What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
I dismiss comments about a games modeling, when the person that is making the comments, doesnt even own the game.mdiehl wrote:Just so that I understand: you dismiss historical commentary on the relative merits of the A6M+pilots vs F4Fs+pilots if the person making the comments does not own a copy of UV?
I dont recall making any statement about the Ki-84. I do recall commenting on your obvious bias. Pilots skill exists. It does matter. It also seems to make YOUmdiehl wrote:In the last three months I have offered a series of rebuttals to comments like "The Zero was a superior plane flown by superior pilots" and "such and such [pick your late war Japanese aircraft fave] was rated even better than the P-51." Rebuttals, based on established facts, that destroy the claims against which they were directed. None of these have been commentaries on UV. Indeed, my only comment on UV has been to suggest that people who are interested in UV should post in the UV forums. I have specifically stated that Mogami's AARs, which are alpha tests of WitP (with no "fog o war" so the results are what they are) seem reasonably accurate.
So what's your beef with me? Are you just an Axis Fanboy who doesn't like it when I debunk pro-Japanese distortions of empirical reality? Or are you just talking to oppose me so that you can hear yourself talk?
Notwithstanding the intellectual bankruptcy of asserting that you will ignore historical debates because a given person does not own a copy of a game, it should please you that I do in fact own a copy of UV. I hope that the next time I have to re-educate someone who thinks that the Ki-84 would have been the magic bullet, if only the Japanese had enough sense to build many of them, I will not have to endure more of your non-sequitur commentary about how my opinion about historical matters does not count because I only own seven other strategic simulations of the PTO in WW2. UV is number 8 in the pile.
That's because it was not you to whom I responded in re the Ki-84.I dont recall making any statement about the Ki-84.
Something for which you have no evidence. You can claim that I have a bias until you are blue in the face. Indeed, at times you have. Rather than deploying any facts of your own, or addressing the facts that I deploy in argumentation, your usual shtick is to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and chant "bias bias bias."I do recall commenting on your obvious bias.
No one here has ever claimed otherwise.Pilot skill exists. It does matter.
Wrong again. What will make me unhappy is a highly skewed simulation that is unable to model variables to the appropriate scale of effect. Pretty much a consistent concern of mine regardless of the subject. I have assumed of course that everyone is concerned with getting a model "right" but I may not be correct in that assumption. For the record, I repeat, again, that Mogami's alpha tests of WitP seem to indicate that the general model used in WitP is "accurate." By that I mean that the scale of effects seems correct.It also seems to make YOU unhappy.
Quite so. It pleases me that Matrix accepts critical input from interested third parties. In my opinion their model has probably been improved because of it.That is the domain of the game designer.
And if he/they do he/they can be criticized to the extent that the model fails as a simulation, if "simulation" is indeed the goal of the product. I suspect that it is, at least it attempts to be a credible simulation.If he decides it makes the planes equal, then it DOES.
Well, that is a new opinion from you. Obviously up until the last post you have been extremely concerned about whether or not I own UV, even though my comments here have been directed at historical discussions and discussions of a different game, in development, called "War in the Pacific."I dont care how many games of PacWar you own.
Frankly, my commentary in these forums is de facto proof that I have not ignored these products. I'd dispute whether GG is the "foremost" game designer in the world although I think the argument is rather trivial. My opinion about PacWar, WitP, or the relative merits of the A6M, F4F, other aircraft, or their pilots, has absolutely nothing to with your interest, opinion, presence or existence. I do not take positions because it entertains me to object to your commentary; that is quite possibly one of the most paranoid things I've ever heard anyone say.You choose to ignore the foremost wargame designer in the world, simply because 'I' like him.
It might be if I had you as an important part of my concerns when I respond to claims about the relative merits of different a/c types, pilot training and so forth. My only concern with you is that you keep interjecting chickencr@p into the discussion by attempting to deflect the issue from whatever happens to be the subject du jour.That Mdiehl truely IS intellectual bankruptcy.
