RE: Artillery spotting change idea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

Borst50 -> RE: Artillery spotting change idea (1/19/2009 9:41:09 PM)

generally speaking....at least within DGC's....only elements of recon battalions are on the map at any given time...usually a company of armoured cars or motorcycle companies...and what have you....so i am thinking not enough units would be able to be FO's, given the point system in place as to randomly generate support troops for your core battalion/regiment/whatever scale.

and to be honest, the more i think on this...the less sure i am that kind of system would work...at least within the framework of the game. coding issues...enemy AI....it can become a messy situation very rapidly. so perhaps this option can be used for PBEM and stand alone senarios only. but who knows? I have been wrong before. [:D]



FM WarB -> How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 1:31:48 AM)

This is a link to Fire and Fury's tactical WWI miniatures game artillery rules. The scale is not exactly the same, but similar. Note the the discussion and implimentation of different armies' doctrines

http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artytut.shtml



junk2drive -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 1:39:46 AM)

Matrix/Koios Panzer Command uses Panzer War rules www.panzer-war.com

Similar to Combat Mission in that Soviet arty delay is greater than German. Not as bad as CM though.

However PCs arty routine has been debated for change in their forum.




FM WarB -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 1:56:48 AM)

edit...WW II



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 5:02:37 AM)

The way artillery was handled in Steel Panthers was pretty slick.

If I remember right, every turn the area plotted for artillery was given a graphic symbol on the map denoting the fire zone.
Now, if the player wished to change this fire zone to another spot on the map, there was a delay for a number of turns which simulated the time required to re-plot the coordinates and physically move the guns.

The delay would be based on the size of the weapon, as well as distance to the new fire zone.

I suppose these parameters could also be modified to reflect the different doctrines of each country. So the delay for the US could be considerably lower than the Russians.

ChadG



timshin42 -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 5:08:33 AM)

FM WarB

Thank you for this reference. It accurately represents many aspect of artillery. The Fire and Fury rules Game apparently makes a real effort to simulate artillery, and could serve as an initial model for looking at improvements to the JTCS artillery simulation. Come up with a trial model for proposed JTCS changes (Designer Function: what CAN done using the JTCS engine), run it by several experienced Redlegs, preferably British, German, French, Russian, American game players (SME Reality check!).

I am very much in favor of a change in game FA rules, but ONLY if done right. Just putting X number of FO (or FOO) graphical units, with X varying by national army, is nothing but eye candy, and does nothing to represent the differences in national artillery doctrines. It may be appropriate to mention that predicted fires (by the map, without forward observation) were a relatively unique American capability (thanks to GEN McNair), especialy early in the war. Further, the whole concept of predicted precision fires and observed fires was quite alien to Soviet artillery doctrine. To even begin to represent Stalin's "God of War" artillery requires a capabity to mass enormous amounts of artillery on areas, including moving barrages, all preplanned. Can THAT represented within the JTCS game? Even the US artillery had a good ability to mass predicted fire (of the entire CORPS ARTY and ARTY with the CORPS) on a target or group of targets with precision (Time-on-Target or TOT). Even that very basic capabilty has not been simulated in any computer War Game that I know of! But I can assure you that it was present in the BIG "board games" at Ft Leavenworth (C&GS College) during the '70s.

Jason has referred to the current artillery rules as "farcical" He may be right, but I prefer to think of them as "simplistic'. Is there room for improvement? Of course! But even simplistic rules are better than superficial. willy-nilly and silly rules!




junk2drive -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (1/20/2009 5:21:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

The way artillery was handled in Steel Panthers was pretty slick.

If I remember right, every turn the area plotted for artillery was given a graphic symbol on the map denoting the fire zone.
Now, if the player wished to change this fire zone to another spot on the map, there was a delay for a number of turns which simulated the time required to re-plot the coordinates and physically move the guns.

The delay would be based on the size of the weapon, as well as distance to the new fire zone.

I suppose these parameters could also be modified to reflect the different doctrines of each country. So the delay for the US could be considerably lower than the Russians.

