Smarter..., or just Frustrated?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time.

I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)]

I'd have to say I was an AFB..., mostly because I lack the patience and perseverance to tackle Japanese Production and the "First Turn Boogieman". But in discussions about the game I think of myself more as a "History Fan-Boy". If it's "not right", then I'm for fixing it no matter who it helps or hurts.

I like your MILITANT notion..., though considering some of the "trash" that's been "talked" maybe RABID would be more descriptive of the area Joe referred too....

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people.

There is no spoon!

-F-

Darn, I thought this was a very relevant contribution!!!
[:D][&:]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
There is no spoon!
-F-

Drat! No chance of one of those underhanded sneaky "Spoon-in-the-Back" events

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time.

I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)]

I'd have to say I was an AFB..., mostly because I lack the patience and perseverance to tackle Japanese Production and the "First Turn Boogieman". But in discussions about the game I think of myself more as a "History Fan-Boy". If it's "not right", then I'm for fixing it no matter who it helps or hurts.

I like your MILITANT notion..., though considering some of the "trash" that's been "talked" maybe RABID would be more descriptive of the area Joe referred too....

Well, there certainly has been "trash" that's been talked at times in the past, but I frankly think 98% or more of current posters want a realistic/believable game while still retaining some play balance. Regardless of whether they play Japan only, Allies only or both.

I'm currently playing both sides & enjoying both. And like you if it's "not right", I'd like to fix it whichever side it helps. There might be a couple but I frankly don't think there's many, if any, rabid FB's around anymore.

Now we're all grogs and we'll all have different opinions on what's realistic/believable. But it leads to some interesting discussion at least.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

The war is so stacked against Japan {in the long run} that making it tougher in the first six months just makes it less challenging {from the allied side}.  At least against the AI. 

True. But they DID start it anyway. And they certainly expected to face tougher opposition in the early going than they actually did...., just check their "projected losses" against what actually occurred. But you are absolutely correct that the AI as Japan doesn't need any handicaps.

Interestingly enough, the thinktank in the IJN pretty much hit the nail on the head relative to predicting an ass whooping if it last too long. Pity the IJA had control of the leadership at that time.

And to the point of balance, really goes against the other pillar of realism. Though it is an interesting question whether anyone has made a run at a "true" balanced game where EITHER side could win outright ..... Boy, you'd really hear the cries of JFB over that one ......

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. [:D] with vehemence [:D] And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

... I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x ..

Oh, so it's your fault we're having so damn much trouble in Burma and China[;)]

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

Personally, I have always played IJ. Not because I am a JFB, but because I enjoy the puzzle of the production side of the game.

Well, that and the fact that the Allied player ends up with more materiel than I can keep track of!

If I am a fanboy, I am a WitP fanboy: a Pacific theater fanboy, plus a wargame fanboy.

I thought a Grognard was just someone who was particularly smelly ("Old Sweats").[;)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
Oh, so it's your fault we're having so damn much trouble in Burma and China[;)]

Yup - I'm your FUBAR man !!!

[:D][:D][:D[;)]

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Feinder
There is no spoon!
-F-

Drat! No chance of one of those underhanded sneaky "Spoon-in-the-Back" events

Maybe a Spork[:D]

[BrucePowers]

I am playing Terminus' Mare Bellum mod against of all people, Terminus. [:)] I am playing the allied side, he the Japanese. He gave the allies a few more what if ships and allowed them tp be better prepared in Singapore and the Phillipines. He has done quite a bit of tinkering with the IJN with a lot of what ifs (all the way from a huge BB down to "better" designs for CVEs and lowly escorts). He has tempered his thinking and it is not overwhlming.

I am enjoying the mod because I don't know how all of this is going to react together and in what manner he will get all of this stuff. I think I am playing a little too conservative for him because he handed me my behind on a platter a few times early on. I am getting ready to try some things and a lot of these new toys will be seeing action. I enjoy the mod work other people have done. It has given people a whole new way to enjoy the game.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. [:D] with vehemence [:D] And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

Well it is certainly company's prerogative to administer the forum how ever they see fit.

