RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 6:48:55 AM)

.



YankeeAirRat -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 8:47:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

.


See that is what is wrong with you Nik, you need to be using a larger font to be heard and either decide on either Courier News or Times News Roman as it is laid out in the new forum rules. For shame.[:-]

[:'(]



LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 9:10:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



good books are written close to the event, and have primary sources

bad books are written many years after events occur, to make money



quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



PacWar designers: everyone knows the japanese pilots were a lot more experienced than the allied, from the 4 years they fought in china
- especially the sally and lily units, despite their small payloads, from their thousands of flying hours they had the skill
to destroy a big part of the allied air forces in the far east on the ground, let's give them 80 exp. by contrast the allied pilots
had almost no combat experience, and only limited training, let's give them 40 exp

WITP Designers : maybe the japanese had a small edge in pilot skill, but it was pretty close, let's give them 70exp and the allies 50 exp

AE #2 designers: new research indicates that allied pilots were just as good as the japanese, they just had poor logistics, let's give them all 60 exp


not to poke at AE, it is truly the best wargame ever made, just making a point about how the accepted history changes with time






That the ammount and composition of available data about a certain event drifts over a given
timespan, is a nobrainer.

That the interpretation of available data depends on external factors as well, such as society, political viepoint, emotional relation to the topic,
life experience of the interpreter and so on, is a nobrainer.

That this drift can potentially change the overall correctness of the data interpretation to better or worse, is
a nobrainer as well.

Your second post does in no way support you initial claim, actually I am at complete loss how anybody,
including yourself, would be able to think it would.

So, either you donīt care whether there is any continuity in your argumental chain, or we have a
completely different understanding of logic, in which case a rational discussion would be impossible. [:)]



PaxMondo -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:39:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Accounts written right after things happened will contain detail that will fade over time. But anything near the events that tries to synthesize the details into a whole will be of lower quality than something written many years later by someone who is too young to have first hand memories. The later authors have more objectivity over the data than someone closer to the event. The more first hand accounts written close to the event the better job later authors can do.

There is value in both. If I was writing my own book, I would want all the source material written by witnesses I could find. The sooner after the events the better. As a consumer who is reading for my own interests, I want the later written stuff written by someone who did dig up all the original sources.

Bill



+1

The loss of detail over time should not be overlooked. Reading 1275psi's AAR is a good example, and as he notes several times (paraphrased): in another 50 years will anyone remember what it was like to operate steam boilers and consider what impact that had on naval operations of the 20th century? It is a very valid point. Reading the older written histories, these things are never brought up because everyone of that age "knew" all of this ... it didn't need to be mentioned. Reading some of the newer histories I am frequently disappointed by authors who impose current "knowns" upon the historical figures who could not have known these things.

My favorite example to illustrate this is a photo in the Los Alamos museum (if you haven't been, go. Also, the Trinity site is open to the public every year around Easter, also well worth the visit). It shows a tech (unnamed) wearing an asbestos glove holding the bare core of the Trinity test bomb in his outstretched hand. In a semi-circle around him are the principles of the Manhattan project (Oppenheimer et al). Think about this for a minute .. all the implications of what they knew at the time and what they clearly did not know.




LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 12:36:20 PM)

True, information is lost over time.

But I would not underestimate the survivability of information in modern times where data is copied and available in electronic form.
The ammount of data lost completely over the past 20 years is probably surprizingly low.

Also I think what is often neglected, independent of whether we talk about WWII or about more ancient historical events, is that
our ability to access, verify, and crosslink data from which to draw conclusions at the current speed is only a bit more than 2 decades
old - at best.

This is of immense advantage when analysing history. Where in the past journeys, long conversations by (snail)mail, or inconclusive telephone
calls were required to get the information together, you can now join that data in a matter of minutes from all over the world and hundreds
of different sources.

I am aware that this is a disadvantage as well as an advantage, as the necessity to verify the credibility of a source
of information has increased by several orders of magnitude, simply because of the abundance of data and the fact that most sources are simply
copy/paste products.

But additionally this has the sideeffect of making this kind of research available to a much broader group of interested people,
which has the advantage of spreading types of and approaches to information gathering and interpretation over a larger spectrum,
resulting in much higher variety of interpretations.