ChadG


Fairly correct. TRPs (Gold Spots) are also used. Of the 2 WWII versions commonly played today, they are at opposite ends as far as when delay occurs. USA has the least delay with one game allowing end of turn fire. Lots of bickering amongst players as to how arty should be fixed, lol.

The above is a short, simplistic, text. For more detail search those forums.

Keep in mind that some of us play vs the AI. Any changes must be something the AI can handle.



Achsah -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (10/23/2009 4:16:46 PM)

                Hmmm[:-] I hope i'm not wet blanket here buta wich one of you guys are going to test all the old scenarios if complications such as this complication tweak is added? Making it optional certainly lowers the cost for sure but i see another layer of agreements having to be negotiated..endless debates about what is real or balanced etc in what is not a realistic game..just a well desighned one..ie off go our nails when we play..espeacially in online play. More work for jason to add something i doubt really matters in the overall picture..the game is already good..why fix it. In fact i'm sure its quite doable as a mod. Leave my game alone [:@] whats next? fuel for tanks?with that said i hope everyone is having fun[:D] happy toy soldier killing and breaking of electronic images in your fights.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (10/23/2009 8:44:45 PM)

Pasha, you are a man after my heart! [:)]

Thanks for your comment.

RR



Achsah -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (10/24/2009 4:39:38 AM)

[:D] someones got to do it :P
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Pasha, you are a man after my heart! [:)]

Thanks for your comment.

RR




kool_kat -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (10/24/2009 11:25:07 AM)

[:-] Looks like we are heading down another slippery slope with this "new" old idea concerning artillery spotting?

As I understand this proposal:

* Introducing additional units (FO's) will break all existing scenarios.
* All existing scenarios would need to be updated (that would be hundreds)
* There would need to be different versions of scenarios - for players who wanted to use FO's and those who did not.
* How many FO's to assign per nationality?
* Kill off all (or even some of the enemy FO's), your artillery does not fire (or is not available in some sector) - unbalancing scenarios that were never designed with FO's

Again, why break the game engine to accomodate the next "kool" idea? [&:]

Please, please, please... leave CS alone! Let vets and new players, continue to enjoy CS in its current form.

It has stood the test of time?




timshin42 -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/8/2009 4:37:53 AM)

In the first place, there was never such a thing as an FO "unit". Only DIRECT SUPPORT artillery units had organic FO's assigned and each FO was a Field Artillery LT or NCO, an individual soldier supported usually by an RTO who often doubled as a driver when one was required. The FO's belonged to the FA DS Battalions and were generally attached to the supported maneuver unit Company HQ. So physically speaking, wherever there is a maneuver unit Company HQ there is an FO, generally physically quite close to the Company Commander (except when the FO got killed which was frequent). If you are going to create individual icons as Company Commanders, Company XOs, Company First Sergeants, etc, then it might make sense to have individual FO's as well, but then Mr. Roadrunner would quite apppropiately remind us all to remember the scale of the JTCS game.

In the second place, any PFC with access to a radio could call in Field Artillery fires, so the simple fact that the FO icon is "killed" doesn't mean the maneuver unit is no longer supported by DS FA fires. Just means the speed and efficiency of the function is reduced, plus reducing the strength of a squad or platoon by one rifleman or NCO!

To be blunt, the whole idea of FO units running around the battlefield, under the (gaming) control of the gameplaying "commander" seems totally ludicrous to me. I speak as a career artilleryman who has served as an FA Battery Commander, Maneuver Brigade Fire Support Officer, DS Battalion Fire Direction Officer, and FA instructor at the Basic, Advanced and Command & Staff levels, and as a longtime EF/WF/RS player who loves this game. Don't screw it up with nonsense!

A unit which would add value to the game's FA module would be FATAB (FA Target Acquisition) Batallions, real life WWII units with sound and flash ranging capabilities which greatly expanded the target identification abilty at Division and Corps level, often making "indirect fire by the map" a reality, even without FO spotters.

