why cant we have the option to choose how the game starts?

[wpurdom]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what you mean. The Clark A/F contingent was caught on the ground, quite by accident. USAAFFE ground troops were understength, and lacked air cover, but their "readiness" was fine. If anything, the GGPW underestimated readiness, allowing the Japanese (human, not AI) player to routinely finish the PI campaign by the end of February 1942.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only ready ground forces were the Phil. Scouts, the Marine Battalion, and the one US regiment. Read Eisenhower. The Phillipine Army forces were a mob in uniforms, with no rifle practice, no formation training, and no common language. It was a wonder they got together as much as they did after the first several panicky retreats.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by wpurdom
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what you mean. The Clark A/F contingent was caught on the ground, quite by accident. USAAFFE ground troops were understength, and lacked air cover, but their "readiness" was fine. If anything, the GGPW underestimated readiness, allowing the Japanese (human, not AI) player to routinely finish the PI campaign by the end of February 1942.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only ready ground forces were the Phil. Scouts, the Marine Battalion, and the one US regiment. Read Eisenhower. The Phillipine Army forces were a mob in uniforms, with no rifle practice, no formation training, and no common language. It was a wonder they got together as much as they did after the first several panicky retreats.

This is also because in GGPW the Japanese player tends to keep the 48th Division (experience 90) in the Philippines when Bataan is attacked. Also, due to the way that supply and replacements are done, the US forces tend to bleed away all of their supply necessary for readiness in filling up their formations with troops and equipment. I think that initial readiness is done pretty well, it is other factors that go against a historic seige of Bataan.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by mdiehl

All the wargames that I've owned had alt scenarios and balancing options. The balancing options that I've seen (variants on Flat Top, ERS/A3R, WW2:PTO, PW (Vic) and several of the early SPI Pacific entries) achieved balance through a VP system, a definable set of conquest victory conditions (a la SL/ASL) that are challenging to the side with the advantage, or a believable set of counterfactual circumstances drawn from the historically available force pools of the combatants. Their quality has varied but some of these have been pretty good. None of these has imagined Japan with, for example, the same productive capacity as the US. I'd be interested in hearing the laundry list of balancing options you'd propose were such an option available. [/B]

Actually, i said "increased Industrial option", and speculated how a wargame might be played out if the US faced an opponent with "similar" industrial capacity.

In other words.....a fanciful way of suggesting that WitP contain but the same or similar feature that Grigsby-designed and other wargames have had since the 8-bit days....a "Help side X" option in order to present variable difficulty levels of challenge or simply to balance between players of disparate skill.

I have not seen anything in your post that sufficiently explains how the implementation of options and alt scenerios would negatively impact the quality of said game that includes the basic historical, "factual" primary campaign, what little of the post that actually refered to the topic at hand that is. None of the "options" present in Uncommon Valor, or the alt scenerios therein, negatively impact that game.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard


Using #17 as an example, this is a very different situation then having, say, the Japanese change their doctrine of fighting the war. Here are the reasons.

#1. The sinking of the carriers at Midway was actually a fluke of luck. The USN was never able to repeat this after many countless scenarios after the war. So it is not very unlikely that the IJN not come out the victor, at least not totally defeated.

#2. This occurs as the game is going. You start the game BEFORE Midway occurs, and you just do not experience Midway as a loss of IJN Carriers.

#3. This scenario just removes one simple pin in the course of the war, not changing doctrine, or requiring massive amounts of luck or an unrealistic possibility occuring. In fact, having Midway constantly happen would be an unrealistic occurance. Midway happened in part as a result of what happened during the Battle of the Coral Sea. If this first battle was different, of course Midway would be affected.

It isn't like you go back in time and drastically change things.

Let me put it in a different light for you and see what you think of it. UV has one "option" of a similar nature to most that i've suggested, Japanese Sub Doctorine. Does this 'option' negatively impact UV? And if you dont like it, then doesn't simply leaving it at the historical setting solve the problem nicely?

I think that option is a perfect working example of a "what if" that makes the game more interesting because the question of a better working IJN sub force has been one thats been kicked around alot in the past. Here, one has the chance to see how it might have looked within the context of the wargame.

Its the same thing for the options i brainstormed.

1) Codebreaking. A huge factor in the real war. Havn't you ever wondered how things might have gone if the US did not have this crucial advantage?

