Coming Fury Scenario Comments (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback



Message

Gil R. -> Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/22/2007 1:26:11 AM)

We would very much like feedback on the new, improved July 1861 scenario, "The Coming Fury." Please let us know what you think of it. We are eager to provide additional scenarios for FOF, but want to first make sure that we got this one right.



will b -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/22/2007 2:50:53 AM)

IMO if you'd create a scenario that combines the Southern Steel economy with the OoB in The Coming Fury that would be ideal.



Gil R. -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/22/2007 3:02:28 AM)

It's something we've considered.

I'll take your post as one vote in favor of keeping the OOB as is.



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/22/2007 5:56:08 AM)

Just add a few Gunboats as Ericbabe and I were discussing, and maybe slightly tweak up the CSA economy a wee bit, and add a CSA fort north Memphis at Columbus, KY and add 2 garrison infantry units in LA at NO and Ft. St. Philip. Just my take on things, but the July 1861 Scenario as it stands is good.

Chris



sven6345789 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/22/2007 10:33:39 PM)

just downloaded the patch today and think that the setup( includes OOB) is pretty good; the patch has really improved the game, as far as i can tell



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/23/2007 9:19:21 AM)

There are some strange things happening at the Lt. Col level of play with both economies set just about equal at 0 fro the USA and 1 for the CSA.

As the CSA player, I lost Petersburg and Richmond (James River), but 15-turns and more after I lost these provinces, the USA refused to take Raphahanock province, and one Corps of my ANV just sat there unmolested for about 5 turns, and it would probably still be sitting in Raphahannock province if after trying 4-times to move the Corps out through USA territory it finally did move out and was unmolested doing so.

By mid 1863 I had a toatl of about 200,000 CS troops in the field, and had one large army of about 105 - 110,000 troops and a smaller one of about 45,000 plus garrisons and secondary forces. the 45,000 man army took a trip through Cairo and Illinois and Springfield and the reat of Indiana and part og Ohio and came out at about 1/2 strenght through West Virginia.

Then the main 100,000 strong CSA army fought one similar strngth USA army and got the worst of it because the CSA economy at the low setting I have it set at allowed very little Arty. to be produced and the USAhad plenty of Arty, plus another 100,000 man USA army showed up and that was it.  Boring hordes of Ynkeedom.

The CSA economy has to be given a boost in order to keep the game in the ballpark with the economic might of the USA.

I will now play at a slightly lower dificulty level, and give the CSA Pres. a power of 2 and keep the USA Pres. at a power of 0, plus I will try the Richer Economy setting again with these Power Settings.

Ho hum.  I have to diddle with the guns File some more and make it much more accurate. I can't understand why the Liege piece-of-junk rifle has the same range and accuracy as the the Mississippi/Haper's Ferry rifle.  This just wan't so, among other things.

The 10pdr. Parrott had a slightly longer range than the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, but in FoF this is reversed.  Must change this for my piece of mind.

Chris






ericbabe -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 3:51:24 AM)

We can make a liege-bad-gun patch, but everything I found on it said that the model they were importing during the war was patterned after the Enfield and had similar performance.  My sources for this are a bit subjective ("performed like the enfield"), so if you can find some data sources that have numbers I'll be happy to change the data table officially.

Dean Thomas (Intro to Civ War Artillery) gives the 10pdr Parrott 100 yard longer range than the 3" Ordnance, but Philip Cole gives them both 1850 yards.  The "Confederate Ordnance Manual" gives a 100 yd advantage to the Parrott at 5-degrees, which I've seen as a frequently used angle for comparison.  The clincher for us was this article by Jim Morgan (http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm) in which he comes down decidedly on the side of the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, writing:

quote:


Unquestionably the best rifled gun of its day was the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle. ... The bursting problem was solved. What plagued the Parrott was virtually nonexistent in the wrought iron gun. Only one Ordnance Rifle is known to have burst during the entire Civil War.... The "3-inch wrought iron rifle" had a slightly greater effective range than the Parrott and compared favorably even with the British Whitworth for accuracy."






