RE: Some questions about the latest patch (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support



Message

ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/8/2011 9:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



The mathematics for the Old Supply extended supply to infinity. In reality it meant that there was the same supply everywhere past four supply radii. Use whatever term you want to describe that. That's the problem and that's what New Supply fixes. And it's a real problem that lots of real scenarios have. Most people call it the "Infinite Length Supply Line Problem". You can call it whatever you want.


Nu? So?

Thanks to your new supply system, this can't happen. Supply will drop to zero. And if -- as is sometimes the case -- people don't want that to happen, they could put in a supply unit that worked as supply units used to work.

And if you don't want that to happen, you leave the supply unit out.

So? In the end, your position is that you will impose your vision on other designers. You 'fixed' the supply units so that they can't wiggle out from under. Never mind what they perceive would work best in their own scenario -- Curtis knows best.

As noted, I actually find the new supply system interesting. And had you left well enough alone, it would have opened up some interesting combinations that would have permitted various things -- all controllable by the designer.

And that's as it should be. There isn't one paradigm that governs all conceivable military situations, and even if there was, it's highly unlikely you've either uncovered it or would be able to simulate it if you did.

But no -- you had to impose your one particular view, necessarily based solely on the design situations you've encountered and dealt with. Everyone else has to be shackled to that.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/8/2011 9:41:55 PM)

I'd like to use the new supply system. I really would. It would improve Seelowe, and it would improve Operation Orient.

The latter takes a broader view of the Middle East. Rather than just shackling the Axis to the North African campaign, it lets them think about going all kinds of places, and rather than just looking at the Commonwealth campaign in North Africa, it forces them to balance (as they had to) the demands that made with the demands of the Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, Iraq, Iran.

And in all these places, logistics were a nightmare, and normally supplies could only be delivered to a few points and to the immediate vicinity of those points. As OKH discovered, if you want siege artillery firing outside Tobruk, it's going to take quite a few trucks. The Syrian campaign more or less foundered until Battleaxe had duly collapsed and Wavell could divert resources to the Levant.

Supply units! Nice, infinite supply units that permit some effort -- even if there isn't a decent port or a proper railhead within 50 kilometers. But only in one place. Actually, Wavell couldn't simultaneously mount drives into Syria and an offensive against Rommel.

But no...

Curtis had to 'fix' this.

AND fix it by unnecessarily linking all the changes. We can't have the variable supply points and the new supply lines unless we accept the new supply units.

Why? What gave you the right to decide what all designers can and can't do? If I want variable supply points and the new supply lines but supply units that work as they used to, why can't I have it?

Isn't it possible -- just possible -- that I know what is best for my scenario? Not you?

When I go to the auto supply store, the clerk doesn't tell me how I'm going to fix my car. He just sells me the tools I want. You could confine yourself to that role.

Just make the tools. Don't try to decide what designers should and shouldn't be allowed to do.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/8/2011 10:02:20 PM)

The irony of it all is that to some extent, Curtis did start with what could have been an improvement.

Old supply did provide 25% out to infinity, and that was often bad.

So now it gradually drops to 0%, and that would usually be good.

With the old supply units under the old system, we could hop that 25% to 50% where we found it appropriate, and that was good.  Of course, it would still be 25% everywhere else, and that usually wasn't good.  I can send my panzer division wandering off into the wilds of Persia, and it can stop and (apparently) get the local tribesmen to start making 75 mm AP rounds and distilling diesel fuel.  Not so good.

Now, we had a tool where we could have overrode that drop to 0% where -- but only where -- we thought appropriate. 

This could have been great.  You don't want that to happen at all, you don't put in a supply unit.  You want it to happen only in certain places, you put in static supply units.  Supply units bound to roads by house rule.  A limited number of supply units.  Whatever.

A tool.  Something for designers to use as they find appropriate.  A tool that combines with the new system to produce better results still.

But no -- Curtis has decided what the tool is.  It can only be used that way.

It's like used motor oil.  Theoretically, can be reprocessed and made into more motor oil.  Of course, that's beyond the capacity of the average home kitchen, so no one does it.  Stuff is useless -- somewhat worse than useless, as it's hard to get rid of and has an eerie ability to spill in the worst possible places.

However, if you wipe some on a tree stump, it will keep the stump from resprouting.

Handy, huh?  And since reality -- unlike Curtis -- lets me use things as I find best for my circumstances, I can kill stumps with it.

But not if Curtis was making the rules.  He'd have decided what used motor oil could and couldn't be used for.  No wiping a bit on stumps.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/8/2011 10:28:46 PM)


quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

One also couldn't use the supply units to simulate airfields, or anchorages, or captures....