From a player's point of view......wont it be utterly frustrating to know the other player can peak into your plans without any recourse (other than gamey tricks that is.) The Japanese were in blissful ignorance....the player is not. From a coding point of view its pretty easy to implement as well.....on or off. Again dont want to deviate from historical? leave it on.

2) Industrial/Help option. A feature so old it does'nt require an explanation. The ironic thing is, for what it's worth, i've never used it....but i would have eventually after playing many GGPW games and looking for a fresh challenge. No harm in it being there

3) Enhanced plane/pilot program.

Implemented in UV as an alt scenerio but it could also be coded as an option. Either way, I dont see it hurting UV the game...in fact i plan to play it next when i finish my Allied historical campaign. I think it would be interesting and more challenging.

I dont see these as HUGE changes though the effects might be....but since they are options, players can pick and choose.

Most of the games that I played that hapve alternate options or scenarios usually had only minute changes. One such change is Operation Crusader. It had reasons behind the changes as well. If Malta was invaded, of course German supplies would be higher, and British Lower. It was not like total doctrine was changed or removed to make the game simpler and have more control for a player, but was done to make the game easier for novices, and harder for veterans.

The difficulty i think we have here is similar to the example you cited where people were mixing game victories with war victories.
Lets clarify and differentiate between "options" and "alt scenerios"

I dont see the "options" as total doctornal changes in some cases, but specific alterations in one particular field. aka "Industry" , Espianage, Pilot training etc. They would not really change doctorines but would produce different situations and challenges. The IJN sub doctorine would be a good example i suppose but again i ask, does this really impact UV negatively?

"Alternate Scenerios" do change the entire setup of the war. For what it's worth again, i agree, i prefer alt scenerios that have at least some potential for reality but this is not a total condition at least for me (i've had fun with some off-the wall scenerios as well if they were well designed)

If the slots are limited and the time constrained as you think things are at this point (and i think your right) then yes, i would rather see the plausible alt scenerios though i have a soft spot for the Washington Cherry Tree scen......I would have loved to have seen how Pacific Tide would have modeled it....but alas..

Being a part of a development team (albiet for a free update patch), I can tell you that we had to cut MANY ideas from the game primarily due to time and manhour constraints. Many people were upset by all that could not be included, but we would probably be still working on PacWar version 2.0 if we listened to all of the requirements for features and alterante options. So, we would either be still working on 2.0, or 2.0 would be released with fewer fixes and a less thourough revision of files, but it would have more options, but be totally unplayable.

This is the only valid argument i have seen for the ideas of options and alt scenerios. I can only repeat what i said before, if it comes down to a question of getting the game out in a reasonable amount of time, then i'll happily accept the shelving of all the ideas i came up with. I too just want the game, hopefully with various issues pointed out in UV addressed (and hopefully with 1-day turns intact!)

[Ranger-75]

I have said it before and I'll say it again;

Midway was not a fluke. The Japanese Navy flagrantly violated 8 out of the 9 Principles of War in that engagement while the USN correspondingly held to 8 of the 9 Principles while slightly violating a 9th. The result was a well deserved thrashing of mr. Nagumo's 1st Air Fleet. The Japanese even foresaw this in their own wargames before setting out for battle, but the NGS & Combined fleet didn't have the ba11s to face up to reality.

I am definately not in favor of having a "Midway result" "hardcoded" into the game, but if you are foolish enough to send a fleet outside of your land based air cover range, inside of the enemy's LBA coverage, where you do not have radar and he does, where you have compromised your signals security by incompetence and arrogance, where you do not deploy your forces in mutually supporting positions, and where you give conflctting and incompatible tasks to your commanders who are not really suited to the task at hand, you're going to get your fleet shellacked.

AF - Axis Fanboys - I like it, who dreamed up this term. :p

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Ranger-75
AF - Axis Fanboys - I like it, who dreamed up this term. :p

mdiehl, who else... nothing particulary wrong with the term, only with the arbitrary way mdiehl uses it, and he is using it as an insult.

That would be like calling himself (or yourself perhaps) "US fanboys", only it sounds very stupid, cause you _are_ "US fanboys" and see nothing wrong with that.

Point is - it's not the "fanboy" factor that is important, it is the, I would say, "reasonable perception of history", which mdiehl and other "US fanboys" lack to a certain degree.

O. (who was called an Axis fanboy once - for arguing that Jap aircraft are not so strong in UV after all)

[pasternakski]

for having survived this long with so many posts, when the originator asked a question that needed no answer, as the option for historical and non-historical attacks (or non-attacks) against Pearl Harbor was declared early on by the designers to have been built in early in the development process.

