naval bombardment.

[MDDgames]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Miller
No. He wont answer any messages I send, not even to confirm the game is over.

Sorry to hear that. [:(]

Actually, I answered every one of his mails.

As for the China unit on Java, I combine the 2 Bns to form the unit (the 3rd was killed), Flew them to Miri, and then flew them to Java. Then I turned on reinforcements and thats all there was to it. And I told Miller that also.

I noticed that not 1 regular Jap player has said they think its working as designed, only people that regularly play allies. What a surprise.

God forbid that something should slow down the allied advance (like mines or shore guns that actually fire).

I hope it wasn't the rough treatment he got here that led to his quitting, although I suspect as much is true.

LOL. I have said it a few times now, I guess people cant comprehend what they read. so I will say it one more time.

Michaels is the only opinion that matters on this issue.

Hope that was clear enough. The rest of you, I could care less what you think. And until michael says its working as designed, then I consider the game broken.

[CaptDave]

I've kept quiet until now, but I've reached my limit. Michael's opinion is NOT the only one that matters; it's up to the original designers to decide whether the game is working as designed. They have said several times in this thread that it is.

Furthermore, if you're the only player that can't accept it the way it is, then you're not going to be high on the priority list for getting your issue "fixed." Software maintenance is all about prioritization, and you, sir, do not have the clout to change that.

This entire thread you have come across as a spoiled brat, convinced that yours is the only player's opinion that matters and that if the only developer maintaining the program doesn't kowtow to your conceit then the game is broken. I would highly recommend that you learn some etiquette if you want to receive any respect from the denizens of this game.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
I noticed that not 1 regular Jap player has said they think its working as designed, only people that regularly play allies. What a surprise.

I think I can explain this.

MichaelM owns a basement located under a demolished hut in the Australian outback. There the truly experienced Japanese PBEM players are kept. They are allowed a single post per month to reply to requests in the opponents wanted section. The rest of the time they are forced to practice tortorous mental strenght techniques and yoga to prevent them from collapsing into devastated "its borked" whiners at the first sight of adverse circumstances. If you don´t believe me ask Miller, he is one of those really experienced IJ players but was able to escape a couple of months ago.

Btw, did you know the moonlandings are fake?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
Michaels is the only opinion that matters on this issue.
Hope that was clear enough. The rest of you, I could care less what you think. And until michael says its working as designed, then I consider the game broken.

From what I could deduct from Symons (JWE) reply to you he and michealm have communicated about your perceived bug.

ORIGINAL: Symon
Briefly, michaelm won't respond to this because it is not a bug. Don Bowen wrote the code for the Naval Team, including this part. We all still chat.

Now if the guy who wrote the actual game code for this tells you its not a bug then its not a bug. Couldn´t be clearer.

Man up and simply admit you have been outplayed and want to surrender instead of using this as a way out.

[Yaab]

I would like to add my two cents to the DP guns discussion.

As an Allied player, who loves to restart the grand campaign, I use the British DDs in Hong Kong at the start of the war to pound the Canton airfield. Why? Well, I am paranoid that the Japanese light bombers stationed there will kill my light industry in China. I also vector B-17s from Clark Field and Chinese DB-3s from Kweyiang in order to suppress the Canton airfield. Anyway, I made those DD bombing runs dozens of times with the bombing range set to 5 for the first week of the war. Now, as the Japanese players may know, there is this Canton Special Naval BF which is stuffed to the gills with DP guns (an Allied spy known as Tracker identified 28 DP guns in this unit). I can say from my experience that for every 10 bombing runs by the DDs, they were engaged by the DP guns on 2-3 occasions, so the chance to be engaged by DP guns was 20-30%. The DP fire was ineffective (no hits on DDs). It was only the combination of Canton minefield and undetected midget subs that wore those DDs after some time. So, three unarmored DDs on a river with lousy guns against 28 Japanese DP guns.

Now, the bombing runs were performed during night phase so I reckon the DP gun crews were asleep 70% of the time.

[MDDgames]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I would like to add my two cents to the DP guns discussion.

As an Allied player, who loves to restart the grand campaign, I use the British DDs in Hong Kong at the start of the war to pound the Canton airfield. Why? Well, I am paranoid that the Japanese light bombers stationed there will kill my light industry in China. I also vector B-17s from Clark Field and Chinese DB-3s from Kweyiang in order to suppress the Canton airfield. Anyway, I made those DD bombing runs dozens of times with the bombing range set to 5 for the first week of the war. Now, as the Japanese players may know, there is this Canton Special Naval BF which is stuffed to the gills with DP guns (an Allied spy known as Tracker identified 28 DP guns in this unit). I can say from my experience that for every 10 bombing runs by the DDs, they were engaged by the DP guns on 2-3 occasions, so the chance to be engaged by DP guns was 20-30%. The DP fire was ineffective (no hits on DDs). It was only the combination of Canton minefield and undetected midget subs that wore those DDs after some time. So, three unarmored DDs on a river with lousy guns against 28 Japanese DP guns.

