" units in conjuction with port size...

pasternakski -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 1:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Nicely put, Oznoyng. I pretty much agree. And PDUs are optional in any event. By the way, Pasternaski, I've played and enjoyed "Birth of America." It's a good game, but it's not perfect either. (No wargame is.) In fact, I find it far less interesting than WITP, which of course is imperfect too. I'm still playing WITP two years after its release; I doubt that will be true of BoA. As usual, nobody is listening to what I am actually saying. The problem with PDU and all the rest of the "let the user control what the game does" is that the game engine itself suffers from not being complete. You just can't build these features in without doing damage to the workings of the game itself. Further, just browse through these forums for awhile. If you eliminated all the silly "I want, I think, I would like to see" you might be left with some kind of focus on "what is." A "game" presents a situation in which you immerse yourself with the hope of playing well enough to win. When you have freedom to fiddle with the terms and conditions of the game itself, you might as well be cheating yourself at solitaire for all the satisfaction you can get from that. Of course, I realize that I am living in the age of instant gratification and "more me now." So, play away at this hopelessly flawed mess if you must. Mod it to your hearts' content. Pretend it's a good game. Just don't expect me to lemming along after you. Now, back to BoA...

rroberson -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 3:16:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Nicely put, Oznoyng. I pretty much agree. And PDUs are optional in any event. By the way, Pasternaski, I've played and enjoyed "Birth of America." It's a good game, but it's not perfect either. (No wargame is.) In fact, I find it far less interesting than WITP, which of course is imperfect too. I'm still playing WITP two years after its release; I doubt that will be true of BoA. As usual, nobody is listening to what I am actually saying. The problem with PDU and all the rest of the "let the user control what the game does" is that the game engine itself suffers from not being complete. You just can't build these features in without doing damage to the workings of the game itself. Further, just browse through these forums for awhile. If you eliminated all the silly "I want, I think, I would like to see" you might be left with some kind of focus on "what is." A "game" presents a situation in which you immerse yourself with the hope of playing well enough to win. When you have freedom to fiddle with the terms and conditions of the game itself, you might as well be cheating yourself at solitaire for all the satisfaction you can get from that. Of course, I realize that I am living in the age of instant gratification and "more me now." So, play away at this hopelessly flawed mess if you must. Mod it to your hearts' content. Pretend it's a good game. Just don't expect me to lemming along after you. Now, back to BoA... I thought after the last time you dropped by to give us your..."opinion" you promised you wouldnt be back. Seems like to me, if you truly hated the game that much you wouldn't spend nearly as much time here as you. Admit it, when no one is looking your break out WITP.[8\|] Some people just like to hear their voices [:D]. And you sir, remind me of that crankly old man who lives down the street taking away everyone's baseballs who happen to land in his yard. If you dislike the game this much, program your own. horse dead now.

rogueusmc -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 4:59:03 AM)
Do your farts smell good to you?...[:D]

joliverlay -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 5:11:49 AM)
Black Mamba, I feel your pain. Who are you playing against, if you don't mind my asking?

pasternakski -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 6:39:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rroberson I thought after the last time you dropped by to give us your..."opinion" you promised you wouldnt be back. Seems like to me, if you truly hated the game that much you wouldn't spend nearly as much time here as you. Admit it, when no one is looking your break out WITP.[8\|] Some people just like to hear their voices [:D]. And you sir, remind me of that crankly old man who lives down the street taking away everyone's baseballs who happen to land in his yard. If you dislike the game this much, program your own. horse dead now. Cite me one instance where I said I hate this game. Tell me why it is, after I express an opinion, you (and others) find it necessary to engage in personal insults and sarcasm. The reason I don't post in these forums very much is people like you. I got thoroughly sick and tired of being attacked by people who don't have the brains to read the ingredients list on a milk carton. I am here with faint hopes that patch 1.8 will right the ship to the extent that I (and the 13 other members of my wargaming club) will be able to get back to playing it. As it is, the bugs alone have caused us all to hang it up (we don't even begin to address the deficiencies in the game system and poor historical simulation). We don't get what we're after, we're gone for good (many of the guys have chastised me for coming back here at all, and your post I quote here pretty much convinces me that I should listen to them, but I have wanted to like and enjoy this game SO much for SO long...). So buzz off.

