RE: Ships preferring deep water

RE: Ships preferring deep water (Full Version)

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

Message

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 8:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal ASW defensive action is far more effective in shallow waters, thus I always send my TFs through shallow areas to increase the chances of an effective ASW attack. I think the risk of hitting underwater objects is insignificant in comparison to either avoiding or killing a sub. I've never run aground, knock on wood. By the way, I'm assuming that the CV air restriction is applicable to only partial land hexes, whether they are deep water or shallow, am I right about that? Hal This exactly.. I would also like to know about the CV restrictions? I have Kido Butai at Cape Gloucester and I have no problem attacking Port Moresby from there.. Everything I've heard on the CV restriction says "coastal hexes", which to me means land in the hex. I've often wondered whether reefs count, and whether some hexes actually have land in them. I wouldn't be surprised if it just applied to shallow water hexes, but I've never really let it affect my operations - I can usually find a deep water hex with no reef/land to render my lack of clarity on the subject unimportant, or the objective is important enough to be worth the risk. FWIW, from observation it seems to me that there needs to be land in the hex and not just shallow water. My CAP/strikes when operating between Java and Borneo, for example, don't seem to be reduced in strength. Yes and Cape Gloucester consists over half of land. I've had no problem sending about 150 planes to Port Moresby from the Kido Butai, that has only large CV's. So I've been wondering what people are talking about..

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 8:59:51 PM)
Like several recent threads, this one is going around in circles with inaccurate answers. Excluding algorithms, the manual (and other documents released with patches) almost always gives the precise answer. It is no different here with regard to carriers operations being reduced. Hint: the clear answer is found in chapter 7 of the manual under the subsection titled in bold print and upper case "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES" Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers. I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs. Alfred

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 9:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Like several recent threads, this one is going around in circles with inaccurate answers. Excluding algorithms, the manual (and other documents released with patches) almost always gives the precise answer. It is no different here with regard to carriers operations being reduced. Hint: the clear answer is found in chapter 7 of the manual under the subsection titled in bold print and upper case "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES" Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers. I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs. Alfred quote: AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES Thanks for the answer and sorry if these irritate you. However the manual speaks only of shallow hexes affecting subs, not carriers. If it's so, then some misinformation here on the forums and thanks again for the clarification. Cape Gloucester is not a base for Japan in my game, so it might not affect at all also.

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 10:38:12 PM)
What part of this: "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES" refers to subs? Commentary on subs and shallow water is found elsewhere in the manual. I did not give you a hint as to where to find that different commentary. Alfred

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 11:45:09 PM)
deleted: double message for some reason

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 11:45:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs. Alfred The word "shallow" is found on the manual pages 38 and 134. As for it's impact on objects, only mines and subs are referred to. Maybe I misunderstood something.

GreyJoy -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 11:48:35 PM)
CVs do not have any restrictions in shallow waters NOR in coastal hexes. CVs' operations are limited ONLY in dot/base hexes.

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 11:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers. Well this was extremely mean. What do you think I'm doing here all the time? Maybe getting some help for this learning? I have read the manual and done extensive studying and playing mostly hours per day for a half a year now but as everyone knows, it requires a lot of effort and I'm sure everyone agrees that the manual COULD be better not to mention that it is missing some information.

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/14/2013 11:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy CVs do not have any restrictions in shallow waters NOR in coastal hexes. CVs' operations are limited ONLY in dot/base hexes. This is clear now. I have read in several other threads that CV's are restricted by coastal hexes and somehow escort carriers etc. are not BUT these seem to have been false information now.