Of course you could. It wouldn't be any more dreadful that any other Supply Unit used for that purpose.


No, you couldn't. The supply units would now be tied to the ground transportation net -- whatever they represented.

You capture an airfield along the New Guinea coast. No good -- the columns of bearers petered out five hundred miles ago. I'm afraid C-47's can't fly in there.

You capture Tobruk. I'm afraid that fuel can't go in our trucks. Matching quantities aren't being brought up from Tripoli, you see.

Groupe Mobile 308 is going to advance into Laos. Supply can't be flown into it -- there aren't enough trucks to supply it that far out.

You have taken something that actually can -- and in practice, does -- represent all kinds of things, and chained it to your one, particular, arbitrary, narrow view of what it represents.

And the effects are overwhelmingly bad. Let us have a powerful supply unit. When it's not appropriate, we won't use it.

And why am I saying 'let us' to you in the first place? Who the hell are you, to decide what I can or can't do in my own scenarios?



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/8/2011 10:37:49 PM)

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system?  To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/9/2011 4:22:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The mathematics for the Old Supply extended supply to infinity. In reality it meant that there was the same supply everywhere past four supply radii. Use whatever term you want to describe that. That's the problem and that's what New Supply fixes. And it's a real problem that lots of real scenarios have. Most people call it the "Infinite Length Supply Line Problem". You can call it whatever you want.


Thanks to your new supply system, this can't happen.


And that's a good thing. That's the improvement that New Supply was intended to fix - Infinite Supply Lines.

quote:

And if you don't want that to happen, you leave the supply unit out.


So, any scenario that wants realistic Supply Units that don't exend supply to infinity is just out of luck? No player option to focus supply anywhere? Of course Supply Units had to be fixed just as normal supply did.

quote:

So? In the end, your position is that you will impose your vision on other designers. You 'fixed' the supply units so that they can't wiggle out from under. Never mind what they perceive would work best in their own scenario -- Curtis knows best.


Considering that Old Supply was left intact, that claim is absurd. New Supply is an optional feature. And, as I've said, TOAW's improvements can't be handcuffed to someone's misuse of its problem areas. We'd never be able to fix anything.

Now, if you would calm down and open your eyes, you'll see that what I'm suggesting would allow you to make Supply Units as powerful as you desire. And, it has the advantage of adding realism and command choices to play - meaning it's much more likely to actually be implemented.

Or you can hold your breath and wait for a retrograde, unrealistic mod to New Supply. But, considering how limited our poor resources are, I wouldn't.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/9/2011 6:20:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



So, any scenario that wants realistic Supply Units that don't exend supply to infinity is just out of luck? No player option to focus supply anywhere? Of course Supply Units had to be fixed just as normal supply did.


Assuming you perceived such a scenario to exist, then you could have created a new unit to model the effect.

Actually, you did. The difficulty is that you replaced an existing unit with it.



quote:



Now, if you would calm down and open your eyes, you'll see that what I'm suggesting would allow you to make Supply Units as powerful as you desire.


This statement is simply untrue. First, no one wants to build ridiculous daisy chains across the map -- particularly when those daisy chains represent something that isn't happening. Like, the daisy chain representing trucks rumbling across desert expanses when in fact what is going on is airlift, or the diversion of shipping, or just more of the available supplies being sent that way -- but by rail.

Second, assuming I furnish a scenario with the plethora supply units necessary to create these daisy chains, it'll create the alternative of extending supply everywhere -- which is exactly the opposite of the effect supply units are supposed to have.

We keep coming back to the same thing. You should have left well enough alone.

The rest of your remarks appear to consist of a defense of the new supply system -- which I am not criticizing.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/9/2011 6:25:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system?  To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?



bump



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/9/2011 6:32:41 PM)

Indeed, an irony of all this is that Curtis' modified supply makes supply units of the old type more necessary -- at the same time he did away with them.

Consider sea roads -- which His Curtisness has indicated he will permit us to have back.

Okay -- but they can be pretty damned long. So long, in fact, that with the supply radius most scenarios would otherwise require, under the new system supply will have dwindled to zero by the time it arrives at Rhodes or wherever.

No problem -- if we had old-style supply units. You send your old-style supply unit to Leros or whatever, and the units get 25% supply as long as you keep the sea road operating. It'll work about like sea roads worked before the change -- only now you'll need to ship in a supply unit. Good stuff!

...except that we no longer have the requisite old-style supply units. His Curtisness did away with them, and he won't give them back.



