Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004 Status: offline
|
Sid, I am tired, tired, tired of this. Nonetheless I'll touch on a few points quickly for clarity's sake and then respond to the over-arching point. 1. quote:
He wants to take areas not historically done Yes, the IJA wants to take Ceylon. Apart from that whatever additional territory is to be taken is in the IJN's domain and, thus, can be vetoed by the IJN. Not really the massive drain you make it out to be IMO. 2. Covering Malaysian landings... Well land-based air doesn't have the range to cover the landing properly in the first couple of days so it would have to be covered by CVLs ( which can be lost just as easily as CVEs) and which I would assume are much better used cutting off the Allied escape routes south from the Phillipines. Also the CVLs don't gather a sufficient mass of Zeroes to provide enough CAP to really break the Dutch and British superiority of numbers. I've tested this in-game. CVLs on their own often take damage. The CVEs backed by a CVL or two absolutely break the back of the naval strikes directed against them. 3. quote:
You NEVER agreed to the assignment of the regiment Actually I did. I never specified which daitai we were talking about because I didn't know which ones you required. Also I'll note that while the presence of Army units on Taan is sufficient to make them yours since they are on a Navy-controlled island BUT this doesn't seem to apply when there are Betty daitai on the mainland you want control of. This sort of inconsistency in your suppositions an assumptions makes it impossible for anyone to be able to assess a situation and know what belongs to them and what belongs to the other. I would have thought that if it was a navy air unit and on the mainland then it would be IJA - given that you say IJA units on IJN-controlled islands should belong to the IJN. It seems, however, that this isn't so. All in all it is confusing. 4. quote:
I want the air brigade This is another problem. Can you please quit using terms which don't apply in-game and which you haven't explained. What is an "air Brigade"? Do you mean a Sentai or 3 Sentais or what? The game has sentais, talk of Brigades is needlessly confusing. Also it seems that you are using regiment and sentai interchangeably... Is brigade now supposed to be used interchangeably with these other two terms also? 5. quote:
I posted recommendations. 3 for Hawaii (but one not in divisional form). One for DEI. One for New Guinea/Rabaul (to which add one of those from Hawaii). Two for Darwin. It seems to me that given the 4 divisions you need initially ( 2 for Hawaii and 2 for Phillipines) and 4 Brigades that the other divisions you are looking for can easily come from the Phillipines invasion force. If you have 3 division equivalents and figure you need one for DEI then take 1 from the Phillipines and head over to the DEI with it. I think that is crazily light. I much prefer to hit the DEI with 4 or 5 divisions to be honest but it is your choice. I do, however, predict disaster if you hit it with just a single division. Same for Darwin and Noumea... A half-dozen divisions for each target is much more likely to be the bare minimum than 2 for Darwin and 1 for Noumea. Still, this isn't my problem anymore. 6. North and Western Borneo. No Sid, they were definitely yours. Here's the quote from my post: quote:
Ok, let me give you my final position... I'll trade you Java and Borneo ( in total) in return for having eastern Ceylon and Sumatra... I think that's pretty fair... You get that non-malarial base you've been lusting for and full control of Borneo - which you can fit into your Grand Escort Command etc - while I get to have Sumatra ( which is directly beside Singapore and Malaysia and an essential first line of defence for Malaysia) and control over how the forces in eastern Ceylon are utilised... since Ceylon is essential to IJA plans in India . 7. quote:
Sorry. Thought that was clear: No Sid. Nothing is clear until you state it. Thinking it but not saying it doesn't make it clear. And when you say it giving out to the other person for not telepathically knowing it is just bad form. 8. As to your statements in private that it is dishonourable to quit... Well Sid, I have tried to clear up issues time and again and I was fully prepared to play a game in which the IJA and IJN would have different ideas of what they wanted to achieve.. I envisioned a game in which we would argue a bit over strategic priorities and so on. What has happened here is like a car wreck in slow motion. A car wreck which has robbed this idea of ANY sense of fun or enjoyment. I literally dread reading what you write because I have a sense that I can ask as many questions as I want but it is pure luck if your answer deals with any of them in a substantive way. To be honest I'm not enjoying it any more, find it amazing that you could say privately today that you were surprised when I said this to you privately today - given that I'd been saying this in posts here several times over the last few weeks - and really do feel that it is impossible to play in a team with someone who just assumes that huge swathes of strategy and gameplay are "obvious" to everyone without him saying anything about them. You assume so much telepathy on the part of your team mates that it is scary. If I were a real army officer I would, quite frankly, have had you assasinated as being impossible to work with and kept my fingers crossed that the next IJN commander appointed would be willing to rely on more than telepathy when it came to informing me of plans and dispositions. This isn't real life and so, obviously, assasination is off the cards . It is however a GAME and meant to be FUN. In my work I may have to put up with all sorts of people, and I do... I put up with rapists, murderers, drug addicts, paedophiles etc. I have many patients who fit in each of the categories just mentioned... I play WiTP to ESCAPE from that reality, sit back and craft a cunning plan which I then try to carry out. I find enjoyment in fine-tuning the plan until it has no margin for error and will either succeed with an unbelievably low force commitment, in excessively speedy time or with few casualties ( although usually one of the first two and rarely the latter). Recently the prospect of playing with you has filled me with dread and a growing sense of despair ( and no those are not exaggerations). Quite simply with your (lack of) communication I can see myself getting frustrated at the sense that I'm floundering without sufficient info. I can also foresee you continuing to parachute assumptions into the mix ( which will frustrate me even further) and a combination of the two will make me angry and I'll lose my temper. At a point along the way I will also take to dreading the arrival of a turn and view the game as an unwelcome committment and not FUN!!! I'm on holidays this week and I felt I had to make a choice. MY decision was to raise this issue one last time as otherwise I could see it ruining my holiday. So, I raised the issue and today I've received about a dozen emails all going into great detail on communications styles and mistakes I've made etc etc but I haven't seen the creation of the clarity I think is essential. I also haven't seen any posts or emailsdealing with which of us you think should leave... although I did receive the email in which you berated me and called me dishonourable ( and implied that I was breaking my word) by talking of leaving. To be honest that last email made my decision for me. It is my opinion that when someone with whom you are supposed to be on a team uses those sorts of terms to try to enforce you remaining on that team that that's a sure sign it is time to go. Sid, I NEVER would have agreed to this game if you had UP FRONT told me even half of the "assumptions" you parachuted in after we got started. When we started you said the IJA had veto power. I accepted it under that one condition because I knew that it would be difficult to reach concensus with you (I'm not completely blind about these things after all). When I tried to use that veto power you conveniently swatted it aside. Similar situations arose time and again where I state something based on something you'd said before and you stated a completely undiscussed "assumption" of yours which negated what I was doing. Etc etc etc... It can only happen so often before you begin to believe that's going to continue happening. This sudden appearance of assumptions hasn't stopped today and so, since you didn't respond to my suggestion that you should nominate one of us to quite I'm left with no option but to quit myself. I'm quitting before I get more frustrated and angry and do myself no favours by venting my feelings with the strength with which I hold them. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding someone to play with you and now that they have some idea of all of the assumptions which underline your play ( I had none since you didn't tell me any of them when asking if I'd be interested) you may even end up with someone who will be agreeable to all your assumptions. Anyways, I'm getting frustrated just thinking about it so Ill go now. I wish you the best and regret having to quit but it was the best option available in terms of my mental health. I'd be delighted to continue this team game with someone else but I do not feel that I can team up with you. I do wish you the best in your search for a replacement and I hope that now they know what they will be getting into they will be much more able to self-screen for compatibility than I was since none of these assumptions were mentioned when you initially asked me to sign on. Take care and best of luck. I'll watch the game unfolding with interest.
< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 11/20/2006 5:23:08 AM >
|