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:51:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers. Well this was extremely mean. What do you think I'm doing here all the time? Maybe getting some help for this learning? I have read the manual and done extensive studying and playing mostly hours per day for a half a year now but as everyone knows, it requires a lot of effort and I'm sure everyone agrees that the manual COULD be better not to mention that it is missing some information. This post just demonstrates that your post #38 is not accurate or you are not good at reading the manual. What I said in post #32 is confirmed by these last two posts of yours. 1. The manual is very clear, direct and succinct on where carrier flight operations are adversely affected and how they are adversely affected. 2. Your own post where you mention where you place your carriers discloses no evidence that you were aware of what the manual says. 3. When an inaccurate answer was provided to you regarding restricted carrier operations you had no clue as to whether it was a good or inadequate reply. 4. If you have read the manual but had forgotten what it said about restricted carrier operations, the minimum you should have done after reading my post #32 was to find the relevant section in the manual. Instead you replied to me that the manual spoke about subs. That was not an appropriate reply if the intent was for you to be accorded any respect from me. 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct 6. GreyJoy gave you an answer. It so happens that his answer is consistent with the relevant section of the manual but without having read the relevant section of the manual yourself, how do you know his answer is more accurate than what others have said. But the complete answer is more than what GreyJoy said, so you still have to look it up in the manual, a task which this thread and many others of yours, demonstrate a singular lack of interest in undertaking. I reiterate my central point. Excluding algorithms, the manual (and the other released official documents) does provide the answer to practically all questions. Many people, as you have, come here to the forum claiming the manual is inadequate and does not provide an answer. Almost without exception I or someone else will find the exact answer, or one good enough, in the manual. So how come they fail where I and others succeed? Where the manual is weak is in teaching strategy or in providing opinions. In another concurrent thread you are soliciting opinions on appropriate airframes to research. That is the sort of subject you will not get good coverage in the manual but will elicit various views from the forum. Assessing the value of those opinions still requires a firm understanding of the game mechanics which does bring us back to studying the manual. Someone else on another thread recently asked how best to use an ARD. Again a failure to read the manual by that individual because there is only one use for an ARD and that is clearly spelt out in the manual. No ifs or buts but one thing only, which once known made the question quite redundant. No inquiry as to where to deploy the ARD best nor did he seek confirmation that his understanding of what an ARD does was correct (or even what it is), which would have indicated some prior attempt had been made to answer the question himself; instead he only asked what was its use. Anyone who asks a game question here reveals themselves as wanting to improve their game play. AE is not maths where 2 + 2 = 4 always, with no other answer possible. There are too many variables at play in AE to allow a mathematical approach to succeed. Nor is it feasible to ask every possible question; that would be akin to writing every number up to and including infinity. To improve there is no substitute but to understand how things interrelate and for that a firm grasp of the manual is indispensable as the base. There is no short cut to learning. Then you can assess the quality of the answers provided on the forum. Quickly you will then discover that some respondents are more reliable than others, some providing at best only anecdote based opinions and others providing AE rule based facts. Just because someone posts something in an AAR is no evidence that the comment is accurate, no matter how well meaning that person might be. Alfred

Quixote -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 3:32:23 AM)
quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this...

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 3:33:35 AM)
So enthusiastic players posting on forums discussing asking advice and opinions from other players, and maybe getting to a conclusion is not good OR good business for the game company in your opinion (or I have not understood the function of forums correctly)? People should just try read the manual and shut up :)? Seems like you take it as a personal attack every time somebody asks about something, into which there might be an answer in the manual.. Did you write it :D?

warspite1 -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 4:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... warspite1 +1 Condescending, insulting and rude.

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 7:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... 1. You have evidence he is using a translator on the manual? Or are you just desperate to find any excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me. 2. His posts don't display syntax errors associated with using internet translators. Finns tend to have a good command of the English language, some even better than native English speakers. Or are you prepared to overlook that because it would inhibit you from finding an excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me. 3. I came in to this thread because there was plenty of inaccurate comments from various posters. I did not at any stage state that the question was not legitimate. Or are you prepared to misread what I wrote in post #32 in order to pick a fight and denigrate me. 4. I pointed out the chapter in the manual and gave the sub section heading where the answer was fully provided in the manual. The OP then came back to me and told me I was wrong when I am not wrong. Or are you willing to overlook the truth because you are looking for an excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me. 5. If the OP had bothered to look up the manual as I directed, he would not have made the blatant mistake I referred to in point 4 above. No internet translator could have led him to make that mistake because there is no mention of subs in the section. Nor, after the fact, did he quote the relevant pages. So your knight to the rescue mission is not based on a sound basis or is it irrelevant because you are looking for an excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me. 6. If I had treated the OP as having a poor command of the English language that could easily have been misconstrued as condescension and then you would have had a ready made excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me. Yes, I can see a theme developing here. Some resemblance to quixotic behaviour is even detected. Condescension is so often such a subjective viewpoint. Quite commonly employed by some who dislike being corrected and need an excuse to cover up their embarrassment. It is a term which can be easily thrown at anyone precisely because it is so subjective with no objective test. Yes, even you, one day may be smeared with that very same term on flimsy grounds. Where the answer to a question is clearly laid out in the manual or been settled in a previous thread, I will continue to disregard the subjective cries of "condescension" or "condescending" behaviour and point out the truth. Those who are not looking for an excuse to pick a fight and denigrate me overwhelmingly prefer to have the correct answer provided rather than the often quite erroneous opinions which are passed of as fact. Alfred