Telumar -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 12:46:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
His Curtisness


Lol! I hope Bob has enough humour..

That's why i have such a nick name. His Telumarness doesn't sound so funny..



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 3:46:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This statement is simply untrue. First, no one wants to build ridiculous daisy chains across the map -- particularly when those daisy chains represent something that isn't happening.


What "daisy chains"? Supply Units have never required daisy chains. They function independently. And, as I said, you could make any single Supply Unit as powerful as you want.

quote:

Like, the daisy chain representing trucks rumbling across desert expanses when in fact what is going on is airlift, or the diversion of shipping, or just more of the available supplies being sent that way -- but by rail.


Again, this is a misuse of Supply Units that they were never designed to perform.

Let’s take ports. Supposedly, a Supply Unit placed in a port would be simulating supplies arriving by sea. The thing is, though, that the Supply Unit must have a contiguous OVER-LAND path to a Supply Point in order to function as a Supply Unit. Without that, it’s just a crummy combat unit. So, if the enemy blocks that ground path, the port doesn’t get any supply from the Supply Unit. This is, of course, in contrast to reality, where sea supply would be delivered regardless of any ground path situation. So use of Supply Units to model sea supply results in absurdities.

Now note that the same applies to an airbase. Drop a Supply Unit in the airbase and, supposedly, it would be simulating supplies being air-dropped to that base. But, again, if the enemy blocks the ground path, the base doesn’t get any supply. Again, this is in contrast to reality, where air supply obviously doesn’t require a ground path to be delivered. Again, use of Supply Units to model air supply results in absurdities.

The conclusion if obvious: Supply Units were never designed to model supply delivery to ports or airbases. Not now. Not ever. In fact, the requirement for a ground path to a supply source in order for the Supply Unit to function clearly shows that Supply Units have always been intended to model GROUND SUPPLY TRANSPORT. Contrary to claims made in this thread, this was not something I conjured out of thin air. It was the only function supply units were ever designed to handle. That’s the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from their properties:

1. They must have a ground path to a Supply Point to function. Therefore they model ground supply delivery only.

2. They aren’t a supply source. Therefore that only leaves logistical transport assets as their only possible function. QED

As such, it makes sense for the development of TOAW that that Ground Supply Transport function receive refinement. That’s what New Supply does, and, hopefully, future development will continue to do.

Now, there are a lot of things TOAW can’t do yet. Designers try all sorts of kluges to get around these limitations. But, the thing about kluges is that if you do them, you’re on your own. TOAW cannot be expected to be handcuffed to a MISUSE of one of its features for something it was never designed to do – especially if that misuse never actually worked.

Hopefully, we will be able to model sea and air supply down the road. But it will be done with features specifically intended to handle it. Not Supply Units.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 3:57:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
His Curtisness


Lol! I hope Bob has enough humour..

That's why i have such a nick name. His Telumarness doesn't sound so funny..


He couldn't refrain from personnel insults if his life depended on it. It's the ether he swims in. He's the worst web troll I've ever encountered. Anyone with the effrontery to stand up to him gets this treatment. But I have to. TOAW is too important to allow his monstrously stupid ideas to pollute it.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:29:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
His Curtisness


Lol! I hope Bob has enough humour..

That's why i have such a nick name. His Telumarness doesn't sound so funny..


He couldn't refrain from personnel insults if his life depended on it. It's the ether he swims in. He's the worst web troll I've ever encountered. Anyone with the effrontery to stand up to him gets this treatment. But I have to. TOAW is too important to allow his monstrously stupid ideas to pollute it.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Right here we've got 'worst web troll I've ever encountered' and 'monstrously stupid ideas.' Note that in this case, the 'monstrously stupid idea' is that supply units should continue to function as they always did.

Try listing your remarks over the past month. Line 'em up and compare them to mine. The only consolation is that since you invariably begin resorting to personal abuse when you realize your argument makes no sense, the abuse is a backhand admission of defeat. However, it is exasperating (to put it mildly) to engage in debates where your opponent signals that he concedes by spitting on you.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:32:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This statement is simply untrue. First, no one wants to build ridiculous daisy chains across the map -- particularly when those daisy chains represent something that isn't happening.


What "daisy chains"? Supply Units have never required daisy chains. They function independently. And, as I said, you could make any single Supply Unit as powerful as you want.


Looked for this, but couldn't find it. The only thing that turned up was this:

quote:

However, I admit that the amount of redirection of logistical transport assets is arbitrary. it would be nice if it could be varied as designers and players wanted. The way to do that is, as I've said, by making it possible for multiple Supply Units to combine their effects. Then, if you want a greater effect, you can throw more and more Supply Units at the problem.


