Matrix Games Forums

itsjustme,

Yes I do mention the rules aspect of our game as it was a great learning experience for me as to how two honourable people with good intentions can get themselves into a gordian knot because each thought they were agreeing to different things due to insufficient communication. So, as something I learnt from ( and which has completely changed my approach to the issue of house rules... I am now in favour of them being negotiated to pretty much the nth degree pre-game) it is something I do mention when people ask about advice re: pre-game rules and negotiations. I think it is natural to draw from one's experiences when giving advice and to illustrate that advice with concrete examples so the newer players ( who seem to be the ones asking for this advice) can see exactly why the advice is warranted.

I'm sure you illustrate advice with examples from your own experience also, I think that's natural and that's all I'm doing.

As to turn 1 moves being allowed with no limits. Yes, you did agree to that and, as you say later in your post, you also agreed to other rules ( no breaches of newtonian physics, no uninterceptible actions ( e.g air-mining) and no exploitation of clear bugs).



Aztez,
My girlfriend couldn't tell a B29 from a Zero but since it is natural for a couple to take some interest in eachothers hobbies she has taken to asking about my PBEMs and, on occasion, reading the threads ( I, in return, have gotten to know about all the personality disorders in the Big Brother house [:D] ). She's an independent person and I neither force her to do it nor forbid her from doing it. If the concept of an independent individual making an independent decision to partake in a hobby their partner enjoys is beyond you and you wish to create a paranoic fantasy in which I order her to gather intelligence for me (intelligence I simply didn't need. I had enough recon all over the place that I could see everything you were doing in any area of interest and had overwhelming force available to punish you for anything you attempted) or read your AAR myself then that's your choice and quite a maladaptive personality trait ( speaking in a professional sense for a moment). Your crushing losses can simply be explained by the fact that I had a good plan, your reactions to it were flawed and you continued with your reactions when it was obvious they were not going to work, thus feeding more units into the fire unnecessarily. There's no need for a paranoic fantasy when solid in-game reality explains it perfectly well.

As to you not reading anything I ever write again. Fine. That also is your choice and I wouldn't dream of interfering with your right to make such a choice. I do, however, note that you weren't able to address the two issues raised re: your breach of our pre-game rules and/or finding a single occasion in which I breached them. I play right up to the line but I don't breach.



Goodboyladdie,
I agree with you wholeheartedly as re: the 1st turn Japanese moves being countered by turning surprise off. I offered Aztez and my latest opponent the option of either limiting me to 1 port attack and having surprise on OR turning surprise off but then allowing me to order whatever attacks I wanted ( including port attacks on Singapore etc) but with them having greatly increased ability to defend against such attacks... Neither Aztez nor my current opponent chose to play with surprise off but I offered precisely what you are suggesting.

I mean Aztez conveniently glosses over it but I offered him a lot of options ( play with surprise off and unlimited Jap attacks or surprise on but only 1 port attack, redo turn 1 if he objected to any landings etc). He chose not to exercise these options and, IMO, that was a mistake on his part but my responsibility is to make the offers I think are fair, not to advise my opponent to make the moves in their best interests. If my opponent chooses to make a bad decision in turning down an offer I've made then that's his business and not my fault... that's how I see it anyways. As the Allies if I was offered the option above I would always play with surprise OFF and allow the Japanese unlimited port attacks since the benefits of rebasing far outweigh the benefits of limiting the Japanese to just 1 port attack. As the Japanese player I was happy to see them turn down the offer and go for Surprise On and 1 port attack as I think that was the inferior choice. Again though, it's a game and my job as their opponent is to take advantage of mistakes they make, not to point them out.

If an opponent made the argument you made I would definitely agree to turning surprise off with the 1 caveat that I would be allowed unlimited port attacks on turn 1 ( so if he was sensible he'd sortie his ships). However none have asked for what you made an argument for and when similar things were offered to them they turned them down...


Nikademus,
Am I not correct though in stating that since 5.0 there have been significant changes made to AAA modelling in particular and also aircraft durability? This was certainly the impression I got from reading the FAQs.