Jaypea -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 4:36:52 AM)

I find this scenario tracks historically very well although it seems really difficult to get emaniciaption.   I defeated the CSA AI in late 1865 without ever having the oppurtunity to emanicipate.   I was using the total victory option also.

JP



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 5:55:14 AM)

quote:

We can make a liege-bad-gun patch, but everything I found on it said that the model they were importing during the war was patterned after the Enfield and had similar performance. My sources for this are a bit subjective ("performed like the enfield"), so if you can find some data sources that have numbers I'll be happy to change the data table officially.

Dean Thomas (Intro to Civ War Artillery) gives the 10pdr Parrott 100 yard longer range than the 3" Ordnance, but Philip Cole gives them both 1850 yards. The "Confederate Ordnance Manual" gives a 100 yd advantage to the Parrott at 5-degrees, which I've seen as a frequently used angle for comparison. The clincher for us was this article by Jim Morgan (http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm) in which he comes down decidedly on the side of the 3-inch Ordnance Gun, writing:


Eric, You are confusing a different rifle with the Liege rifled musket that I am referring to. The Liege of .69 to .72 cal. I am referring to AND AS YOUR GAME DESCRIPTION OF IT DESCRIBES was/is a piece of junk as far as accuracy at range is concerned, and not only that, it had a very large screwhead on the buttplate that digs into your shoulder when you fire it.

You don't have the as it was termed much better 'French Rifle' in FoF!!! This so-called 'French Rifle' is a bit of a mystery and is not the Belgian made Liege that is in the game and that I am referring to. This so-called French Rifle may have been a Belgian Liege produced in the more accuracy enchancing .58 cal. rather than the huge and inaccuracy producing .69 cal. of the standard Belgian Liege Rifles that are in the game.

The Belgian Liege Rifles in the game have the same range and effectiveness as the fine Mississippi/Harper's Ferry Rifles, and that was just not so. The Miss. Rifles were very superior to the Belgian Liege Rifles of .69 cal., and that is a WELL KNOWN FACT.

Yes, the 3" Ordnance Gun was slightly more accurate than the 10-pdr. Parrott, supposedly that is, but THE PARROTT HAD A RANGE OF ABOUT 100 TO 150-YARDS MORE THAN THE 3" ORDNANCE GUN AT 5-DEGREES OF ELEVATION, WHICH IS WHAT ALL SOURCES STATE AS THE NORM OR AVERAGE FOR ANGLES OF FIRING.

***You have the 3" Ordnance Gun with a far greater range than the 10-pdr. Parrott and that is way off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!***

I gave links to sites with the ranges before.

You are confusing 'likeability' and reliability concerning bursting with GUN RANGE. In fact, there was little difference in gun accuracy between the 2-cannon, and some gun crews preferred the 10-pdr. Parrott all the way around, but that just depended on the gun crew's own experience with the guns and resultant likes and dislikes.

You might want to make a 'Corrected Weapons Gun file patch', as there are many things in the present file that are confused and a bit off.

Chris



Gil R. -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 6:51:34 AM)

quote:


You might want to make a 'Corrected Weapons Gun file patch', as there are many things in the present file that are confused and a bit off.


What are the other things? We want that file as accurate as possible, and where we're shown we've got something wrong we want to fix it.



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 7:12:42 AM)

quote:

What are the other things? We want that file as accurate as possible, and where we're shown we've got something wrong we want to fix it.


The classification, ranges, and damage values of some of the weapons are way off, as are some of the descriptions.

I have stated this before, and I know what I am talking about and have backed it up with links on the inet awhile back.

i posted a more accurate description of the Richmond Musket and posted it here. i save much of what I and others write, and I am using that description in MY Gun.txt file, and plan to rehash the whole file to a more accurate degree.

