Originally posted by Don Shafer:
My problem? I should take a break? I'm sure that you would like me to take a break, since my biggest problem is that you would like to single-handedly take WIR down a road that the majority of people that play the game don't want to see it go.
Single-handedly? Come on Don, only Arnaud is in a position to do that.
I have yet to see any of you're suggestions that you repeatly post on this forum come through on the testing team's e-mails.
I do not start threads about my ideas. They come up in conversation. The issue of out-so-supply units doing remarkable things behind enemy lines has come up repeatedly, without any assistance by me. Besides, whats making you so mad boils down to just 2 things: the Finns, and infantry in tank corps/armies, those are the only things being discussed recently. My litany of suggestions you refer to amounts to no more than a half dozen. As for the emails, the out-of-supply thing is on the issues list, and the Finn problem is on the buglist, and both have been there awhile. As for infantry in tank corps, it used to be on the buglist, and Arnaud chose just to increase the readiness penalty as a solution (yes, I disagreed). A couple of weeks ago someone reported that his human opponent was using this "play style" or "tactic" as you call them, and asked that we *fix* it. Because of that, and the argument that ensued, I added this infantry in a tank corps problem back on the buglist.
My ideas for fixing these problems are not going to make it into WiR any time soon, if ever, because we're supposed to be in a bug-fix only mode right now. The out-of-supply problem may never be fixed. Even though many of us on this forum know that many of these things might not ever happen, we still like to debate and talk about them.
I've repeatly seen you post that you have asked Arnaud for this or asked Arnaud for that
What is the problem with this? I'm on the testing team, Arnaud is leading it, why shouldn't I talk with Arnaud about things? You can too, just as easily as me. Ricky mentions discussions with Arnaud too, so what's his punishment going to be?
but I've never seen any of these things. Since when has there been any discussion about you getting the source code?
Don, that was a sarcastic joke, and as a testing team member you should have known that. Arnaud signed a legal document (NDA) that prevents him from sharing the code with anyone. My sarcastic reply was a response to your sarcastic mention of an "Ed Cogburn's WiR".
You've never sent anything to the team on readiness levels of infantry in armored divisions.
When did this become a requirement on my part? I don't have a libary of WWII info. I've searched the net for help but often that doesn't help when you're dealing with arcane trivia. Not everything is on the Net (yet).
You've constantly berated players for using a play style that you do not agree with.
I don't agree it was a beration. The fact you still refer to it as a "play style" tells me you haven't listened to much I've had to say on that matter anyway. It also should be noted you were in on the ground floor of the original argument that got started. The issue is using game flaws to advance your position in the game. That's not a "play style". As for "constantly", prove it. The number of people I've argued on the out-of-supply problem I can count on 1 hand. And you won't find me harrassing players about the cheats before the first out-of-supply problem argument (triggered accidently by Lorenzo).
You've try to dictate to new players how you think the game should be played, rather than help them find their way.
Dictate? Josan is the only one I remember. He was brand new with no prior experience with the game. However he didn't get upset because I was dictating to him. I wasn't even talking to him when he got upset. He was just following the argument that was going on, and trying to figure out what things he shouldn't be doing. My beef was not with everyone in the world listening, just the ones actively in the thread claiming a tank corps should be able to last indefinitely behind enemy lines via only air supply.
However, if by "dictate" you mean telling people not to cheat, then I'm guilty of that.
You've taken my comments completely out of context and used them to try to further you're own agenda.
I don't have an agenda. I couldn't do anything with it if I had one. The programmer with the access to the source is the only one who could further their own agenda if they had one, but I don't think Arnaud has one.
I , at no time ever suggested that a panzer corps should be allowed to survive indefinetely out of supply, but yet when the discussion on possible Caucusus strategies was said and done, you had me tagged as being exactly for that.
No, it was a question in parenthesis, not an accusation:
"(Don? should infantry move as fast and as far as motorized divisions?)"
I asked because I couldn't remember what we had been arguing about earlier. It turns out it was the battalion in a corps thing we had had a short argument about, not the infantry in a corps. I'll accept responsibility for this misunderstanding.