The opportunity to come to new conclusions by crosslinking different sources of information has never been so good since the beginning
of history. The challenge nowerdays is for each person to estimate the credibility of information sources, and not to have the information
available in the first place. A challange which is often too big to handle for a large percentage of people, as has been already demonstrated
several times in this thread. I am not excluding me FWIIW, as doing so would be the first step to fall for exactly the wrong type of information.

Very interesting times IMHO. [&o]



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 12:54:17 PM)

It should be self explanatory, that memories fade and that is important to get the accounts of eye-witnesses as early as possible.
The German historical science works by the principles set by Johann Gustav Droysen. Every source has to be categorized as either "remains" or "tradition".
Every eye witness can only give traditions, but to get the whole picture, you need remains.

Remains: not intended for the posterity while traditions are. So every tradition has an intention that has to be found and has to be taken into account to be able to work with this source at all.

If someone will find a print of this forum in a thousand years, mdiehl's postings will be a historical source about the combat in WW2. But if the historian then working on them doesn't know his source criticism, he will take them wrong. And as his postings are only tradition, so are mine. If you don't have any remains, you'll run into serious trouble to get the full picture, but remains are scarce immediately after an event.



Terminus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 3:59:44 PM)

To historian finding this forum in a thousand years: "Mdiehl" is a lying sack of crap with the same grasp of military history as a dead dung beetle.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 4:03:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

.


See that is what is wrong with you Nik, you need to be using a larger font to be heard and either decide on either Courier News or Times News Roman as it is laid out in the new forum rules. For shame.[:-]

[:'(]


Your right. [hangs his head in shame]

curse that invisible Font! [:)]



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 4:36:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

To historian finding this forum in a thousand years: "Mdiehl" is a lying sack of crap with the same grasp of military history as a dead dung beetle.

That might turn out as a remainder for danish discussion culture [;)]



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 6:13:05 PM)

quote:

True, information is lost over time.


Well, yes, but information is also gained, in a sense, over time, at least in the short run.

Consider Samuel Eliot Morrison's stuff. Most of it was researched from 1944 through 1950 by a huge staff. In the interim between the research/publication of the volumes, alot of new primary source material has been uncovered. So, while the information was always there (and potentially slowly being lost), it was never available in any form in the west until much more recently.



LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 7:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

True, information is lost over time.


Well, yes, but information is also gained, in a sense, over time, at least in the short run.

Consider Samuel Eliot Morrison's stuff. Most of it was researched from 1944 through 1950 by a huge staff. In the interim between the research/publication of the volumes, alot of new primary source material has been uncovered. So, while the information was always there (and potentially slowly being lost), it was never available in any form in the west until much more recently.


Your habit of quoting part of another persons post, removing the originator from the quote, and then repeating the rest of the post as if you would present new
information is one of the reasons I dislike you mdiehl.

You sometimes have really interesting contributions to a topic, but you sadly ruin the value of those contributions by such a behaviour.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 7:58:37 PM)

quote:

Your habit of quoting part of another persons post, removing the originator from the quote, and then repeating the rest of the post as if you would present new information is one of the reasons I dislike you mdiehl.


I was not aware that I had done anything like that, even once. If you have a recent example, please PM it to me. It does not seem to me that I did anything like that in this thread. But it is possible that I overlooked something. Thanks in advance. -- mdiehl



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 8:44:44 PM)

[:D][:D][:D]

Are you ****ing serious, mdiehl? [:D][:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 8:46:16 PM)

quote:

Are you ****ing serious, mdiehl?


Is this a rhetorical question?



LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 8:58:53 PM)

This forum has an easy to track structure.

You can chose to reply to a specific post by hitting the reply button on that specific post. In the bottom right corner you then see the
original poster in parenthesis, for example "(in reply to mdiehl)".

You can also chose "quote" instead of "reply", in this case the advantage is that it is visible from whose post you are quoting.
For example:
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The above makes it easier to track discussions and follow a line of argumentation.

Now, if you do the exact opposite, so chose a random(?) reply button, copy/paste a small snippet of another post which exactly suits
your own line of argumentation, but only if taken out of context, and then leave no reference to the originator of that snippet, this
is what I call manipulation. And selling others knowledge as your own. Both which I donīt like. It is that simple.

