IJA Armor units

[Andy Mac]

I agree with Andrew and Don on this one

[DuckofTindalos]

Just don't like people who lie as much as he does.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I agree with Andrew and Don on this one

You are correct of course. However I don't see this as having gotten personal, rather i believe the air has been "officially" cleared, especially by Tree's well worded post (Cleared for the moment that is.....i have no doubt Cid will continue as he has always done) John may have gotten a little hot under the collar but in this case i don't blame him.....as since returning Cid has been going non-stop trying to associate himself with Joe Wilkerson [again] which may lead some people who don't already know of him to think he has some kind of official tie to the game internally, in depth knowledge of processes that John and other Team Leaders oversaw during development and of course a personal active tie in with JoeW....none of which is true. I do know that personally Joe doesn't give a rip if Cid name-drops him but as Tree pointed out.....people who read his posts should know that there's alot of fantasy involved and to take it with a grain of salt.

[el cid again]

Has anybody any intention of being on topic?
For the record I never fabricate anything, and I am unmoved by the idea talking about
someone I know or remember knowing is "name dropping." If I wanted to do that,
I could, having known more than my share of famous people. But so what? It is not
germane to the topic who I knew, or what they thought about me, or vice versa.
I offer information in case anyone is interested - and anyone not should simpy ignore it.
I live in a library - a gross understatement - and collect esoteric materials on these
and a wide variety of other matters. Anyone content to understate the TO&E of armor
units ought to just do nothing - it is already done for them. There is, in these things,
a wide variety of source materials - in multiple languages - in particular in English,
Russian, Japanese and Chinese - and I do not doubt they are not all identical either.
More than one person can be honest, factual and correct at the very same time.
Anyway - I have no time to debate. Those who think I would waste time reporting something
I knew was false - or would make it up - ought to just ignore my posts altogether.
Anyone who really was interested in something could ask where to read more?

[Mac67]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Long ago, Joe Wilkerson and I did research on IJA Airborne and Armor units
This research seems to have eluded the AE data set
There is also a new publication to add to the set

What a piece of nonsense. Joe knows you are a joke and anyone involved in AE developmennt thinks the same way. I was a developer. We thought you were a joke. I was a developer. If Joe or anybody else had anything to say from you, we would have known about it. There was nothing. You didn't talk to Joe (unless in your dreams). You didn't talk to anybody. You sure as hell didn't talk to me. We all knew you were worthless and kept as far from you as we could. You are a lying piece of crap that doesn't deserve any recognition from any real developers .

Where the hell do you get off talking to people like that? Considering the way you address people on these forums I'm surprised Matrix wants your name connected to their products at all.

[DuckofTindalos]

Easy, Mac... "JWE" is just reacting to "el cid again" and his looooooong history of disingenuousness on the forum.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Easy, Mac... "JWE" is just reacting to "el cid again" and his looooooong history of disingenousness on the forum.

Perhaps the time has come to let bygones be bygones.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Those who think I would waste time reporting something
I knew was false - or would make it up - ought to just ignore my posts altogether.
Anyone who really was interested in something could ask where to read more?

Seem like sensible solution to me but I doubt it will fly. Too much hate and discontent here and apparently enjoyment.

I predicted it but it didn't take a Nostradamus to see this freight train coming down the track.

Sure is depressing!

Buck

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Easy, Mac... "JWE" is just reacting to "el cid again" and his looooooong history of disingenousness on the forum.

Perhaps the time has come to let bygones be bygones.

again......while admitedly John got a bit heated, I don't see it as a hate session. Just a clearing of the air. As predicted, Sid 'denies' that he name-drops or that he fabricates anything.....no suprise there, we've heard it all before. The only difference is that this particular time a number of AE developers chose to step forward and set the record straight for the benefit of posters who might be swayed by Sid's rhetoric. If Sid would simply confine himself to mod discussions and/or questions regarding AE without continually injecting suggestions that he has or had some kind of inside track with the dev team or Joe Wilkerson personally, there would be no issue. But if wishes were fishes. I'll just end it here by repeating Tree's warning.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: herwin

Thanks for the response. Sid dates to CHS and RHS, well before AE. He disappeared during the AE period, having other fish to fry. I caught sight of him a couple of times in other places, but I'm glad he's back here.

caveat lector - just be aware that much of what Sid preaches is simple fabrication.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Easy, Mac... "JWE" is just reacting to "el cid again" and his looooooong history of disingenousness on the forum.