Oznoyng -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 7:51:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: rroberson I thought after the last time you dropped by to give us your..."opinion" you promised you wouldnt be back. Seems like to me, if you truly hated the game that much you wouldn't spend nearly as much time here as you. Admit it, when no one is looking your break out WITP.[8\|] Some people just like to hear their voices [:D]. And you sir, remind me of that crankly old man who lives down the street taking away everyone's baseballs who happen to land in his yard. If you dislike the game this much, program your own. horse dead now. Cite me one instance where I said I hate this game. Tell me why it is, after I express an opinion, you (and others) find it necessary to engage in personal insults and sarcasm. The reason I don't post in these forums very much is people like you. I got thoroughly sick and tired of being attacked by people who don't have the brains to read the ingredients list on a milk carton. I am here with faint hopes that patch 1.8 will right the ship to the extent that I (and the 13 other members of my wargaming club) will be able to get back to playing it. As it is, the bugs alone have caused us all to hang it up (we don't even begin to address the deficiencies in the game system and poor historical simulation). We don't get what we're after, we're gone for good (many of the guys have chastised me for coming back here at all, and your post I quote here pretty much convinces me that I should listen to them, but I have wanted to like and enjoy this game SO much for SO long...). So buzz off. It never ceases to amaze me how those who begin the stone throwing complain about the stones being hurled. Your first post began by intimating that support of PDU meant you were chiildish. You remember the quote: "This thread, to me, is just further evidence of what went wrong when the decision was made to let the kiddies take over the sandbox."? How is that okay, but calling you a cranky old man isn't? Is it perhaps, that you can dish it out, but can't take it? You threw a stone. He threw it back. Sorry if it hit you in the head.

rroberson -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 8:28:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: rroberson I thought after the last time you dropped by to give us your..."opinion" you promised you wouldnt be back. Seems like to me, if you truly hated the game that much you wouldn't spend nearly as much time here as you. Admit it, when no one is looking your break out WITP.[8\|] Some people just like to hear their voices [:D]. And you sir, remind me of that crankly old man who lives down the street taking away everyone's baseballs who happen to land in his yard. If you dislike the game this much, program your own. horse dead now. Cite me one instance where I said I hate this game. Tell me why it is, after I express an opinion, you (and others) find it necessary to engage in personal insults and sarcasm. The reason I don't post in these forums very much is people like you. I got thoroughly sick and tired of being attacked by people who don't have the brains to read the ingredients list on a milk carton. I am here with faint hopes that patch 1.8 will right the ship to the extent that I (and the 13 other members of my wargaming club) will be able to get back to playing it. As it is, the bugs alone have caused us all to hang it up (we don't even begin to address the deficiencies in the game system and poor historical simulation). We don't get what we're after, we're gone for good (many of the guys have chastised me for coming back here at all, and your post I quote here pretty much convinces me that I should listen to them, but I have wanted to like and enjoy this game SO much for SO long...). So buzz off. I really shouldn't do this anymore. It just annoys me to see the constant negative comments coming from one poster. My god man...I have had this game what 2 years? more? Its still on my hard drive. I still play it on a day to day basis. I can list at least 60 games that have come and gone from my hard drive in that time, yet this one continues to endure. Every game has bugs. Every game does things that I can step back and say eh? If you honestly think its that bad (and by your own admission you do) why keep coming back to the forums and throwing grenades? Thats what I don't get. If you are waiting for a patch to come in to "right" the ship. You will be dissappointed, because some people will never be satisfied. I apologize to the original poster for hijacking his thread. I will say no more on this subject.

pasternakski -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 8:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rroberson I have had this game what 2 years? more? Its still on my hard drive. I still play it on a day to day basis. Just 'cause yer still screwin' 'er don't make 'er any better lookin'

pad152 -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 9:45:01 AM)
The stupid issue stems from the badly implemented production system. The production system was poorly designed (copied from GG's games like USAAF, Battle of Britain, etc). Just look at aircraft engine production where Japan is wasting resources in building engines not even used (that's historical?). [8\|] I hope the production system is better designed in WITP2.

