Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
quote:
For the record, I was, in fact, so "good" as the Allies at playing according to the game's mechanics and rules that in one game my opponent gave up in frustration, so strong was my position after only some six months of play.
I had intended on refraining from responding as I didn't feel this post was worth diving into until I saw your little blurb above. You'll have to forgive me if I fail to use your "Logic and reasonable Argument" points here.
Here are the point totals as of 6/11/42:
Game Points: Japan- 16128 / Allies- 7634
# of ships sunk by Japan- 198
# of ships sunk by Allied- 74
# Points gained for ships sunk: Japan- 2212 / Allies- 752
# of aircraft points lost: Japan- 2575 / Allied- 2689
# of Army points lost: Japan- 564 / Allied- 8079
# of capital ships lost by Japan- 1 BB, 1 CA, 4 Cl, 12 DD
# of captial ships lost by Allies- 2 BB, 1 BC, 4 CA, 8 CL
# of bases controlled by Japan- 274, by the Allies- 174
KB fully intact. No lands recaptured by Allies. So your position was strong, was it? BS! 
Steve, this is ridiculous. The AAR is posted for anyone to view, and I've presented well-reasoned analysis of the play there for anyone to read who has the interest.
Here is the link: Tristanjohn vs ChezDaJez: Lemur's Scen 15
Joe Wilkerson, who took over for you, was dismayed at what he found after he inspected the Japanese positions, which is why I made the proposal to stand down operations in the central Pacific for the period of time specified above in my reply to Russ. I'm sure Joe would be happy to confirm that, but I wouldn't bother to ask. You might, though.
quote:
I quit the game because you had absolutely no desire to play with anything resembling even the slightest bit of historical context. Instead, you found and used every little gamey exploit. The more we played, the more your primary goal seemed to be, "Let's see how broken the game is!". I quit in frustration because you simply wanted to use our game as a soapbox to yell loud and clear as to how bad the game design was.
Well, as far as that goes all of my games are tests, which I clearly spelled out to you. My goal has always been to improve the game if possible. "Winning" isn't part of my agenda. That's important to you evidently, and Russ seems to set store by it, but for me, I'd just settle for a good simulation to play, and what we have doesn't fit that description.
As for my play style: I merely used Gary's published rules and the pieces he provided. If you have a problem with that you should take it up with Gary.
quote:
You knew that I was looking for a historical game when we began.
An impossibility with the current model.
quote:
And when I complained about your gamey tactics, what was your reply? Your reply basically said, "Tough!"
That isn't true, or at least that is not a completely representative statement.
quote:
Yet, you sure complained load and clear if I went near the map edge or if I bombarded. In fact, you complained every time I tried a historical tactic that didn't fit your perception of history. Your attitude then, as now, was condescending in the extreme. If you like, I can go back over the files and e-mails and pull out the specifics. I still have them.
Post whatever you want. Get your rocks off. Exercise yourself. Go for it. And have a good time. 
quote:
Now, I'm sure I've just violated many of your "Logic and Reasonable Argument" so it won't hurt to violate the "Ad hominem" once more. It is my opinion that you are a "bad" player as opposed to "good." This comes from first-hand knowledge. So technically, it may not be an ad hominem attack as it is based on direct observation of your play. An example would be your "Sir Robin" defence of the SRA. You left it defenceless and then complained like hell because it fell so easily.
I don't recall complaining about the SRA. I recall you complaining about the SRA. In fact you told me I had no business moving anything out of the SRA, that that was a kind of "cheat" in your estimation, that I was supposed to leave everything there for the Japanese to kill at their leisure, presumably. That's what I recall.
I did point out to you at times how your own style of play exacerbated known problems with the rules and holes in the system. For instance, the "edge of the board" defense you wanted to use in the Indian Ocean. I told you plainly that you could do so if you wanted to, that it wasn't a critical matter with me, but it was just one more example of the model not up to its work and a phony way to play--I mean that kind of nonsense goes back to board wargames, right?
As for your various complaints, sometimes I was sympathetic, sometimes I was not sympathetic. Am I obliged to always agree with you right down the line? For example, I backed off on my B-17 raids of Rabaul, limited the number I'd send, went back and forth between night and day raids and whatnot, but no matter how I used my heavy-bomber assets your facility at Rabaul (and most everything else in the area) was slowly being reduced to pumice. So in fact I changed some things for you, Steve, and also offered suggestions about your play as well. Sounds like give and take to me.
The bottom line remains that the Japanese position, thanks to your hand, was in some respects untenable halfway through 1942. When you departed I was almost prepared to occupy all of the north coast of PNG and New Britain and the Admiralty Islands, meanwhile I was simultaneously in the process of shipping considerable assets up to Darwin, from which point I planned to take Timor and so forth as the first step toward kicking the Japanese out of the SRA. And that's not some pipedream of mine. I did just that.
Again, the link to the AAR is there for all to see, and it's clearly noted at which juncture you departed the scene and Joe took over. It's all spelled out in black and white as they say.
Anyway, all I cared to do was demonstrate how wanting the game model is given aggressive play by either side from what I've seen, in this case the Allies, and more importantly why it doesn't work properly (a poor logistics model), the latter with an eye to fixing things if possible.
quote:
So do me a favor. Next time you wish to embellish something, or in this case outright distort it, choose another player because this one will call your BS every time. Categorize that!
That's a snap. You apparently still are as you have always been since I've known you: a man fairly out of control, who does not accept criticism well, and who is furthermore given to personal attacks, and often at the top of his lungs. All of which is a matter of public record and can be easily verified by anyone who cares to go to that trouble.
Now I don't take pleasure in saying that, Steve, but then you did come here to challenge me. Yes?
< Message edited by Tristanjohn -- 12/28/2005 3:56:57 PM >
_____________________________
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
|
Printable Version
RE: Logic and Reasonable Argument - 
Reading this post caused a flashback. With a few more latin/greek references, I would have seen my teacher 
TristenJohn, trying to pass off this as your own? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread