Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dan is an excellent player who is first and foremost a Gentleman.

Simple reality is that he bit off FAAAAR more then he could chew. He didn't go far enough in his Sumatra Gambit. Should have gone far farther and never allowed me to get back into the match. He has me dead-to-rights but then blinked. As stated back at the time of hte landing I immediately saw the chance for opportunity and it was going to result in a massive Allied Surrender in Mar--April 1943.

I'm tired of the Mod comments Hans. This Mod is no where near Scenario 2. Sits pretty firmly between 1 and 2. Think that has been pretty well settled in the RA 6.0 Fact--Fiction Thread.

In ANY GAME an Allied Player staging late-1942 massed invasion faces the chance for great glory or great disaster. This would have ended in disaster.

I applaud Dan's work and his attempt to swing for the fences. Had he included Palembang, Singers, or Java the plan would have won the war for the Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dan is an excellent player who is first and foremost a Gentleman.

Simple reality is that he bit off FAAAAR more then he could chew. He didn't go far enough in his Sumatra Gambit. Should have gone far farther and never allowed me to get back into the match. He has me dead-to-rights but then blinked. As stated back at the time of hte landing I immediately saw the chance for opportunity and it was going to result in a massive Allied Surrender in Mar--April 1943.

I'm tired of the Mod comments Hans. This Mod is no where near Scenario 2. Sits pretty firmly between 1 and 2. Think that has been pretty well settled in the RA 6.0 Fact--Fiction Thread.

In ANY GAME an Allied Player staging late-1942 massed invasion faces the chance for great glory or great disaster. This would have ended in disaster.

I applaud Dan's work and his attempt to swing for the fences. Had he included Palembang, Singers, or Java the plan would have won the war for the Allies.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807

John,

I'm curious what your plans are, are you going to take 6.0 out for a spin now? Do another AAR with it (hopefully)?

Any way you and CR are BOTH good and wise teachers. When you were kind enough to ask my opinion on the aircraft pools, I gave it some thought and now after reading HansBolter's answer to Sangeli. I would like to modify my answer...

A lot of the battle locations are determined by the players action plans, I consider John3rd a superior tactician and while it is true that the Japanese have superiority in 1942, even John cannot cover everything - and that is where players like CR show thier brilliance. The moves CR made were copied and repreated by many including me in my PBEM game. For instance in my case it was blunting and then repelling the Jap advance in Burma using mostly British and Aussie aircraft & troops and chasing LarryF back down to the peninsula, the cost to me was the USN exposing itself by hitting bases in the Sothern Pacific mostly to keep LarryF from rushing everything over to Burma to take it back. So far I'm successfully attacking but bogging down in the jungles and losing some Burma/British troops to withdrawl is going to make it dicey for a while, until I can reinforce.

It's all Risk/Reward as always but CR literally threw the kitchen sink at John game wise, just a tad too early IMHO. That he nearly pulled it off is quite impressive and the SRA is the key to the war is true, but where and when to strike are the vital marks to watch. I really enjoyed following the match and hope to see them both soon on these pages shortly.

PS - How is the flooding in CO now? The story dropped off the face of the national news so we could see stupid things like Emmy memorial controversies... (groan...)

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

There's a line?

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The HR might be extreme but it also kept me from destroying China's Industry from Day ONE. Curious to see what people think might be an appropriate date for such a HR to end?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

AARs are difficult to maintain. A player puts everything out there and armchair quarterbacks always know better or second guess. Additionally the commentary can be quite brutal. This is one of the reasons Dan decided to stop. He was having 'issues' with topics, comments, and criticism within his AAR and our game. He has not given me permission to read it yet but I will go through all of it and look forward to calling out some individuals who cross this line that he alluded to. Many people tend to forget that when games end AARs are then read by the former opposing player.

We welcome Dan over here whenever he is ready to take a look. In re-reading the last 12-15 pages of the AAR, I think he'll have all sorts of things to say. Looking forward to that. He is a good human being and gentlemen to the Nth degree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Mr. Sutton: I totally agree to the 'he could have recovered' viewpoint expressed by you. however, the destruction of all those units there AND the five Regiment/Brigades at Noumea would have had vast complications to the Allied manpower pool. The Americans could easily have continued but New Zealand, India, and Britain would have been in deep kimche!

As to 'closing up shop' in the Pacific I had already done that prior to his move into Sumatra. This player was OVERCOMMITTED in the Sought Pacific due to reading the tea leaves wrong with where his blow would fall. Thankfully there were enough forces in the Western DEI and Burma to fight a delaying action enabling reinforcement to arrive and begin the counter-offensive.

The HR might be extreme but it also kept me from destroying China's Industry from Day ONE. Curious to see what people think might be an appropriate date for such a HR to end?

Your analysis of the bases grabbed and lack of AF building is spot-on. Biggest advantage I had was his ignoring of Great Nicobar, Car Nicobar, and Siboret. By not working these bases it enabled the Japanese to focus on Western Sumatra safely and begin to punch up the eastern side as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

AARs are difficult to maintain. A player puts everything out there and armchair quarterbacks always know better or second guess. Additionally the commentary can be quite brutal. This is one of the reasons Dan decided to stop. He was having 'issues' with topics, comments, and criticism within his AAR and our game. He has not given me permission to read it yet but I will go through all of it and look forward to calling out some individuals who cross this line that he alluded to. Many people tend to forget that when games end AARs are then read by the former opposing player.