You do this too often and are around here for too long that I can be convinced you just do that because you donīt know better.
Anyways, I hope this answered your question.




mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 9:11:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

This forum has an easy to track structure.

You can chose to reply to a specific post by hitting the reply button on that specific post. In the bottom right corner you then see the
original poster in parenthesis, for example "(in reply to mdiehl)".

You can also chose "quote" instead of "reply", in this case the advantage is that it is visible from whose post you are quoting.
For example:
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The above makes it easier to track discussions and follow a line of argumentation.

Now, if you do the exact opposite, so chose a random(?) reply button, copy/paste a small snippet of another post which exactly suits
your own line of argumentation, but only if taken out of context, and then leave no reference to the originator of that snippet, this
is what I call manipulation. And selling others knowledge as your own. Both which I donīt like. It is that simple.

You do this too often and are around here for too long that I can be convinced you just do that because you donīt know better.
Anyways, I hope this answered your question.




Huh. I never tried to use that feature before. Thanks for the tutorial.
The problem is that I still do not know what you are referring to.

quote:

You do this


"This" what?

Here's what I see. You made a post, beginning with "Some information is lost, true." I read your post, thought it was a good comment, and added to it by way of showing anyone, not specifically YOU, that there was yet more to consider. I don't recall you saying a word about "undiscovered sources that turn up years after the initial histories are written," which was my point.

Did you think I was trying to correct you or something? I wasn't. I was just adding to the general thrust of the observation that you made.

Like I said, if I overlooked something, feel free to PM me. On the whole I'd rather we continue the discussion we were having, rather than continue one about my conversational style.



LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 9:19:33 PM)

In this case I retract my comment and apologise.

It did indeed look as you were trying to contradict a purposely chosen part of my post,
I might have overreacted.

But please note that your response and quote stile, as I tried to explain above, increases
chances for such misunderstandings. Maybe changing it a bit helps to avoid them in the future.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 9:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

In this case I retract my comment and apologise.

It did indeed look as you were trying to contradict a purposely chosen part of my post,
I might have overreacted.

But please note that your response and quote stile, as I tried to explain above, increases
chances for such misunderstandings. Maybe changing it a bit helps to avoid them in the future.


I'll do my best. No need to apologize at all. Telling me what got under your skin beats letting me tick you off, especially when I don't mean to. We'll both have less to stress over.



Terminus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:07:31 PM)

Know this, Diehl. You're being watched. You've been lying and trolling for 10 years now, and your time in this place is drawing to a close. Your mission is not a secret to anybody who's paying the slightest bit of attention and it. will. fail.



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:27:11 PM)

The toe of death is hanging above you on just a horse's hair, mdiehl! [:D]



AW1Steve -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:35:43 PM)

mdiehl, you've been on this forum as long as I've been visiting. But something was said the other day that stuns, dismays and appalled me. Do I understand correctly that you've never played this game? Indeed , that you've never even bought it? If this is true, (an belive me I hope that it's not) how on earth can you justify arguing with, demeaning and insulting those who have? Those people PAID for their privilege to post here. Yet apparently you've stolen yours. You are like the kid who sneaks into the back of the theatre then bitches to management about the show. Please refute this . And tell us that you did pay for it.And play it. [:(]



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:49:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

mdiehl, you've been on this forum as long as I've been visiting. But something was said the other day that stuns, dismays and appalled me. Do I understand correctly that you've never played this game?


You understand INCORRECTLY. Thanks for asking. Everything else in your screed is utterly incorrect.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:52:05 PM)

Diehl knows full well how to use the forum software's quoting and reply to features as well.



Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:52:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

mdiehl, you've been on this forum as long as I've been visiting. But something was said the other day that stuns, dismays and appalled me. Do I understand correctly that you've never played this game?


You understand INCORRECTLY. Thanks for asking. Everything else in your screed is utterly incorrect.

you didn't!
You said yourself, that you supposedly played it at a friends's for a few minutes. You never owned it, you never played it.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 10:57:51 PM)

correct Historiker. In his own words:

quote:


I've not tried to play it save for some introductory messing around with it on the computer of a friend who bought it when it first came out. The basic problems are so legion that at some level even the hideous level of axis fanboy fantasy fetishism evident in the product really doesn't matter. At the root level, who the hell wants to play a game where you have to tell every damb electronic pilot how high to fly his aircraft and the time scale is 1 day = 1 day? It's not what I think of as "fun."


believe at your own peril.



