RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:04:20 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Veji,

I actually agree with you. It is a discussion which will almost invariably result in no-one seeing past their prejudgements but I think we all have an obligation to explain ourselves when asked to do so... even if it is pointless ( as it is now). I know it may sound strange but while I may view my obligations very differently than most here I DO live up to what I feel MY obligations are. One of them is explaining if requested or a misperception is posted.

If there's no misperception posted then there's no obligation on me to post clarification. I know that's not a "modern" way of looking at things and people can manipulate it to create an endless obligation of clarification but there you have it. It is what I believe is right to do and so I clarify. It is up to others whether they choose to manipulate that obligation or not and create a perverse situation ( which this is).

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 61

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:07:36 PM

aztez

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

It is safe to say we do disagree 99% what�was historically possible for Japan and what would those territory gains mean in terms of garrison requirements.

That is the only reason why this game was cancelled. I have read your views on the game/history on these boards and they are way diffrent than what I call reality.

As for the personality. If I ever implied/insulted anybody I would be first one to say sorry. But not in this case though.

I do admire your work Nemo. I really do since my mother died in cancer couple of years ago and other relatives/friends have been seriously ill too. But personality has nothing to do with job... you are who you are and I bet most of the members in these forums help others best way they can as I do too.

Don't worry I wohn't write anything about you. No, since there is no need to do so. I only replied here since you seem to have somekind of an grudge with this game.

As for the apoligize.. none received as I expected.

Time to end this senseless and useless debate.

< Message edited by aztez -- 8/23/2006 11:16:29 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 62

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:31:54 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Aztez,

Yes, I think that the 99% figure is probably correct. Still I'm happy to allow you to hold your views and not give out when you start a game under said viewpoint. Its all a matter of opinion after all. I'm comfortable leaving you to yours so long as you and others leave me to mine.

I'm more than happy to agree with you to let this lie... the only exception will be that given my own experiences in games I DO take a keen interest in pointing out the need for house rules to newer players in the opponent's wanted thread and will give examples from my personal experience of house rules I now have and why I have them... I trust that this single exception to "letting it all lie" is acceptable to you.

As to the rest... Fine, you don't like my personality. I have no problem with that as liking someone is almost entirely irrelevant on a forum with people one will almost certainly never meet. The only exception is that for most people dislike colours their interpretation of what others say and insofar as your dislike does that it has some, minor, relevance. So long as there's no misrepresentation I, personally, don't care if you make a little voodoo doll of me and stick pins in it all day every day ;).

Grudge with this game? No, but I don't like misrepresentation etc and will always seek to clarify that. I consider everything which needed clarifying clarified and if there is no further misrepresentation then there will be no obligation on me to clarify anything. Simple.

As to the apologies... Aztez, I cannot apologise for something I didn't say and didn't intend to imply. What I will say is that IF through any lack of thought or care I implied something which was untrue then, obviously, I apologise unreservedly for that. I would never wish to imply an untruth about anyone either intentionally or unintentionally and if I did that to you then, yes, I do apologise absolutely unreservedly. I cannot, however, apologise for things I never said or implied.

As to personality having nothing to do with the job ;)... Oh on this we will have to agree to disagree. Everyone who works in medicine knows that certain personalities make good researches, others good surgeons, others good cardiologists, others good geriatricians, others good psychiatrists... If you got the best researcher in the world and made him a surgeon he'd be atrocious since he just wouldn't have the personality and mindset for it... The current theory is that people self-select for their job by subconsciously identifying qualities they either feel they have or would like to have in their consultants while they are junior doctors and students and then tend to self-select themselves into those specialties. Still, I know the point you are trying to make about my personality... that I am an objectionable person etc etc etc and I have no problem with you believing that. As I said, it is irrelevant to this situation so long as it doesn't cloud your interpretation of what I write in the future or your reaction to it.

And lastly, on a human and emotional level ( which I do very rarely let out of the bag ) I am truly sorry to hear of your loss and wish you and yours the best of health in the future. And, while I wouldn't expect you to ever feel like taking me up on this, I would state openly that IF anyone ever did have an issue medically etc then so long as it is understood that there are limits to any perspective which can be offered from the other side of the world I would always be willing to offer whatever advice or sucour I could. I'm one of the few doctors you'll meet who has a policy of stopping for every crash I come across. That's not a good or a bad thing or any play for "maybe he isn't actually an as*hole" ( since I would actively despise such putrid plays on emotionality) it is just a decision I made and explanation for why I would try to offer advice on a "good samaritan" basis. So, if anyone happens to have a metaphorical crash I would always give the best, honest advice possible if asked, and have done so in the past on a few occasions privately elsewhere.

(in reply to aztez)

Post #: 63

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:36:27 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Nothing to see here ( hopefully). Move along now... Watch out for high-altitude Kami-Zekes though ;).

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 64

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:50:43 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I just realized this AAR actually ended on page 1. Sorry I posted after that. Do you have any active games?
I now have 5 games as Japan and would like one as Allies.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 65

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:53:43 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Is this for me Mogami?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 66

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/23/2006 11:54:55 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, It's your AAR. Or you can look at my new turn 1. But I'd bore you as Japan.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 8/23/2006 11:55:02 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 67

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/24/2006 12:56:48 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Hmm well it isn't about being bored or not... It is about matching strategic and operational ploys. Good play, whether conservative or aggressive, is always enjoyable play.

As to any game... I'd like to play allies against RHS EOS. I think the Japanese are a lot more vulnerable than some would make out and would enjoy putting that theory to the test under pretty much the same conditions as this game.

if you are interested in an RHS EOS game as Japanese ( which is vastly, vastly different to stock) then PM me and we can iron out some details. The only caveat would be that you agree that you know what you are getting into in terms of play style.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 68

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/24/2006 1:14:07 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Oh well I only use the stock game. I don't want to spend 40+ hours doing another turn 1 as Japan when I have one already. I'd do a stock Allied player though and let you run wild since I would like to see what can be done. Do you want to fight WWII or PLAY WITP?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 69

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/24/2006 1:22:47 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

LOL!!! With the A2A model in stock one doesn't play WW2 in that either ;)... I've just lost my first CV in RHS and lost it to land-based bombers which just blew past my CAP without any fighter cover ( and with minimal losses). Seems a lot more realistic to me than stock and tends to disadvantage the Japanese in the early months significantly when compared to stock.

You should really have a look at RHS. It isn't perfect by any means but it is definitely worth a good look.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 70

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/27/2006 3:06:21 AM

Redd

Posts: 203
Joined: 7/22/2005
From: Livermore,CA.
Status: offline

Wow, now that would make for a couple of awesome AAR's! Come on Mogami, for the sake of those of us who read much better than we type. If you play as the allies with this RHS mod, you could probobly just learn as you go. Nemo has to make most of the fancy moves at the beginning. It could turn out to be a really good matchup. Pretty please, with suger on top ?

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 71

RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez. - 8/27/2006 2:36:28 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Yes and, as I said in this thread, the Allies are significantly stronger than some have said. When emotions overrule objectivity you make incorrect assessments.

As you can see from the discussion of RHS in the scenario thread I've faced an AV of 1600+ at Palembang and 3000+ at Kuala Lumpur ( when the actual combat infantry unadjusted AV in each place was never more than 65)... The coolie squads made up 95%+ of each of those adjusted AV.

So the Japanese will need to take more time and commit more force to subduing the DEI than would be the case in stock. Still, Mogami can make his own decisions.

(in reply to Redd)

Post #: 72