Also, the picture you have for the 9-inch Blakely is a picture of the breech end that has had its original barrel cut off for scrapping and replaced with a long piece of iron or stell piping. This photo of this butchered gun and the accurate description of what it is is at the Encyclopedia of Civil War Arty., one the site links I had previoulsy posted.

Next, there is not any sense in having a 10-inch Columbiad and a 10-inch Rodman in the game as the Rodman was just a New Model Columbiad cast with the Rodman Process. In the game, the 10-inch Columbiad is more powerful than the 10-inch Rodman Columbiad when in reality it was just the reverse.

**Four versions of the Columbiad exisited in the ACW: 1) The early or Old Model 8 and 10-inch Columbiad Shell Guns, not designed to throw solid shot; 2) the new Model Columbiads that had newer elevating ratchets etc. but were still Shell Guns; 3) about 300 or so New Model Columbiads of 10-inch bore that could throw both Shell and Solid Shot; 4) the 10-inch Rodman New Model Columbiads that could throw both Shell and Solid Shot and were superior to the previous models of the Columbiad.**

So, why not make the 10-inch Columbiad in the game represent all the previous models of the Columbiad both 8 and 10-inch, and have the 10-inch Rodman New Model Columbiad represent itself and the 300 or so New Model 10-inch Columbiads that could throw both Shot and Shell, and also make the performance values of the Rodman Columbiad Class better than the Old and new Model Columbiads that could only throw Shell and not Solid Shot.

I'll post the links again and you will see what I mean.

Chris

PS: The 15" Rodman is a New Model Columbiad pattern, and the New Model Columbiad Shot gun, the Rodman Columbiads, and the 9, 11 and 15" Dahlgrens could throw both Shell and Shot making these dual capability/purpose big guns vey useful. The reason some guns could only through Shell was that they wer purposefully designed that way in the Age of Wooden Ships, since shells would tear-up a ship's masts and rigging, rain lethal shrapnel on the deck, and also cause fires to be started. Shell guns had a large hemispherical chamber in the breech where the powder bag(s) sat while Shot guns didn't have this large powder chamber.



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 2:26:22 PM)

Here is the Field Arty. purchase screen from a game in progress. Note the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle has one more hex or whatever unit of range and it has higher damage or effectiveness values than the 10-pdr. Parrott, when the 10-pdr. Parrott actually had the slightly longer range at 5-degree angle of firing. Funny that the damage/effectiveness values are different when from mid-war on the same ammo could be used in both gun types after the later model 10-pdr. Parrott's bore was enlarged to the same 3" diameter as the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle in order to make use of the same standardized ammo.





[image]local://upfiles/23184/D62AEB1B2D5E4756AE0489B5A5721210.jpg[/image]



Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 4:18:07 PM)

It's not a huge difference - those stats are pretty consistent with the original research indicating that the Ordnance Rifle was _slightly_ better than the Parrot.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 4:19:24 PM)

Chris,

That's odd - I just noticed that those stats are not the ones from 1.9.4, where arty gained charge protection. Are you sure you are running the right version?

Regards,

- Erik



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 6:13:03 PM)

quote:

Chris,

That's odd - I just noticed that those stats are not the ones from 1.9.4, where arty gained charge protection. Are you sure you are running the right version?

Regards,

- Erik


Yes, I did upgrade, but I see I must do it again. I have 2 computers with the game installed and am almost positive I upgrade both with the new patch, but maybe I didn't. I'll check. [&:][X(]

I also left one of my computer's on all night and this morning, this one. [&:]

Chris



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 6:20:17 PM)

quote:

It's not a huge difference - those stats are pretty consistent with the original research indicating that the Ordnance Rifle was _slightly_ better than the Parrot.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations


Guy, you cannot see for yourself that the Ordnance Rifle has a longer range than the 10-pdr. Parrott in the game when it is just the opposite!??! I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness.

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.