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 7:15:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... warspite1 +1 Condescending, insulting and rude. I see you have appointed yourself to haunt me. I too could come up with a series of denigrating remarks about you but have to date refrained from doing so. Wouldn't your time be better spent getting that piece of vapourware, known as WIF, ready for publication. If it is ever published I rather suspect all this free time you seem to have on your hands will be consumed dealing with unsatisfied consumers. Alfred

Alfred -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 8:40:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sieppo So enthusiastic players posting on forums discussing asking advice and opinions from other players, and maybe getting to a conclusion is not good OR good business for the game company in your opinion (or I have not understood the function of forums correctly)? People should just try read the manual and shut up :)? Seems like you take it as a personal attack every time somebody asks about something, into which there might be an answer in the manual.. Did you write it :D? Another person who unable to refute the objective accuracy of my statements, makes up out of thin air things which I did not write but which are ascribed to me anyway. 1. You were not asking for advice or an opinion, you asked for what the rules are. 2. This thread had reached the point where wrong information was being passed as rule facts. 3. As is my usual practice, even though I already knew the answer, I rechecked the facts before I told you in which chapter and under which heading the correct facts were found. 4. It was you who effectively came back to tell me that I was wrong even though you had not checked the facts. I was correct, you were wrong but that did not stop you from effectively calling me a liar. 5. When GreyJoy gave you a confident answer you immediately lapped it up as being correct even though you had no basis of knowing if it was correct unless you had read the section of the manual I directed you to. And if you had read the manual you would not have reacted as you did in point 4 above. 6. I have pointed out the difference between this thread and the one you opened on airframe production. The two threads are quite different and neither you nor your friends can post facto cover up the facts. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to make up your own facts, a practice which you are not alone in engaging in. There are about a half dozen people who regularly post answers to inexperienced players. Answers from these people are highly reliable so whenever an inexperienced player receives an answer from this group which does not accord with what they expected, they ought to assume that they are in the wrong and endeavour to find the basis for the answer from one of the members of that group. It is sheer arrogance to assume that the inexperienced player was correct and the error lay with the other. Most of the replies you will get from the other players are well meaning and may be correct but not necessarily completely correct or cover all the nuances. Then there are some posters who with great surety just write garbage, often because they do no research before posting a reply. Alfred

GreyJoy -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 10:57:34 AM)
Sieppo, in a very friendly manner... Alfred's tone may, sometimes, seem a bit harsh. I too have experienced, the first time he helped (because he DID help!) me in my first AARed game, a bit of a "shock" when reading his words. But it's just that. Alfred is probably one of the most experienced player around here. For sure he's the one who knows best the rules and how the game works. And, without any doubt, he's the one who is able to explain the rules as it would do a manual (well, not our embedded manual...a very good manual!). If you, for a moment, put aside the "tone", you will see that the simple fact that he spent time and efforts to answer to your questions (even pointing out where to find the answer in the manual), you'll see that he did laid an hand, that he did help. Sure, in his way and with his tone, but he did help. Take him as the professor we all had at school (high school or university, doesn't matter). Everyone of us has memories of a particular teacher that everyone considered a ******* because he was strict, severe and harsh... but usually, when time passes by and we grow up, we discover that it was because of him if we have learnt math or the hated physics (or whatever). BTW, I hope I gave you the correct answer. I have no problem placing my CVs in coastal hexes or shallow waters. The only thing to avoid is to place your CVs in a base/dot hex. Hope this helps

