Bullwinkle, where art thou?

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Glad you're still around Bull. I played AI only for years and now am PBEMing, but enjoyed and learned from both experiences.

I agree about getting to the late war. I wish there was a May '42 start scenario and perhaps a late '43 or early '44 start as well.

There is a 42 Start Scenario, I actually just started a pbem few days ago with it:)

[Numdydar]

I have to comment even though I am someone late to the party. I have played both against the AI and PBEM, but an expert I am NOT [:)].

The major issue with games under the latest 'official' patch and any beta up to p8 is simply that the entire Japan economy is destroyed by mid '43 so the AI never really had a chance. Which is why games playing the Allies tended to end much sooner than historically when starting in 41. Starting in '42 will just delay things as the underlying problems will still be there. This has been fixed in the beta p8 and higher patches. So games started using these (or updated soon after the start, say 2/42), the Japanese AI will do a much better job than before.

When playing as the Allies, while you can do many things (and take much greater risks as these are just bits and not real people. plus a save is just a few clicks away [:D]), the easiest thing to do is to just tone down your tempo. The same is true when playing Japan. Sure you can run amock in 41/42, but don't. By slowing down the pace you can have, you are allowing for the AI to have a chance to perform better. When playing either side against the AI, if you exceed too much, the AI becomes 'broken' and will never recover. The best part is that you do not need a mod to do this [:)]

Against a human, the rush by JFBs to auto victory seems to be a main goal. It was likely that I would have been able to achieve an auto victory in 1/1/43, but after discussing this with my opponet, I decided to not do that. I will never know (as we sure are not going to go back and play again from that point, although I do have a save [:D]).) So if you start a game as a JFB, plan for the long haul and not for the arbitary AV dates. Because historically, it was a war to the end regardless of the land area under Axis control. It would just have meant more A-bombs would have been dropped.

So in our PBEM game we will be going to 45/46. It will take much longer, be more difficult for Japan, i.e. me, but will give the game a chance to see how the late war will pan out. IMHO, if you are not willing to do that in a PBEM game, you should not even start. As playing the Allies, going through the tough beginning of the game, not to be able to see how your strategy that you start laying out in late 42 turns out and have my opponet quit on 1/43 would be extreamely fustratiing to me. So I can understand why many people would play the AI as that avoides the whole issue.

So bottom line for me (your milage may vary [:D]), is against the AI for either side, try not to 'break' the AI (as many have shown how easy that is) and if you are a JFB in a PBEM, avoid AV and plan for the long game. If you can't do that as a JFB, then at least let your counterpart know up front that you plan on stopping on X date. That way there will no surprises for either of you, execpt in the game [:D]

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

The forum is a lot meaner than it used to be.

You forgot about Japan! [:D]

[DOCUP]

I am playing both AI and PBEM. I have remembered some things that Bullwinkle has posted in the past and I have used them in both games. So I will say thank you to Bullwinkle. There are alot more people I need to thank but this thread is to Bull so I decided to drop in and say my peace.

doc

[zuluhour]

Be nice to newbs. My manual is a loose leaf folder. Its really a thousand pages if you count how many times I have refered to it. The info in the threads is great but I find looking for specifics via search very difficult. I have never used a thread as a means of communication before so I have posted War Room stuff in the Tech threads etc.. IM SORRY!!! I do think I am getting a little better at it. I only Hijacked this because I follow CRs AAR and he has been quite cordial as well as helpful to me. I would say to Bullwinkle (I'd rather talk to Natasha) have patience with some of us "old" newbies and comment all ya like to us (me)! *&^%man I'm gettin by buttock busted.[:D] in PBEM. But I am enjoying it (dont tell my wife) and further more if to many of you "old guard" PBEMers or AIers left it would be a bummer for the cruits!

[DD696]

quote

What Alfred relates is largely correct. I don't believe I've posted since an unpleasant interchange over HR theory in which I was stiff-armed on the "you only play the AI" plank. I've read a good bit--less than I used to--but I've played more in the time saved.

If I may wax philosophical for a moment, I see the forum changing, and, if I may say so, balkanizing as the game enters its mid-life. The second (third?) large wave of newbies is meeting advice fatigue, and, if I may further suggest, failing in large part to read the manual or resources available here before asking for help. Players are increasingly splitting into their camps, not only PBEM/AI, but the various Babes groups, the heavy modders, Threadsters, the exclusive AAR writers and/or readers, the beta testers, and so on. I've seen this happen in other forums over time; it's natural. But a lot of the early, free-wheeling topicitis is over, and a lot of that was what I loved. We've beateen the big toipics to death: ASW, CAP, CD gunnery, supply movement, flak, stacking. This is not to say that these oldie goldies aren't still discussed, but unfortunately often when they are the fangs come out. The forum is a lot meaner than it used to be. A lot of old-timers have gone or gone quiet, and others have, as I said, balkanized into lodges.

unquote


This is Oh so true. But just not for AE, true throughout WitP as well. The AI player is a non-entity for many here, and the venom that flows easily from a T and a J is quite discouraging for people who visit here. 'Tis a real shame that when a PBEM player finds a problem it is a real crisis, but should an AI player report a problem, it is a "don't allow an AI player to know anything" and ignore, problem.

[Canoerebel]

I don't think the majority (maybe the vast majority) of PBEM players make distinctions between advice coming from knowledgeable AI and PBEM players.  So, I also think the AI players may be letting the few curmudgeons tarnish the reputations of the rest of us.  Honestly, as long as the advice is good, who cares whether it's AI or PBEM?