Terminus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 11:01:29 PM)

Your fancy dissembling footwork won't save you any more, Diehl. You're finished here.



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 11:02:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

mdiehl, you've been on this forum as long as I've been visiting. But something was said the other day that stuns, dismays and appalled me. Do I understand correctly that you've never played this game? Indeed , that you've never even bought it? If this is true, (an belive me I hope that it's not) how on earth can you justify arguing with, demeaning and insulting those who have? Those people PAID for their privilege to post here. Yet apparently you've stolen yours. You are like the kid who sneaks into the back of the theatre then bitches to management about the show. Please refute this . And tell us that you did pay for it.And play it. [:(]



A friend who lived in Tucson bought WitP. I was, up until that point, intensively familiar with the game engines on which WitP is based. To wit. Gary Grigsby's Pacific War (GGPW), and Uncommon Valor (UV) (in terms of the basic results in A2A and ship vs ship combat results) both of which I owned, legally, the former as a purchase, the latter as a gift. My friend, who worked then for Raytheon and now works for GE, wanted me to examine the game on his computer on his legally purchased copy to see if I wanted to play it. I tried it out for a couple weeks to evaluate it. I came to the conclusion that it is SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS GGPW and UV. Therefore I declined to purchase it. I do not have a copy on any computer that I own. I don't use it.

I would appreciate it if you would not level accusations of theft at me. That's a new conversational low around here, in my experience.

As to the rest. Yeah, well, OK, errrrm.... Have A Nice Day!



AW1Steve -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 11:09:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

mdiehl, you've been on this forum as long as I've been visiting. But something was said the other day that stuns, dismays and appalled me. Do I understand correctly that you've never played this game? Indeed , that you've never even bought it? If this is true, (an belive me I hope that it's not) how on earth can you justify arguing with, demeaning and insulting those who have? Those people PAID for their privilege to post here. Yet apparently you've stolen yours. You are like the kid who sneaks into the back of the theatre then bitches to management about the show. Please refute this . And tell us that you did pay for it.And play it. [:(]



A friend who lived in Tucson bought WitP. I was, up until that point, intensively familiar with the game engines on which WitP is based. To wit. Gary Grigsby's Pacific War (GGPW), and Uncommon Valor (UV) (in terms of the basic results in A2A and ship vs ship combat results) both of which I owned, legally, the former as a purchase, the latter as a gift. My friend, who worked then for Raytheon and now works for GE, wanted me to examine the game on his computer on his legally purchased copy to see if I wanted to play it. I tried it out for a couple weeks to evaluate it. I came to the conclusion that it is SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS GGPW and UV. Therefore I declined to purchase it. I do not have a copy on any computer that I own. I don't use it.

I would appreciate it if you would not level accusations of theft at me. That's a new conversational low around here, in my experience.

As to the rest. Yeah, well, OK, errrrm.... Have A Nice Day!


I won't accuse you of theft. But what ever "brilliant" arguments you make , some of us will balance them against what we suspect of your character. But I'll admit freely that I'm more than a little disappointed in you. I'm sure your not the only one one who "takes a free ride". But you surely must be amongst those who've gotten the most milage. [:-]



mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 11:27:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I won't accuse you of theft. But what ever "brilliant" arguments you make , some of us will balance them against what we suspect of your character. But I'll admit freely that I'm more than a little disappointed in you. I'm sure your not the only one one who "takes a free ride". But you surely must be amongst those who've gotten the most milage. [:-]


You just have a Great Day there wherever you are! May the beer always be just the way you like it etc etc.



Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/28/2012 11:41:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I won't accuse you of theft. But what ever "brilliant" arguments you make , some of us will balance them against what we suspect of your character. But I'll admit freely that I'm more than a little disappointed in you. I'm sure your not the only one one who "takes a free ride". But you surely must be amongst those who've gotten the most milage. [:-]



I've heard the whole "I owned UV, tried WitP thing" yet Diehl remains as ignorant of the game mechanics as anyone who's never owned the product through it's life cycle. I'll lump that into the "I was asked to be a tester by Matrix" statement he made a couple weeks ago.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875