Nikademus,
Am I not correct though in stating that since 5.0 there have been significant changes made to AAA modelling in particular and also aircraft durability? This was certainly the impression I got from reading the FAQs.

There were some changes to naval AA in the recent mod, but not for the reasons you gave, nor were they inspired by your game with P. The changes did not involve bomber disruption and accuracy. The only recent DUR changes involved fighter and fighter bomber aircraft.

Oh I'm sure the changes weren't made because of such an old game. Still the reduction in naval AAA WILL have the impact of increasing the effectiveness of the typical low-durability Japanese early-war strike plane, which was my point.

Might it have been your intention in making the change? No but it will be a ramification of making the change. I'm quite sure no-one will be able to find an example, under the new mod, of a small US strike making 19 times more hits per sortie than a full strike from KB ( both groups of pilots well rested) in December 1941.

Oh I'm sure the changes weren't made because of such an old game. Still the reduction in naval AAA WILL have the impact of increasing the effectiveness of the typical low-durability Japanese early-war strike plane, which was my point

No. It wont.

Ok can you explain how the decrease in AAA effectiveness, which plays a direct role in how many planes are damaged and disrupted, will not impact on the hit rate of these planes?
 
It seems pretty obvious to me that if the AAA fire is less intense and thus less effective fewer planes will be shot down or disrupted and thus more hits will be achieved or are you saying that the hit rate is unaffected by the intensity of AAA? One good paragraph-sized explanation could clear this up an awful lot better than a 1-line statement...

or are you saying that the hit rate is unaffected by the intensity of AAA?

Yep.....just like i said in the FAQ.

3) item: AA modification: DP and AA weapons have had effect rating increased by 50% Purpose: compensate for aircraft DUR change. **removed for sea based flak guns** Testing showed that it overcompensated for DUR increase, particularly for Japanese carrier planes attacking late war TF’s (1943+ Proximity period)

Well this was precisely what I identified as the problem in my game vs Przemcio... I even identified, in my testing, that it would be at its worst with Japanese planes attacking late-war US TFs and posted this finding to the forum... You may hold that accuracy wasn't impacted ( which I disagree with since disruption definitely is increased by more effective FlAK) but even if ONLY losses were increased this would result in fewer planes surviving to drop bombs and thus your change HAS, at the very least, increased the number of planes which act to drop bombs... which would increase the hit rate per sortie and do so disproporionately in favour of the side with lower durability planes ( aka the Japanese for most of the war) which was, again, what i posited all along.


So, can you explain precisely why disruption is not tied to the effectiveness of a FlAK defence since in every game I play the stronger the FlAK defence the lower my hit percentage. What you are suggesting runs directly contrary to my in-game experience. You can defend your position with 1 line posts or you can prove it with facts and test data. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong by test data etc and will learn something new about the game if you post such test data showing that 1000 flak guns with effect of 1000 result in the exact same number of ship hits as a 10 flak guns with an effect of 10 but a one-line post saying that you've said something in an FAQ is not even close to proving your assertion.

It seems contrary to all logic and in-game experience that the effectiveness and strength of a flak defence does not impact the number of hits achieved.

Well this was precisely what I identified as the problem in my game vs Przemcio... I even identified, in my testing, that it would be at its worst with Japanese planes attacking late-war US TFs and posted this finding to the forum...

No....what you said was:

I conducted tests and published the results on the forum. These showed that the effects of FlaK on planes flying naval strikes caused excessive disruption to low-durability planes ( such as the Japanese fly) such that their attacks ( while many planes leaked) resulted in very few hits and a massive underperformance relative to historical norms

You then said:

I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out

Hence my clarification. The recent adjustments did not concern bomber disruption and accuracy.

I have answered those before so no need to repeat myself.
 
Goodbye and good luck.

Nikademus,
 
In the first quote above I was referring back to the initial thread where I listed the effect on late-war TFs as arising from the results I was seeing... I was not referring to this thread. I mean we can all use semantics to poke holes if we're willing to ignore the meat of the argument. let's not stoop to that level eh?
 
So let me put it very succinctly, since 5.0 naval AAA effect vs naval strike aircraft has been reduced. Yes or no. ( the FAQ seems to talk about a 50% reduction in effect).
 
