Matrix Games Forums

Speaking of USS Pollack, Bullwinkle said in his AAR that was his least favorite name. I know that's a racial epithet, but I wondered if there was something deeper or more personal to the Moose. I thought his comment interesting.

American subs in my game have been scoring an epidemic number of duds, which tells me they are fairly well placed. Mainly, though, I think it makes the Malacca Straits much more dangerous to Yamato and friends. Eventually the Allies are going to score some hits against some big targets.

P.S. I see from the title of John's most recent AAR post that something has begun. I'm assuming that I know what it is, but perhaps he's crossed me up. I'll find out later tonight.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Speaking of USS Pollack, Bullwinkle said in his AAR that was his least favorite name. I know that's a racial epithet, but I wondered if there was something deeper or more personal to the Moose. I thought his comment interesting.

American subs in my game have been scoring an epidemic number of duds, which tells me they are fairly well placed. Mainly, though, I think it makes the Malacca Straits much more dangerous to Yamato and friends. Eventually the Allies are going to score some hits against some big targets.

P.S. I see from the title of John's most recent AAR post that something has begun. I'm assuming that I know what it is, but perhaps he's crossed me up. I'll find out later tonight.

In various spellings it IS a derogatory term. But besides that it just sounds like a big, fat, doughy, rotting-in-the sun fish somebody left behind on the dock. Not a sleek killer of the deep.

"Steel boats! Iron Men!"

Sorry for being ignorant but what does Pollack mean? I thought it was a fish but I take it there is another meaning for it?

If my memory is correct regarding spelling, the word is similar in spelling to a racial slur. I don't know the origin - it's probably way back, but it was made well known in a 1970s television sitcom called "All in the Family."

Here's hoping we don't discuss it any further.

Racial slur against Polish people? Or is it complete unrelated to Poland?

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Racial slur against Polish people? Or is it complete unrelated to Poland?

Yes, it's a slur on Polish people. In the US, immigrants. We have had dozens of "helpful" names for various immigrant groups in our history with new ones being created daily. We are a nation of immigrants like no other in the world or history. Sociologically it's interesting to see how formerly oppressed groups, after a generation or two, merrily joined in the creation of pressure on later-comers. Look at US newspapers from the 1840s for example. The Irish were . . . low. By 1900 they were running a lot of urban police forces and not a few city halls. And busting Eastern European immigrants in that wave.

Yeah, although I don't think the term is limited to America. I think it has been widely used againt Polish folks. Like everybody else here, I detest the term (which I why I'm hoping we can drop it an move on). For me personally, though, I detest it because when I think of Poland, I think of the Polish troops that served at Normandy and Market Garden, the people of the Warsaw uprising, the wife of my best friend (he married a girl he met in Gdansk), and the kind people my wife and youngest son met in Poland this summer.

We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously [X(]

Having encountered lots of Polish people in my work (and actually having a half polish girl for apprentice) they are generally happy and outspoken people that tend to drink even more than us Swedes. [:D]

Just never put them in the same room as a russian...

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously [X(]

Well... it actually always depends on who uses it, how uses it and in what situation.
It's the English loanword and loanword only ("Polack") which is taken as derogatory and/or offensive.

Funny thing is that we use the same word in our language (I am a Pole/Jestem Polakiem) spoken the same /ˈpoʊlɑːk/ but written as: Polak (a person from Poland) and it's perfectly ok.
[Rather derogatory in my native language and abroad, especially if used by the Germans, is: "Polaczek"].
So... if you learn Polish language and trying to use a word that sounds similar to our language, you can use "Polak" freely... [;)]
However, the English-Polish dictionaries suggest using rather pc word: Pole [;)]

[EDIT]Would you dare to call the Pope John Paul II a Pol(l)ack? [;)]

1/1/43

At Last: John finally sends the massed fighter sweeps over Sabang. Roughly seven groups ranging from 30 to 42 aircraft tangle with the Allied fighters, which are mainly P-40K, P-40E, and F4F, with some P-38G, P-38E and Beaufighters thrown into the mix. Pretty rough day - 1:1 losses (each side around 100 fighters). The Allies lose 21 pilots KIA and 38 WIA, but a surprisingly large number of fighters are out of commission due to damage. It's going to be ugly tomorrow in all probability. I'm not committing my carrier fighters yet, but that's no more than a couple of days away. On the good side, pilot morale and fatigue are excellent.