Andy Mac -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 10:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: rroberson I have had this game what 2 years? more? Its still on my hard drive. I still play it on a day to day basis. Just 'cause yer still screwin' 'er don't make 'er any better lookin' Now that was funny [:D][:D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:22:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942 I started a new PBEM game of WITP in the hopes that it would at least be a little historical. My mistake.[:D] I dropped that notion on the first turn when the US CV's were targeted, and all the Eastern Pacific Islands were invaded on Dec 7+8th. A 3 week bonus move for the entire IJN with NO fuel expenditure. So on turn two I started treating this game as an Age of Empires RTS game. Which is why some house rules discussion is so necessary. You were looking for one type of game, and he for another. You should have saved yourself 1599 turns of agrivation and just told him he needed to find another opponant for turn 2. Some folks love this kind of "anything goes" nonsense---others want a much more historically restricted simulation. Some respond to an "anything the rules and scenario allow" battle cry, others immediately begin trying to close the loopholes as fast as they are discovered. You just hooked up with the wrong opponant.

pauk -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 1:09:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski Just 'cause yer still screwin' 'er don't make 'er any better lookin' It does. A man with your age should experienced that.

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 6:51:34 PM)
quote: who don't have the brains to read the ingredients list on a milk carton. Err... Is there a reason why I need to read the ingredients list on a milk carton? After all, all I expect to find in such a container is... wait for it... milk! Hehe. Sorry. quote: I have had this game what 2 years? more? Its still on my hard drive. I still play it on a day to day basis. Ditto for me. Though I play less often than I used to, because of my broad interests... (WoW, the scourge of humanity.) quote: Just 'cause yer still screwin' 'er don't make 'er any better lookin' My goodness. Such anger. If someone else enjoys a product that I do not (be it music, games, movies, sports, clothing fashions), it's no skin off my nose. (And the reverse is true as well. I like the game. But if you don't, that's fine. I hope you have better luck next time in regards to your gaming expenditures.) You have the right to be upset if you think the product was poorly coded, and failed to deliver on it's promises. But your beef is with the game developer, not the players that actually still enjoy it, correct? If I may be allowed to speculate, I think that some of the "flaming" you feel is directed towards your critical posts stems from the belief that if you dislike (or are disappointed in) the game as much as you "seem to" in your postings, why are you still here? Your just spiking your blood pressure for little gain. Is it actually that the "tone" of your voice in these posts not as "loud" as some readers "hear in their minds" when they read them? Edit for spelling goofs. Sigh. My Yorktown class CV for a forum spellchecker.

pasternakski -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 8:56:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees I play less often than I used to, because of my broad interests... I'm still interested in broads, too, but I hope to get over that by the time I'm 80 or so. Look. You just don't get it. I simply said that fiddling with the code to allow user modifications does damage to the inner guts of the game engine. I tried to make the point that we would all be better off if people would stop clamoring for more control and allow those responsible for the game to get it right before we veer off in the "I want unlimited jet propelled fighter planes, and I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get them" direction. I have never said I dislike the game, and I am not upset about anything, although it rankles me some when people start shooting their mouths off at my personal expense - shouldn't it? I am here because I hope that the new patch - if and when we ever see it - squashes enough bugs that I can finally enjoy playing WitP, something I have hoped for since I first learned that it was going to be made - patch after patch after haphazard, create-new-problems-and-make-the-old-ones-worse patch. I post because I am unwilling to accept this flawed product as having delivered on the manufacturer's implied promise of merchantable goods. As I have said before, if you like it, fine, go play the Gollum-like thing. Just don't expect me to shut up and go away because you want to live in your fantasy world where everything is beautiful and nothing hurts. I want results. I want the game I was expecting when I bought it. I want it now. Wah wah wah wah waaaaahhh (that was George Harrison on the "wah-wah" pedal). Can I go back to having fun here now without y'all applying your folksy pop culture psychological analysis to my posts with a view toward relieving your own angst by reassuring yourselves that you're so much better than I am because you not only can see the emperor's new clothes, but are hell bent on doing so? (Now there's a convoluted sentence for you to parse if ever there was one).