That said, it is legitimate for players to make differentiations and judgment calls.  If I see posts by Bullwinkle or JohnDillworth (both AI players), I'm paying attention.  But if there's a post from somebody who says, "Wow, I just sank 37 enemy carriers and battleships and it's only December 19, 1941," then I'm going to immeditately conclude that guy is likley playing the AI and is relatively new to the game.  In that case, I don't think I'll be able to benefit very much from what he has to say.  I may be wrong, but since I cannot read everything in the Forums, I am likely to use it as an indication that I don't need to devote time there.

[oldman45]

Bullwinkle, glad to see ya posting. I had just assumed you were enjoys the newly wed bliss and had not come up for air yet. [;)]

[Nemo121]

Well, while, unfortunately, AI players have been selected out as a group to be despised by some here I think a few things need to be remembered:

1. Not all PBEM players would belittle AI only players.

2. In reality the two groups which most attack AI players are two cliques which engage in quite a lot of disparaging behaviour and creation of a "them vs us" ethos vs others they disapprove of. So this vs AI thing isn't an outlier. it is part of a pattern.

3. Many of the AI only players know a damn sight more about strategy than any of the people in these groups. I think that's a crucial point we would do well to remember.


It is a pity that Bullwinkle feels he can best spend time elsewhere BUT he is by no means alone and so long as these bullies ( which is what they are ) continue to be tolerated by the majority of the forumites then the forumites will get the increasingly dysfunctional and unhelpful forum which they, through their actions, deserve. Whenever people have stood up against this the silence "backing them up" from the majority of the forum has been deafening.


So, people get what they deserve. If you are in a thread and see someone bullied then step in. If you don't then you can't expect to complain when that thread loses the benefit of their input. If you see a group in the forum being bullied then if you don't step in you are partly responsible for their withdrawal from the forum and in them telling others the forum is an unpleasant place to be - which causes the game to grow stale in the long run.

This isn't an attack on any people in particular but, rather, a pointing out that people need to accept personal responsibility. If you've seen unreasonable attacks and haven't stepped in to stop them then you are, partially, responsible. I've heard from many people who decry some of the behaviour on here but say they won't say so publicly because they don't want to get attacked themselves. I respect their choice but, by the same token, because they don't stand up it makes it more likely those attacks continue and the forum degenerates until only those who are "approved of" are allowed to have a voice.


As to the specific point though: The ability to form an appropriate strategic analysis and engage in the theory and assessment behind such things has nothing to do with AI vs PBEM play. Playing PBEM involves issues which aren't involved in AI only play ( primarily to do with the psychological interplay ) and so in those areas I think there's some validity to saying that people who are more experienced in being practically successful in PBEMs may have more to say that's worth listening to in those areas. That's merely a reflection that practical success tends to suggest they should be listened to than anything inherent in AI only players though. Even with that said though I find it amusing to read comments by players with a record of success in some AARs who are advising relative newbies and find the newbies disagree with them etc etc when, most of the time, I find myself thinking - "Hmmm, the guy giving advice almost always succeeds, the guy receiving it almost always fails and yet he won't listen to the guy who usually succeeds. Strange." This is one reason I think we really need Alfred to resurrect the GrandMaster/Sensei thread and bring it to a conclusion. Newish players need to know who is actually worth really listening to.

[Canoerebel]

Nah, what we really need is a Nemo vs. Alfred match in Scenario Two.  With both sides keeping AARs.
 
[:)]

[zuluhour]

Oh yeah, the perfect forum for newb and experienced alike.

[Nemo121]

Sadly I don't think Alfred has time for a game like that. I've asked. At one stage a 2 vs 2 game was proposed by me with Alfred and I on one side and some pretty sharp, experienced 2 vs 2 players on the other. Unfortunately they're busy so that never happened either.

That was in the past. Now I think a very significant additional component would be the conduct of the people who drove Bullwinkle away. Alfred is less bothered by it than I ( this isn't to say he's not bothered. It is more a recognition of the fact that I'm extremely bothered by it and he's not quite as extremely bothered by it ) but, certainly, the desire not to make myself an unsupported target by AARing a game with Alfred would significantly impact my willingness to AAR it. I think Alfred mightn't AAR such a game either albeit he'd give more weight to other reasons IMO - although I think the Bullwinkle factor would be a component of his decision.

[zuluhour]

I believe that would not only be beneficial as a learning tool and entertaining but good for the game as well. (2 cents)

[obvert]

+1

[GreyJoy]

FWIW, i've been on this forum since February and i've always been treated well. Everyone has always been full of suggestions and "backuppings". I try, when i can, to give the same good treatement i recieved to the newbies newer than me.
I do understand there are kind of "factions" in this forum and sometimes tones get a bit higher than what they should...but i've been in many forums of discussions and games and my personal feeling is that this is one of the best i've encountered, both for quality of the average poster and for the overall athmosphere you can breathe here.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

He is still reading the forum. Just not that interested in participating in the low quality of "debate" which is found too commonly on the forum. In particular there is too much of a superiority attitiude exhibited by PBEM players against those who avowedly play against the AI.

Alfred

I play both PBEM and against the AI. One thing about the AI...it NEVER complains. [;)]

[chesmart]

Bull will miss your posts as you are a very informed poster. IMHO people should remember that 75% of the people who bought AE they bought it to play the AI not PBEM. It was in a poll in the old WITP forums.
 

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nah, what we really need is a Nemo vs. Alfred match in Scenario Two.  With both sides keeping AARs.

[:)]

I would read every word of that AAR. [&o]

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nah, what we really need is a Nemo vs. Alfred match in Scenario Two.  With both sides keeping AARs.

[:)]

If we are making suggestions, Nemo vs Canoerebel would also be a match worth reading about.

[Ossian]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nah, what we really need is a Nemo vs. Alfred match in Scenario Two.  With both sides keeping AARs.

[:)]

If we are making suggestions, Nemo vs Canoerebel would also be a match worth reading about.

+1. That would be a very interesting match up.