Im getting crushed Rroberson v CV2 (No CV2 allowed)

[BBfanboy]

CV2 - I think I have only looked at the Opponents Wanted forum about three times and I don't recall ever leaving a post there. I have, from time to time, expressed my opinion of various HR rules, and if the rules seem too one-sided I would likely say so [if the one of the AAR participants asked for comments].

My concern with para fragments is not that they can be used to take numerous unoccupied locations, but that they can double the AV of all attacking troops in the hex on the turn they are dropped. To drop [risk] only a fragment of a para unit in those circumstances would not be in the spirit of the game.

Re: the buying of divisions, I have not read your AAR so if you say you paid full price, I accept that. But it is your opponent you need to convince. If it was me, I would also want assurances that you do not see Manchuria as part of China, even though it is one contiguous land mass. To do so would make movement of Kwantung army units into China very easy. I only bring that up because I have heard of other players bringing out Kwantung Army units without paying the points. I would want to remove any nagging doubt about this to have full confidence in my opponent.

If you are sure your actions are within the spirit of the game, please discuss them without the counterattacks. The idea has been placed that some of your actions may not be "fair" and it should be possible to discuss them without attacking the authors. If there are mis-perceptions at work, they are the problem - not the people offering their opinions.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

I am one who actually agreed with your paradrop as completely within the rules of the game, not abusing any item or using a unit in a way it wasn't intended. It's pretty unrealistic that this could have happened and actually closed off the rail in that place, but the game doesn't model civilian involvement at all, so in game terms it works.

I passed through Kalgoorlie in 1985, and I'm not so sure. [:)]

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month.

Then why not pay full price as the designers intended?

If the allies have to, then the Japs have to. If the allies dont, then why should the Japs?

And where in Gods name have you EVER seen a dev say that was the way it was intended? I was a playtester, and this is the way I played during testing as well. And documented it as such..... It was never changed, therefore the INTENT was as I have been playing. Another thing that I do, that is working as designed which most people think is "gamey" is to change the HQs of bases to allow restricted units to operate from forward bases. This too, is working as designed. So please, spare me the "designers never intended this" speech. Youre wrong.

Edit: Even in Michaels changes, if they hadnt designed it as such, then the HQs for the Jap corps would be white (meaning non-changeable - like the army HQs in Kwantung for example, they are in white instead of yellow) instead of yellow (meaning it IS changeable). If they hadnt designed it that way, it surely would have been easy to fix. Dont even need a code chamge. Thats an editor change. Thats how easy it would be to change if it were intended that way.

So CLEARLY I am using it "as intended".

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

My concern with para fragments is not that they can be used to take numerous unoccupied locations, but that they can double the AV of all attacking troops in the hex on the turn they are dropped. To drop [risk] only a fragment of a para unit in those circumstances would not be in the spirit of the game.

True in WitP. Not true in AE. And I have NEVER dropped fragments into a land battle. Every drop Ive made was just the para unit, so even IF true, doesnt apply.

Re: the buying of divisions, I have not read your AAR so if you say you paid full price, I accept that. But it is your opponent you need to convince. If it was me, I would also want assurances that you do not see Manchuria as part of China, even though it is one contiguous land mass. To do so would make movement of Kwantung army units into China very easy. I only bring that up because I have heard of other players bringing out Kwantung Army units without paying the points. I would want to remove any nagging doubt about this to have full confidence in my opponent.

I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

If you are sure your actions are within the spirit of the game, please discuss them without the counterattacks. The idea has been placed that some of your actions may not be "fair" and it should be possible to discuss them without attacking the authors. If there are mis-perceptions at work, they are the problem - not the people offering their opinions.

Well apparently you havent bothered to read any of my posts. No, I didnt pay full price for most of the units I released. But by the same token, they werent committed to battle before they would have been released if they had been bought at full price. Most of them sat in reserve in Japan after they were bought out until they were actually needed.