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 9:28:29 PM)
quote: Look. You just don't get it. I simply said that fiddling with the code to allow user modifications does damage to the inner guts of the game engine. I tried to make the point that we would all be better off if people would stop clamoring for more control and allow those responsible for the game to get it right before we veer off in the "I want unlimited jet propelled fighter planes, and I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get them" direction. Hmmm. I do not recall too much screaming for Me-262's here. But I don't read the forums as much as you, so maybe you see it more. My understanding of an editor is one that helps a person edit the database. There are several databases, for example, there is the one that the game uses to "set up" scenarios. (For example, changing the "at start" location of some of your units.) There is another that lists the configuration of ships. (To differentiate between different destroyer classes, for example. And their upgrades.) And one that specifies the performance of the different weapon systems. (8 inch naval gun versus a 12 inch one.) But the editor will not let me change the basic underlying game engine. If you wish to play the game unmodded, that's more than ok by me. Why does it bother you if I play my solo game where I added the USS Ranger (CV4), USS Augusta, USS Trenton to enter as reinforcements sometime in '42? (I served on USS Ranger CV61, so I wanted to include her namesake.) I certainly would not expect to add this group into the game versus a PBEM opponent. I do not see how my adding a near-Wasp CV, a Northampton class CA, and an Omaha CL to my force's OOB is going to break the game engine. (Adding an extra flattop to my side, with a possible CV respawn, might be a little bit unbalanced versus the AI/IJN, but for some reason, he is not complaining.) Part of the appeal of user moddable games is that you can tweak, where desired, to see "what if". It adds to replayability factor. It makes your game seem unique, therefore special. It adds to the reputation of the game developer, in that I would look a little more closely at their additional titles.

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 10:04:48 PM)
quote: I have never said I dislike the game, and I am not upset about anything, OK. I can't read minds (especially over the Internet), but then there was three paragraphs of: quote: I post because I am unwilling to accept this flawed product as having delivered on the manufacturer's implied promise of merchantable goods.... quote: Just don't expect me to shut up and go away because you want to live in your fantasy world where everything is beautiful and nothing hurts. I want results. I want the game I was expecting when I bought it. I want it now.... quote: Can I go back to having fun here now without y'all applying your folksy pop culture psychological analysis to my posts with a view toward relieving your own angst by reassuring yourselves that you're so much better than I am because you not only can see the emperor's new clothes, but are hell bent on doing so? Now, I am not schooled in "pop culture phsychological" fansy shmansy anything. Just a regular schmoe with a regular 40-sumthin years of watching my fellow humans scurry to and fro. But it seems as if you are indeed "upset". I have not attacked you personnally, nor do I expect to. But I am curious about, and merely ask clarification on, some of the statements you make here. That is how I figure out what you meant, or felt. You have made several statements above indicating your (incorrect) view of my perception of reality, my (incorrect) need for instant gratification (if I had that problem, why would I be playing a game that takes as long to play as it took to actually fight the war IRL?), and my opinion of you and your play style, despite my statements to the contrary. Why is that? Have I been unclear somewhere? PS- I figure that the only "correct" play style is one that that player enjoys. If you play the game but don't enjoy it, then you are indeed doing sumthin wrong. I do not feel that I am "better than you" in any way. I do not know you anywhere near enough to have reached that conclusion.

rroberson -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:27:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees quote: Look. You just don't get it. I simply said that fiddling with the code to allow user modifications does damage to the inner guts of the game engine. I tried to make the point that we would all be better off if people would stop clamoring for more control and allow those responsible for the game to get it right before we veer off in the "I want unlimited jet propelled fighter planes, and I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get them" direction. Hmmm. I do not recall too much screaming for Me-262's here. But I don't read the forums as much as you, so maybe you see it more. My understanding of an editor is one that helps a person edit the database. There are several databases, for example, there is the one that the game uses to "set up" scenarios. (For example, changing the "at start" location of some of your units.) There is another that lists the configuration of ships. (To differentiate between different destroyer classes, for example. And their upgrades.) And one that specifies the performance of the different weapon systems. (8 inch naval gun versus a 12 inch one.) But the editor will not let me change the basic underlying game engine. If you wish to play the game unmodded, that's more than ok by me. Why does it bother you if I play my solo game where I added the USS Ranger (CV4), USS Augusta, USS Trenton to enter as reinforcements sometime in '42? (I served on USS Ranger CV61, so I wanted to include her namesake.) I certainly would not expect to add this group into the game versus a PBEM opponent. I do not see how my adding a near-Wasp CV, a Northampton class CA, and an Omaha CL to my force's OOB is going to break the game engine. (Adding an extra flattop to my side, with a possible CV respawn, might be a little bit unbalanced versus the AI/IJN, but for some reason, he is not complaining.) Part of the appeal of user moddable games is that you can tweak, where desired, to see "what if". It adds to replayability factor. It makes your game seem unique, therefore special. It adds to the reputation of the game developer, in that I would look a little more closely at their additional titles. A Ranger sailor!!!! When did you serve on her...I made a couple of Westpacs with her (1985-1990). Good old days.

