A quick list of pro-USN bias.

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:18 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
Obviously you didnt bother to look at the AAR posted above.
That is what the thread was originally about.

"I have been attacked! I will respond when attacked!"

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:23 am

Originally posted by dwesolick
"I have been attacked! I will respond when attacked!"

Actually no, you attacked ME, and yes I did respond.

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:26 am

Hi Chiteng,

You might want to look up "irony" in the dictionary. No, it's not what you do to your clothes before going to high school in the morning. :p

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:02 am

Originally posted by Nikademus
I dont like how airbases can be completely shut down (and how easy it can be acomplished of course) as its clearly goes against actual wartime experience.

I agree completely. It took nothing more than a bunch of guys with shovels a couple hours during the night to patch the holes in most dirt strips that were found in this theater. If you have one of the EABs on site, it really should be a no-sweat operation. I think a decent (3+) sized base should only be shut by a massive bombardment (ship and air). Otherwise, the runways should bounce back like nobody's business. I know the Seabees often kept piles of crushed coral and Marsten matting on hand for these occasions. Simply bulldoze the coral into the hole and put the matting on top. Voila, fixed it!

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:11 am

Originally posted by dwesolick
Hi Chiteng,

You might want to look up "irony" in the dictionary. No, it's not what you do to your clothes before going to high school in the morning. :p

As you might look up courtesy =)

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:21 am

Webster's New World College Dictionary:

CURTSY (kurt'see) n., a gesture of greeting, respect, etc. made by girls and women and characterized by a bending of the knees and a slight lowering of the body. :p

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:24 am

Originally posted by dwesolick
Webster's New World College Dictionary:

CURTSY (kurt'see) n., a gesture of greeting, respect, etc. made by girls and women and characterized by a bending of the knees and a slight lowering of the body. :p

What a pity that isnt the word I mentioned =)

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:35 am

You know how some threads have some worth and others should just completely be gutted ... well, this one has really now hit that point.

(a) If you are going to "quote" people, please limit the "quote" to some point, don't use the darn quote all button.

(b) If your answer does not exceed or at least match the "quote" in length, it probably wasn't required unless you are answering specific questions.

This is a forum for the enjoyment of Uncommon Valor. If you are posting dictionary listing of words, you might care to look up "STUPID" and reflect on your posts and the rest of us have to suffer reading through it to see if anything of value might be there. Thats why most of us come here, to learn and help.

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:42 am

Hi Mr Frag,

Just having a little fun with Chitty. No need to get all hot under the collar! In case you hadn't noticed, this thread devolved to the point of self-parody long ago.

I agree that the other threads are for info and helping our fellow gamers....but this one???? Please. Just have fun man!

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:44 am

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
You know how some threads have some worth and others should just completely be gutted ... well, this one has really now hit that point.

(a) If you are going to "quote" people, please limit the "quote" to some point, don't use the darn quote all button.

(b) If your answer does not exceed or at least match the "quote" in length, it probably wasn't required unless you are answering specific questions.

This is a forum for the enjoyment of Uncommon Valor. If you are posting dictionary listing of words, you might care to look up "STUPID" and reflect on your posts and the rest of us have to suffer reading through it to see if anything of value might be there. Thats why most of us come here, to learn and help.

Well Mr. Frag, I would be perfectly happy to see the thread vanish.
It served its purpose three months ago.
As for quoting, I am a lazy man =) If I have no real interest
I am not going to edit.

I posted my attempt to 'help' and I backed it up with posted AAR.
What you now see is unending bile from people that dont actually care about the issue raised. They just want to flame ME.
That isnt something I control =)

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:20 am

Just drop it. Be the better man. Grin and bear it. You don't have to constantly respond to everything and everyone. Let it go and we'll all be happier.

We've seen your AAR. Some may agree, some may not. We're going nowhere. Just let this die.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:28 am

Originally posted by madflava13
Just drop it. Be the better man. Grin and bear it. You don't have to constantly respond to everything and everyone. Let it go and we'll all be happier.

We've seen your AAR. Some may agree, some may not. We're going nowhere. Just let this die.

So your saying that I should simply allow people to say things that are untrue, and malign me w/o responding?

You see Madflava I attack no one. I didnt ressurect this thread.
Yet no one flames the poster that did. I find that very telling.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:29 am

Originally posted by madflava13
Just drop it. Be the better man. Grin and bear it. You don't have to constantly respond to everything and everyone. Let it go and we'll all be happier.

We've seen your AAR. Some may agree, some may not. We're going nowhere. Just let this die.