Read my AAR. I stated specifically what units were used where. And I re-stated when and where the units that were released went. Frankly, I didnt need any of them to do what I did. And thats the truth. I could have done it all with the units at hand. For every released unit I used in a battle, I had a non-restricted unit in reserve prepping for the next target. The most I ever used at once (up to the Perth ladings in Oct 42) was 7 divisions, and that was in the initial drive through Malaya plus 2 more in Luzon, and another 2 on their way to Darwin for a total of 11. Japs start the game with 12 released divisions not counting bdes, regts, ect. And they get 4 more Gd divs (in scen 2) I believe before the end of Dec (could be wrong on that, not going to look it up right now).

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month.

Then why not pay full price as the designers intended?

If the allies have to, then the Japs have to. If the allies dont, then why should the Japs?

And where in Gods name have you EVER seen a dev say that was the way it was intended? I was a playtester, and this is the way I played during testing as well. And documented it as such..... It was never changed, therefore the INTENT was as I have been playing. Another thing that I do, that is working as designed which most people think is "gamey" is to change the HQs of bases to allow restricted units to operate from forward bases. This too, is working as designed. So please, spare me the "designers never intended this" speech. Youre wrong.

Edit: Even in Michaels changes, if they hadnt designed it as such, then the HQs for the Jap corps would be white (meaning non-changeable - like the army HQs in Kwantung for example, they are in white instead of yellow) instead of yellow (meaning it IS changeable). If they hadnt designed it that way, it surely would have been easy to fix. Dont even need a code chamge. Thats an editor change. Thats how easy it would be if it were intended.

So CLEARLY I am using it "as intended".

Blackhorse, The Elf and other developers have refuted claims in various threads with you playing a part.

Your opponent says otherwise but if you both are in agreement that this is the way it should be done then all is fair. Really this should have been brought to his attention before firing the first shot. You understood how other players would react to it by the number of people posting negatively when you previously mentioned these manevuers.

Hopefully going forward you'd give the Allied player clarity on the playing style if a long lasting game is the intention.

ORIGINAL: CV 2


I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

Manchuria is traditionally a part of China. I'd have to hear more thoughts on it but instinct tells me it's fair for Chinese to enter Manchuria. However being honest, I may have done the same thing as you here.

[SqzMyLemon]

Sorry to see this end.

Not everyone's play styles mesh and in this case I understand your reasoning for ending the game. Don't beat yourself up about it. You got an education in how HQ control and PP issues can be exploited and your opponent's personality and play style. Good luck finding another opponent.

[rroberson]

No, I didnt pay full price for most of the units I released.

This is rather the point isn't it.

This is my last word regarding this topic. I find it fairly immature to be arguing in a forum over a "game".

To me the bottom line is this. As a gamer, I find myself involved in numerous games of various types from wargames to online roleplaying games. In each one of these genre you have a small group of people looking at the programming of said game to gain advantages over the others who are playing it. They look for ever bit of "poor programming" to get around things and give them unfair advantages. These "power gamers" don't play the game for the game's sake, they game the game because winning to them is the most important thing, rather then enjoying the experience of the game. You are one of these type of players. I am not. Had I know that it was even possible to buy out units at a significantly less cost (I was not aware of this until someone tipped me off) you can bet your ass I would have made a house rule at the beginning about it. If you will recall from our first conversation regarding a game CV2, I told you the same thing I tell everyone else. If we run across things that seem gamey we can discuss them and reach a compromise on them. I questioned all the boots fairly early in the game and you assured me it was all smoke and mirrors. I didn't know how truthful you were being there. But you were unwilling to compromise on any house rules because you were unwilling to reveal to me how you were doing it.

This goes further, and this is what I don't think you get. If you are willing to game the program to gain an advantage with the PPs, using the mavis how you did with paratroopers, etc. Then it leaves me one big question...what else are you doing to sneak around the intent of the program? What are those unknown things you are up to in addition to what has been discovered.

The thing about playing this game is, by it's nature, you gotta trust that the other fella has some honor. Posting an AAR and asking him not to read it. Trusting that he is obeying the house rules asked for and trusting that when he messes up...and a game that has this much detail but is this massive, one is apt to make mistakes...trusting that they are honest mistakes. The bottom line is I don't trust you as a player. You spend too much time justifying how you are playing rather then taking a step back and recognizing that maybe its possible that you aren't completely correct.