Still I can not help but express how disapointed I am by your decision. As a result of your decision I went back and reread my posts to see if I did something that can be misconstrued as intention to incite players of oposing sides to engage in irrational discusion that is not about what I perceived one sided results in another area of the forum. Moreover I expressly stated that it was not my intention to do so and that on this forum in my opinion you do not see much of that to begin with.

After rereading my posts I came up with only two conclusions:

1. The crtiticism turned more against the game therefore it provided unneeded commentary.
2. It is political correctness running amock. Two races of people - by refering to them based on the side they may prefer to play??

I certainly hope it is number one and not number two as the real reason the thread was locked. Number 2 has so many more negative conotations to it in terms of values this forum represents.

I appologize for hijacking the thread, but as it is somewhat related and you did post here I knew you would read it.

I will revert now to my usual non posting state.

Regards

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To my knowledge CHS, for example, has often been referred to as more pro allied than stock. Also some people think BigB is pro allied (relative to stock).

Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. [:D] with vehemence [:D] And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

Okaaaaay. I don't think I was calling anyone names and I certainly wasn't intending to. In fact I think the last time I called anyone a name was back one day when Mr.Frag was being particularly uncooperative about answering a simple question.

[Cpt Sherwood]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: dtravel




Is that because there is actually some bias in favor of the Allies or because of efforts to undo a bias in favor of Japan? Personally, I don't see those two situations as being the same.

For example, I believe it is pretty much agreed that Japan gets a number of "what-if" type aircraft in stock that never had a chance of seeing action in RL even if the war went on longer while the Allies don't get some aircraft types that were on the verge of deployment in RL when the war ended. Is it a pro-Allied bias to apply the same standards for what "if only" aircraft types are included to both sides? Same-same with ships that were and were not actually built by both sides.

Well I've been called an AFB and a JFB. [:D] with vehemence [:D] And I think most of the AFB calling of myself was related to my involvement with CHS in which I "adjusted" average AV for IJA infantry divisions from about 1000 in stock and about 1300 in CHS 1.x down to about 600 in CHS 2.x .. I did not do this to "undo a bias" .. I adjusted down to 600 because the sources said this was the correct answer and the CHS philosophy at that point was "DaXned the Engine - Historical OOBs Ahead" .. maybe that made us AFBs in some peoples minds, but not ours.

JFB and AFB are often (not always) used with negative psychological connotation - it is this aspect of the term that is not aligned with the "play nice culture" that I am trying to move us to.

Grognard, at one time, meant "grumbler" IIRC, and for our forum I encourage grumbling about "issues" .. game issues .. mismatches between game and history etc. but not grumbling about our people, characterizing our people in a negative sense. Dividing us into two "races" the AFB and the JFB. That is what I am objecting to and doing so officially. We will not refer to each other as JFB or AFB as this can be taken negatively even if not intended. Refer to yourself with these terms if you like, but not others.

Okaaaaay. I don't think I was calling anyone names and I certainly wasn't intending to. In fact I think the last time I called anyone a name was back one day when Mr.Frag was being particularly uncooperative about answering a simple question.

Could you be more specific on this point? [:)]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Okaaaaay. I don't think I was calling anyone names and I certainly wasn't intending to. In fact I think the last time I called anyone a name was back one day when Mr.Frag was being particularly uncooperative about answering a simple question.

Could you be more specific on this point? [:)]

No, for two reasons. 1) I expunged the details from my memory in order to keep the blood pressure increase from causing the top of my head to pop off; and 2) doing so would violate the "Issues, Not People" rule. [:D]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
However, as I've tried to say - I think many of us are tired of worrying about what JFBs or AFBs might be thinking, since no one really knows if there are any such people. So I still want this discussion to be about PLAY BALANCE - hence the reset on the subject. The thread is well behaved, but references to JFB and AFB are still inciteful and should cease.

