Taking enemy homeworlds way too easy?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

It was a rough estimate, but probably close to accurate. We’d need a population census report for the era, but considering about half of China was conquered by Japan, I doubt 1/3rd would be far from the truth. Countries that were totally or partially conquered during the war:

France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Finland, big chunk of Russia, North Africa, about half of China (includes Manchuria and Korea), Burma, Siam, Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and Japan.

Jim

Wikipedia reference says different - rough estimate of the world population as of 1940 was 2.3 billion. You're claiming that approximately 750 million people were conquered or otherwise changed hands? That's TEN TIMES the population of Germany at the beginning of the war.

If your "rough estimate" is 1/3 of the world - then back up your statement. Where's your evidence?

And get your facts straight - you're including "half of China" - which is wrong. The Sino-Japanese war was officially July 7, 1937 – September 9, 1945, whereas WWII "officially" started September 1, 1939. You're erroneously padding your numbers by including an extraneous conflict.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

His esitmate, considering the population concentrations, is probably not far off. And to be honest, Europe and Asia were far more populous than the Western Worlds (North and South America) at that point in time. Population in the America's in 1940 was somewhere around 260-300 million, for Asia was over over 1 billion, and Europe was ~600 million. Asia had at that time, and still does, roughly 60% of the world's population.

USA population as of 1/1/1939 was approximately 130 million, not 260-300 as you contend. Given your error in USA population estimate, his estimate is off by at LEAST a factor of 2-3.

[Setekh]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
The original statement from Jimmy was:

Now you're just being an ass. PLONK

Some of your posts I found quite interesting and thought provoking, then I saw this garbage and the fact you flipped out when someone simply referred to you as "Jimmy" . It's quite hard to take someone seriously when ask them not to insult you and immediately call them an "ass" straight after. Not sure if this is some kind of troll attempt or what so I think I'll skip over that green button you're so fond of and just skip straight to 'report' instead. [8|]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Shark7

His esitmate, considering the population concentrations, is probably not far off. And to be honest, Europe and Asia were far more populous than the Western Worlds (North and South America) at that point in time. Population in the America's in 1940 was somewhere around 260-300 million, for Asia was over over 1 billion, and Europe was ~600 million. Asia had at that time, and still does, roughly 60% of the world's population.

USA population as of 1/1/1939 was approximately 130 million, not 260-300 as you contend. Given your error in USA population estimate, his estimate is off by at LEAST a factor of 2-3.

I am not off at all, you didn't read it, you just assumed..."in the Americas'"...that counts all of North and South America. I was counting all South American, Central American countries as well as the US and Canada.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Setekh

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
The original statement from Jimmy was:

Now you're just being an ass. PLONK

Some of your posts I found quite interesting and thought provoking, then I saw this garbage and the fact you flipped out when someone simply referred to you as "Jimmy" . It's quite hard to take someone seriously when ask them not to insult you and immediately call them an "ass" straight after. Not sure if this is some kind of troll attempt or what so I think I'll skip over that green button you're so fond of and just skip straight to 'report' instead. [8|]

Kayoz seems to be reacting without understanding what is written, such as his assumption that my statement of a 260-300 million population of the America's (both north and south continents) referred only to the USA. When some one says 'the America's' it means both continents (at least where I am from).

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Kayoz seems to be reacting without understanding what is written, such as his assumption that my statement of a 260-300 million population of the America's (both north and south continents) referred only to the USA. When some one says 'the America's' it means both continents (at least where I am from).

Actually, the mistake is yours.

"America" commonly refers to the USA. You used "America's" - indicating possessive of America, ie: America's population.

If you meant, "the Americas", then you should have used "the Americas' population" - which you did not do.

Basic grammar. Your mistake.

[gmot]

Shark7 said "Population in the America's in 1940 was somewhere around 260-300 million".

It was obvious from the context that he was referring to the population of "the Americas", not "America." Regardless of a extra piece of punctuation.

It's obtuse to read it otherwise. And I'm Canadian, so I'm uniquely sensitive to this kind of thing...