Your refusal to compromise on the small things that I was asking for once our game got going left me pretty puzzled I mean to me its just a game. Once I discovered how you were freeing up all your divisions...I was more then a little put off...I mean if you are willing to do this...you are certainly willing to step over the line in other ways as well. To you its just a game and you get your joy out of rubbing the other's fellows face in it. To me, I enjoy the game and never expect to do well, because I'm not the best player in the world. I have fun making things go boom.

Which is why your crack about me wanting to surrender after you nailed 3 of my carriers was funny to me. I'm currently in another game as the japanese where I have already lost half of KB (standard operating procedure for rob). No surrender has been tendered. It wasn't the 3 carriers I lost to you, it was china, it was everywhere else and I recognized I was out of my league with you as an opponent. I didn't realize at the time "why" I was out of my league...I play a straight game. You don't it is as simple as that.

As I said, you certainly have your own play style and I have never once said you were cheating since we didn't have a lot of house rules when we started. But you sure as hell are gaming the program and that hardly makes for a fun game for anyone does it? Well except for you, which is rather the point isn't it.

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Blackhorse, The Elf and other developers have refuted claims in various threads with you playing a part.

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

ORIGINAL: CV 2


I have the battle reports from every turn. More than happy to send them to you so you can see for yourself that I NEVER used Kwantung units in China except once, the 25th div retreated his 3rd Prov out of Manchuria and it crossed the boarder, killed it, and returned to Fusan. But as the 3rd Prov is a restricted unit, I felt that violating the rule to kill a unit that violated the rule was justified.

Manchuria is traditionally a part of China. I'd have to hear more thoughts on it but instinct tells me it's fair for Chinese to enter Manchuria. However being honest, I may have done the same thing as you here.

I suppose Vietnam is then also? Because his 31 corps went in there. Also a perma restricted unit. The same type as you would have us believe the Jap army HQs were intended to be.

You are wrong. Get over it.

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

No, I didnt pay full price for most of the units I released.

This is rather the point isn't it.

This is my last word regarding this topic. I find it fairly immature to be arguing in a forum over a "game".

To me the bottom line is this. As a gamer, I find myself involved in numerous games of various types from wargames to online roleplaying games. In each one of these genre you have a small group of people looking at the programming of said game to gain advantages over the others who are playing it. They look for ever bit of "poor programming" to get around things and give them unfair advantages. These "power gamers" don't play the game for the game's sake, they game the game because winning to them is the most important thing, rather then enjoying the experience of the game. You are one of these type of players. I am not. Had I know that it was even possible to buy out units at a significantly less cost (I was not aware of this until someone tipped me off) you can bet your ass I would have made a house rule at the beginning about it. If you will recall from our first conversation regarding a game CV2, I told you the same thing I tell everyone else. If we run across things that seem gamey we can discuss them and reach a compromise on them. I questioned all the boots fairly early in the game and you assured me it was all smoke and mirrors. I didn't know how truthful you were being there. But you were unwilling to compromise on any house rules because you were unwilling to reveal to me how you were doing it.

This goes further, and this is what I don't think you get. If you are willing to game the program to gain an advantage with the PPs, using the mavis how you did with paratroopers, etc. Then it leaves me one big question...what else are you doing to sneak around the intent of the program? What are those unknown things you are up to in addition to what has been discovered.

The thing about playing this game is, by it's nature, you gotta trust that the other fella has some honor. Posting an AAR and asking him not to read it. Trusting that he is obeying the house rules asked for and trusting that when he messes up...and a game that has this much detail but is this massive, one is apt to make mistakes...trusting that they are honest mistakes. The bottom line is I don't trust you as a player. You spend too much time justifying how you are playing rather then taking a step back and recognizing that maybe its possible that you aren't completely correct.

Your refusal to compromise on the small things that I was asking for once our game got going left me pretty puzzled I mean to me its just a game. Once I discovered how you were freeing up all your divisions...I was more then a little put off...I mean if you are willing to do this...you are certainly willing to step over the line in other ways as well. To you its just a game and you get your joy out of rubbing the other's fellows face in it. To me, I enjoy the game and never expect to do well, because I'm not the best player in the world. I have fun making things go boom.