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 12:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy Sieppo, in a very friendly manner... Alfred's tone may, sometimes, seem a bit harsh. I too have experienced, the first time he helped (because he DID help!) me in my first AARed game, a bit of a "shock" when reading his words. But it's just that. Alfred is probably one of the most experienced player around here. For sure he's the one who knows best the rules and how the game works. And, without any doubt, he's the one who is able to explain the rules as it would do a manual (well, not our embedded manual...a very good manual!). If you, for a moment, put aside the "tone", you will see that the simple fact that he spent time and efforts to answer to your questions (even pointing out where to find the answer in the manual), you'll see that he did laid an hand, that he did help. Sure, in his way and with his tone, but he did help. Take him as the professor we all had at school (high school or university, doesn't matter). Everyone of us has memories of a particular teacher that everyone considered a ******* because he was strict, severe and harsh... but usually, when time passes by and we grow up, we discover that it was because of him if we have learnt math or the hated physics (or whatever). BTW, I hope I gave you the correct answer. I have no problem placing my CVs in coastal hexes or shallow waters. The only thing to avoid is to place your CVs in a base/dot hex. Hope this helps I have absolutely no intention of being ungrateful especially when people are trying to help me. It just seemed a bit rude to me, because the reason I post so much at the moment is, that I (still) like this game so much and like to discuss it. It is true that into many my questions a straight answer could be found in the manual but if one would not study it's 300 pages continuously by heart, it's very hard to find some mention in a phrase somewhere, especially if you have to deduct the answer. But not impossible of course. I guess it's a thing of convenience, not so much lazyness, because I really have tried and consult the manual all the time. I do not use the Google translator to understand the answers. I have studied English that many years and we get exposed to it here in Finland (as Alfred speculated)that much but I have to say, that I think I did not quite understand what Alfred meant by his first answer. I was hoping this forum would not be a place where people vent their aggression but I guess nowhere in the internet is safe from that.

V I Lenin -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 1:45:25 PM)
It is best if you are troubled by them simply to ignore these types of people (either 'close your eyes' or use forum ignore feature). Very detailed wargaming as 'genre' has large number of people who (I say as 'my estimation' - but I think is generally true) are relatively old compared to 'mainstream' internet communities, who (maybe as consequence of that, maybe as consequence simply of being type of person attracted to deep wargames [;)]) do not behave with the same 'social attitude' as 'mainstream' internet population, and tend to become deeply 'involved' in their hobby of choice. This causes problems in the long term as it tends to result in 'exclusive' attitude - which reflects itself in various ways. You get these situations where instead of simply saying nothing (and letting the people who are both helpful and polite deal with problems), or simply saying something basic using information obviously committed to memory ("Check out the 'Aircraft Carriers in Base Hexes' subheading in the manual - it mentions only base hexes, not coastal ones") instead it is presented as your failure to do your job, and that you are obviously a bad person not worthy of respect before eyes of self-appointed Guardian of Information for doing so. It is also reflected in other ways - wargames like WITP have notoriously poor user interface, for instance, playing big part in making them inaccessible to 'average' person who does not have tens of hours to dedicate to learning them - but existing community does not care about this; after all, they already understand it, so it does not matter and they instead demand focus on minor technical upgrades to simulation systems etc rather than usability. Long-term effect is to keep community small and insular, and games less popular than they might be...but 'echo chamber' is happy with them, so nothing changes. Anyway, situation is what it is. You have received answers now from people who are capable of being civil while giving them and from people who are not; it is up to you to decide which you prefer [;)]

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: V I Lenin It is best if you are troubled by them simply to ignore these types of people (either 'close your eyes' or use forum ignore feature). Very detailed wargaming as 'genre' has large number of people who (I say as 'my estimation' - but I think is generally true) are relatively old compared to 'mainstream' internet communities, who (maybe as consequence of that, maybe as consequence simply of being type of person attracted to deep wargames [;)]) do not behave with the same 'social attitude' as 'mainstream' internet population, and tend to become deeply 'involved' in their hobby of choice. This causes problems in the long term as it tends to result in 'exclusive' attitude - which reflects itself in various ways. You get these situations where instead of simply saying nothing (and letting the people who are both helpful and polite deal with problems), or simply saying something basic using information obviously committed to memory ("Check out the 'Aircraft Carriers in Base Hexes' subheading in the manual - it mentions only base hexes, not coastal ones") instead it is presented as your failure to do your job, and that you are obviously a bad person not worthy of respect before eyes of self-appointed Guardian of Information for doing so. It is also reflected in other ways - wargames like WITP have notoriously poor user interface, for instance, playing big part in making them inaccessible to 'average' person who does not have tens of hours to dedicate to learning them - but existing community does not care about this; after all, they already understand it, so it does not matter and they instead demand focus on minor technical upgrades to simulation systems etc rather than usability. Long-term effect is to keep community small and insular, and games less popular than they might be...but 'echo chamber' is happy with them, so nothing changes. Anyway, situation is what it is. You have received answers now from people who are capable of being civil while giving them and from people who are not; it is up to you to decide which you prefer [;)] Good "analysis" :). I was thinking along these lines - I have a long history and work in the martial arts business and have noticed that it attracts a lot of people (some VERY skilled in competition), that erhm do not work with the same social rules and skills as other people might work and also have a lot of aggression. It has lead to think of them as not "normal" people and not try to think there is something wrong, if you know what I mean. That's one reason why I no longer try to fight these internet forum etc battles. I think it also attracts the same kind of people. But this is kitchen psychology :).. But I got my answer yes and thanks for that. In the future I think I'll maybe think twice (AND double the effort manualwise) before posting a question here.