Toodles, Chris





Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 6:28:09 PM)

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Guy, you cannot see for yourself that the Ordnance Rifle has a longer range than the 10-pdr. Parrott in the game when it is just the opposite!??! I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness.


You need to step back and realize that you just insulted me for no apparent reason. I'm not ignoring simple facts nor am I being stubborn. I was simply commenting that the difference in the game values of the Parrot and Ordnance Rifle is not large - the Ordnance Rifle is slightly better, which is consistent with the _original_ research as Eric described it.

Eric explained his research and I was commenting that, given that research, the values in the game make sense. I'm not against changing it, I just don't see it as a major issue given that the research seems to indicate the two were quite similar in performance, which they are.

Given that you seem to be forming some of your conclusions based on a non-updated installation of the game, I suggest again that you step back and calm down.

quote:

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.


I've probably read less on them than you, but I've read a fair amount. That's irrelevant in this case though. It's not a contest of whether I've read more than you or vice versa. I was commenting on Eric's posted research vs. the current game values.

Regards,

- Erik



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 6:37:24 PM)

quote:

You need to step back and realize that you just insulted me for no apparent reason. I'm not ignoring simple facts nor am I being stubborn. I was simply commenting that the difference in the game values of the Parrot and Ordnance Rifle is not large - the Ordnance Rifle is slightly better, which is consistent with the _original_ research as Eric described it.

Eric explained his research and I was commenting that, given that research, the values in the game make sense. I'm not against changing it, I just don't see it as a major issue given that the research seems to indicate the two were quite similar in performance, which they are.

Given that you seem to be forming some of your conclusions based on a non-updated installation of the game, I suggest again that you step back and calm down.

quote:

I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all. For all practical purposes there wasn't any difference in the accuracy of the 2 guns, and they were nearly equal, with the experience of the crew providing much of the accuracy. However, the crew could not affect the range.

I've probably read less on them than you, but I've read a fair amount. That's irrelevant in this case though. It's not a contest of whether I've read more than you or vice versa. I was commenting on Eric's posted research vs. the current game values.

Regards,

- Erik


I insulted you!??! I have never seen you write 'I didn't know that.' or simialr. I do that, and so do some other people here, not many but some do, and that is just normal converstation and politeness. Anyone that thinks they know everything has a problem.

You are the one that makes it a contest. I don't feel that way at all, but I sure as don't appreciate certain smuggness and attitudes given off by some people.

You should calm down and realize how you come-off to people at times, such as accusing me of being a 'saboteur'. Sounds as if you are rather paranoid for some reason or other.

Chris





Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/24/2007 7:04:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
I insulted you!??! I have never seen you write 'I didn't know that.' or simialr. I do that, and so do some other people here, not many but some do, and that is just normal converstation and politeness. Anyone that thinks they know everything has a problem.


"I do not know how someone can ignore simple facts like you are doing. Your research is more like subjective stubborness."

Read your words above. Those are insults. I did not do the original research, nor am I ignoring simple facts. I merely commented that the stats didn't seem that far off and did seem to match the original research, which showed more than one side to the performance of those two cannons.

quote:

You are the one that makes it a contest. I don't feel that way at all, but I sure as don't appreciate certain smuggness and attitudes given off by some people.


I made it a contest? You said this: "I bet you haven't read all that much about ACW weapons at all." That's what made it seem like a contest, not my comments on the stats not being that far out of whack.

quote:

You should calm down and realize how you come-off to people at times, such as accusing me of being a 'saboteur'. Sounds as if you are rather paranoid for some reason or other.


I never called you a saboteur, I don't know what the heck you are talking about there. Now I'm paranoid? Keep digging, bud. Looks to me like you "don't play well with others" and continuing to sling insults at a moderator has pretty much one outcome. Calm down and rethink your position, you're flat wrong on what you've said about me.