Pools: I have nothing to work with at all. Bear in mind that the Allies, to date, have done well in the air war (meaning the Japanese have suffered 50% higher losses, so it's not like the Allies have frittered away fighters unproductively). Also, we haven't had air combat involving fighters in nearly two months, so the pools have had plenty of time to build if they were going to. But I don't have anything anywhere. The Brits are dry. I have 20 P-40K and 20 F4F in the pools. I don't have any P-39. I have six P-38G. And that's it - zero P-40E, zero P-38F, zero P-38E.

On map (at Sabang), I have one squadron of P-38G with 25 aircraft (and, as noted, six in the pools). I have one P-38E squadron there - six aircraft with zero in the pools. I have a handful of P-38E and P-38F squadrons at Seattle and San Fran, but these are permanently restricted. I can't swap out their planes for a lower model (to flush their Lightnings into the pools) because I don't have any aircraft to change them to. Neither can I disband or withdraw - these options result in "planes and pilots lost."

The Allies have done well in the air war; the air war hasn't been particularly intense; but there's nothing to fight with. Something seems wrong. I don't know if it's peculiar to the mod or if something is out of whack or if I've overlooked something fundamental. But if I'm right, I don't think even a Japanese player would enjoy a contest this uneven.

I'm afraid what's going to happen is that the Allies feed in the carrier fighters in a couple of days, and then that's it.

Carriers: No sign of the KB, which I think means it's moved SW out of range of my patrols. Allied carriers are trying to "stay in the shades" within range of Sabang.

Elsewhere: Nothing else matters at the moment, though stuff is going on elsewhere.

What's wrong is that you're planning on feeding in your fighters when you have empty pools knowing that they're going to die. Although you state that you have been conservative with your aircraft I would suggest that you haven't ... simply because your pools are empty. The fact that you have a higher kill ratio suggests that you have employed your aircraft well to this point, but the squadrons are now shot for the time being.

The solution is not to feed in the carrier fighters but rather to stop contesting the airspace, switch to ambush tactics. Pick your moments, not John's.

You have created the situation (by invading Sumatra) where the Japanese have no choice but to concentrate against you, that in itself is a victory. To want to then beat that concentration of forces when you have no reserves just simply doesn't make sense. To then claim that "there's something wrong" just doesn't stack up.

You have your victory, sit on it until mid-'43 and then watch the Japanese empire crumble. Anything else just isn't going to happen, no point in then "crying foul".

I just fundamentally disagree with your analysis. I think the Allied fighter pools need tweaking. I think it's in the interest of the Japanese player too, just like tweaking the Japanese OOB later in the game is in the interest of the Allied player. Without the tweaks, the game veers into imbalance in unsatisfying ways. (This is assuming there is an imbalance now. Perhaps I'm missing something or don't know how to do something I should be doing).

Yes, I can abandon Sabang (which is what you're suggesting, though you don't realize it). The Allies are in great shape no matter what happens there. The Allies will win the war as the Allies inevitably do. But it's in 1942 and '43, when the game is balanced and moves are exciting rather than inevitable, that the game is at its richest. At that point, the two sides can meet head on at sea and on the ground in fair fights; but apparently not in the air.

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously [X(]

Well... it actually always depends on who uses it, how uses it and in what situation.
It's the English loanword and loanword only ("Polack") which is taken as derogatory and/or offensive.