My primary concern about how to start the game? Whether to turn the lights on or leave them off in my library the first time I boot it up.

I dunno. The "low-light" option may be more historical, given the fog of war effect, but maybe full illumination is the better choice, given my interest in exploring all the options in the light of day...

[TIMJOT]

Did the designers say there is going to be a non- pearl harbor attack option? Becuase I havent heard any definites. If so thats great news, but Im still curious how they are going to handle it.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
Did the designers say there is going to be a non- pearl harbor attack option? Becuase I havent heard any definites. If so thats great news, but Im still curious how they are going to handle it.

A simple matter of scenarios.

[mdiehl]

I can't claim credit for "Axis Fanboy." Credit goes to an internet colleague (elsewhere), Austin Lange by name, who is the first person whom *I* heard use the term. I can't say whether he coined the phrase. It's an excellent term to describe a mindset, but there are ways for AFs to self-identify. The abridged list ("You *may* be an Axis Fanboy if..."):

1. You think Germany would probably have won were it not for "That Meddling Hitler" and his Hitler Mind Control.

2. You think the Axis fielded forces that were in general superior with respect to training and equipment but were defeated by the crude application of force, superior numbers, and a strategy of attrition.

3. You think the most likely result of a Midway redux has the Japanese losing an equal number or fewer CVs than the US.

4. You think op. Sea Lion had a good chance of success, had it been attempted.

[Forgot this one.]

5. You think a strategy game in which the counterfactuals give the Axis a good chance of winning is inherently more interesting than a strategy game in which the counterfactuals give the Allies a good chance of winning by November 1944.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by mdiehl
I can't claim credit for "Axis Fanboy." Credit goes to an internet colleague (elsewhere), Austin Lange by name, who is the first person whom *I* heard use the term. I can't say whether he coined the phrase. It's an excellent term to describe a mindset, but there are ways for AFs to self-identify. The abridged list ("You *may* be an Axis Fanboy if..."):

1. You think Germany would probably have won were it not for "That Meddling Hitler" and his Hitler Mind Control.

2. You think the Axis fielded forces that were in general superior with respect to training and equipment but were defeated by the crude application of force, superior numbers, and a strategy of attrition.

3. You think the most likely result of a Midway redux has the Japanese losing an equal number or fewer CVs than the US.

4. You think op. Sea Lion had a good chance of success, had it been attempted.

[Forgot this one.]

5. You think a strategy game in which the counterfactuals give the Axis a good chance of winning is inherently more interesting than a strategy game in which the counterfactuals give the Allies a good chance of winning by November 1944.

I really don't see a problem with someone believing in things like that. Were we absolutely destined to win in Europe given the 1939 situation? No.

#1. Hitler did a lot of bad things, but indeed the good things that he did probably outweighed the bad things. Had Hitler kept out of the war, Germany would probably have been stuck fighting a WW1 style war in France.

#2. This is true in many aspects. German tanks were generally superior to Western Allied tanks by 1941. German air force tactics were superior to Allied air force tactics (given that they were the first to use the 4 plane section vs. the 3 plane section). However, the Allies had an equal amount of good equipment and training.

#3. The USN did a series of wargames and simulations in regards to Midway and never once did they gain the same positive results as the historic situation. A lot of this battle was luck and timing, which does not necessarily denote superiority on either side.

#4. Operation Sealion never got attempted, so to say that it did or did not have a good chance of success is merely speculation, and it is not fair to state that one speculation is absurd. Indeed, had Germany won the war for the air (had it not switched to bombing cities), the RAF would have been unable to keep flying over the Channel. If this was so, the RN would have been slaughtered had it attempted to interdict the invasion forces (just 500 Luftwaffe planes hit the RN hard in the Medeterranean, in a much larger seazone). British forces were reforming, but only a few were up to their establishment, which would be up against a German army who not only was fully equipped, but also had a run of victories to drive their morale through the roof.

#5. I don't believe this, take not of my demand for a different VP system in WitP to make up for the hopeless state of Japan in the war.

The main problem that I see mdiehl, is that you really are exactly what you argue against, except the opposite. The main problem that I see in a lot of your arguments, is that you seem to be almost unable to say anything positive about the Japanese, and must be continually propping up the US forces. Chances are that the Axis Fanboys are not right, but the US Fanboys are also not totally right.