Since the effectiveness of FlAK is related to its EFFECT rating the effectiveness of FlAK has been reduced ( maybe by 50%, maybe not. I don't know the exact figure but it has been reduced in effectiveness).
 
Since the effectiveness of a FlAK curtain impacts on bomber disruption a reduction in the FlAK curtain should, reasonably, result in a reduction in bomber disruption. Yes/No.
 
If not could you actually explain yourself rather than giving an unsupported statement... If I'm proven wrong but learn something more about how the game works that's fine by me but no-one can accept a blank assertion unsupported by logical explanation.
 
 
 
Aztez,
No, you never openly answered to the issue of breaching our pre-game rules on 3 consecutive days of an 11 or 12 day game. I don't think it had a major impact and therefore didn't make a big issue of it in-game but I do object to you misrepresenting what happened and, now, dodging the issue. Again saying something is a certain way does nothing to make it a certain way.

[>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:]
 
 
[>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:][>:]
 
 
 

You may snore but, again, I note you didn't answer.

If not could you actually explain yourself rather than giving an unsupported statement... If I'm proven wrong but learn something more about how the game works that's fine by me but no-one can accept a blank assertion unsupported by logical explanation.

There seems to be some confusion on your part over my purpose for posting here. I'll post that intention one more time; I posted on this thread to clarify some misconceptions that you had posted in regards to the origin behind recent changes made in Nikmod 8.0. Thats all. Most anyone else would have gone..."oh, ok...my mistake" and moved on, however such an action seems beyond your capability just as you seem incapable of ceasing to argue with all your ex-PBEM opponents. [Pattern anyone?...]
I do not need to justify my changes to you in order to clarify information regarding recent changes. You also don't have to agree with my views either. Its a free country after all.

Ok. OTOH  part of clarifying misconceptions would be to EXPLAIN why something is a misconception and not simply to state that it is. We'd still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth if those promulgating that view didn't have to explain themselves.

All I'm saying is, can you explain how the change in EFFECT does NOT increase disruption since, logically, it seems that it would since, after all, a more effective AAA weapon should create a more effective FlAK defence and thus more disruption. Why is a request for a simple explanation such a difficult thing for you to countenance that you have to drag things down to the level of personal mud-slinging?

And, no, I'm not going to go "oh my mistake" just based on you saying "it has no effect" but the instant you EXPLAIN how and why it has no effect I'll happily own up to any misconception and also have learnt something new. I think that's a reasonable viewpoint for anyone to hold. Explain and show a misconception and I'll happily admit I was wrong but to assert something without proof and expect reasoning, intelligent individuals to accept such an unsupported assertion is ludicrous. I've given you three simple yes/no questions which can, with a couple of sentences of explanation each clarify this issue completely, why are you so resistant to just posting such a minor explanation?

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

You may snore but, again, I note you didn't answer.

Ok. You do deserve an answer again.

First off I have been raised to be polite and to respect others. Those are the principles I'am going raise my daughter to live up too.

But you... well you do not insult people directly but you do imply A LOT.

First off WE started this thing off to be Historical style of game with oppurtunities to gain more with Japan! ...BUT with historical realities!!! I cannot help you IF you don't understand your NATIVE language???

For you the historical game means that EVERYTHING goes!!! Reading your stuff Japan could have seized the whole globe, right??? We did have discussions about houserules which I would like to limit too! BUT since you do want gain maxium gains from the game engine so those do not count unless EVERYTHING is spelled out for you!

Japan never could have the Intel you had on turn 1 (I did not even look at the Japanese side on RHS since I personally consider that gamey. Nor have looked the CHS setup before we started off with Sardaukar).

I hardly consider giving you a free shot on 2/3 OZ, NZ, 2/3 India, Hawaji, Alaska, China and Russia too much limiting? That is utter crap IF you think that Japan could never in their wildess dreams think about capturing these kind of terrotories! Again what is historical for YOU?