Which is why your crack about me wanting to surrender after you nailed 3 of my carriers was funny to me. I'm currently in another game as the japanese where I have already lost half of KB (standard operating procedure for rob). No surrender has been tendered. It wasn't the 3 carriers I lost to you, it was china, it was everywhere else and I recognized I was out of my league with you as an opponent. I didn't realize at the time "why" I was out of my league...I play a straight game. You don't it is as simple as that.

As I said, you certainly have your own play style and I have never once said you were cheating since we didn't have a lot of house rules when we started. But you sure as hell are gaming the program and that hardly makes for a fun game for anyone does it? Well except for you, which is rather the point isn't it.

Again, you havent addressed THIS:

What commands are you releasing your units to?

I noticed you didnt answer THIS question.

Why not?

I used the Mavis L - It is a transport. If you dont understand that, maybe its a flaw with YOU? Why is it even in the game if it isnt INTENDED to be used as a transport?

I didnt read your AAR until after your last letter. My God. If I had been reading your AAR, you think I would have let your Brit carriers live and attack at will? But I MUST be cheating, right?

You didnt surrender in the other game because you werent getting your ass handed to you so easily Im guessing.

You made serveral mistakes.
You shock attack me at Clark Field and wonder why Bataan fell early. Gee, I wonder...

You keep your subs on station under an air umbrella and wonder why they arent attacking anything. Gee I wonder...

You stand in clear terrain in China, watch me encircle you and I take down scores of units time and time again. Even AFTER I told you that the Chinese cant defend in clear terrain and wonder why. Gee I wonder...

Good God, you have played how long and havent figured this stuff out yet? It MUST be me cheating, because apparently you are incapable of making mistakes. So I have to be sending extra units into China. Good God.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.


Here's an interesting post by

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.

Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K

Should anyone be surprised you didn't offer a rebuttal?

[Admiral Mitscher]

Yamato hugger.... CV 2 is Yamato hugger, it all makes sense now. I crossed swords with Yamato hugger in 2007 or 2008 under an old login, Tiger_cat I think over Fiji. Basically he was saying the same sort of rhetoric, that his philosophy on the game was correct and all others were wrong. That any mechanism that could be used to win the game was okay, playing the game with the spirit of gamesmanship was wrong and soft.

[BBfanboy]

Whoa folks - too much old baggage being brought into this discussion! It appears past disagreements have not settled to the "agree to disagree" level.
Fair 'nuf - everyone has their own perception of things and what happened when, which morphs with time.

What I am reading here is that rroberson has often admitted where he made mistakes, including the tactical one such as having the Chinese attack in open terrain. He may not have the data available to be able to provide the list of units he bought and where he assigned them - not everyone keeps old turn files or uses Tracker. CV2's assumption that he is not providing the list because he somehow cheated is premature - and people colour their judgement of other people's behaviour by what they would do themselves.

Naming names and making accusations of others is not a good way to defend your own actions. All you need do is state clearly what you did and that you consider it fair play. If your opponent can accept that, the game goes on. If not, a compromise or a friendly parting is called for. Expectations are the victim here.

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.


Here's an interesting post by

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.

Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K

Should anyone be surprised you didn't offer a rebuttal?

I will say it one more time.

Hopefully you get it this time.

There is no reason to make 14th, 15th, 16th, ect army HQs changeable if not to allow them to change to Kwantung, China, or Japan. The only other choices are 4th fleet, 5th fleet, or SE fleet. So if they didnt intend for them to be able to change to an unrestricted command, why are they able to change commands at all?

And what about the allied side of the coin? Why do they have unrestricted commands within their resticted HQs? As has been said countless times, good for the goose.... But then, I guess this ONLY applies if it HELPS the allies. If it works AGAINST them, its poppycock.