Perhaps the time has come to let bygones be bygones.

again......while admitedly John got a bit heated, I don't see it as a hate session. Just a clearing of the air. As predicted, Sid 'denies' that he name-drops or that he fabricates anything.....no suprise there, we've heard it all before. The only difference is that this particular time a number of AE developers chose to step forward and set the record straight for the benefit of posters who might be swayed by Sid's rhetoric. If Sid would simply confine himself to mod discussions and/or questions regarding AE without continually injecting suggestions that he has or had some kind of inside track with the dev team or Joe Wilkerson personally, there would be no issue. But if wishes were fishes. I'll just end it here by repeating Tree's warning.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: herwin

Thanks for the response. Sid dates to CHS and RHS, well before AE. He disappeared during the AE period, having other fish to fry. I caught sight of him a couple of times in other places, but I'm glad he's back here.

caveat lector - just be aware that much of what Sid preaches is simple fabrication.

"And the beat goes on" and on and on and on and on and on and on.

[Rainer]

Just a clearing of the air

Much needed.
As one of the long time members of the forum I find it highly irritating when someone tries to convey the idea he is or had been part of the olymp (developers). It doesn't matter if this is done on purpose or not.
For newbies it is difficult enough to extract the information and hints to avoid frustration.
They have to rely on the validity of what they are reading here in the forum.
Please try to take that into consideration when posting.

Advice for newbies: members of the development team are listed on the "Credits Screen" (hit the C in the upper right corner of the game).
Messages from those members can (and should) be trusted. Please note that Beta Testers listed on that screen were not members of the developers team.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Just a clearing of the air

Much needed.
As one of the long time members of the forum I find it highly irritating when someone tries to convey the idea he is or had been part of the olymp (developers). It doesn't matter if this is done on purpose or not.
For newbies it is difficult enough to extract the information and hints to avoid frustration.
They have to rely on the validity of what they are reading here in the forum.
Please try to take that into consideration when posting.

Advice for newbies: members of the development team are listed on the "Credits Screen" (hit the C in the upper right corner of the game).
Messages from those members can (and should) be trusted. Please note that Beta Testers listed on that screen were not members of the developers team.

Jeez Louise I have read what Sid has said he stated he work with Joe on CHS that is CHS WITP and not AE. He mentioned that some of the work "eluded" making it to AE. For those speaking English as a second language that would mean it didn't make it into AE.

I don't know whether Sid knows how to read code or not, but he may and therefore may understand what is greek to me and may not be speaking out of turn when he refers to the code.

Let's face it there is a group of you that just don't like Sid for what ever reason and will take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY YOU CAN TO TROUNCE HIM.

I have had my issues with him back with WITP, but it was one on one not a gang rape.

Buck

[witpqs]

Buck,

As you know from many, many posts in the WITP forum I worked with Sid quite a bit testing & playing RHS and giving Sid feedback on it. I am not out to trash him or trounce him and I wish him well. Some things do need to be said. For one, it doesn't matter if he understands reading code if he has never been privy to it. I'm not sure if you've gotten the idea that he has been but your last post seemed to indicate that. Sid did a lot of testing on his own with WITP to try and reverse-engineer how certain things worked. Applying those results to AE is invalid. For one thing, as you know, test results can be misleading when you don't know what is inside the code. What you think is a general result might only apply to the specific circumstances of the test. But much more important, the changes from WITP to AE are legion, and tests done with WITP are simply not valid when talking about AE.

We are also dealing with many issues of historical fact, and those facts are difficult to determine with accuracy. Often impossible. Some issues will wind up being one person's best estimation or understanding versus another person's best estimation or understanding. Just because someone regarded as an historian wrote something in a book and it was published does not mean that it happened that way. If it were so then historians would never disagree with each other, and they disagree plenty. I'm sure you understand that. I became so frustrated with Sid's closed-mindedness in general that I simply stopped dealing with him. When it comes to the historical issues being discussed here, you see the same thing manifested - if it's in a book that Sid referred to then all the research done by a large team which worked for 2 or 3 years consulting many sources is somehow not worth discussing and they just need to be shown what to read.

Repeating the same things over and over without actually discussing the points raised certainly is going to be misleading to many readers and I understand why many developers have felt compelled to speak up. There is no such thing as 'proof by repeated assertion'. On subjects that are less clear than 2 + 2 = 4 people will often wind up in some degree of disagreement, but sincere discussion of the merits of points raised is important. Obfuscating by including volumes of irrelevancies does not help, such as 'Joe this' or 'Joe that', or quantities of historical anecdotes that do not bear on the subject.