As for Malaya fiasco. I actually wanted Singapore to be captured but you prefered neutralized! Fine! Than you did the massive landings at Johore Bharu... Well that is gamey and I SHOULD have objected it since you did offer redo on turn 1. BUT I wanted to be a good guy and left it alone! Than It became obvious that you wanted to expoloit the game system by December-January invasion of India! That was fine than BUT once you pretty much implied on GARRISONING requirements you wanted to enforce than that was just a bit too MUCH. Basically how you see history is that most of those Japanese troops where free to leave there same going for CHINA and RUSSIA. This is utter bullocks. We have VERY diffrent views on what is reasonable and what is not! I mean we are talking about HUGE countries with millions of citizens!

Yeah, I tried to move at least couple of brigades to Singapore since there where no AV present there! Since It is very IFFY if it had fallen on December 10th or such!!!

As said these things are quite a lot coming from a GUY who abandoned Lunacy game (which again had no rules againts Teleportation as istjustme stated) due to you timetable tossed to carbage can! The second came where you are implying that NIK's Mod is flawed due to the fact you had lost your KB! Well tough luck... and I can say that NIK Mod is one of the best mods around these forums. (Many AAR's to prove it)

But the most absurd thing is that as I said you imply a lot on these forums about your fellow members. Which is something I personally DISLIKE. No, you never say anything directly but you really don't have to! THIS is MOST important what I dislike in an person. And as said hopefully my daughter will get better manners.

I actually do wait an apoligize from YOU but since you are blind enough to see when you have "insulted" other people I have forfeited that hope.

There you have it. I'am sick and tired of repeating myself to a person who obviously have such an ego that he could choke on it.

As good luck whatever you do!


Best regards,


Aztez a.k.a Jari

PS: To put it blunt. Stop posting bs and respect other peoples in these great forums. Thank you

PS2: Also I would really appreciate If you could STOP refering to me and posting questions. I do not see any worth of replying to you anymore. And by the amount Private Messages I got I´am not the only fed up with you ego.


Now Goodbye!

Hi, Is this game over?

LOL Mogami!!!
 
Understatement of the year.[8D]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Is this game over?

LOL [:D][:D]

Aztez,

well you do not insult people directly but you do imply A LOT.

Hmm, people read things as they wish them to be. In all portions of communication there is what is actually said, what is intended and what is interpreted. I control my intention and what I say. How the factuality of what I say is interpreted is completely out of my control. I don't ever intend to imply any insults. If I think someone is a low-down dirty cheater I will say that. If I think that I disapprove of their actions but can see how others wouldn't then I say that. I always try ( sometimes not succesfully) to differentiate between my feelings and the objective reality of the situation since that's an essential part of my job. It is completely irrelevant what my wishes and feelings are when I am treating a person who is bleeding to death from a knife wound or gunshot wound. I do my job to the best of my ability and they live or die based on whether I make the right choices quickly enough PLUS an impact from the severity of their injuries... some people simply can never be saved, no matter what I do, by the time they reach me. So, if you think I imply something then ask me to clarify it. I will always try to explain it irrespective of whether my view will be popular or unpopular ( since popularity is another irrelevancy to me) in a manner which leaves no room for error.

 I cannot help you IF you don't understand your NATIVE language???

Again, more emotional assumptions and completely unresearched assertions. English is not my native language, it is my 3rd language. If you're going to engage in vitriol at the very least you could try to tone down the completely unresearched assertions.

For you the historical game means that EVERYTHING goes!!! 

Within the capabilities of the forces modelled within the game ( so long as they are interceptible and not obviously bugged), yes. I find it surprising that you could be surprised by this after reading my AARs. Just how the hell did you NOT know that was my style? It is so obviously my style that in my current game my opponent's only question is how soon I am going for India and not whether or not I am going for it.

those do not count unless EVERYTHING is spelled out for you!

Pretty much correct, and I've never pretended otherwise... The only caveat is those areas which arise mid-game which weren't foreseen in pre-game discussions. However if something was foreseen in pre-game discussions then I will ALWAYS stick within the parameters outlined pre-game BUT if something isn't outruled then its fair game IMO. My view is that the rules should outrule EVERYTHING which one doesn't want to see happen but that everything which isn't outruled is allowed. You may differ philosophically from this viewpoint but I would hope that in the same way as I allow you to hold your views without personally attacking you for them you will allow me to hold mine without personally attacking me for them... for a change.