Feinder -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:42:11 PM)
There's usually something amusing to read around here... -F-

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:47:34 PM)
quote: A Ranger sailor!!!! When did you serve on her...I made a couple of Westpacs with her (1985-1990). Good old days. I reported aboard 26 January, 1986, as a Data Systems Technician 3rd Class. (Two days before the space shuttle Challenger blew up.) Served in OED division, Operations Department. I departed the ship, and the Navy, on 25 November, 1989. Two WestPacs (1987, 1989). One Surge Cruise (1986, out to Japan and back via North Pacific. Port visits in Saesebo and Pusan. And Vancouver? I forget. What-ever year the World Fair was in Vancouver, I stood a watch out on the weatherdeck, sponson #8, 0000 to 0400, in the freezing cold!). One Fleet Ex/ Pineapple cruise. (I forget the year.) I remember that the ship did a big loop around the Hawaiian Islands, "attacking" PH. The defenders, the USAF, could not locate us, and demanded that we give them our position so they could practice "bombing" ships at sea. We gave them positions 6 hours old, and hightailed it outta there. Never was attacked. Hehe. When this cruise was superimposed on a map of the continental USA, we basically looped over an area larger than the US. Kinda makes the point that CV's are uniquely flexible, and hard to find in the vastness of the oceans. In both of those two cruises, we took pride in our "stealthness". The ship ensured that no radio comms or radar emissions "gave away" our position, using aircraft radar for searches and passive radar sensing as much as safely possible. For the Japan cruise, we got to within one days sailing distance of the Tsugaru-Kaikyo(?) strait (The one between Hokkaido and Honshu.) before the Russkie's knew we were there. I only served 6 years active duty, but they were definately a formative time in my life.

Mike Solli -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees I stood a watch out on the weatherdeck, sponson #8, 0000 to 0400, in the freezing cold!). Isn't it funny how you never forget stupid things like this?

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/17/2006 11:57:10 PM)
quote: There's usually something amusing to read around here... Sorry. I am trying to "defuse" pasternakski. Is that wrong? You wish to be amused? OK. Here's me dancing on my desk. dances wipes forehead OK. Here's me trying to explain that one to my boss...

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/18/2006 12:00:14 AM)
quote: Isn't it funny how you never forget stupid things like this? Know what else is funny? When I was there, I couldn't wait to get the hell outta the Navy! Nowadays, I miss my old buds...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/18/2006 12:34:46 AM)
I don't think Pasternaski is belching over modders using the editor. Fill your boots I bet he would say. It's an editor. What he is pointing to I believe are features added under pressure from the forum community, in this case Real Time Strategy fans clammering for PDUs, when really any effort should have been put towards making the product function as advertised first. In the end we got what the RTS types ("the kids") wanted, a near useless feature unless smothered in yet more house rules instead of operational limits on ports, or a more acceptable air model, functional land model etc. Basically, the kids won out and it's Lucky Charms for breakfast instead of fibre rich Muslix.[;)]

mlees -> RE: 661 4E`s shot down (4/18/2006 12:44:01 AM)
Unfortunately, I remember being one of those guys asking for PDU's. I remember wishing for more longer ranged fighter escorts. shrugs But since I only play the AI, I never noticed the game getting too gamey... (I play conservatively. I dont like sending blockade runners in to get sunk. I dont use little AK's as fleet scouts. I dont like seeing heavy losses in my air farce.) What house rules are the most common for PDU's? What did the PDU system break? Is it a matter of tweaking production rates?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.21875