Is there some preferred terminology for players who prefer to play one side or the other? I never thought of JFB or AFB as being particularly incindiary in themselves..., though the "trash talk" that sometimes surrounds them can be off-putting.

[:D]

I agree with you Mike, I'm a self avowed AFB, though I consider myself a largely fair player...most of the time.

I propose two new acronyms MJFB and MAFB, the M being for militant. [:'(][:D][;)]

You don't need to add extra wording. Use what is there already[;)]. I would say the AFB or JFB that is regular and not fanatical, would be referred to as JF or AF. Throw the B on there and that's when you have militant ones. Of course, since fan is actually an abbreviation for the word fanatic, then this new order I propose would be basically useless, since militanism is implied in the word fan. So what does that leave us with? You could refer to people as AB's and JB's but calling them Allied and Jaoanese boys doesn't sound very regular either. I give up!

[m10bob]

In stock, the Japanese are eventually going to lose, so long as production remains fairly historical for the Allies, but Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor and go after Java, New Guinea, the Phillipines with an expectation of losing.
The Japanese were a member of the Axis powers and really thought Germany would push Russia out of the war and link up with them.
Japan could have freed a lot of troops she was saving to watch the Russians.
Maybe a mod needs to be done based on Russia being completely neutralized, Germany being allowed to send some of its' eastern front units thru Russia, and maybe even some of her ships via the northern route?

In hindsight, we can think of a lot of reasons it was not possible, but in December 1941, maybe it was really thought possible??
Nobody but a fool engages in a war they are not WILLING to win.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In stock, the Japanese are eventually going to lose, so long as production remains fairly historical for the Allies, but Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor and go after Java, New Guinea, the Phillipines with an expectation of losing.

Actually, they did expect to lose some of their early gains. You can't "bleed" the other side without engaging them..., not impress them with your troops "willingness to die to the last man" without doing so a few times.

The Japanese were a member of the Axis powers and really thought Germany would push Russia out of the war and link up with them. Japan could have freed a lot of troops she was saving to watch the Russians.

Actually, the Japanese "used" their Axis Allies. Hitler loyally (and stupidly) declared war on the US..., but the Japanese carefully "weaseled out" of any reciprocal activity. And Japan had a lot more troops tied down dealing with the Chinese than with the Russian threat...., and with the continual need to garrison virtually every area she had expanded into during the last 40 years. Japanese economic and occupation policy being totally exploitive (and generally much harsher than the Europeans had been), whatever sympathy or admiration she gained by beating the Colonial powers were rapidly squandered by attrocities and forced labor.

Maybe a mod needs to be done based on Russia being completely neutralized, Germany being allowed to send some of its' eastern front units thru Russia, and maybe even some of her ships via the northern route?

Or maybe a mod needs to be done requiring much heavier "occupation forces" be kept in the entire "expansion area", which would eat up the great majority of the troops Japanese Players use to invade India and other farfetched and historically unlikely events.

In hindsight, we can think of a lot of reasons it was not possible, but in December 1941, maybe it was really thought possible?? Nobody but a fool engages in a war they are not WILLING to win.

The Japanese DID "plan to win"..., but they based their hopes on the total fallacy that their "fighting spirit" would somehow make up for the Allies superiority in material. The idea of being willing to die for the Nation and the Cause was (unfortunately for the Japs) not an exclusive one..., and the great Allied superiority in material meant that they could easily use tons of ordnance to kill each of the Emporor's soldiers --- while the Japanese could only afford to toss pounds in the other direction.

"Willingness to die" was trumped by "willingness and ability to kill". And the German's ability to defeat (let alone occupy) the Soviet Union pretty much went by the wayside when Hitler's prediction that "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten house of cards will come tumbling down" was proven to be in error. In hindsight, the great majority of German efforts WERE spent against the Soviets..., and to no avail. The Russians proved willing to die in much larger numbers than the Japanese..., and the Germans had nothing even mildly approaching the Allied material superiority to kill them with.