GreyJoy -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:34:33 PM)
Guys, don't be harsh towards this forum and its community. It's a very good one and it's very open, polite and helpful compared to other internet environement. To be honest I've never found a forum related to a video-game to be so full of intelligent, acknowledged and humorous people. To jump to conclusions so early. Feel free to post your questions and doubts and, I have no doubt about it, you'll get plenty of answers and help. To me has happened the same.

dr.hal -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:39:59 PM)
Folks, folks, Talk about "fast and furious" (my political bias is coming out!)"the slings and arrows of outrageous (mis)fortune" are flying full force here! Is this where we want to be as a forum? All that need be said in response to the original post was "the answer can be found on page 167 of the manual in section 7.2.1.13.2!" All the other "mud" is so unneeded and such a distraction! One thing I learned in the military that has stood the test of time is that you "praise in public and punish in private!" Are all these PDAs (public displays of affection - another military reference) constructive???? If it is really needed why not simply "PM" individuals that give out poor or ill-conceived advise (and no I'm not soliciting PMs for myself despite the fact that I know I should get some!). A public flogging from any party is so not needed and demeans all of us. Think about using the PM system in the future. Thanks for reading. Hal

V I Lenin -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy Guys, don't be harsh towards this forum and its community. It's a very good one and it's very open, polite and helpful compared to other internet environement. To be honest I've never found a forum related to a video-game to be so full of intelligent, acknowledged and humorous people. To jump to conclusions so early. Feel free to post your questions and doubts and, I have no doubt about it, you'll get plenty of answers and help. To me has happened the same. I think, it depends how you take how people seem to talk. On most internet forums for example there is used much more 'bad language' than on wargaming forums, so you can say it is 'rude'. But, at the same time, this is not really 'rude' - these things are very obviously meant to be taken unseriously. Wargaming forums (and some others, like for example very serious 'foodie' forums) have a varnish of 'we are all polite, nice people' but can be much more...it is not rudeness, but very 'intense' - a sort of "here is my message and I will defend it until I am passing out of exhaustion". It is more like having a conversation with your boss at work than talking between friends. Obviously this is not always, and it is not a bad thing necessarily, but if you are not prepared for it it can certainly be very unpleasant to deal with.

Rainer -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 2:42:36 PM)
quote: In the future I think I'll maybe think twice (AND double the effort manualwise) before posting a question here. Don't. Posting a question helps a lot of people who do not dare to do this. Not posting would take away the opportunity to read good answers from these people who may not have a sufficient command of the English language to compose a question. And remember: this forum is populated by a multi-national, multi-cultural (and probably a multi-socialogical) society. Alfred is sort of a hero here. Not only because of his deep knowledge of the game but also because of his very precise and always fully researched answers. Yes, I also find his style sometimes a bit - err - "demanding". But then again, not all good teachers are also pleasant fellows easily to associate with, but we still learned a lot from them, didn't we? [;)]

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 3:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... warspite1 +1 Condescending, insulting and rude. or, accurate, consistent and uncompromising.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 3:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... warspite1 +1 Condescending, insulting and rude. or, accurate, consistent and uncompromising. I've told Alfred what I think in email. [:)]

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 4:06:56 PM)
I give Sieppo credit for changing his avatar after a number of Americans here found it distasteful. He can't help it if he is annoying some times. [:D] (just kidding) As for Alfred, he is the AE equivalent of Deep Blue. If he says Kt-b6 will result in checkmate in 4 moves then it will. In fairness, the carriers in base hexes bit IS in the manual. Even I know that [:)] I am pretty sure I even know the rationale for why it's in there. Lastly, there are many things about what the AI does or the mechanics of combat resolution that are purposely NOT in the manual. Naturally, players wish to discover these secrets. This leads to many threads where players discuss mythological "knowledge" acquired from the Oracle of Delphi or from examination of rabbit entrails or their previous game experiences. These are often very entertaining but it would be a mistake to trust your retirement savings to one of these notions.