I hope Sid produces whatever scenarios he wants to, and that whoever wants to gets to enjoy them with him. For the benefit of others it is important that misleading information be countered.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Buck,

As you know from many, many posts in the WITP forum I worked with Sid quite a bit testing & playing RHS and giving Sid feedback on it. I am not out to trash him or trounce him and I wish him well. Some things do need to be said. For one, it doesn't matter if he understands reading code if he has never been privy to it. I'm not sure if you've gotten the idea that he has been but your last post seemed to indicate that. Sid did a lot of testing on his own with WITP to try and reverse-engineer how certain things worked. Applying those results to AE is invalid. For one thing, as you know, test results can be misleading when you don't know what is inside the code. What you think is a general result might only apply to the specific circumstances of the test. But much more important, the changes from WITP to AE are legion, and tests done with WITP are simply not valid when talking about AE.

We are also dealing with many issues of historical fact, and those facts are difficult to determine with accuracy. Often impossible. Some issues will wind up being one person's best estimation or understanding versus another person's best estimation or understanding. Just because someone regarded as an historian wrote something in a book and it was published does not mean that it happened that way. If it were so then historians would never disagree with each other, and they disagree plenty. I'm sure you understand that. I became so frustrated with Sid's closed-mindedness in general that I simply stopped dealing with him. When it comes to the historical issues being discussed here, you see the same thing manifested - if it's in a book that Sid referred to then all the research done by a large team which worked for 2 or 3 years consulting many sources is somehow not worth discussing and they just need to be shown what to read.

Repeating the same things over and over without actually discussing the points raised certainly is going to be misleading to many readers and I understand why many developers have felt compelled to speak up. There is no such thing as 'proof by repeated assertion'. On subjects that are less clear than 2 + 2 = 4 people will often wind up in some degree of disagreement, but sincere discussion of the merits of points raised is important. Obfuscating by including volumes of irrelevancies does not help, such as 'Joe this' or 'Joe that', or quantities of historical anecdotes that do not bear on the subject.

I hope Sid produces whatever scenarios he wants to, and that whoever wants to gets to enjoy them with him. For the benefit of others it is important that misleading information be countered.

Got me wrong witpqs, I am not trying to validate anything Sid has said or what he can or can not do only his right to express himself, within the rules of the forum, without being subject to a public lynching.

Hey I can identify with "I became so frustrated with Sid's closed-mindedness in general that I simply stopped dealing with him." and that is the way one should deal with an issue.

I think I have said more than enough to get myself alienated by everyone on the board. I'm done with the subject.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Just a clearing of the air

Yes, needed perhaps.

As a developer, I have a personal interest in making sure that this game gives the most enjoyment to as many people as possible, no matter which side thay play. All of us, in the development community, have done the best we could to provide relevant,and realistic, responses to questions from the user community. Much of the code has changed, in certain ways, but with implications that we are coming to grips with. The developers tend to understand the new code, and are trying to internalize user comments.

People who claim to have a special (nonexistent) understanding by virtue of their (equally nonexistent) communications with a person who, frankly, lets us do what we did, and doesn't truly know squat about what's in source, but who trusts us, have a serious psychological problem. I have a professional problem with people like that.

As a veteran, I have a serious personal issue with someone (anyone) who fakes a history that makes themselves look polished enough that the uninformed will think them informative, given their representations.

That's about it. Just simple stuff. Most of you will "get it".

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Buck,

As you know from many, many posts in the WITP forum I worked with Sid quite a bit testing & playing RHS and giving Sid feedback on it. I am not out to trash him or trounce him and I wish him well. Some things do need to be said. For one, it doesn't matter if he understands reading code if he has never been privy to it. I'm not sure if you've gotten the idea that he has been but your last post seemed to indicate that. Sid did a lot of testing on his own with WITP to try and reverse-engineer how certain things worked. Applying those results to AE is invalid. For one thing, as you know, test results can be misleading when you don't know what is inside the code. What you think is a general result might only apply to the specific circumstances of the test. But much more important, the changes from WITP to AE are legion, and tests done with WITP are simply not valid when talking about AE.