Regards,

- Erik



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 2:39:27 AM)

quote:

I never called you a saboteur, I don't know what the heck you are talking about there. Now I'm paranoid? Keep digging, bud. Looks to me like you "don't play well with others" and continuing to sling insults at a moderator has pretty much one outcome. Calm down and rethink your position, you're flat wrong on what you've said about me.

Regards,

- Erik


Rethink what you say to people and quit being in denial and acting like a little kid.

You said I was attempting to sabotage FoF.

You have convenient amnesia. I have met yout type before. Seems the little boy ruffled egos and behind the scenes backstabbing is alive and well on the inet.

Chris



Gil R. -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 3:06:07 AM)

cristof139,
I just did keyword searches for "saboteur" and "sabotage" in the FOF forum, and the only time that "saboteur" pops up is in the "ETA on the Patch" thread when you made a similar comment about being accused of being a saboteur, and the word "sabotage" never comes up in reference to you. So, much as I hate to wade into this argument, I believe you are wrongly recalling whatever Erik might have written.

Also, knowing Erik personally, I should say that I cannot think of a person less likely to be paranoid or suffering from any other significant personality disorder. Seeing as how he makes his living in the world of computer games, that's actually quite a statement.

I know that Erik, Eric and I all value your input on guns and numerous other aspects of FOF -- can't we keep this to being a discussion of how to improve the game even more, rather than how to improve each other's character?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 4:38:56 AM)

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Rethink what you say to people and quit being in denial and acting like a little kid.
You said I was attempting to sabotage FoF.
You have convenient amnesia. I have met yout type before. Seems the little boy ruffled egos and behind the scenes backstabbing is alive and well on the inet.


Prove it. Post a link to where I said that, go ahead. If you can't prove it, then I expect a prompt and complete apology.

Regards,

- Erik



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 10:31:06 AM)

quote:

Prove it. Post a link to where I said that, go ahead. If you can't prove it, then I expect a prompt and complete apology.

Regards,

- Erik


You will get no apology from me. The post that you stated your little sly and ridiculous remark is back in the February or earlier posts. I remember it well.

You have convenient amnesia and I am through with your insults, etc.

Who in the heck are supposed to be?? You talk to people as if they are complete dummies etc., well the joke is on you.

Like I said, I have met many self-righteous arrogant types like yourself in the past and it is the same story and same defensive nature about everything.

You apologize since it was you with your remark to a paying customer that that paying customer was trying to sabotage FoF, and that paying custoemr was myself.

You don't demand anything of me bubba, and you should grow-up a bit and quit insulting people and forgetting what you say. Knowing you, I wouldn't doubt that you deleted the post anyway.

I relegate this affair to the chicken-do-do heap whence the chicken-do-do originated from to begin with, here and with you etc.

See you later your most Royal Highness, Chris



christof139 -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 10:42:16 AM)

quote:

cristof139,
I just did keyword searches for "saboteur" and "sabotage" in the FOF forum, and the only time that "saboteur" pops up is in the "ETA on the Patch" thread when you made a similar comment about being accused of being a saboteur, and the word "sabotage" never comes up in reference to you. So, much as I hate to wade into this argument, I believe you are wrongly recalling whatever Erik might have written.

Also, knowing Erik personally, I should say that I cannot think of a person less likely to be paranoid or suffering from any other significant personality disorder. Seeing as how he makes his living in the world of computer games, that's actually quite a statement.

I know that Erik, Eric and I all value your input on guns and numerous other aspects of FOF -- can't we keep this to being a discussion of how to improve the game even more, rather than how to improve each other's character?


Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.

Personally, I was jumped on for not any apparent reason and that is obvious from those past posts.

I don't know who you people think you are, but it seems you have a problem with a lot of your paying customers and have put yourselves on some sort of pedestal of all assuming knowledge.

I was quite friendly and even tried to be a bit humorous, but to not any avail. As for the ACW, well sorry, I see that many have moved on and it is time fro me to also quit wasting my time.