By the way, I prove I am the better man already =)
I make no personal attacks, nor do I seek anyone out for flaming.

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 3:27 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
So your saying that I should simply allow people to say things that are untrue, and malign me w/o responding?

You see Madflava I attack no one. I didnt ressurect this thread.
Yet no one flames the poster that did. I find that very telling.

Yes I am saying that. What do you care what someone you don't know and never will meet in person says about you online? It's not really ruining your good name. Get over it.

Deathtreader · Post by **Deathtreader** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:06 am

Hi all,

Have you ever noticed how an accident in the lanes for oncoming traffic on the other side of the freeway means that traffic heading in your direction slows to a crawl as we all gear down for a good long look......... even though we know roughly what we'll see, it doesn't affect us personally and we're actually in a hurry to get somewhere?? At 15 pages and 3000+ views this thread just closed <insert highway of your choice> for 8 hours.
Or the fascination that draws a crowd to a fire or............
And yes..... I'm as guilty as the everyone else. I've just posted here after reading (wading) thru all this haven't I??;)

Mr. Moderator please remove this wreck of a thread before it gets any worse...............since none of us appears to be strong enough to do it on our own.

Rob.

Micah Goodman · Post by **Micah Goodman** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:32 pm

I just read through all fifteen pages of this mess and I still don’t see what all the fuss is about! I never did see Chiteng’s original AAR and what he thought was the point of contention. This thread is insane! Heck, Chiteng even admitted that he didn’t care if the developers agreed with him and actually fixed what he perceives as a problem. The majority of the other posts (not all) have basically said with one degree of civility or another give me facts to support your case please. Or in a verity of ways that Chiteng is a less than pleasant person. I remember seeing this post months ago, back when it was a page or two and was surprised to see it still going strong.

The main reason that I enjoy this forum is the wealth of historical knowledge that many of its users have about the War in Pacific. My knowledge is somewhat limited but I have read an increasing number of books on this subject that has further increased my interest in this area of history. This whole thread sadly for the most part contributes little to nothing to either improving the game, or increasing a general level of historical knowledge about this time frame.

Instead we have a thread that has become a tete-a- tete between a handful of people to either a) want to get the last word in. B) Want to vent their spleen at a problem that they by their own admission do not care if it gets fixed. C) People who have tried desperately to interject some humor to lighten the mood. D) A few who have interjected some historical facts regarding B-17’s and their success or lack their of as naval attack weapons. And last but not least the final group D) the small number of people that have taken the presented facts and viewed them in such a way to support their own bias on this issue.

My experience with the 2.30 version of the game has not made B-17’s some sort of uber weapon. Sadly, I wish it did as I am playing as the Allies. However, that does not mean that there is not a problem with how it is modeled. But unless a large group of people has a problem with it the developers are unlike to tweak the game. Thankfully according to Gary Grigsby the player will have the ability to tweak the stats on weapon systems in WitP during scenario design. So this whole 15 page fiasco of a topic is really rather moot.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:41 pm

Originally posted by Micah Goodman
I just read through all fifteen pages of this mess and I still don’t see what all the fuss is about! I never did see Chiteng’s original AAR and what he thought was the point of contention. This thread is insane! Heck, Chiteng even admitted that he didn’t care if the developers agreed with him and actually fixed what he perceives as a problem. The majority of the other posts (not all) have basically said with one degree of civility or another give me facts to support your case please. Or in a verity of ways that Chiteng is a less than pleasant person. I remember seeing this post months ago, back when it was a page or two and was surprised to see it still going strong.

The main reason that I enjoy this forum is the wealth of historical knowledge that many of its users have about the War in Pacific. My knowledge is somewhat limited but I have read an increasing number of books on this subject that has further increased my interest in this area of history. This whole thread sadly for the most part contributes little to nothing to either improving the game, or increasing a general level of historical knowledge about this time frame.

Instead we have a thread that has become a tete-a- tete between a handful of people to either a) want to get the last word in. B) Want to vent their spleen at a problem that they by their own admission do not care if it gets fixed. C) People who have tried desperately to interject some humor to lighten the mood. D) A few who have interjected some historical facts regarding B-17’s and their success or lack their of as naval attack weapons. And last but not least the final group D) the small number of people that have taken the presented facts and viewed them in such a way to support their own bias on this issue.