Now, the bombing runs were performed during night phase so I reckon the DP gun crews were asleep 70% of the time.

Yeah, I know what Dons opinion is. I know what Elfs opinions were also, and THAT didnt stop Michael from fixing it even though it was working as HE wanted also.

Give me 1 example in history where shore guns didnt fire in 1943 at bombarding ships (either side, any theater). I am unaware of any, so please educate me. Otherwise, Michael, please fix this....

[Miller]

No, sorry MDDgames, but you didn't reply to all my emails. I asked whether you wanted the game to continue and got a two week silence in reply. I then sent one final and (admittedly) insulting message that finally roused you into a reply. Regarding that CD unit at Merak, I never even bothered to mention that to you at any time, so how could you have told me how you got it there? You never did because I never asked.

Bottom line is this, the tide was beginning to turn and you wanted out. This (non) issue with CD units was just a smokescreen to get out of the game.

You have had your answer, yet you seem to think that only Michael's word is gospel. How I would love him to come on here and confirm things one way or another........

[Yaab]

By the way, do DP guns use direct or indirect fire? Are they positioned on coast lines like CD guns, or are they employed somewhere to the rear (i.e close to an airfield)? Since they can shoot at ships and aircraft, they could sit closer to the middle of the hex, guarding airfield installations.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Miller

How I would love him to come on here and confirm things one way or another........

Actually, better this way. As John said, the original dev team still all talk (as we all know. Sheesh, I even see Ian lurking here once in a while). The dev responsible for this alogrithm has replied, but this person didn't like the answer.

You know, I gotta a 4yo. When I say "no" he runs to his momma hoping that she will give a "better" answer. Mom and I are on the same page though ... kinda like the dev team. [;)]

[MDDgames]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Miller

How I would love him to come on here and confirm things one way or another........

Actually, better this way. As John said, the original dev team still all talk (as we all know. Sheesh, I even see Ian lurking here once in a while). The dev responsible for this alogrithm has replied, but this person didn't like the answer.

You know, I gotta a 4yo. When I say "no" he runs to his momma hoping that she will give a "better" answer. Mom and I are on the same page though ... kinda like the dev team. [;)]

Give me 1 example in history where shore guns didnt fire in 1943 at bombarding ships (either side, any theater). I am unaware of any, so please educate me. Otherwise, Michael, please fix this....

I noticed you didnt answer THIS:

Give me 1 example in history where shore guns didnt fire in 1943 at bombarding ships (either side, any theater). I am unaware of any, so please educate me. Otherwise, Michael, please fix this....

Why not? Could it be because it never happened in history maybe? So the "game design" is nothing but Dons/JWEs whim and has nothing to do with history. At least lets set the record straight on this. Don/JWE are AFBs and didnt want anything to slow down the allied advance. No other explanation for this AND the fact that there are nearly as many minesweepers in the game as mines....

So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter. And again, Michaels is the ONLY opinion that matters.

[Crackaces]

Give me 1 example in history....

Thinking this game is a simulation is a point that causes much consternation in this group ... I might suggest one of the points of interest before choosing an opponent. Else one might invest a great deal of time to find out that an opponent has an interesting view of history, simulation modeling, war gaming, and the like .. especially when things start going the other way ..

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter. And again, Michaels is the ONLY opinion that matters.

Sorry, but this has to be the lamest argument ever. You expect the forum to present you with "things that never happened" to debunk your pet theory?

I have some news for you - It's very rare for historians to note non-occurrances, that is, something that didn't happen even though it's theoretically possible that something could have happened.

I can really see some dude researching old wartime documents making the discovery; "Ahaaa ... on this day MM/DD/YYYY this TF apparentely passed at least one nautic mile within range of this shore emplacement - AND IT NEVER FIRED! I guess everyone would be interested in this" ... [8|]

Green buttoned from now on.

[Yaab]

Well, when one looks at the TOE of the Hong Kong Defence Force (unit id 3445) it looks like an infantry regiment with around 20 field guns. It has the same picture as the borders forts in Manchuria - pure CD units have a different picture. It seems to me it may be an improvised defence force for both Hong Kong coast and the inland connection to Hong Kong (in the game, Hong Kong has only one hexside connecting it to mainland China). The unit looks like a solid fortress unit (lots of MGs in its TOE too).