My soap box for the evening!



kool_kat -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/10/2009 4:32:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timshin42

To be blunt, the whole idea of FO units running around the battlefield, under the (gaming) control of the gameplaying "commander" seems totally ludicrous to me. I speak as a career artilleryman who has served as an FA Battery Commander, Maneuver Brigade Fire Support Officer, DS Battalion Fire Direction Officer, and FA instructor at the Basic, Advanced and Command & Staff levels, and as a longtime EF/WF/RS player who loves this game. Don't screw it up with nonsense!



Another "kool" idea meets it demise when faced with the reality and experience of a career artilleryman? [8D]

Thank you Mr. Haines for your service! [&o]




Jason Petho -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/10/2009 6:05:38 PM)

The Germans in 1940 had Forward Observer battalions assigned to infantry divisions.

The 554th, for example.

In American Infantry and Airbourne units circa 1944, the forward observers were organized as teams and typically operated as teams.

Jason Petho



kool_kat -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/12/2009 11:53:42 AM)

Many WWII infantry units had embedded individual FO's assigned to them.

This practice allowed frontline combat units the capability to call in indirect fire - currently modeled in CS? [8D]



Jason Petho -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/12/2009 3:55:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

Many WWII infantry units had embedded individual FO's assigned to them.

This practice allowed frontline combat units the capability to call in indirect fire - currently modeled in CS? [8D]


Typically at the company headquarters level, unless assiged as a team (for the US and Germany, these were 2 to 8 men) to a forward unit.

Not everyone on the ground could call accurate fire support... in Second World War.

Jason Petho






MrRoadrunner -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/12/2009 7:13:38 PM)

Nor would an artillery barrage only last for six minutes of friendly move and not be around for six minutes of the enemy move?
Isn't most of this already limited by the original game design? [&:]

And, you can click in the beginning of a scenario to not allow "blind fire", thus limiting the "effectiveness" (which can be debated unless, or especially if, you lost some loaded trucks to artillery from a sneaky and lucky opponent).
If you add "designated spotters" that can be seen, and therefore killed off, which would stop all indirect artillery fire, what would be the difference in that than in simply keeping the game as is? Waste of time and effort on this scale, for sure. [8|]

Put spotters in Modern Wars. Why add them to CS, if they do not fit? [:-]

Just a thought. No anger was in mind when the fingers were tapping on the keys. [:)]

RR



timshin42 -> ARTY FOs (11/15/2009 11:34:14 PM)

Correct Mr. RR, absolutely without malice! Just observations.

Do not confuse "FO battalions" (sic)" with FA Target Acquisition Battalions, of which there were more than a few. But that is a whole different chapter, and a totally different course at Ft. Sill!

The US FO "team" was in fact a group of artillery individuals organic to a DS artillery battalion. Only DS battalions would have had them, and they were a section organic to the DS Battalion HQ Battery. Point being, their support was the responsibility of the DS HQ Battery Commander. Since each DS battalion supported a maneuver regiment, there would have been a regimental fire support coordinator, three battalion fire support coordinators and enough forward observers to send one to each supported maneuver company (these FOs were the brand new 2LTs, supported by RTO/drivers) As the 2LTs had a very short shelf life, the actual FO's were often low ranking NCOs or PFCs with a radio. If for a given operation, additional maneuver companies (say a Ranger Battalion) were assigned or attached to the maneuver regiment the DS Arty HQ Btry Commander would have to improvise an additional FO element for each maneuver company.

I do not believe we have ANY distinct artillery HQ units in the JTCS games at any level. Years ago my brother and I designed a scenario modification to the EFII Kharkov scenario including FA battalion HQ and Commanders and DIVARTY and CORPS Arty HQ and Commanders covering all the German artillery units, of which there were many. It really cluttered up the screen unreasonably. It didn't occur to me to put in separate FOs (one for EACH individual company size maneuver unit, plus an FSC for each maneuver battalion and each maneuver regiment,division and corps). Might have been a lot of fun, FOR A SCHIZOPHRENIC REDLEG! But for most I think the minutia would have made the game tedious. Anyone who wants such minutia is free to design it in. I tried it partially, as previously stated, and it wasn't very practical!