Frankly Kayoz, your whole tone towards other people in this thread seems rude and dismissive, with uncalled for put-downs. Granted, Jim Burns shouldn't be so sensitive about being called Jimmy, but you seem eager to find slights in the most innocuous things people write. Chill out.

[Kayoz]

gmot -

The simple fact is that Shark made a mistake, such that the meaning of his sentence was muddled due to his grammatical errors. If I interpret his sentence in a manner that he didn't mean, then that's entirely his fault. His mistake has been quite visible since the time of his posting it, and he's referred back to it at least twice and NEVER corrected or clarified it.

I don't believe I'm being rude or dismissive. "Jimmy" is apparently insulting... um, sorry - but I'm at a loss to explain that one or know how to avoid it. I have no idea what I can do. Maybe Jimmy doesn't speak English as his native language.

As for dismissive, I've pointed out numerous issues with Jimmy's suggestion - how it affects game balance, economics and war weariness off the top of my head - and he has not once provided anything useful to defend his suggestion. I find his "oh, it's more realistic because WWII was long" completely nonsensical. And when his numerical claims are challenged, he fails to provide anything to back up his argument.

I'm merely pointing out the flaws in the suggestions - indicating how "fixing" one aspect can easily break another. You call it "dismissive" - I call it "constructive criticism".

[Data]

one thing to note here, once someone tells you how they like to be called and you continue to call them otherwise then you really need to chill out...we're all 4x gamers here, we recognize provocation when we see it [:D]

[gmot]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I would expect contributers to a forum to be able to still understand a sentence of which the meaning is perfectly clear, even with a misplaced piece of punctuation. I shall have to make sure I don't add an extra comma somewhere so that I don't get called out by you [;)]

Re constructive criticism vs. dismissive, of course you have the right (as everyone does) to critically evaluate other people's suggestions. An open exchange of ideas is part of why people post here. But if you don't yourself see a rude tone in some of your comments, then I'm sure there's nothing I can say that will help you with that.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

gmot -

The simple fact is that Shark made a mistake, such that the meaning of his sentence was muddled due to his grammatical errors. If I interpret his sentence in a manner that he didn't mean, then that's entirely his fault. His mistake has been quite visible since the time of his posting it, and he's referred back to it at least twice and NEVER corrected or clarified it.

I don't believe I'm being rude or dismissive. "Jimmy" is apparently insulting... um, sorry - but I'm at a loss to explain that one or know how to avoid it. I have no idea what I can do. Maybe Jimmy doesn't speak English as his native language.

As for dismissive, I've pointed out numerous issues with Jimmy's suggestion - how it affects game balance, economics and war weariness off the top of my head - and he has not once provided anything useful to defend his suggestion. I find his "oh, it's more realistic because WWII was long" completely nonsensical. And when his numerical claims are challenged, he fails to provide anything to back up his argument.

I'm merely pointing out the flaws in the suggestions - indicating how "fixing" one aspect can easily break another. You call it "dismissive" - I call it "constructive criticism".

Seems you need to chill out yourself, quit nitpicking on details, and stop being so confrontational.

I also find it interesting that other posters to the forum understood the meaning of what I posted without problems, you alone have made an issue of it. Also, you might want to note that the person who resorts to insults, inflammatory statements or intentionally tries to goad an angry response out of another has already lost the debate...yes I am referring to your referring to Jim as 'Jimmy'. Your first use of it was condescending and you continue to do so.

At any rate, I'm not going to allow myself to be angered by anything posted here. Arguing amongst Grognards accomplishes nothing. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over, and the mods might have to lock this thread as it is no longer on topic or accomplishing what it was intended to.

[Kayoz]

As The Bard said, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet;". Calling Jimmy by any other name will not make him any less incapable of holding up to criticism.

As for criticism - you made a mistake. Your mistake, not mine. I interpreted your writing as best I could. If you don't want to be misinterpreted, then write more clearly - and learn basic English grammar. Why do you continue to make excuses to deflect attention from YOUR mistake, when you could acknowledge your mistake and get back to the issue at hand. If I'm being confrontational, then you're being evasive and trying to distract from your mistakes.