And no, I didnt break the NDA. I was banned supposedly for "trolling". Which if you read the thread that actually GOT me banned, it was Elf that was in fact doing the trolling. But I was stupid and bit. I proved Elf lied. He did it again with the 2nd air div thing. He said specifically that it WAS working as intended (releasing all the Manchurian air) which is actually in direct contrast to what you see above.

Don has been pissed at me ever since I insisted they make the TF options (direct, safe, safer, ect) a default. He adamantly opposed it. He wanted the default to be Safer and that was it. If you wanted anything other than that, you had to change each TF individually. I talked Joe into taking a vote, and it passed and was put in as you see it now. Ever since that day, everything I do is evil in Dons and JWEs eyes, so I pretty much just ignore them. That wasnt the only case where we knocked heads. TF retreat directions, reacting to enemy TFs, the list goes on. Most of what was done to improve the naval stuff (from the original which you never saw) was by my hand. And Don resented it. Simple as that.

I was a tester early on. I left because they were constantly bickering over the most minor BS stuff. The straw that broke my back was the number of P-40s on one of the transports enroute to Oz on Dec 7th. They argued back and forth on that for 3-4 days. Almost a year later Joe called me up on the phone and asked me to come back. He wanted me because he knew I would stand up for what I believed in and not knuckle under to pressure.

Thats exactly WHY I was a tester. Because I wouldnt back down when I felt I was right, and this is just such a case. If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!

I didnt use Mavis seaplanes. I used Mavis L transports.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/6/H6K_Mavis.htm

Note the "varints" at the bottom:
Variants The -L designates unarmed transport versions of the Mavis, with room for 18 passengers

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/-/C-47_Skytrain.htm
12 paratroopers is 1 "stick" in a C-47 transport plane which lists 28 troops as cargo. So the 18 in a Mavis L would certainly be enough to transport a 9 man Jap Para squad.

The Tina was nothing more than a Nell with the guns removed and a door added, and they were used to drop the paras into Malaya in the opening attacks. You really should do your research before you try to poke fun at someone. But I have the advantage of being a part of the 82nd airborne, 1st Ranger company, and assigned as an instructor at the parachute school, ranger camp, and SF training center at Ft. Benning for 3 years (I also have a combat drop to my credit, although Granda wasnt much of a "combat" drop). So I know a little bit about para operations, what was done, and what was and was not possible.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/3/L3Y_Tina.htm

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Mitscher

Yamato hugger.... CV 2 is Yamato hugger, it all makes sense now. I crossed swords with Yamato hugger in 2007 or 2008 under an old login, Tiger_cat I think over Fiji. Basically he was saying the same sort of rhetoric, that his philosophy on the game was correct and all others were wrong. That any mechanism that could be used to win the game was okay, playing the game with the spirit of gamesmanship was wrong and soft.

Who are you and why should I care and what has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

[rroberson]

still at this I see.

Let it go dude. Winning an argument on the internet AND a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

and as far as accusing me of cheating? Really? Now you are just letting your ego in the way.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.

I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.


Here's an interesting post by

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen




Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K

Should anyone be surprised you didn't offer a rebuttal?

I will say it one more time.

Hopefully you get it this time.

There is no reason to make 14th, 15th, 16th, ect army HQs changeable if not to allow them to change to Kwantung, China, or Japan. The only other choices are 4th fleet, 5th fleet, or SE fleet. So if they didnt intend for them to be able to change to an unrestricted command, why are they able to change commands at all?

And what about the allied side of the coin? Why do they have unrestricted commands within their resticted HQs? As has been said countless times, good for the goose.... But then, I guess this ONLY applies if it HELPS the allies. If it works AGAINST them, its poppycock.

And no, I didnt break the NDA. I was banned supposedly for "trolling". Which if you read the thread that actually GOT me banned, it was Elf that was in fact doing the trolling. But I was stupid and bit. I proved Elf lied. He did it again with the 2nd air div thing. He said specifically that it WAS working as intended (releasing all the Manchurian air) which is actually in direct contrast to what you see above.