As soon as an FO was disabled, the DS battalion had the responsibility of IMMEDIATELY replacing him, so whoever happened to be available, went. If no one was available, an infantry mortar man could assume the task. In short, no matter how fast you kill off FOs, they are instantly replaced by SOMEONE. So the concept of units losing their fire support by FO casualties is a very inaccurate idea. If the "FO units running around the field to become targets" became an option (God forbid a standard) I would personally choose NEVER to play with that option.

But it is a game isn't it? And not a true simulation. If the "wargamers" want such a (to me) peculiar device in their JTCS games, who am I to deny them their fun! 'Nuff said?



timshin42 -> German FO Battalions? (11/15/2009 11:50:27 PM)

This was probably a different approach to the same end. X number of German maneuver companies in a German division; therefore X number of FO elements grouped administratively at the Division Artillery HQ, but still individuals farmed out to the maneuver elements at each level. The end result being similar to the US system but intuitively far less flexible and responsive.

As I had never heard of such units, I can only guess at their effectiveness, but am willing to place a wager that the system was not retained throughout the war, especially after they met US Artillery in North Africa and later in France!



MrRoadrunner -> RE: ARTY FOs (11/16/2009 10:49:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timshin42
But it is a game isn't it? And not a true simulation. If the "wargamers" want such a (to me) peculiar device in their JTCS games, who am I to deny them their fun! 'Nuff said?


You hit the nail on the head.
Making a game into a tediously detailed simulation, which it was never intended to be, to satisfy a small fringe is really going to alienate the core of players.

Graphic upgrades, new units, new scenarios, and new Campaigns should be the priority.

But, I also appreciate the active involvement of "the crew". [:)]

RR



kool_kat -> RE: How a tactical miniatures wargame does it (11/16/2009 2:49:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

Many WWII infantry units had embedded individual FO's assigned to them.

This practice allowed frontline combat units the capability to call in indirect fire - currently modeled in CS? [8D]


Typically at the company headquarters level, unless assiged as a team (for the US and Germany, these were 2 to 8 men) to a forward unit.

Not everyone on the ground could call accurate fire support... in Second World War.

Jason Petho




Nobody made the statement that "everyone on the ground could call in accurate fire support."? [&:]

We are referencing FO's embedded in frontline combat units, farmed out as needed, or ad-hoc FO's formed from a unit's organic elements - e.g. mortar section.

Again, this is already modeled in CS? [&:]



kool_kat -> RE: ARTY FOs (11/16/2009 3:41:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timshin42

But it is a game isn't it? And not a true simulation. If the "wargamers" want such a (to me) peculiar device in their JTCS games, who am I to deny them their fun! 'Nuff said?


That is very true!

Just make it another optional rule... I can keep it "deselected" - just like Variable Visibility and Extreme Assault. [:'(]



dgk196 -> Make a simple designator..... (2/27/2010 4:35:21 AM)

Each organization is specified as to its position in the chain of command. So if you had an entry that specified that the unit is capable of Indirect fire, or not by having a data entry of say 'N' for no, and numbers for yes. Then if its a 'number' it can support units determined by the numerical entry. That is a 'regimental level' unit would support units within the regimental organization, the battalions and companies. But if you also allowed a numerical entry, either a 1 or 2 or 3......... and so on, then that would specify the number of levels up from the units organization that it can be directed or designated for support. Lets say our regimental level unit is specified as a '2'. So it can be used by its Division or its Corps (that is to say 'up' two levels) for indirect fire support of units within those organizations. Since the combatants involved had varied organizations, this alpha-numerical system would be flexible enough to cover just about any situation. To allow for limits for indirect support down the chain you could have negative numbers. Our regiment might have a '-2' designation, which would mean it could only support units down to the battalions and companies within the regiment. This of course would all be tied to HQ and 'spotting' units.

Dennis



GHQ -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/2/2010 8:12:58 PM)

And while we are on the subject can we have some airforce liason officers as airstrikes are usually rubbish. lol



dgk196 -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/4/2010 12:50:30 AM)

I'm for that........ big time.