Now, the unit has the CD icon, but I wonder if it really acts as one. Is it really subjected to a CD gun die roll when there are ships visible? Seems to me its field guns would only fire if there was an amphibious landing at Hong Kong.

Also, it is worth noting, that Japanese special base forces have both naval support and aviation support in their TOE, thus their DP guns could be assigned to cover port and airfield at the same time. The can be placed in different parts of the hex and not placed wholesale on the coast.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
Why not? Could it be because it never happened in history maybe? So the "game design" is nothing but Dons/JWEs whim and has nothing to do with history. At least lets set the record straight on this. Don/JWE are AFBs and didnt want anything to slow down the allied advance. No other explanation for this AND the fact that there are nearly as many minesweepers in the game as mines....

Wow. [X(]

I don´t think I have ever seen someone make such a fool out of himself on this forum. Ever. I would find this hilarious if it wasn´t for the fact that you had an opponent that has now wasted a good amount of his spare time on your game.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
...

Give me 1 example in history where shore guns didnt fire in 1943 at bombarding ships (either side, any theater). I am unaware of any, so please educate me. Otherwise, Michael, please fix this....

Why not? Could it be because it never happened in history maybe? So the "game design" is nothing but Dons/JWEs whim and has nothing to do with history. At least lets set the record straight on this. Don/JWE are AFBs and didnt want anything to slow down the allied advance. No other explanation for this AND the fact that there are nearly as many minesweepers in the game as mines....

So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter. And again, Michaels is the ONLY opinion that matters.

Bovine Feces, and a Green Button goodbye to you.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw, did you know the moonlandings are fake?

They are there is no wind on the moooooooon!

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Miller
No. He wont answer any messages I send, not even to confirm the game is over.

Sorry to hear that. [:(]

Actually, I answered every one of his mails.

As for the China unit on Java, I combine the 2 Bns to form the unit (the 3rd was killed), Flew them to Miri, and then flew them to Java. Then I turned on reinforcements and thats all there was to it. And I told Miller that also.

I noticed that not 1 regular Jap player has said they think its working as designed, only people that regularly play allies. What a surprise.

God forbid that something should slow down the allied advance (like mines or shore guns that actually fire).

I hope it wasn't the rough treatment he got here that led to his quitting, although I suspect as much is true.

LOL. I have said it a few times now, I guess people cant comprehend what they read. so I will say it one more time.

Michaels is the only opinion that matters on this issue.

Hope that was clear enough. The rest of you, I could care less what you think. And until michael says its working as designed, then I consider the game broken.

Actually, I am playing the Japanese side regularly, and I think it's working as designed.

I didn't want to get back into this but man, you're insulting just about everyone, you've obviously given Miller the run-around, and everything you say is inflammatory.

Michaelm most likely will never respond to this, and you know it. After all you were a play-tester, right, and know all of these developers well? At least that is what you imply. You also know a lot of secret ways to work the game engine, don't you, like the permanently restricted unit move trick?

I've blown up about some things in this game, and it's not perfect, but usually after a little perspective from others on the forum, from my opponent and from my own sense of dignity I realize I've boiled over and have to wipe up the mess. It's time now for you to take a step back and realize this is not so important and if you want to ever play another PBEM you should probably apologize to a few people.

[Mac Linehan]

Sir -

I normally do not comment in situations like this; but you have shown a complete lack of manners and respect for others on this forum.

You are insulting men who not only have contributed enormously to AE but are held in the highest regard by this community, due to their expertise, knowledge and willingness to help other players.

Your allegations, which are completely baseless, are just a personal attack on those who have done the most to support and improve AE.

I respectfully submit that Miller is right on the mark; you are seeking a very dishonorable way out of your game. That does not surprise me, he is a very experienced player.

I also suspect that you enjoy trolling; but know this - you will pay a price for your actions.

Mac

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw, did you know the moonlandings are fake?

They are there is no wind on the moooooooon!

Aiind the shadows are all wroooooooong!

[erstad]

So, unless you can answer the question of when in HISTORY did shore guns not return fire at a bombarding TF, then really, you have nothing to say on the matter.

OK, I'll succumb to feeding the troll. Note that there is no concrete reason to believe the ships were even in range of the guns. The difference between the naval gun range and the shore gun range was 1,000 yards, right (or something similarly small). There are many places in a 40nm hex where the ships might be in range of some shore targets but not in range of the guns.

Not saying this is necessarily the reason for whatever random resulted in no fire. But there's no basis for concluding that the ships were somehow standing in the range of an active battery without molestation.