And you've thrown that out a few other times since then when I haven't agreed with you on other things.
No, I haven't. In fact, after my question about the infantry in a tank corps, and a response and a reply, we seemed to have ended in agreement in that thread.
Go look at the 2nd page, about half way down, of the "Panzer Corps should have at least on PZ div" thread.
you've indicated that I am all for have a single infantry unit in an armored shell,
See my second paragraph above.
when in fact, you know as well as I, that I was the one that first brought this issue to the attention of the team to have it fixed.
No I didn't know, the original debate that lead to a game requirement for at least 1 tank div in a tank army as you've described, was from a debate that occurred before I got here.
"This is how the game shall be played because I'm Ed and I say so"
When have I ever made such a demand? I wasn't telling people how to play the game, I was arguing that the abuse of 2 game flaws constitutes cheating. So I was asking people not to cheat. I can't demand that they do, I have no control over anyone here, despite all your accusations to the contrary. That's it: don't cheat. What is so horrible with that?
I don't remember there being any election and you being elected the "High Exalted Poobah" of WIR and the testing team.
I don't remember one either. You're hyperbole is getting out of hand.
Myself, Rick, Bill, Roger, Vorsterer and the others jumped on the test team to fix some real obvious problems and do some fine tuning of the maps and OOB's. We realized from the get-go that there were somethings that we were probably never going to be able to fix and we also knew that we could never make the game everything for everyone.
I realise there are many things that won't get fixed, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about these things on the forum.
since he himself realized that if he went down the strictly historical path, no one would play.
We still disagree about this. Historical accuracy doesn't imply the game plays the same every time. Remember that Gary was the one who hard wired the events to happen at fixed historical times, rather than how they are handled now, so I don't buy you're argument that you're just doing what Gary would want done. He clearly wanted the Fronts to follow a historical line.
Try version 3 against a experienced human player sometime, and you'll see what I mean, we have come dangerously close to the point where it is impossible for the Germans to win, if we haven't already.
Probably is tougher for the Germans, but the next version will change that more than likely with the increased pace of rail conversion.
We have something that the majority wanted, but unfortunately, you do not seem to agree with that philosophy and have decided that you will go outside the team and force you're own personal agenda down the throats of the people on this forum.
Don, do you realize how silly this sounds? Yes, I confess, I've been plotting a coup to take over Matrix so I could then dictate to Arnaud what he should do with WiR, and personally monitor the forums so no one advocates cheating by recommending a tactic that's based on a game flaw. You got me Don.
The purpose of coming to the forum was to see if people were finding problems that we weren't, because we have gotten too close to the game.
Since when? I'm free to participate in discussions on this forum without restrictions just as you are.
It was not to come here and dictate game play and to belittle Arnaud and other members of the team to make yourself look good.
When did I belittle Arnaud? I've said that I disagreed with what he did in not fixing things in a more thorough way with the Finns and the out-of-supply units, but that's not belittling, just disagreement. And in the case of the out-of-supply problem I told him I disagreed with him when we were talking about this. He preferred to keep it simple with just a readiness penalty instead of anything else.
That being said, I believe I may take you're suggestion and step away since I've really grown tired of having my opinions twisted around and thrown back in my face. You're statement below is a prime example. Now you have suggested to the forum that I have bizarre opinions
"Will this be modelled in the upcoming Ed Cogburn's War in Russia?"
"Sounds like a really boring game, but it would be historically correct."
"Let me know when you are going to release it, I think I'll re-read books on the German-Russo War instead."
After these comments, how the hell do you think I'm going to react?
to not adopt Ed's philosophy on wargames. While it is important to be historically correct on equipment, the true main purpose is to try to do something that will change the historical outcome.
If the game lets you do things that couldn't possibly be done in real life, then you've got yourself a wonderful game there with surprises awaiting you every other turn. Of course its not a historical simulation, you might as well be playing Risk. Some of us, Don, consider historical accuracy important, whereas you apparently consider it irrelevent.
[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>