I understand that this is a 'ground game'. But, not if you want to 'sim' WWII tactical situations. THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER HIT'S THE ROAD (sorry for the 'shout's'). There are no Strategic considerations..... no Operational considerations....... this is the 'tactical level'. So, if this 'sim' does so then, I'm waiting to see it. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what has been done. But I have to be honest with you, what happens in the sim doesn't reflect the reality. So what?! Okay... then lets give 'early Panthers total reliability, and Russian formations total tactical flexibility, and communications to execute it.

"What's wrong with this picture (or 'Where is Waldo')?


Repeatedly, the 'reason' the 'Germans' lost the war was because of their 'focus' on 'tactical' aerial warfare. Well, okay, for those of you that swear by this sim...... a 'simple' challenge (in a congenial manner)...... prove it, lets see the result of this assumption!

Don't get 'bent out of shape', I'm only asking for "pro's and con's" on the situation. So, sheath your 'daggers' and give us the 'proof'. Okay?

In short, this 'sim' acts as though it is WWI with the next-gen of 'ground weapons'. So, what does it 'sim'? Come on "folk's" get your guns out, let's hear it!!!

Dennis



kool_kat -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/4/2010 9:17:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

In short, this 'sim' acts as though it is WWI with the next-gen of 'ground weapons'. So, what does it 'sim'? Come on "folk's" get your guns out, let's hear it!!!

Dennis


Dennis - I don't understand the point(s) you are attempting to make in your post? [&:]

IMHO, CS is not a "simulation" - but a tactical war "game." And as such, it has stood the test of time... from the early Talonsoft days to the present.



dgk196 -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/4/2010 10:32:45 PM)

Just a slang term....... I was discussing this with a friend of mine and its a term we use when talking about any 'game' on a computer, and the use just got carried over into this post. As to the test of time..... depends on the yardstick you use to measure such things, doesn't it? But I respect your point of view on this and its certainly valid as many see it that way. I guess though that for me.... there is always room for improvement, whether its a 'game' or not. Its just something I'd like to see in the game, as it would help differentiate the capabilities of the various forces involved. Its all in the details, isn't it? Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Dennis



kool_kat -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/5/2010 2:42:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
As to the test of time..... depends on the yardstick you use to measure such things, doesn't it?


The "yardstick" I use is longevity and whether folks are still playing and enjoying the game. Seems pretty straight forward? West Front was developed in 1998, East Front 2 in 1999, and Rising Sun in 2000. Any PC game that is over a decade old... has a growing player base... has developers and scenario designers actively producing new content and scenarios... has stood the test of time regardless of what "yardstick" you use to measure it? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
But I respect your point of view on this and its certainly valid as many see it that way.


I also respect your point of view... once I understand what it is? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I guess though that for me.... there is always room for improvement, whether its a 'game' or not.


I never stated that there is not room for improvement in CS. What would give you that idea? I embrace many of the revisions, new units, new scenarios, etc. that have been introduced into this gaming platform over the years. But please know that just because you introduce a proposed idea does not automatically make it a "good" one? [&:] Nor does it automatically mean that I too should embrace it? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
Its just something I'd like to see in the game, as it would help differentiate the capabilities of the various forces involved. Its all in the details, isn't it? Thanks for taking the time to reply.


I just tire of the next "kool" idea that gets kicked around in the forums... with no regards to how it may impact the overall game flow and mechanics. For example, optional rules like Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility have HUGE impacts on both game flow and mechanics - especially with scenarios that were developed prior to the intro of these optional rules. Also built in rules like Banzai (Rising Sun) can really unbalance otherwise equal forces in battle? Many of these "effects" are negative?

So, it is easy to throw out "kool" ideas because of what "you would like to see"... but until all the "kool" idea folks also seriously consider and debate the overall effects such revisions will have on the CS game platform... there is not a whole lot to these proposals? It's all in the details?



dgk196 -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/5/2010 6:22:53 PM)

Well I don't know what to tell you...........

Apparently this is 'hot-button' issue for you? And yeah use whatever you like and measure the success of this or anything else you like, its a free country and this is an open forum. I'm sorry that either my idea's or explanation's don't measure up to your standards, but that's life, isn't it?