Don has been pissed at me ever since I insisted they make the TF options (direct, safe, safer, ect) a default. He adamantly opposed it. He wanted the default to be Safer and that was it. If you wanted anything other than that, you had to change each TF individually. I talked Joe into taking a vote, and it passed and was put in as you see it now. Ever since that day, everything I do is evil in Dons and JWEs eyes, so I pretty much just ignore them. That wasnt the only case where we knocked heads. TF retreat directions, reacting to enemy TFs, the list goes on. Most of what was done to improve the naval stuff (from the original which you never saw) was by my hand. And Don resented it. Simple as that.

I was a tester early on. I left because they were constantly bickering over the most minor BS stuff. The straw that broke my back was the number of P-40s on one of the transports enroute to Oz on Dec 7th. They argued back and forth on that for 3-4 days. Almost a year later Joe called me up on the phone and asked me to come back. He wanted me because he knew I would stand up for what I believed in and not knuckle under to pressure.

Thats exactly WHY I was a tester. Because I wouldnt back down when I felt I was right, and this is just such a case. If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?

I'll highlite what Kereguelen stated.

We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands.

I think most would agree Keregeun meant PP's instead of VPs giving the content of the thread in which this appeared.



That's all I need to see. You were a tester he was on the development side. I think I'll trust what he has publicly written.


The way I understood it you were banned for breaking the NDA.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

You guys realize YH was banned for breach of trust after posting Dev Forum conversations here on this forum for all to see right?

I think going forward it's safe to say we disagree. Your claims have been refuted any number of times in numerous threads by folks on the developmental side.

That's good enough for me.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!

I didnt use Mavis seaplanes. I used Mavis L transports.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/6/H6K_Mavis.htm

Note the "varints" at the bottom:
Variants The -L designates unarmed transport versions of the Mavis, with room for 18 passengers

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/-/C-47_Skytrain.htm
12 paratroopers is 1 "stick" in a C-47 transport plane which lists 28 troops as cargo. So the 18 in a Mavis L would certainly be enough to transport a 9 man Jap Para squad.

The Tina was nothing more than a Nell with the guns removed and a door added, and they were used to drop the paras into Malaya in the opening attacks. You really should do your research before you try to poke fun at someone. But I have the advantage of being a part of the 82nd airborne, 1st Ranger company, and assigned as an instructor at the parachute school, ranger camp, and SF training center at Ft. Benning for 3 years (I also have a combat drop to my credit, although Granda wasnt much of a "combat" drop). So I know a little bit about para operations, what was done, and what was and was not possible.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/3/L3Y_Tina.htm

Whoa - I was supporting one of your arguments and you think I was poking fun? I think you are projecting your personality to me - I do not like to belittle people or see them belittled. I was trying to say I see your point and I would accept it if I were your opponent.

As for your stuff above, if a plane takes off from water it is a seaplane. I know you meant the transport variant and that is what I meant too.
My mention of OSS drops from allied bombers was meant to illustrate that all that is necessary for the drop is a hatch that can be opened in flight. No argument from me about the lift capacity of the Mavis-L and the possibility of using it for para drops. Hope that clears it up.

As for the rest - your style of play and motives for the game were different from your opponent, so it just wasn't working for both sides. Best to let it go as a match that didn't gel.

[CV 2]

Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?

You seem very intent on your own interpretation of this possibility. One simple question. If it was intended for the player to be able to purchase units more cheaply then why didn't the 'price' just get lowered? Why the extra work-around with changing multiple HQs as you advocate?

Another question; why is this so necessary for you to argue for when it doesn't seem to be something any other players are arguing for? It is not integral to a Japanese or an Allied game to have units cheaper than their stated value. Plenty of players have played without this luxury. In my game PPs are valuable because I can't buy what I want all of the time. I'm in 9/43 and still haven't bought out all of the stuff over the AV limit in Manchuria. I trust the integrity of my opponent that he is also buying units at full price and thus has a similar set of tough decisions in front of him. This seems to simulate at least in a small way the types of decisions and negotiations behind the scenes about where these troops went in reality.

Obviously if you want to use the game even farther outside of this semi-realistic framework that's great, just make sure your opponent is on the same page early on. Then its no problem. Just don't assume everyone does or should accept this in the same way that you do and we're all okay.