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

[byron13]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
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.

Gee, me thinks I just got hit upside the head!

Just to set the record straight, I don't think I've ever said that historic research would support a point I've made. I admit that I can't hang in a historical debate with Jeremy, mdiehl, or many of you other posters. When I use the term "historic research" (which wouldn't be often), I would believe that I'm trying to make a more theoretical point - like ideas on how to program alternative Pearl Harbor scenarios - and then stating that historical research would provide that data to implement that idea. At most, I've made general statements on history. I don't think I've ever taken a die-hard stand on a point of history, be it Wildcat v. Zeros, Indian uprisings, or whatever. I have opinions on those matters, but I don't express them because I cannot back them up, nor am I willing to do the research. I've admitted this before - ironically in a post defending mdiehl.

In fairness to mdiehl, I've seen that, while he may state strong opinions, he is the Matrix poster most likely back them up with some kind of facts or figures. They may be biased or skewed - I wouldn't know - but at least he usually cites to something. Jeremy is good at supporting arguments as well.

Guess I stuck my nose in a place where it didn't belong. I hope Jeremy and mdiehl shake hands soon. The two of you are far and away my favorite posters (though I probably disagree with both of you as often as agree), and am jealous of the knowledge and wordsmithing skills each of you have. Guess that makes me a fanboy!

Now, as far as why we can't have the option to choose how the game starts . . .

[IronDuke_slith]

Mdiehl,

To be honest, if I hadn't recognised I did have a tendancy towards Axis fanboyism whilst reading the post, I would have found it funny.

Those things usually come with written scores, don't they? I guess if I was only a partial AF, then my written score would have read something like

"0-3 points: Solid enough grog, but liable to get a bit giddy if he sees an 88 take out a T-34 at 2000 yards."

Thinking about it, I'm not sure an 88 would have taken out a T-34 at 2000 yards. I'll have to hit the books, as I probably won't sleep now if I don't find out.




What about my beer? I hope you missed (rather than dodged) the question regarding the first round of drinks if any bar was unfortunate enough to suffer the patronage of us both on the same day. It should be an easy round to get because I have a feeling we'd have the place to ourselves after a short while.

[mdiehl]

IronDuke -- 1st round on you, 2nd on me. I think we'd have a hoot of a ftf ASL game. Be forewarned. It's irrational for me to say so, but I have wierd good-luck with ordnance. I've been called the master of improbable Critical Hit. Oh the tales I could tell. On the other hand, you can count on my MMC to break on any initial morale check.

Byron13 -- Have no fear. Lately JP and I have been agreeing about the substantive stuff more often than not.

[byron13]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Byron13 -- Have no fear. Lately JP and I have been agreeing about the substantive stuff more often than not.

Yeah, and disagreeing with me! :p

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by 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, Does this mean Im now an axis fanboy? Admittedly it might seem that way because Mdheil and I generally find overselves on opposite sides of debates, but I dont think anything I said in this thread could be construed as advocating an advantage of one side over the other or make the game unrealistic.

That being said

Im still not sure what an axis fan boy is. Personally I think most people who enjoy playing the axis for one simple reason. They lost. They find it more challenging to make a winner out of a loser than simply making a better winner out of a winner. Thats why I like playing the confederates in civil war games. Does that make me a confederate fan-boy? Thats not to say there isnt merit in winning better. Its just a matter of preference.

Truth be told Im a classic underdogger. I generally like playing the allies early in the war (ie;France 40, Pacific 41-42) and the axis late in the war and in whole war campaigns because the odds are usually overwelmingly against them.

Just MHO

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by IronDuke

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?

IronDuke, I occasionally still play, but found that I enjoyed creating scenerios more than playing them. I spend most of my spare gaming time on UV now. I agree some aspects of the editor could be quite tedious, but the event engine is amazing in both its simplicity and complexity. It can be quite daunting and time consuming, but just think of all the possibilities if something similar could be implemented in a game like witp.

[iceboy105]

Matrix- Any hints on early game starting options???