To be fair though, when I play as the Allies I let my Japanese opponent have the exact same leeway as when I play as the Japanese so it isn't as though I'm setting up one set of rules for one side and another set for the other just in the search for advantage. So, the rules under which I'm playing my current RHS EOS game as the Japanese will be precisely the same rules under which I'd be happy to play an RHS EOS game as the Allies.

Yeah, I tried to move at least couple of brigades to Singapore since there where no AV present there!

There are, IIRC, 2 Brigades there at game-start so the last part of your above statement is factually incorrect. And you moved 3 Bdes and some BF there and blocked my move orders in a manner which clearly BROKE one of our pre-game rules. Was it a huge issue? No but I do think it is rich of you to talk about me breaking rules etc willy nilly when you are unable to come up with one example of a pre-game rule I broke and I have one obvious one which you broke repeatedly.

You are trying to make out that I was unfair to you because I did things which were not explicitly banned but when you repeatedly did things which WERE explicitly banned you gloss over it. I believe that is a double-standard. See, no insinuation. When I think it I say it, you need not parse my words for meaning, the meaning is quite clear and nothing is hidden.

Well that is gamey and I SHOULD have objected it since you did offer redo on turn 1.

Yes, if it was an issue for you you SHOULD have objected. I would have happily redone turn 1 if you objected since I was surprised that people were so strongly against the Johore Bahru landing AND when my next opponent objected to it I DID redo my turn 1 and there was no Johore Bahru landing. You didn't object at the time though so you missed that opportunity which I offered you and casting aspersions on me is pointless. You should blame yourself for not being objective and taking advantage of my offer to redo the turn without any invasions you objected to. There is nothing NICE or NOT NICE about accepting a turn 1 you are unhappy with. If you are unhappy with the turn 1 and think it is gamey then it is stupid to continue the game IMO. You should have asked for a redone turn 1 without the Johore landings and I would have happily granted this.



As to the Lunacy game... Well we agreed that we would apply the rules of uninterceptibility and newtonian physics to issues which arose in-game. There was no specific rule against teleporting into a besieged Karachi because I simply didn't know it was possible to do such a thing. If I'd known I'd have asked for it to be banned. Is that right or wrong? Neither. its just a personal preference and I don't try to brow-beat anyone into changing their personal preferences in just the same way as I'm disappointed that you and others seem to feel you have the right to attack me over an issue of viewpoint. I'm happy to let you live with your viewpoint ( and disagree with it) but it seems the same courtesy isn't extended to me. It is, of course, simply another example of the group mentality of attacking "the other" in action on these fora but is, nonetheless, still frustrating to see in action. And to post that it was abandoned due to a timetable tossed to garbage is factually incorrect and a contention difficult to understand given that I've explained my exact reasons behind that whole thing in this very thread. itsjustme... I'm only mentioning our game here to answer a point Aztez raised. No more, no less.

The second came where you are implying that NIK's Mod is flawed due to the fact you had lost your KB! 

That's a factually incorrect assertion. I am stating ( not implying) that NikMod WAS flawed in the version I played because in December 1941 Allied naval strike groups did not achieve 19 times more hits per sortie than the elite Japanese naval strike groups. Now if Nik will EXPLAIN why his mod isn't flawed then I'm more than happy to accept the explanation and admit my analysis was wrong. However, so far, I've gotten assertions and little explanation of how and why. I think most reasonable people would agree that an assertion without explanation of how and why is not usually an acceptable answer to a complicated issue like this.

I can say that NIK Mod is one of the best mods around these forums. (Many AAR's to prove it)

 
It may well be one of the best mods around NOW. On the other hand my issue is with an old version of the mod. The current mod is improved and, I think, eliminates the issue my analysis pointed to. OTOH no mod ( or stock game) is perfect and so while NikMod is a very good mod it is NOT perfect and I don't see anything wrong with pointing out what my analysis of a Coral Sea-like test raised as a major issue.