I am out looking for the truth of the situation, and find myself occasionally agreeing with one fanboy or another in a situation given the proof they provide is superior to that of their 'opponent'. However, it does seem that you guys, (Axis and US Fanboys) are only out to prove your biased theories, sacrificing truth for one sided oppinions. I am really sick of the constant battles between those who want to give Japan or the US everything, and state how powerful one side was in regards to everything and constantly insulting the other side for having the 'wrong' opinion.

It is a constant whining and insulting back and forth, where each side writes down something from their manifesto, and ignores whatever proof the other puts forward, as it might actually crack your perfect and simple view of a complicated subject.

[IronDuke_slith]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard


I really don't see a problem with someone believing in things like that. Were we absolutely destined to win in Europe given the 1939 situation? No.

#1. Hitler did a lot of bad things, but indeed the good things that he did probably outweighed the bad things. Had Hitler kept out of the war, Germany would probably have been stuck fighting a WW1 style war in France.

#2. This is true in many aspects. German tanks were generally superior to Western Allied tanks by 1941. German air force tactics were superior to Allied air force tactics (given that they were the first to use the 4 plane section vs. the 3 plane section). However, the Allies had an equal amount of good equipment and training.

#3. The USN did a series of wargames and simulations in regards to Midway and never once did they gain the same positive results as the historic situation. A lot of this battle was luck and timing, which does not necessarily denote superiority on either side.

#4. Operation Sealion never got attempted, so to say that it did or did not have a good chance of success is merely speculation, and it is not fair to state that one speculation is absurd. Indeed, had Germany won the war for the air (had it not switched to bombing cities), the RAF would have been unable to keep flying over the Channel. If this was so, the RN would have been slaughtered had it attempted to interdict the invasion forces (just 500 Luftwaffe planes hit the RN hard in the Medeterranean, in a much larger seazone). British forces were reforming, but only a few were up to their establishment, which would be up against a German army who not only was fully equipped, but also had a run of victories to drive their morale through the roof.

#5. I don't believe this, take not of my demand for a different VP system in WitP to make up for the hopeless state of Japan in the war.

The main problem that I see mdiehl, is that you really are exactly what you argue against, except the opposite. The main problem that I see in a lot of your arguments, is that you seem to be almost unable to say anything positive about the Japanese, and must be continually propping up the US forces. Chances are that the Axis Fanboys are not right, but the US Fanboys are also not totally right.

I am out looking for the truth of the situation, and find myself occasionally agreeing with one fanboy or another in a situation given the proof they provide is superior to that of their 'opponent'. However, it does seem that you guys, (Axis and US Fanboys) are only out to prove your biased theories, sacrificing truth for one sided oppinions. I am really sick of the constant battles between those who want to give Japan or the US everything, and state how powerful one side was in regards to everything and constantly insulting the other side for having the 'wrong' opinion.

It is a constant whining and insulting back and forth, where each side writes down something from their manifesto, and ignores whatever proof the other puts forward, as it might actually crack your perfect and simple view of a complicated subject.

Jeremy,
Agreed.

I don't agree with selecting five historical "what ifs" and declaring that anyone who believes in them is an "Axis Fanboy". You are effectively seeking to dismiss any arguments raised that oppose you not by questioning the evidence (you've not asked for any) but by questioning the motives of those who bring the evidence (i.e. Axis fanboyism). It doesn't stimulate debate, just attempt to heap ridicule.

Re the points you made Jeremy,

1. I would tend to disagree on the basis that the further things went, the more damage he did. I believe it's true he adopted Von Mansteins plan for the breakthrough at Sedan in 1940 when the
General Staff had rejected it, but when you look at the constant change of focus and direction in Russia and the disaster that befell 6th Army after his obsession began with Stalingrad, I think he became a burden the Wehrmacht ultimately could have done without.

2. I'd argue the opposite. I always felt it was armoured doctrine and tactical superiority in AFV use that gave the Germans the edge in the first half of the war, but better vehicles from late 42 and more particularly 43, with the introduction of the Tiger and Panther. The number of obselete Panzer Is and IIs and the smaller Czech designs the Germans used in the summer of 41 suggest to me that their advantage in armoured warfare was still primarily tactical.

3. Agreed. Nothing to add. Spruance was bold, but had a couple of strokes of luck and benefitted from some poor Japanese decisions.