I hate to inform you but there are many people with knowledge of the ACW are that are extremely more pleasant and reciprocating in conversation, although in most inet groups this is a semi-rarity.

I don't have any respect for some of the nonsense and those responsible for that nonsense that occurred here.

An ex-customer, Chris



Gil R. -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 11:33:17 AM)

quote:


Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.


Well, this sentence might explain what's going on here. You might be remembering a comment by ericbabe, not Erik Rutins. I vaguely recall a post by Eric some time ago in which he asked that someone (maybe you, maybe not) not make claims that some statistics in the game were wildly incorrect without backing up those claims by providing a reference. The reason, as Eric explained, was that our business can be hurt by negative comments that circulate about our products. Now, when those negative comments are accurate, we have no objections to their circulating -- sure, we might not like it, but if we screw up then our customers are more than entitled to complain about it, and it's our job to fix our mistakes. But if a criticism is itself mistaken, then it hurts our business UNDESERVEDLY. Since FOF came out, more than a few negative comments about the game -- and here I am in no way referring to comments you have made -- were made by people who, to be blunt, didn't know what they were talking about. Most commonly, these people hadn't bothered to read the manual and therefore didn't understand what was happening, and jumped to the conclusion that our game was flawed and let everyone out there know this. That's one example of a way that our game's reputation can be hurt undeservedly. It is quite possible that a month or two ago you were the one who made a critical comment about the game and were challenged by Eric -- NOT Erik -- to back it up, since if you were not basing your statements on documented facts you would have been, for lack of a better word, sabotaging the game's reputation. Now, that might not have been your intention -- in fact, I have never for a second thought that you had the goal of hurting our game's reputation, and you have made more comments than I can count that were intended to improve it -- but it is possible that you unintentionally were doing so nonetheless. Of course, (if you were the person to whom Eric responded) if what you wrote was accurate, you were perfectly justified in writing it; if you were wrong, then you would not have been; either way, something you wrote might have made Eric concerned that you were attacking the game unjustifiably. Eric may have been wrong in surmising that, but as I hope you can understand, there have been a lot of misinformed negative appraisals of the game, and it's sometimes hard to discern who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

I'm not going to take the time to read through dozens of threads and hundreds of posts to prove it, but the smart money is on Eric having challenged one or more of your claims and asked for documentation before he made changes to the guns.txt file or some such thing, and you then confused Eric with Erik in your posts above.

Just a possibility for you to consider.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 4:55:13 PM)

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
You will get no apology from me. The post that you stated your little sly and ridiculous remark is back in the February or earlier posts. I remember it well.
You have convenient amnesia and I am through with your insults, etc.
Who in the heck are supposed to be?? You talk to people as if they are complete dummies etc., well the joke is on you.
Like I said, I have met many self-righteous arrogant types like yourself in the past and it is the same story and same defensive nature about everything.
You apologize since it was you with your remark to a paying customer that that paying customer was trying to sabotage FoF, and that paying custoemr was myself.


Given your behavior towards me in this thread, I didn't expect anything different, but let me help you out a bit here. After your comment about "Eric or Erik", I took a look back through the threads...

Why don't you read this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1385183&mpage=1&key=�

How interesting. Eric Babe (not me) commented there that you should tone down your posts criticizing the game. You got up in arms and called him rude and pathetic as well as launching a multi-point criticism. All I did was close the thread politely before it got further out of hand. What was the result? Eric still listened and incorporated the 15 inch Dahlgren in the new update. Then, a month later, you jump on me for posting what he posted, which I did not.

Is there another thread you were thinking of? If so, I'll keep looking, but I know it won't have my name on it. My guess is this fits the bill and it's you who has a memory issue, not me.

quote:

You don't demand anything of me bubba, and you should grow-up a bit and quit insulting people and forgetting what you say. Knowing you, I wouldn't doubt that you deleted the post anyway.
I relegate this affair to the chicken-do-do heap whence the chicken-do-do originated from to begin with, here and with you etc. See you later your most Royal Highness, Chris


You just don't know when to quit. When I ask for proof, you just accuse me of arrogance and bad memory.