I also feel constrained to point out that one CAN criticise a product without meaning any disrespect to the author. One can criticise my gameplay, my work etc etc without implying any disrespect for me. If I, factually, choose an incorrect course of treatment and one of my patients dies then criticising me for choosing the incorrect choice of treatment is absolutely valid, correct and completely impersonal. I am criticising NikMod's results in 5.0something and pointing out where I think a flaw in the combat model lay. There is nothing personal in this and, several times, when asked about this I've made it clear that there is a difference in criticising the mod and the man. I don't see why people are getting so worked up over a criticism of an old version of a mod. It is a histrionic over-reaction.

As to the man... Yes, I've criticised him over his lack of willingness to set the whole thing to rest by engaging in 10 or 15 minutes of typing 2 or 3 posts which try to explain how effect and disruption in air combat are related and why the changes made result in no change to aircraft disruption. I do feel that people have an obligation to explain their actions ( which is the only reason why I post when I'm challenged or asked to clarify myself by posts like yours). I don't particularly enjoy responding and I DO think it is a complete waste of bandwidth and your time and mine ( and the readers) since it will, in the end, solve nothing BUT I feel an obligation to explain if questioned. Simple.

you imply a lot on these forums about your fellow members.

 
Nope. That's simply your fantasy and interpretation. If I think anything of a forum member I'm more than happy to say it straight to their face. I detest people implying things about other people almost as much as I detest people substituting emotionality for objective reality. No, if I think something of someone then I have absolutely no problem stating it publicly and clearly irrespective of the reception it would receive. I wouldn't bother trying to imply anything at all since I'm quite comfortable saying whatever I think publicly and clearly.
 
So, if you think things are implied that is simply something which is occurring in your own head and not in mine. As such, it is your problem and not mine.
 
 

you are blind enough to see when you have "insulted" other people I have forfeited that hope. 

Believe me, when I want to insult someone there's no doubt at all about it having happened because I am more than happy to come right out and say "I believe you are an x or y" etc and, if later, I turn out to be wrong I will apologise. However you want apologies for things you've read into what I've written but which I never intended to be there. I can only be responsible for what I write, not what someone else wishes to project onto it.

As good luck whatever you do!

And to you... I honestly don't understand why you are getting so emotionally overwrought over this whole thing. I really do think you are reading things into what I'm writing that aren't there and you should, instead, just assume that I mean precisely what I say, no more, no less and wouldn't be bothered with implications and hidden meanings. Now, we all sometimes make mistakes cause this is the net and we don't proofread what we type 50 times but if you THINK I'm implying something just ask me and I'll happily explain myself and 90% of the time what you or others might think is being hinted at simply isn't being hinted at at all... However it helps IMMEASURABLY if you ASK and don't just assume while you are letting emotionality over-rule logic.


Aztez,
Well if you stop responding and raising issues I feel bound to address in explanation then this will soon come to a halt. OTOH so long as you raise new issue I do feel an obligation to explain. It may well be that no-one is willing to accept that someone can try to parse these things as logically as I can and that people want to keep believing that there are ulterior motives and hidden implications but I view it as my responsibility to try to clear up misunderstanding ( hence my feeling an obligation to respond) and NOT my responsibility to ensure others actually see the reality of the situation. If people want to mislead themselves then they will.


It is becoming clear, however, that there is a simple fundamental chasm between what I intend to communicate and others' perception of what I intend ( some of this is undoubtedly due to the time and manner in which I learnt English and some is due to the fact that people's interpretations are coloured by what they WISH and/or expect to hear) and also of what I value vs what others ascribe to me. I'll make 1 effort to explain this.

I think a story would help you understand where I'm coming from better... Anything I write below is purely factual and there are no insinuations or anything. If you read any into it then it is your own mental process doing the insinuating...