You still haven't explained why calling Jim as "Jimmy is offensive. I want you to call me, "Lord High Overlord of Studliness, Masculinity and Wittiness; Lord Protector of Code Reviews; Divine Patriarch of the Church of Zarquon and High Priest of All Jedi" - any other reference to me, I'll consider insulting. Happy now? You haven't supplied ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to support his claim that "Jimmy" is derogatory.

Interesting how you've descended to personal complaints, and have not once refuted any of the problems I've pointed out with the "suggestions".

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Setekh
Some of your posts I found quite interesting and thought provoking, then I saw this garbage and the fact you flipped out when someone simply referred to you as "Jimmy" . It's quite hard to take someone seriously when ask them not to insult you and immediately call them an "ass" straight after. Not sure if this is some kind of troll attempt or what so I think I'll skip over that green button you're so fond of and just skip straight to 'report' instead. [8|]

The attempt at trolling was his not mine, and I did not “flip out” as you say. His initial use of the name Jimmy was done so in a condescending tone and was an intentional slight (he used an em dash to emphasize his point) used in an attempt to belittle me in the forum. I told him to use my proper name or not respond to my posts. A more than rational and reasonable reply.

I then went on to continue the discussion in a polite and rational tone. His second use of the name after I had told him to use my proper name was an obvious troll and used to insult me personally. I do not engage in such juvenile antics, so I’ve now placed him on ignore. On a side note, this is the first person I’ve ever used the green button on in all my years visiting this forum.

Jim

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

... done so in a condescending tone and was an intentional slight (he used an em dash to emphasize his point) used in an attempt to belittle me in the forum...

Bullcrap. There's no basis to that claim.

My initial use of "Jimmy" was:

Jimmy -

I don't see how slowing down ground combat will help.

That's hardly condescending. It's merely an explicit way of indicating to the reader who the message is directed at. You have still failed to provide anything to substantiate your claim that "Jimmy" is a derogatory term. Now you're reading "tone" and intent in 7-bit ASCII text - which is about on par with reading entrails and tarot cards.

Placing great importance and identity on one's name is a common phase that children go through when they're 12-15. It's usually about that age, when they try to find their identity by copying the behaviour and indeed the names of their heroes. Perhaps you should consider if you're watching too much Star Trek. Have you had tantrums over your parents' refusal to call you "Snoop" or "Blade"?

But don't worry about it - this will all pass with the dropping of your testicles.

[J HG T]

Kayoz. You really should stop that.
You've taken this whole think way too far for what it's worth. Just give it a rest and move on.

[Kayoz]

You're probably right - I'm arguing with idiots that resort to personal attacks because they're incapable of defending their statements.

Alas, it's a rare event that one can find an opponent that can debate a point instead of throwing an emotional tantrum.

[Setekh]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

But don't worry about it - this will all pass with the dropping of your testicles.

Now you're being just as bad. [8|]

Would appreciate it if a moderator could give this thread a good clean tbh.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Setekh

Now you're being just as bad. [8|]

Yup. It's quite on purpose, to highlight the absurdity of his comments.

Edit -
You know, despite my repeated requests, I still haven't received any explanation as to why "Jimmy" is derogatory. I have friends named Robert, who are called "Bob". William becomes "Bill". Richard becomes "Dick". It seems that he's asserting that all these examples are insulting. If I've broken social convention - then so be it, I'll apologize. But I have not been provided with a shred of evidence that "Jimmy" is derogatory.

[gmot]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

You're probably right - I'm arguing with idiots that resort to personal attacks because they're incapable of defending their statements.

Alas, it's a rare event that one can find an opponent that can debate a point instead of throwing an emotional tantrum.

This made me laugh. Calling people idiots for resorting to personal attacks is an idiotic statement. You have some emotional tantrum issues to work out obviously.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: gmot

This made me laugh. Calling people idiots for resorting to personal attacks is an idiotic statement. You have some emotional tantrum issues to work out obviously.

Such is your choice. I subscribe to the "eye for an eye" school of thought. Someone picks a fight with me, I'm happy to oblige.

As an aside, none of the problems I brought up with the suggestion were ever addressed. Personal insults and complaints over references - but nothing to defend the weaknesses I pointed out.