4. Not sure about this one.I agree the switch to city bombing saved Fighter Command from defeat, but had their remnants retired north, they may have been able to provide air cover for a home fleet sortie designed to reach the invasions beaches during darkness. Had they reached there in any kind of shape, German lines of communication would have been seriously severed. Had the Home Fleet been stopped, I don't think UK forces in the late summer and Autumn of 1940 could have stopped the Wehrmacht.
We'd rescued an Army from France, but they had few heavy weapons, and needed time to rest, reorganise and refit.

5. I hope we get a good scenario editor that will allow everyone to play the scenarios they want, whether thay are what ifs or based on VPs and achieving better results that was achieved historically. As long as the game records clearly what assumptions underline the OOB etc, then everyone can have everything they want. I've played a lot of wargames and VP is the best way I've seen of makng sides compete and fight. That said, South from Rabaul was an interesting what if that suceeded in providing a tougher challenge for the good US player. Get the scenario editor right, and everyone can have what they want.

Regards.

[TIMJOT]

I second the need for a good scenerio editor, IMHO getting the editor right means having an event engine similar to Norm Koger's TOAW. It really is a masterpiece and would go a long way in making everyones wet dream "what ifs" come true.

[byron13]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard


I am out looking for the truth of the situation, and find myself occasionally agreeing with one fanboy or another in a situation given the proof they provide is superior to that of their 'opponent'. However, it does seem that you guys, (Axis and US Fanboys) are only out to prove your biased theories, sacrificing truth for one sided oppinions. I am really sick of the constant battles between those who want to give Japan or the US everything, and state how powerful one side was in regards to everything and constantly insulting the other side for having the 'wrong' opinion.

It is a constant whining and insulting back and forth, where each side writes down something from their manifesto, and ignores whatever proof the other puts forward, as it might actually crack your perfect and simple view of a complicated subject.

Well said. And this just after I got through disagreeing with you on another thread.

Now, what was the topic of this thread?

[mdiehl]

The main problem that I see in a lot of your arguments, is that you seem to be almost unable to say anything positive about the Japanese...

In the context of manifestly strange results produced by an alleged simulation. There, lads, is the difference. Find some really strange results produced by the simulation that seem counterfactually favor the Allies and I'll advocate correction. Vis, the question about whether UV needed a Tassafaronga generator. Apparently it does, so I agree that the naval combat routine needed to be tweaked to favor the IJN in some, intermittantr and infrequent circumstances. I do oppose some deterministic solutions proposed to remedy the situation that seemed to me to appeal to a cliche, rather than to quantifiable facts.

It may amuse you to consider that on a discussion group in re a board game Totaler Krieg I was accused of opposing any change that favored the Allies and by implication of being an Axis Fanboy (although the phrase was not used). So, I reject the claim that I am a fanboy of any cause, except, perhaps a Simulation-Based-On-Quantifiable-Facts Fanboy.

You are effectively seeking to dismiss any arguments raised that oppose you not by questioning the evidence (you've not asked for any) but by questioning the motives of those who bring the evidence (i.e. Axis fanboyism). It doesn't stimulate debate, just attempt to heap ridicule.

Quite untrue. The word "*may*" is more than a mere technicality. The points listed are subtle and complex. Generally, when people look past the cliches into the details they leave the fanboy realm and enter the realm of grognards. Each of the points could be debated in detail, but none are merely matters of speculation. Moreover, none are terribly simple.

It is a constant whining and insulting back and forth, where each side writes down something from their manifesto, and ignores whatever proof the other puts forward, as it might actually crack your perfect and simple view of a complicated subject.

Well, to the list of insulting things that some say, (without any apparent sense of the irony while deriding others' conduct), but that I don't (until mightily and repeatedly provoked) you can add: 1) Use the word "whine" or any derivative when discussing someone else's POV or post. 2) Assert that my opposition believes in his own perfection.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

The truth is, on this site there are fanboys, Axis and Allied. They are the ones who just prop up one side, and fight tooth and nail against the other. I used harsh words as that is what you guys seem to understand. You call eachother ignorant JUST because they happen not to agree with your side, and that is what both of you are doing. Insulting someone for having a different opinion lowers your argument, and both sides are guilty of this.

Stating how you guys act may be an insult, but I have no agenda other then having this silly war to end.

TIMJOT and byron13 (among others) state things like 'historic research' to show that the Japanese were superior in situations, while mdiehl uses 'quantifyalbe-facts' to promote his opinions. Should either side really get what they want, you will not have anything even closely resembling what happened. You can find research to prove anything, and just because you can find some facts that prove your point does not mean that the facts other people have are wrong.

