Initiative

[DeletedUser1769703214]

This whole thread reminds me of the "Toilet seat is up" argument...

[GibsonPete]

+1... BTW I am gentlemen and leave it down.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Nice to see Hans being his usual self on the WITE2 forum as he is on the WITP:AE one. Consistency to be admired.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Because the Allies are about to be on the mainland of Europe, and thus the Soviets will no longer surrender no matter what the situation?

I'm glad you added a question mark otherwise I would've forced to call that answer complete bunk.

Refusing to Surrender and Seizing the Strategic Initiative are completely different animals.

The Host of the Armies of the West arrayed before the Gates of Mordor refused to surrender, but they did not seize the initiative until the One Ring was destroyed.

In what sense is it complete bunk? It would be helpful to refer to the actual historical context rather than Tolkein's writings.

Personal attacks are a violation of the terms of service.

The historical context you seek is the image attached to the first post.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: chrispanton

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: loki100



You say you've read the manual (first post). If so, you have all the information you need from the rules in section 29 to make a good comparison and work out if your progress would have been enough to trigger an Axis win already (ie before the initiative change).

Second, the rules in the last para of 29.1.2 apply after the initiative changes, which tells you how further Axis gains affect the Soviet score.

Finally the rules for 31 December 1944 are in 29.1.4 offer another way in which a high scoring axis player can win despite the Soviets having the initiative.

Did you simply not read, or did you not understand, the clear statement that solitaire players couldn't care less about when some artificial determination of 'victory' is triggered?

Regardless, a poor word choice led to a misunderstanding. Yes, I participated by being the one who misunderstood, but I'm not the only participant. I'm not the one who made the poor word choice that led to the misunderstanding.

Why is it that when I come to this forum to level a criticism, I find myself being targeted as the one who did something wrong?

Why can't those responsible for the error, or mistake that led to the misunderstand just stop dissembling for at least one minute, and man up and shoulder some accountability.

If you want an answer to that its because generally the forum is a place where folk come to ask for advice, help, clarification etc... and as in life if you behave in a boorish obnoxious manner in return then otherwise helpful folk will tend to go a bit sour too. Joel, Loki and others have given you clear concise explanations and hopefully you now have cleared up your misinterpretation, say thank you and move on like a good gentleman and folks will help you next time too.

Personal attacks are a violation of the terms of service.

I'll say 'thank you' when some one says 'I'm sorry'.

Instead of 'hey, sorry for the misunderstanding caused by our poor word choice' I get dissembling and the forum fan bois rushing in to shout me down.

SOP

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I find it rather silly.

The English and appearing in both the manual and the game tends to be of fairly high quality. I presume it to be British English. Among native speakers playing are: Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, New Zealanders, ... (if I left any out I am sorry) and many second language players such as Germans, Russians, Chinese, ...

* Statistically, second language speakers of English now out number natives.

Finally, connotation varies even within the the USA by region, social class, ethnicity, generation, ...

So, I find this rather a trivial debate; especially when the documentation is superb no matter what dialect of English is employed by the writers.

Where as the game does have important real issues which have come up here in terms of balance and air operations.

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball. (If there is only one language thing I regret is lack of support for other than English ... to think of the many grogs who are missing out. I know because for years I gawked at Graviteam, but do not read Russian ... maybe waited 10 years for the growth of an English speaking player base/market.)

Can't agree on the 'high quality' claim. Have to agree that it is British English. If I have to read the word 'equally' where it has no business being just one more time I think my head might explode.........then again, that would make many here very happy.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Nice to see Hans being his usual self on the WITE2 forum as he is on the WITP:AE one. Consistency to be admired.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter




I'm glad you added a question mark otherwise I would've forced to call that answer complete bunk.

Refusing to Surrender and Seizing the Strategic Initiative are completely different animals.

The Host of the Armies of the West arrayed before the Gates of Mordor refused to surrender, but they did not seize the initiative until the One Ring was destroyed.

In what sense is it complete bunk? It would be helpful to refer to the actual historical context rather than Tolkein's writings.

Personal attacks are a violation of the terms of service.

The historical context you seek is the image attached to the first post.

1. It's unclear as to why you feel that is a personal attack to point out your consistent pertinacious behaviour. The

2. Also unclear is the comparison with Tolkien and a screenshot from WITE 1.

Clarifications welcome

To the matter at hand, the initiative and high water mark mechanics interact around auto-victory.

There's a nice reflection in that in a long term game where the Soviet side does not surrender, the Axis strategic decision making transforms from "How do we capture more" to "How do we hold what we have". That reflects the simple fact that the Axis simply cannot keep marching east to meet with the Japanese somewhere around Omsk.

To turn things in a more positive direction, what would you propose instead?

[Bamilus]

Me to the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvkKd572vCw

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

Me to the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvkKd572vCw

Personal attack

+1 not to the question but the conduct in which the conversation has been held in afterwards.