I really don't know what to tell you. If you are 'tired' of 'kool' ideas and such, what can I do for you? Really? About the only things that come to mind are either don't read posts in an open forum or just realize that some may not look at the game the way you do!? I'm not trying to be a wise guy but, what does it matter to you, what my opinions or ideas are as regards this game? And inversely, what makes you think your philosophy as regards the game matters to me? Other than that it is feedback and should be considered!?

Having to reply to this intolerance is not comfortable. But if you don't like the idea that's fine. That's life. If there is some clarification about my idea that I can help you with that's fine too. I'll give a try. However, if you persist in a 'personal' manner, don't expect a reply!

Thank you

Dennis



kool_kat -> RE: Make a simple designator..... (3/5/2010 9:00:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
Apparently this is 'hot-button' issue for you?


I have seen the results of some "well-intended" ideas that got implimented into CS... and while some of them were beneficial... others had consequences that negatively impacted game play and mechanics? Some of those consequences were not anticipated and/or were not pronounced until after the new rules were "baked" into the programming and it was rolled out to players - then it was too late? I believe anytime new rules and programming are introduced (and that is what folks are referencing when they propose new ideas), there is a danger that the CS game platform will get "broken." IMHO, players who propose new ideas should also think long and hard about the effects these proposed ideas will have on game play and mechanics. Since CS is already an "abstraction" (a game) of tactical WWII combat... when are current rules "good enough" and work fine within the framework of the game platform... and when are they so poorly implimented, that a change is warranted?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
And yeah use whatever you like and measure the success of this or anything else you like, its a free country and this is an open forum.


Dennis, you stated that there are many "yardsticks" to measure success? I replied with mine? IMHO, I believe that CS is a successful PC game and has been for over a decade based on a growing player base and continued involvement by developers and scenario designers. Matrix also believes that it is successful since they continue to sell the product and support it with software updates? This public forum is another example of the support for the CS platform?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I'm sorry that either my idea's or explanation's don't measure up to your standards, but that's life, isn't it?


Sarcastic remarks don't advance your argument? You posted your idea. I replied with mine? As you stated, this is a public forum, and as long as we follow the posting rules, we can exchange our ideas? I don't believe that there are any posting rules that state I must agree with you... or you with me? Same with ideas or explanations "measuring up" to others' standards. That is all pretty irrelevant to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I really don't know what to tell you. If you are 'tired' of 'kool' ideas and such, what can I do for you? Really?


I never asked you to do anything for me? I'm simply replying to your postings on a public forum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
About the only things that come to mind are either don't read posts in an open forum or just realize that some may not look at the game the way you do!?


I'm a CS player and I take an active interest in the CS gaming community. Some of that interaction takes place on public forums. I'm also a CS scenario designer... so I like to stay informed on any and all proposed new rules and content changes to this game platform. That is the primary reason I read posts from folks like you. I also realize that others approach the game in different ways... and that is ok too. CS can accomodate all kinds of players?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I'm not trying to be a wise guy but, what does it matter to you, what my opinions or ideas are as regards this game? And inversely, what makes you think your philosophy as regards the game matters to me? Other than that it is feedback and should be considered!?


Everyone has opinions? Everyone views life through their own lens? Please believe me that I am only responding to your ideas. I am not attacking you personally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
Having to reply to this intolerance is not comfortable. But if you don't like the idea that's fine. That's life. If there is some clarification about my idea that I can help you with that's fine too. I'll give a try. However, if you persist in a 'personal' manner, don't expect a reply!


IMHO, nobody (so far) has shown "intolerance" to your postings? You stated your ideas and opinions. I stated mine? I disagree with your opinions... and I have stated facts of why I do so. Please note that disagreement does NOT equal intolerance. When you post on a public forum, not everyone is going to agree with you or believe that yours is a good idea? Some CS players will even reply to your posting and not be in agreement? You have to expect that... especially on a public forum? Does that make them intolerant of you?

Please Dennis... if you want to debate the merits of your ideas and defend your positions... I'm all for it. I've presented evidence and reasons why I believe what I do. I've seen little to support your arguments? But, if you want to to get defensive and start throwing around the "intolerance" label because someone disagrees with your ideas or opinions... then I'll move on.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125