We are also dealing with many issues of historical fact, and those facts are difficult to determine with accuracy. Often impossible. Some issues will wind up being one person's best estimation or understanding versus another person's best estimation or understanding. Just because someone regarded as an historian wrote something in a book and it was published does not mean that it happened that way. If it were so then historians would never disagree with each other, and they disagree plenty. I'm sure you understand that. I became so frustrated with Sid's closed-mindedness in general that I simply stopped dealing with him. When it comes to the historical issues being discussed here, you see the same thing manifested - if it's in a book that Sid referred to then all the research done by a large team which worked for 2 or 3 years consulting many sources is somehow not worth discussing and they just need to be shown what to read.

Repeating the same things over and over without actually discussing the points raised certainly is going to be misleading to many readers and I understand why many developers have felt compelled to speak up. There is no such thing as 'proof by repeated assertion'. On subjects that are less clear than 2 + 2 = 4 people will often wind up in some degree of disagreement, but sincere discussion of the merits of points raised is important. Obfuscating by including volumes of irrelevancies does not help, such as 'Joe this' or 'Joe that', or quantities of historical anecdotes that do not bear on the subject.

I hope Sid produces whatever scenarios he wants to, and that whoever wants to gets to enjoy them with him. For the benefit of others it is important that misleading information be countered.

I have to say I agree with this. Well put. I also agree with much of what others have said. In fact, Sid has been on my Green Button list for some time. If you all would not quote him in your posts I'd never see his.

In the past, Sid has taken things I told him and announced them to the forum as his own discoveries. Others I know have had the same experience. And he does seem to have a contrary opinion on just about everything. Everyone, as they say, is entitled to his own opinion. Just not to his own facts.

Still fell a bit sorry for the fellow after so many posts.

[DuckofTindalos]

Better man than me, Don...

[el cid again]

Don't cry for me, Argentina! In truth, I have more simple motives than are sometimes assumed.
I surely never announced as my discovery something someone else taught me, except in the sense
that if I believed it, I would say it as something I believed. I had no idea anyone thought I ought to
be giving them credit - even if it were true I got something from them? In most cases, I get something
from multiple places, not only one.

I offer information for those who might find it beneficial. And I do so positively and constructively - even
if I suggest something might be better done in one sense or another. I do not regard it as honorable to
throw mud, and if the first mud thrower above has no problems with his honor, it is because he has done
so much of it he has forgotten the terms of use of the Forum. Those who do that, as another commenter
noted, ruin their reputations, not mine.

I will quote a private message - without saying from whom to protect the guilty - and note that I have
a number of emails over time from people who left the Forums because of nasty behaviors which were
not entirely constructive. And one of the bigger names at Matrix has written he has given up on making
the Forums what they could be and should be. I do not require agreement from anyone. I do not need
approval from anyone either. But I do value ALL of you - WHEN you are positive and constructive - or
even when you are constructively critical of me.

QUOTE

We gamers colectively have this gift, AE, that can be made better if people are interested in improvements. It is bothersome to me that some people are more interested in their ego than a historically accurate map.

That tread response group will not listen to any constructive ideas because they think they have a perfect game all things considered. You are punching holes in their beliefs and designs which in turn is causing them embarassment.

These guys are rightly proud. But evidently from your comments the game can still be improved.

I like your NG trail thoughts....Dont understand why they allow supply into every hex.

END QUOTE

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Just a clearing of the air

Much needed.
As one of the long time members of the forum I find it highly irritating when someone tries to convey the idea he is or had been part of the olymp (developers). It doesn't matter if this is done on purpose or not.
For newbies it is difficult enough to extract the information and hints to avoid frustration.
They have to rely on the validity of what they are reading here in the forum.
Please try to take that into consideration when posting.

Advice for newbies: members of the development team are listed on the "Credits Screen" (hit the C in the upper right corner of the game).
Messages from those members can (and should) be trusted. Please note that Beta Testers listed on that screen were not members of the developers team.

Please go back to the opening message of this thread. I don't see anything about the developers team.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin


Please go back to the opening message of this thread. I don't see anything about the developers team.

Long ago, Joe Wilkerson and I did research on IJA Airborne and Armor units
This research seems to have eluded the AE data set

Same as the tanks, Joe and I collected papers and books, and did OB research
which seems to have not survived into AE - where people are being creative
or making assumptions.

I did slightly participate in the discussion when the pre release map showed removal of trails at PM. I have several times reviewed the matter - including this week - and cannot reconcile the removal with how the historical campaign was done - or the options players ought to face.

And for the record, no one put in more man years of work on the economic model than I did. I am not doing entirely new research - just looking it up again. Because it is done.

What is the inference from these recent statements by L. Sid?