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 6:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake In fairness, the carriers in base hexes bit IS in the manual. Even I know that [:)] I am pretty sure I even know the rationale for why it's in there. Lastly, there are many things about what the AI does or the mechanics of combat resolution that are purposely NOT in the manual. Naturally, players wish to discover these secrets. This leads to many threads where players discuss mythological "knowledge" acquired from the Oracle of Delphi or from examination of rabbit entrails or their previous game experiences. These are often very entertaining but it would be a mistake to trust your retirement savings to one of these notions. Yes it is but nothing about the effect of shallow water for CV's, only subs. Of course one could deduct this BUT if there are some experienced players saying there is an effect, it leads to confusion. But were running around in circles with this one. As I said I'll be more careful about questions because they obviously aren't tolerated by senior members :P. EVERYBODY GO READ THE MANUAL, NOTHING TO BE LEARNED HERE BY SOCIAL DISCUSSION GODDAMMIT :DD.. Edit: as for the "annoying" bit.. In my last desk job I learned how hard it is to get the same effect in emails as in face to face. Smileys do something but not a lot, if somebody (maybe also angry and aggressive) has decided that he does not like the person. Misunderstandings are plentiful (and I'm not perfect). I try to avoid emails nowadays if the discussion and topics are really important. Edit2: I stand by my last avatar as long as avatars like the Enola Gay are accepted etc :)! For me it's the same thing and I gave my explanations in that thread.

Sieppo -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 6:45:07 PM)
Deleted. Clicked quote instead of edit.....

warspite1 -> RE: Ships preferring deep water (5/15/2013 7:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Quixote quote: 5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are: (a) you have never read the manual, or (b) you read it very superficially, or (c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or (d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct Alfred, you may want to add: (e) You are not a native English speaker, the manual isn't printed in Finnish, and internet translation programs don't handle fringe subject matter like this very well. He asked a legitimate question, and judging from his previous posts he isn't one of those guys who refuses to read the manual yet still expects to be spoon-fed information. It's been pointed out to you before that your posting style, despite being usually informative, occasionally comes across as condescending to native English speakers. I don't imagine that Google translator does much to ameliorate this... warspite1 +1 Condescending, insulting and rude. I see you have appointed yourself to haunt me. I too could come up with a series of denigrating remarks about you but have to date refrained from doing so. Wouldn't your time be better spent getting that piece of vapourware, known as WIF, ready for publication. If it is ever published I rather suspect all this free time you seem to have on your hands will be consumed dealing with unsatisfied consumers. Alfred warspite1 How very sad... 1. I have appointed myself to haunt you? haunt you? good god man get a grip.... I think you will find that I have never had any quarrel with you of any sort until your ridiculous, mis-placed, high-handed, self opinionated attack on a whole forum from a few weeks back. Having got no response from you on that - I genuinely thought some form of apology may be offered - I decided to provide support to someone you are attacking in similar tone to that you exhibited in that earlier attack. Who on earth are you to decide how a wargamer should learn to play a game? 2. Refrained from coming up with denigrating remarks about me? Please feel free. You could try adding to the "content free zone" and "unable to understand complexity" that has already been levelled in my general direction [8\|] 3. As for your third point, please allow me to answer in the style that you use to answer people you see beneath you like poor Sieppo or indeed, the whole of the General Discussion Forum. 1. The name is Matrix World In Flames (MWIF) not WIF. Judging from your use of syntax I suspect that you know English perfectly well and know its MWIF, but were simply too lazy to give the game its correct name. 2. MWIF is not vapourware, its a game based upon the award winning board game World In Flames. Why you choose to call it vapourware I have no idea, but I (and of course I am always right) suspect its because you do not understand the difference. 3. Why would I be dealing with unsatisfied customers? I am not programming, developing, publishing or distributing the game. That comment makes no sense. I suggest you read a manual on retail practices in the wargaming world and then post again once you are sure of your facts. There really is no need for rudeness Alfred.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875