A few years ago I was asked a question in one of those truth or dare games we all play when we have a few drinks in us. It was the perennial "who would you save"... The question was if my parents, my kid brother and my girlfriend at the time were in a building and the building went on fire whom would I save. Now, for me, the answer was obvious. My parents are nearing retirement and have contributed as much to society as they are going to contribute. My brother is young but when he finishes university he will contribute a lot to society in his given career and through, generally, being a good person. My girlfriend at the time was also young but unlikely to contribute as much to society as my brother. So, for me, the only true answer was that I would save my brother because he had a greater chance of contributing meaningfully to society. Neither my parents or brother were there, only my girlfriend so many people would have, for a quiet life, said they would have saved their girlfriend. However that isn't what I would have done so I said that I'd have saved my brother and gave my reason ( I do have enough sense to add the caveat that my parents wouldn't want to be saved if it meant my brother dying so I did add that.). End result: GF at the time was very pissed off at me but I really do try not to do emotionality or make-believe or playing for popularity. I always try to give the most honest, logical answer or argument I can, consequences bedamned. Do I sometimes fail, yes but if you ask for clarification I'll give it and the chances of there being some intentional implied insult is pretty much zero.

As to the fact that I don't accept unsupported assertion... Simple, I regularly had to make calls over who got life support machines and who didn't ( and thus died). Sometimes this meant telling families who were waiting on other family members to show up to "say goodbye" that we didn't have time anymore, that someone else who could benefit from the machine needed it and that we had to switch it off and let their loved one die so that someone else who MIGHT survive if they got that machine DID get that machine. At other times it meant telling them that we weren't going to treat their relative except in a supportive manner for reasons of likelihood of survival or availability of resources etc. In such a situation, when you are the one going into families to tell them you are turning the machine off at half past the hour or refusing to send this person in for such and such an operation which the family, wrongly, believes might save them then you had BETTER have more than an unsupported assertion to back you up. You had better be able to PROVE that you were doing the right thing ( for the overall patient base) by turning off the life support and condemning that individual patient to death and some of his family to a lifetime of "I never got to say goodbye".

I once ( only once) gave in and let an 18 year old boy get put on life support because his mother and father couldn't agree on whether to let him die or not. This decision was made, not for the sake of the 18 year old, he was definitely going to die one way or the other, but because I felt that if I refused to put the 18 year old on the machine and his mother blamed his father on this their marriage might split apart... and we only had four and a half minutes to make the decision because the kid was in respiratory arrest when I left the room to have the discussion with the parents. I figured we could talk to her the next day and when she was less emotional and we had more than four minutes she could make a more appropriate decision. My consultant, the next day, berated me for putting the kid on life support. He remonstrated that I SHOULD have let the kid die the night before and family dynamics bedamned. That criticism he made wasn't personal ( same as my criticism of nikmod isn't personal). it was simply a statement that I'd made the wrong decision and should have known better. He was right to make that criticism and I was wrong to let an emotional issue cloud my judgement ( and if I thought I was right I would have argued with him and if I'd proven myself right he'd have backed down. This is the way good medical teams work. You stand up for yourself, argue the facts and the ones with the wrong facts give way. Simple, objective and good for the patients.). I should have let the kid die overnight and if I had it to do again I would let the kid die overnight. So, you may not understand my unwillingness to let emotion cloud the objective reality of the situation but it is a completely impersonal thing.

Now when you've looked into the eyes of families and told them you are, effectively, going to kill their loved ones because of a resource shortage and had to weather them calling you every name under the sun then, maybe, you'll understand why I don't see any point in putting on a pretence in this forum and wouldn't bother implying an insult. I've said FAR, FAR worse to people straight to their faces in real life so I'm not going to balk at telling someone I'll never meet that I dislike them personally ( even if any personal emotional interaction is just another irrelevancy... except insofar as a dislike of someone can lead one to prejudge what they are saying and interpret it incorrectly in order to avoid any conflict with one's prejudices.).

As I said, much of what you read into what I write exists only in your mind although, to be fair, my writing style is very different to most English speakers' writing styles but that's because I only learnt it quite late and mostly from quite classical writings ( early 20th Century books and the like). I didn't read my first "modern prose" until 3 or 4 years after I started learning English. Again though if you'd just bothered to ask and seek information before jumping to baseless assumptions you'd have known that.

Nemo, I really like your AARs and comments on the game, and I feel many of the points you have made regarding your games' end were valid, but you have to drop it.

I would really enjoy reading an AAR of yours rather than seeing you argue with your former opponents, be you right or wrong.

regards.