My experience with the 2.30 version of the game has not made B-17’s some sort of uber weapon. Sadly, I wish it did as I am playing as the Allies. However, that does not mean that there is not a problem with how it is modeled. But unless a large group of people has a problem with it the developers are unlike to tweak the game. Thankfully according to Gary Grigsby the player will have the ability to tweak the stats on weapon systems in WitP during scenario design. So this whole 15 page fiasco of a topic is really rather moot.

Well the thread made it 9 days w/o some fool posting in it.

No Micah I did NOT say I didnt care what the 'DEVELOPERS' do.
I said I didnt care what the TESTERS do.

They are NOT the same thing.

If people are so willing to see the thread die, they will have to STOP POSTING IN IT.

As for the B-17, I have seen nothing that refutes my contention.

Micah Goodman · Post by **Micah Goodman** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:14 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
Well the thread made it 9 days w/o some fool posting in it.

Name calling right off the bat.. uh ok.

Originally posted by Chiteng
No Micah I did NOT say I didnt care what the 'DEVELOPERS' do.
I said I didnt care what the TESTERS do.

They are NOT the same thing.

They might not be the same thing but so far, you have not posted in this thread at least, no concrete irrefutable evidence that there is a problem. IF you take the shotgun approach and plaster your complaints over several posts or topics most people on this board will not support or agree with your argument. You could of course say something to the effect that I do not care what people on this board say only what the developers say. And to a degree you would be correct. However, if a large segment of this community agreed with you that WOULD get their attention. As it stands right now with your lack of a well organized and prepared argument you sound more like, well I hate to say it, and please do not take this personally, but you sound like one of the numerous trolls that inhabit many community message boards. I don’t think that you are I just feel that you have failed to communicate to most people that you believe that this is a game killing issue for you.

Originally posted by Chiteng
If people are so willing to see the thread die, they will have to STOP POSTING IN IT.

As for the B-17, I have seen nothing that refutes my contention.

Again you have seen nothing that refutes it but many myself included have seen nothing that supports your argument ether, so we have what they called in the good ole days as a standoff.

The point that I was trying to make with my post is simple; in a 15 page meandering mess you have not made a clear concise argument FOR modifying the performance of the B-17 as it is currently modeled in the game. You have responded to personal attacks either real or imagined but little else. In this respect you have allowed your detractors to dictate the flow of the argument. My advice for what it is worth is to organize your argument in one concise clear post and let the merits of your argument stand or fall. You can of course chose to ignore this advice and claim that you have already posted all of the necessary information in prior posts, that is of course your decision. But for what it is worth I am more than willing to agree with your point of view, IF your argument is well organized, to the point and factual. Others have requested that you do this in a clear and concise as well and by in large you have ignored those requests for whatever reason.

To me a factor that far out weighs the perceived imbalance of the B-17 in this game is the failure to force Allied air units to rotate out of the theater of operations as their tour ended. An Allied player can have at his disposal an air force far stronger than it was historically. That makes a larger difference in game balance as far as I am concerned. But that is just me and to be honest I do not play PBEM so my experience will differ drastically than those of you who do play PBEM.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:39 pm

Originally posted by Micah Goodman
Name calling right off the bat.. uh ok.

Not really. If you want the thread to die, you must not post in it.

In the balance - according to YOUR idea of how to make an argument, 'I' have failed to make one.

So what? You assume that not only is your way valid, but that it is the only way. I do not yield to you the ability to define 'correct'
methods.

Micah Goodman · Post by **Micah Goodman** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:19 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng
Not really. If you want the thread to die, you must not post in it.

I never said I wanted the thread to die you are the one that continues to bring it up not me. So yes, you were name calling.

Originally posted by Chiteng
In the balance - according to YOUR idea of how to make an argument, 'I' have failed to make one.

So what? You assume that not only is your way valid, but that it is the only way. I do not yield to you the ability to define 'correct'
methods.

Well again you show that this whole argument is not an exercise in changing the game but an exercise in you venting your spleen. You do not care to influence anyone. You get a larger thrill out of wasting bandwidth. Your definition of an argument to any valid concern is so what? I don’t care, facts? I don’t need no stinking facts! By not “yielding” to constructive criticisms you are show that you have no real desire to “fix” the problem. And most, even those that agree with you on this issue, I think will take what you have to say on this or any other issue with a huge grain of salt.

A quick list of pro-USN bias.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy?

Grow up will ya!

Re: Grow up will ya!

Vehicle Wreck

Hotly waste of time Batman!

Re: Hotly waste of time Batman!

Re: Re: Hotly waste of time Batman!

Re: Re: Re: Hotly waste of time Batman!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hotly waste of time Batman!