When I made a perfectly reasonable reply in this thread commenting that the stats in the game weren't that far from what you were suggesting, you jumped all over me, then started accusing me of posts I didn't make. As near as I can tell, Eric Babe made the post that you are apparently still holding a grudge over and I can't see that he didn't have good reason to post it then.

It takes a lot of patience to deal with people who throw boulders when they are living in glass houses. I suggest you consider that you've been busy attacking the wrong guy and going way overboard in doing so. Frankly, if you had been attacking another customer instead of me, you'd have already had an official warning by now, but I can take the heat in order to get you to realize your mistake. How about an apology now?

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 5:01:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Well Gil, I was accused by ann eric or Erik here of wanting to sabotage FoF. The post was in fevbruary or before.
Personally, I was jumped on for not any apparent reason and that is obvious from those past posts.


I posted the thread I found, which doesn't support your characterization that I attacked you. If there's another one, take the time to post the link if you're going to make the claim.

quote:

I don't know who you people think you are, but it seems you have a problem with a lot of your paying customers and have put yourselves on some sort of pedestal of all assuming knowledge.


Not at all, we've been soliciting advice for months now and have made a host of changes based on customer feedback, including your own.

quote:

I was quite friendly and even tried to be a bit humorous, but to not any avail. As for the ACW, well sorry, I see that many have moved on and it is time fro me to also quit wasting my time.
I hate to inform you but there are many people with knowledge of the ACW are that are extremely more pleasant and reciprocating in conversation, although in most inet groups this is a semi-rarity.
I don't have any respect for some of the nonsense and those responsible for that nonsense that occurred here.


Given your behavior towards me in this thread, I can't say I would be that sorry to see you move on. As someone who was attacked without justification, I'm not exactly feeling friendly towards you right now. However, you've posted some informative posts and helped us out, so keep this in mind: the decision on whether to be constructive or destructive is entirely your own. In ACW terms, you seem to be a commander who attacks before the scouting is properly done and by doing that you can easily end up in a situation you did not expect.

The fact is and I hope you realize this, that you attacked me based on a mistaken memory and a bad assumption. It would show good faith for you to acknowledge this, stop your attacks and contribute constructively. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then I'll just say farewell.

Regards,

- Erik



ericbabe -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 8:06:39 PM)

Weapon damage at a particular range is not just a function of how far a weapon can shoot -- it does include factors like reloading time and weapon reliability and weapon accuracy.



ericbabe -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 8:27:11 PM)

As for accusations that you were sabotaging FOF, I reckon I made nothing of the sort. Many people were saying very negative things about FOF by way of comparing it to Harry Turtledove-like science fiction and similar, and I chose not to respond to any of that. However I was a bit dismayed to read in one of your posts that you seemed to think that this sort of language was actually a form of constructive criticism and was helping us out -- this notion did prompt a response from me as it took me quite by surprise. By saying "posts like yours seem more like attempts to smear our game" I did not mean that you were attempting to smear our game, I meant simply that posts of this sort simply have this appearance. I made a poor choice of verb as "seem" has five different meanings:

1.to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2.to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3.to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4.to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5.to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.

I meant something like 1/5, as this is how I most often use the word "seem", but you seem to have misunderstood my choice of words as meaning 2 or 3. It was a poor choice of words on my part because ambiguous. I do not think you are attempting to sabotage FOF, and I regret the poor choice of words that may have given this impression.




gunnergoz -> RE: Coming Fury Scenario Comments (3/25/2007 8:50:09 PM)

There is such a thing as having more than your share of posts in a forum.  I am glad to see enthusiastic participation in this forum, but there is such a thing as moderation in frequency and tenor of postings.  Otherwise it seems hijiacked into a personal blog.  Just my 2 bits... 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.828125