I can see that people are leaning toward one side over the other (much more polite then calling soneone a 'fanboy', sort of like what they called Black people in the Southern United States, 'boy'). It reminds me of political debates, where each side refuses to see merit in the other side, purely based on politics and insult.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Well, to the list of insulting things that some say, (without any apparent sense of the irony while deriding others' conduct), but that I don't (until mightily and repeatedly provoked) you can add: 1) Use the word "whine" or any derivative when discussing someone else's POV or post. 2) Assert that my opposition believes in his own perfection.

In this thread you started the insult by introducing 'Fanboy' into the equation. Until then, discussion was fairly 'civil'. Indeed, many other times you were forced into an insult debate, and I do not see you as an instigator, but in this case you started the harshness. The use of 'fanboy' is to force the opinion that whatever your opposition posts is PURELY out of blind support of one side, as well as adding a derogatory 'boy' into the issue, stating that not only are they a fan, but an immature fan, so their argument must logically be wrong.

I used the word whine, because that is what is going on. Each side splurts out its opinion, and refuses to modify it due to strong evidence posted by others. It is not the subject matter that gets me, but rather the way you guys debate it, or rather NOT debate it.

[IronDuke_slith]

Mdiehl,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quite untrue. The word "*may*" is more than a mere technicality. The points listed are subtle and complex. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. You think Germany would probably have won were it not for "That Meddling Hitler" and his Hitler Mind Control. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's an excellent term to describe a mindset"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps we can draw a line underneath this particular argument by agreeing that we do not share the same definition of subtlety.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The points listed are subtle and complex. Generally, when people look past the cliches into the details they leave the fanboy realm and enter the realm of grognards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a clever linguistic argument.

Your original post spelt out what a fanboy was. Now you state that if someone disagrees with you about the aim and intentions of the post, it is because they have not spotted the subtlety or complexity, have failed to "look past the cliches" and have therefore not left the realm of the fanboy.

So, we may be fanboys if we subscribe to any of the five points listed in the fanboy post, but we are definately fanboys if we disagree with anything about the post.

What is disappointing about the statement is that you make it clear that if we are fanboys (what else can we be in these circumstances) then we have not entered "into the realm of the grognards". Since we all read this forum because we share a love of gaming, military history and this period in particular, then this statement could be construed as particularly upsetting.

Both the original post and the statements above are opinions, I believe this because I see nothing empirical, or testable, about them. I think the problems have arose because by listing what are opinions in the way you have, you came across (to me at least) as a little condescending or superior.

I doubt this was your intention, I apologise if you feel I have said anything unfair.

Perhaps I can agree not to be such a touchy *&^%^&%*, and you can agree to try and not say things in a way that I, and others, might (perhaps unreasonably) construe as worthy of getting touchy about?

You're obviously well read and opinionated (in the best sense of the word) and it's a shame when that knowledge is lost because threads get off the facts and into arguments like this (and I accept my share of the blame for this occasion).

I'll also agree to let you buy the first beer if we were ever in the same town. Now, I can't be fairer than that, can I?

Can I just edit this post to say:

Timjot - you're spot on about TOAW and the scenario editor. It was a bit fiddly to use, but it was a good step forward. With a bit of thought, you could simulate just about anything. Do you still play ACOW?

[CynicAl]

Just one thing:

It's not true that we can't say whether or not Sealion could have succeeded. In fact, we can say, with a very high degree of confidence, that Sealion would have been a disaster for German arms. There's a discussion at Operation Sealion which covers it in detail; it's not too long, and well worth the read. Put simply, there was nothing in the German plan that could have worked. It's so bad it makes even the prewar Japanese "Decisive Battle" plans look good, and that's saying something.

[mdiehl]

IronDuke. Well spoken.

BTW. That's reads more intent and targeting into what I intended by posting the list. Feel free to disagree with the list without objection. And you are dead on right. The construct of the list is merely an opinion. After I briefly dropped the phrase in a previous post, without directing it at anyone in particular, someone asked about the origin of the phrase. I responded by giving the origin and some of the trait-list context. Think of it this way. It's kind of like defining "tyrant." There's no good universal definition but you know one when you see one. (*And* I'm not saying I've seen any on this thread.)

I really opened a can of worms here. I figured folks would see some humour in it. Big oops.