This would appear to simply offer the choice of having lots of supply units and herding them all together.

I've already noted the problems with that. In the end, you've broken it. The simplest way to fix it is to undo what you did -- and while you are beginning to resort to verbal abuse, you've yet to offer a coherent reason why this couldn't be done.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:38:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Contrary to claims made in this thread, this was not something I conjured out of thin air. It was the only function supply units were ever designed to handle. That’s the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from their properties:

1. They must have a ground path to a Supply Point to function. Therefore they model ground supply delivery only.

2. They aren’t a supply source. Therefore that only leaves logistical transport assets as their only possible function. QED

As such, it makes sense for the development of TOAW that that Ground Supply Transport function receive refinement. That’s what New Supply does, and, hopefully, future development will continue to do.

Now, there are a lot of things TOAW can’t do yet. Designers try all sorts of kluges to get around these limitations. But, the thing about kluges is that if you do them, you’re on your own. TOAW cannot be expected to be handcuffed to a MISUSE of one of its features for something it was never designed to do – especially if that misuse never actually worked.

Hopefully, we will be able to model sea and air supply down the road. But it will be done with features specifically intended to handle it. Not Supply Units.


We're going in circles. Reread (if you ever read) my rebuttal of this argument and respond to it.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:39:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
His Curtisness


Lol! I hope Bob has enough humour..





It would appear he didn't.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:39:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system?  To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?



bump


bump bump.



desert -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:44:05 PM)

Why can't you just place small supply points on your airfields? Wouldn't that give you a near-identical effect?



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:57:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

Why can't you just place small supply points on your airfields? Wouldn't that give you a near-identical effect?


Actually, I'm going to do that.

However, for other applications, Curtis' innovation does more harm than good.

Sea roads can run for very long distances. With the new supply attenuating to zero, that will cause problems.

Problems which could be overcome -- if we could combine the new system with old-style supply units. And as noted, I've yet to hear why that would be so hard to permit.

If we could use old-style supply units, then we could still get 25% supply at the end of the sea road -- what one would get now absent a supply unit and what sea roads are geared for. But with Curtis' 'improvement' -- no dice. Sea roads will be a bust under the new supply system -- unless you want only very short roads or a monster supply radius. And no way to fix that -- except of course to permit old-style supply units to be used in conjunction with the system.

Then there's simple strategic emphasis -- Curtis' arm-waving notwithstanding, what supply units were originally used to represent. Germany starting to fly in fuel and ammunition to the Afrika Korps at El Alamein or supplies being pumped up to Sixth Army while Army Group A (literally) runs out of gas doesn't represent an extension of the supply radius -- it's a simple matter of supplies being sent here rather than there.

And that, you represent with a supply unit. And what that supply unit does is not a reflection of trucks, roads, or anything else in particular. It's simply saying, 'the designer found that this would model a capability and a choice the force in question had.' Exactly what they represented when they first appeared -- Curtis' rationalizations notwithstanding.

Why it couldn't be allowed to continue to function in that way continues to go unexplained. Curtis shouts and rages. All I can see is that he has made things worse rather than better.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 7:59:23 PM)

We can (and should) turn this question around.

Rather than asking 'why were old supply units worse,' ask 'what makes Curtis' new supply units better'?

Once that is done, it becomes apparent that what Curtis hath wrought was not an improvement. It causes damage, trouble, and takes a powerful tool from the designer's hands -- and for what?

It's a pity Curtis couldn't have made a point of openly discussing what he was considering doing. Then we could have merely avoided doing it as opposed to having to try to move Blocking Detachment Lemay out of the way to undo it.

And of course moving Blocking Detachment Lemay is a singularly unpleasant task.




1_Lzard -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/10/2011 9:28:33 PM)

NDA's, Colin, NDA's............couldn't talk about it then, can't now!



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/11/2011 4:45:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Looked for this, but couldn't find it. The only thing that turned up was this:

quote:

However, I admit that the amount of redirection of logistical transport assets is arbitrary. it would be nice if it could be varied as designers and players wanted. The way to do that is, as I've said, by making it possible for multiple Supply Units to combine their effects. Then, if you want a greater effect, you can throw more and more Supply Units at the problem.


This would appear to simply offer the choice of having lots of supply units and herding them all together.

I've already noted the problems with that.


Right. Daisy chains. Something Supply Units have never required.