Funny thing is that we use the same word in our language (I am a Pole/Jestem Polakiem) spoken the same /ˈpoʊlɑːk/ but written as: Polak (a person from Poland) and it's perfectly ok.
[Rather derogatory in my native language and abroad, especially if used by the Germans, is: "Polaczek"].
So... if you learn Polish language and trying to use a word that sounds similar to our language, you can use "Polak" freely... [;)]
However, the English-Polish dictionaries suggest using rather pc word: Pole [;)]

[EDIT]Would you dare to call the Pope John Paul II a Pol(l)ack? [;)]

Thanks, I didn't know of the Polish language root of the word.

And just to further the whole conversation, the fish name Pollack is pronounced like the name Paul, not like Pole, so it's quite unrelated. I think Bullwinkle just hates that fish or something! [:D]

I don't disagree that deeper aircraft pools would be beneficial to the fun in the enhanced scenarios, although the Japanese would then build more.... and then the economy would collapse earlier.... which would lead to more abandoned games and cries of more supplies which would lead to more early Japanese aircraft which would......

In every scenario there are finite numbers of everything, just with different limits. No point in playing outside those limits and expecting things to somehow balance out, they are what they are.

I am loving this match-up and just don't want it to end [:D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously [X(]

Well... it actually always depends on who uses it, how uses it and in what situation.
It's the English loanword and loanword only ("Polack") which is taken as derogatory and/or offensive.

Funny thing is that we use the same word in our language (I am a Pole/Jestem Polakiem) spoken the same /ˈpoʊlɑːk/ but written as: Polak (a person from Poland) and it's perfectly ok.
[Rather derogatory in my native language and abroad, especially if used by the Germans, is: "Polaczek"].
So... if you learn Polish language and trying to use a word that sounds similar to our language, you can use "Polak" freely... [;)]
However, the English-Polish dictionaries suggest using rather pc word: Pole [;)]

[EDIT]Would you dare to call the Pope John Paul II a Pol(l)ack? [;)]

Thanks, I didn't know of the Polish language root of the word.

And just to further the whole conversation, the fish name Pollack is pronounced like the name Paul, not like Pole, so it's quite unrelated. I think Bullwinkle just hates that fish or something! [:D]

Yep!

Right up there with haddock, aka "McDonald's Atlantic Square Fish (Sandwich)." [:)]

Edit: Wiki sez: " The haddock is easily recognized by a black lateral line running along its white side (not to be confused with pollock which has the reverse, i.e. white line on black side) and a distinctive dark blotch above the pectoral fin, often described as a "thumbprint" or even the "Devil's thumbprint" or "St. Peter's mark".

Yuck.

Wiki also sez that young haddock are sold in Boston as "scrod", which just sounds too close to a piece of male anatomy for this moose.

I don't mind giving Japan more to fight with in late game, as previously noted. Whatever it is - supply, etc. Like I said, it's in the interest of the Allied player. I do not think the current situation is in the interest of either player. Your point is that a move against Sabang might not be sustainable due to the lopsided air war. My point there shouldn't be a lopsided air war and that a move like this one should be sustainable (and it's in the interest of both sides that it is) if one player lets his guard down totally.

This is the price we pay for giving the Japanese players so much control over production. However it does not unbalance the game but creates a different game giving the Allied player less control over events in 42 and requiring a more defensive stance until mid 43. Yes, you can give the Allies more fighters but in the end you will create a historic war and we all know how poorly that went for Japan after 1942.

Good luck finding a willing Japanese opponent then.

A better solution is to have a 1942 through mid 1943 historical scenario with no changes for either side. PDU off. That would allow for a great fight on historical lines in what I think is the most exciting portion of the war for both sides. But really after mid 43 the party would be over for a Japanese player. It also would shorten our real life time commitment. My excellent game with Ark is nearing five years in real time.

I think the problem here, Canoerebel, is that you are playing a JFB scenario. It's not that Allied pools are low but rather that Japanese pools are too high. For a historic force ratio, scenario 1 with PDU ON is pretty much required.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

ORIGINAL: String

I think the problem here, Canoerebel, is that you are playing a JFB scenario.

And playing with very favorable HRs to the Japanese side.