Matrix Games Forums

sorry for hijacking thread....

Ron, suppose you are right about supply (NOTE: i'm not agree with you at this point, i do not found too much supply in the game)....

If we agree that too much supply is dogma, what do you think :does it really have great impact on the game?

What, Japanese will catapult suppy on Corsairs, B-17E, B-29 and destroy the whole Allied air force? (please dont answer with "two wrong can't be right"[:D]

Actually, imagined "too much supply dogma" helping to slow the pace of the game (you agree that game moving too fast, right?)

what is my point? Rather to focusing on one issue (which is more than doubtful issue) we should focus at "strategic view" (like Apollo did with his proposals).

I simply refuse new Japan-handicap "improvements"...

ORIGINAL: pauk

sorry for hijacking thread....

Ron, suppose you are right about supply (NOTE: i'm not agree with you at this point, i do not found too much supply in the game)....

If we agree that too much supply is dogma, what do you think :does it really have great impact on the game?

What, Japanese will catapult suppy on Corsairs, B-17E, B-29 and destroy the whole Allied air force? (please dont answer with "two wrong can't be right"[:D]

Actually, imagined "too much supply dogma" helping to slow the pace of the game (you agree that game moving too fast, right?)

what is my point? Rather to focusing on one issue (which is more than doubtful issue) we should focus at "strategic view" (like Apollo did with his proposals).

I simply refuse new Japan-handicap "improvements"...

The problem with the Allied fanboy is that they are forever projecting 1944 capability into late 41 reality.

ORIGINAL: pauk

sorry for hijacking thread....

Ron, suppose you are right about supply (NOTE: i'm not agree with you at this point, i do not found too much supply in the game)....

If we agree that too much supply is dogma, what do you think :does it really have great impact on the game?

What, Japanese will catapult suppy on Corsairs, B-17E, B-29 and destroy the whole Allied air force? (please dont answer with "two wrong can't be right"[:D]

Actually, imagined "too much supply dogma" helping to slow the pace of the game (you agree that game moving too fast, right?)

what is my point? Rather to focusing on one issue (which is more than doubtful issue) we should focus at "strategic view" (like Apollo did with his proposals).

I simply refuse new Japan-handicap "improvements"...

Apollos proposals are a summation of a number of peoples suggestions, mine included.

Again, how is my supply complaint an attempt to further hamstring Japan?[&:] It is universal. In my game, Japan was kept from taking Singapore and Manila, and still has not taken Java, thanks to the supply issue. It works both ways.

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: pauk

sorry for hijacking thread....

Ron, suppose you are right about supply (NOTE: i'm not agree with you at this point, i do not found too much supply in the game)....

If we agree that too much supply is dogma, what do you think :does it really have great impact on the game?

What, Japanese will catapult suppy on Corsairs, B-17E, B-29 and destroy the whole Allied air force? (please dont answer with "two wrong can't be right"[:D]

Actually, imagined "too much supply dogma" helping to slow the pace of the game (you agree that game moving too fast, right?)

what is my point? Rather to focusing on one issue (which is more than doubtful issue) we should focus at "strategic view" (like Apollo did with his proposals).

I simply refuse new Japan-handicap "improvements"...

The problem with the Allied fanboy is that they are forever projecting 1944 capability into late 41 reality.

Eh? Have no idea what you are trying to say here.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Apollos proposals are a summation of a number of peoples suggestions, mine included.

Again, how is my supply complaint an attempt to further hamstring Japan?[&:] It is universal. In my game, Japan was kept from taking Singapore and Manila, and still has not taken Java, thanks to the supply issue. It works both ways.

I don't see problem with that... anyway most of Allied players complains about "game moving too fast" right from the start, saying that they are unable hold Singa and Manila until historical date.... so either you proved they are wrong with "uber-japanese" at the start either you play as Japanese and don't know how to play with them...

So really what's the problem here? I can see only that you proved Allies aren't in hopeless situation as AF claims.... oh, i'm sorry....

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Eh? Have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Then don't answer to my post and maybe i start to believe that you dont have any idea what i was tried to say.

[;)]

i feel myself not aggressive enough[8D]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Apollos proposals are a summation of a number of peoples suggestions, mine included.

Again, how is my supply complaint an attempt to further hamstring Japan?[&:] It is universal. In my game, Japan was kept from taking Singapore and Manila, and still has not taken Java, thanks to the supply issue. It works both ways.

I don't see problem with that... anyway most of Allied players complains about "game moving too fast" right from the start, saying that they are unable hold Singa and Manila until historical date.... so either you proved they are wrong with "uber-japanese" at the start either you play as Japanese and don't know how to play with them...

So really what's the problem here? I can see only that you proved Allies aren't in hopeless situation as AF claims.... oh, i'm sorry....

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Eh? Have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Then don't answer to my post and maybe i start to believe that you dont have any idea what i was tried to say.

[;)]

Pauk, I was replying to Oz.[:)]

[:D]

Cha, cha, cha![:D]

Still no takers Oz? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Still no takers Oz? [;)]

Nope.

I'm still trying to understand the point here about having an AFB play Japan. If it is about my views on supply, they are universally impacting and screw up Japan in the early months just as it does the Allies. What difference does it make which side is played?

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Still no takers Oz? [;)]

Nope.

We'll you knew Hell would freeze over first. [;)]

Nyaaa nya nya nyaaa nyaaaaaaaa.

Answer my question please. What difference does it make?

Are you going to play Oz as Japan?

Yes.....or No?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Are you going to play Oz as Japan?

Yes.....or No?

Again, WTHeck for? I'm convinced that A: Supplies are porking the logistics model the way they are currently set up (as shown in my and innumerable other AARs like Adm Laurents and those which have Japan invading everywhere, taking India, Hawaii, China...etc), anyone with a brain and objective view can see that, and B: there is probably no convincing you guys anyway given that you still think I'm saying the supply issue only favours Japan so should be adjusted.

But, if I do anyway, definitely not until this buggy game is patched up enough to warrant any more effort in playing it.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Answer my question please. What difference does it make?

Many players of WitP play one side of the game - and only one side. Their analysis of the game becomes one-sided as a result. Allied players have seen Japan do plenty in WitP that is unhistorical. The problem is, they fail to take the historical countermeasures that the Allies took against Japan. They also fail to take advantage of the unhistorical actions to inflict damage upon Japanese forces. Instead, they complain that the game allows the action to be taken in the first place. My challenge to AFB's is simply because I want to see the staunchest AFB's walk in the shoes of Japan - and determine for themselves if Japan is too strong or rules favor Japan too much. I want to play the Allies because having played Japan, I know many of her weaknesses - and I promise to try to exploit them as circumstances permit.

So, to answer your question "What difference does it make?":
I want AFB's to answer see the other side of the game. I believe that in playing Japan, the AFB will

1) understand Japan's limitations
2) understand how, when, and where to attack Japan
3) become a better (and more aggresive) Allied player
and most importantly
4) understand how Allied players actions can lead directly to "unhistorical results"

Are you going to play Oz as Japan?

Yes.....or No?

No... But then I like to play both sides... It fits my personalities...

A man who understands that a simple question only warrents a simple response. [;)]