Nevertheless, I had further refined the above with this:

Now, there can be more sophistication than just a simple combination of Supply Units. For example, there could be an editor parameter that defined the quantity of transport necessary for a Supply Unit to deduct one radius. Then, units with more or less transport would deduct more or less. This would then allow enemy bombardment to directly impact the SUs impact - since a reduction by losses would have the same effect as a reduction by design. This is in contrast to now, when you have to eliminate the SU to have any effect.

This would, as I said, allow you to make any supply unit as powerful as you desire.

quote:

In the end, you've broken it.


No. Its original design function has been enhanced. And the original, retrograde, way it worked is still available under Old Supply.

quote:

...and while you are beginning to resort to verbal abuse,...


That is known, in TOAW terms, as Counterbattery Fire. You've made this thread personnel from the start and in every post up to this point.

quote:

...you've yet to offer a coherent reason why this couldn't be done.


None that can convince you. But then, it's not the job of the prosecutor to convince the defense attorney of anything.

I have, in fact, proven that what you want is a kluge. And not a very good one at that. If it had ever worked then there wouldn't be the clamor for sea supply that there is. We can't be handcuffed by anyone's misuse of one of TOAW's features from improving that feature.

In fact, I'm hopeful that we'll have some sort of true sea/air supply mechanism in operation before too long. What would we need this kluge for then?



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/11/2011 9:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


That is known, in TOAW terms, as Counterbattery Fire. You've made this thread personnel from the start and in every post up to this point.


Well, here are the remarks you have made over the past month or so.

'you repeat this idiotic claim'

'Don't buy his kool-aid,'

'only an imbecile would draw it that way'

'I know you're full of it'

'you can repeat your nonsense indefinitely'

'this endless deluge of stupidity'

'he's the worst web troll I've ever encountered'

'TOAW is too important to allow his monstrously stupid ideas to pollute it'


Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.




ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/11/2011 10:13:51 PM)

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/12/2011 4:43:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.


I can only assume that you're oblivious to your own offensive behavior. I think that makes you some sort of sociopath, doesn't it? Virtually every post you've made in this thread (and in the most recently completed thread) was filled with personnel vindictive malice. Anyone can see it without my needing to list it (which would take a few days). That’s how you operate when anyone dares to stand up to you.

But, that doesn’t matter. The important thing is that you were wrong on this issue. What you were doing was a kluge, and was never an intended use of Supply Units. The change that was made was necessary to eliminate infinite supply lines. Otherwise, a force with a supply unit could just carry it along all the way to Vladivostok and stay at 25% supply the whole way – like it was magic beans or something.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/12/2011 7:39:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Now, you can go back and list whatever remarks you please that I've addressed to you (or for that matter, anyone else) over the past month. We can compare and contrast.

However, while I am sure you will respond, I am also sure you will not do this.


I can only assume that you're oblivious to your own offensive behavior. I think that makes you some sort of sociopath, doesn't it? Virtually every post you've made in this thread (and in the most recently completed thread) was filled with personnel vindictive malice. Anyone can see it without my needing to list it (which would take a few days).


I notice you find yourself unable to actually list much.

The real problem is the position you occupy. It means that your personal deficiencies are not merely exasperating, but an actual bar to progress. You seem to be pathologically incapable of allowing evidence or the arguments of others to lead you to modify your position. You probably perceive this to be a sign of strength, but it's not.



ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/12/2011 7:40:34 PM)

Try Five.

Let me ask one question -- one which I would really like to see directly answered.

How much trouble would it be -- actually -- to allow supply units to function as they used to under the new system? To simply add 25% of the base supply to all hexes within the full supply radius of the supply unit?




ColinWright -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/12/2011 8:06:09 PM)

...



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/13/2011 3:26:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The real problem is the position you occupy. It means that your personal deficiencies are not merely exasperating, but an actual bar to progress. You seem to be pathologically incapable of allowing evidence or the arguments of others to lead you to modify your position. You probably perceive this to be a sign of strength, but it's not.


Ok, let's list this post then.

Literally every post that comes out of you is an Ad Hominem remark. You seem to be oblivious to it as well.

And, just for the record, you couldn't have described yourself better than with the above. But I can assure you that your bullying tactics are never going to work. They just mean that you will be righteously subject to in-kind responses.

As to my position: Obstructing bad ideas is a good thing. Nevertheless, I did offer a sterling solution (that's called modifying your position, by the way) - which you rejected without even considering.



shunwick -> RE: Some questions about the latest patch (5/13/2011 3:51:43 PM)

There should be popcorn. [;)]

Best wishes,
Steve



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.967773