A PBEM Challenge: Gunny vs Vahauser

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:26 pm

Let's steer this back to polite, please, or at least no name calling? [&:]
 
 

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:30 pm

Goblin,
 
I'm interested in establishing the preliminary conditions for the game.  What did you have in mind?
 
--V

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:09 pm

Pretty standard for most PBEM guys I know.

80% spotting, 120% artillery, C&C OFF, Reduced Squads OFF, Limited Ammo ON, all other ratings ON, or at 100%.

The map! The map...

It's in my head...

Might as well try to describe the beauty of the ocean, or the sound of a songbird.

Hehehe...

Goblin

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:45 pm

Goblin,
 
How big of a map is it going to be?  What is the date?  Where is this "what-if" battle taking place?
 
Should Glenn and I be allowed any input regarding these questions?
 
I have some other questions as well, but I want to hear from Glenn first regarding his thoughts so far.
 
I'm willing to negotiate.
 
--V

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:56 pm

The date is 1945, or so you guys were thinking, so I assume the place would be Germany. The map will not be any bigger than a standard medium/large SPWaW map, probably a medium, but if you guys want a large, I can fudge it.

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:51 am

Goblin,
 
I don't know what Glenn had in mind for a "what if".  Has Glenn been here yet today?  I'm anxious to hear his thoughts.
 
--V

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:34 pm

This is the thread I meant to post in instead of the "Good Guys and Bad Guys" thread I incorrectly posted in.
 
Are we ready to continue this thread now?

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:41 pm

No, I'm done with the idea. It serves no useful purpose.

sabrejack · Post by **sabrejack** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:15 am

Why do you say that Gunny? [&:] 
 
Because it's hypothetical?
 
Because you don't want to play with the rules / settings proposed?
 
Because you don't want to play against vahuaser?
 
 
Just curious...

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:38 am

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

Why do you say that Gunny? [&:]

Because it's hypothetical?

Because you don't want to play with the rules / settings proposed?

Because you don't want to play against vahuaser?

Just curious...

All of the above. I frankly don't believe anyone gives a damn about reading someone else's fantasy accounts of their battles. If you want that sort of thing, there's plenty of it available on Amazon (think Harry Turtledove).

sabrejack · Post by **sabrejack** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:31 pm

But a lot of SP:WaW is about fantasy. [&:]
 
We play battles to see 'what if' some aspect was changed (tactics / equipment etc). This is just taking that a step further and changing the strategic situation - US v Soviets.
 
You seemed keen up above:
 
[font="courier new"]RE: A PBEM Challenge: Gunny vs Vahauser - 2/11/2007 6:01:45 AM [/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]Antennae raising -- USMC vs Russkies in 1945? Now we're talking. I'm in. No more than 20 tanks. Meeting engagement. circa 2500-3000 points? Stacking limits in place. No more than three in a hex, with a max of two vehicles.

Will we have Goblin pick the forces too? [/font]

If you just don't want to play against vahauser, perhaps someone else could be persuaded to take the challenge? [;)]

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:59 pm

Sabrejack,

Not sure if your last post was intended for me. If so, then I would say the same thing that I said to Gunny. Not sure it is a good idea for anybody on this forum to play PBEM against me. I would advise against it.

I don't play PBEM by "gentleman's rules". I play like a gutter-fighting street thug. I expect my opponent to use every dirty and nasty trick he can use against me, because I will be most certainly doing the same to him. (I have other reasons why I want my opponent to be as devious and underhanded against me as possible, but that is classified information.)

Anyway, the single-player vs. computer DARs where you see me using "historical" forces and using lots of self-imposed limits and conditions are not the way I play PBEM.

Several months ago in an earlier thread I posted a spectrum of player “categories”, where at one end of the spectrum you have the “extreme historical” (Category 1) players, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the “extreme non-historical” (Category 2) players. I am a very very very extremely extreme Category 2 player when it comes to PBEM. And since most people who post on this forum tend towards the Category 1 half of the spectrum, then I am not a good fit for most people here on this forum to play PBEM against.

However, if, after reading all this, you still want to take a walk on the wild side, then I would be willing to try to negotiate a PBEM game with you. But I still advise against it.

--V

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:37 pm

I believe this is why Glenn suggested a third party set up the game with somewhat realistic forces...[;)]

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:06 pm

Goblin,
 
I'm just not sure you can mix Cat1 and Cat2 players under any circumstances and get an enjoyable game out of it.  I piss off enough people around here anyway, and I'm not terribly enthusiastic about adding Sabrejack to that already large list.  I think it's best if I just stick to playing PBEM against other extreme Cat2 players like myself.  That way nobody gets pissed off.  I'm not saying definitely no way to Sabrejack.  But I just don't think he knows what he would be getting into.  But I am willing to try to negotiate if Sabrejack is dead-set on playing against me.
 
[As an aside, and nothing personal, but even trying to inject "realistic" forces into the game is biased towards Cat1 and against Cat2.  I'm only saying this to point out that Cat1 and Cat2 don't mix well.]
 
--V

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:09 pm

I actually think Sabre meant Glenn's challenge, and taking him up on it.

vahauser · Post by **vahauser** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Goblin,
 
Heh.  I hope you are correct.

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:02 pm

Well, if you check out my latest thread, I'm considering buying CoI, so I'd be putting SPWaW on hold for awhile IF I go through with the purchase.

Mac67 · Post by **Mac67** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:22 am

Well that all came to a big fat nothing! [8|] Whats the point in starting a thread offering a challenge and claiming it is what all the members want to see, and then pull out of it claiming that no-one would be intrested in it? I guess Riun was spot on with his comments. What a waste time!

Riun T · Post by **Riun T** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:39 am

I would be disappointed if you called this campaign quits,,especially since I'm doing my flasheffort for your pleasure too Gunny,why do u think posting a few screenshots per day to have the battle last about a week is sooo dificult?? if u want to be a writer u should really have a talk with yourself about disipline for other less serious interests like this game,, you'll never write anything shorter than these campaigns!!.[:'(] 

sabrejack · Post by **sabrejack** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:40 am

ORIGINAL: Goblin

I actually think Sabre meant Glenn's challenge, and taking him up on it.

That I did.

Sorry for any confusion vahauser, but if you look at my post above, I even ask:

"If you just don't want to play against vahauser, perhaps someone else could be persuaded to take the challenge?"

I was talking to Gunny, but he doesn't appear to want to continue with his challenge to you, or indeed to even play SP:WaW for a while. That's fine, just thought I'd put my hat into the ring.