We welcome Dan over here whenever he is ready to take a look. In re-reading the last 12-15 pages of the AAR, I think he'll have all sorts of things to say. Looking forward to that. He is a good human being and gentlemen to the Nth degree.

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

I haven't heard back from Dan since we exchanged some PMs. I don't expect to do so for some time either-he's got some significant issues in his family life to contend with.

Dan was burnt out, defensive and going through what must be a very difficult time in his life. I still think the world of him and wish him nothing but the best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Perhaps Dan is a bit burnt but if the Mod leaves one player with no aircraft, and the other player with practically unlimited aircraft

quote:

The biggest allied challenge in this game is nursing your air force. Even in 44 and 45.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

I never mentioned in the thread but I thought Nemo was over the top when he was speaking about John 3 personality traits which I felt if they were in my direction I'd consider them personal attacks. I also felt there was mention of the possibility of someone breaking Opsec and clueing John in on moves. If it was my AAR I would have put a stop to it and was surprised both went unchecked not only by the OP but contributors as well.

My reading comprehension is on par with my poor sentence structure so someone please tell me if I read it wrong.

Super post as always Chickenboy.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

AARs are difficult to maintain. A player puts everything out there and armchair quarterbacks always know better or second guess. Additionally the commentary can be quite brutal. This is one of the reasons Dan decided to stop. He was having 'issues' with topics, comments, and criticism within his AAR and our game. He has not given me permission to read it yet but I will go through all of it and look forward to calling out some individuals who cross this line that he alluded to. Many people tend to forget that when games end AARs are then read by the former opposing player.

We welcome Dan over here whenever he is ready to take a look. In re-reading the last 12-15 pages of the AAR, I think he'll have all sorts of things to say. Looking forward to that. He is a good human being and gentlemen to the Nth degree.

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

I haven't heard back from Dan since we exchanged some PMs. I don't expect to do so for some time either-he's got some significant issues in his family life to contend with.

Dan was burnt out, defensive and going through what must be a very difficult time in his life. I still think the world of him and wish him nothing but the best.

I don't know who PM'd Dan but I'm not surprised. He was not merely accused in this AAR, he was convicted in the tone of some posts as I remember the discussion (I have not looked back to refresh my memory). This in spite of the fact that the problem was not important enough to John to report it to Michael for possible bug-fix, which I twice suggested. I thought I sensed Dan being over-sensitive in his AAR so I'm sure he was stressed from RL but I am also sure that hearing about the soakers discussion would have really PO'd him in any event.

I didn't see the discussion about being not giving him carte blanche. I saw the discussion framed in such a way that a player is only allowed to use convoys in very specific ways regardless of his judgement of the tactical and logistical situation. I think that aspect of the discussion was greatly influenced by Dan's openly declared practice of using picket ships, and the disagreement that Dan and John had/have over Dan's practice. As best I remember Dan's (reported/claimed) use of picket ships has evolved over time, and he might have actually used merchants for that duty in the past, which probably further influenced the discussion.

A further issue. I agree that we have to be extremely, even exceptionally careful about revealing what is in players' AARs. I am sometimes uncomfortable with posts that I see in an AAR or in non-AAR threads that reference material in an (another) AAR. Sometimes posters are not as circumspect as they think they are being when they make references to AAR material. But when a player is outright accused of cheating, why is it low for a reader to inform the accused player that they have been so accused? In this case there was more than just the question raised or a theoretical discussion, there was unabashed accusation to the point of asserting fact with virtually no other possibility. I do not know what was PM'd and certainly OpSec violations would be wrong. But informing Dan was not wrong and should have been expected, given the number of people who were reading this AAR. Someone was bound to do it and thinking that the extreme ire of the conversation would remain confidential was stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy {post # 1217}

Oh gee...lookee lookee...

If you get closer to the Allies, you stand a good chance of having a number of your strikes diverted by Allied shipping before you can get at his carriers.  You know, a cynic would say this was an ideal opportunity for the Allies to attack land targets (which your opponent rarely does) with their fleet carriers as a pretext whilest getting 'behind' an arc of sortie soaking shipping.  Someone who was skeptical would say that this arc of shipping was intentional contrived to shield the carriers which just so happened to be behind it for the last three turns.

I assume that he won't have any compunction about moving the Allied carriers into battle after diluting your striking power accordingly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Dan is too much of a gentlemen to say it or stop it. Know that for a FACT since he and I spoke about it.

Thank You SuluSea. But I already knew he would do that.

quote:

The biggest allied challenge in this game is nursing your air force. Even in 44 and 45.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think I accurately characterize your tone when I say the essence of the accusation is one of 'cheating'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I'm going to take an indefinite leave of absence. The lure of AE - the best game I've ever known - is strong, so I'll probably be back sooner rather than later. Or maybe not. In the meantime, my best to all the good folks of the Forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
They said if I scattered them and tried to get them out of harm's way it would show that I wasn't soaking off. Well, gents, that's exactly what happened. I had indeed passed your own private test of my character, but nobody mentioned that I had passed your test.