Who ever suggested otherwise I wonder? Certainly not me. I agree that failure to conquer the SRA means that Japan will lose, and that losing that badly very early in the game would not be fun at all... not to mention embarressing. If the model is done properly, the Japanese player will have to make the effort with a high degree of skill, concentration of forces, and very good logistical preparation. There should also be tangible rewards to the Allied player for skilled resistence.The facts are that not conquering the SRA will end the game. Period.
That doesnt sound like alot of fun to me.
If I stood alone in claiming you had a bias, then you might have a point.mdiehl wrote:That's because it was not you to whom I responded in re the Ki-84.
Something for which you have no evidence. You can claim that I have a bias until you are blue in the face. Indeed, at times you have. Rather than deploying any facts of your own, or addressing the facts that I deploy in argumentation, your usual shtick is to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and chant "bias bias bias."
No one here has ever claimed otherwise.
Wrong again. What will make me unhappy is a highly skewed simulation that is unable to model variables to the appropriate scale of effect. Pretty much a consistent concern of mine regardless of the subject. I have assumed of course that everyone is concerned with getting a model "right" but I may not be correct in that assumption. For the record, I repeat, again, that Mogami's alpha tests of WitP seem to indicate that the general model used in WitP is "accurate." By that I mean that the scale of effects seems correct.
Quite so. It pleases me that Matrix accepts critical input from interested third parties. In my opinion their model has probably been improved because of it.
And if he/they do he/they can be criticized to the extent that the model fails as a simulation, if "simulation" is indeed the goal of the product. I suspect that it is, at least it attempts to be a credible simulation.
Well, that is a new opinion from you. Obviously up until the last post you have been extremely concerned about whether or not I own UV, even though my comments here have been directed at historical discussions and discussions of a different game, in development, called "War in the Pacific."
Frankly, my commentary in these forums is de facto proof that I have not ignored these products. I'd dispute whether GG is the "foremost" game designer in the world although I think the argument is rather trivial. My opinion about PacWar, WitP, or the relative merits of the A6M, F4F, other aircraft, or their pilots, has absolutely nothing to with your interest, opinion, presence or existence. I do not take positions because it entertains me to object to your commentary; that is quite possibly one of the most paranoid things I've ever heard anyone say.
It might be if I had you as an important part of my concerns when I respond to claims about the relative merits of different a/c types, pilot training and so forth. My only concern with you is that you keep interjecting chickencr@p into the discussion by attempting to deflect the issue from whatever happens to be the subject du jour.
Who ever suggested otherwise I wonder? Certainly not me. I agree that failure to conquer the SRA means that Japan will lose, and that losing that badly very early in the game would not be fun at all... not to mention embarressing. If the model is done properly, the Japanese player will have to make the effort with a high degree of skill, concentration of forces, and very good logistical preparation. There should also be tangible rewards to the Allied player for skilled resistence.
How would you know? You seem not even to know what I've been talking about here. AFAIC what I see is that people in general agree that I know what I'm talking about in re the merits of various aircraft and agree that I support my claims with facts.The words 'credible simulation' are an example of your bias. You hold unto yourself what 'credible' means. In this case, not everyone agrees. In fact
not even a majority agree.
If you can't name it, can't quanitify it, and can't explain the rationale for ranking it, then you don't know anything about the phenomenon that you are attempting to describe. If you can't articulate a set of standards that can be independently judged, there is no possible way you can pretend to be objective. All of my posts in re aircraft performance are both objective, testable and independently verifiable. To that extent, where I have made claims about a/c and pilots, I am "right" and the opinions that I have refuted are "wrong." Tough luck if you don't like it that way. You can have argumentation by reason and data (my mode) or argumentation by faith (which is inherently untestable). If you prefer the latter, that's nice, but in that case you have no opinion worth hearing, IMO.Your parsing of data is recognized as exactly that. Data only 'suggests' it doesnt PROVE. There may be other factors. Factors not shown in the data.
That is why 'objectivity' is needed.
Again, you have confused me with someone else. This is getting really wierd. OK, for your edification, TIMJOT said that a few posts back (post # 53). Your conversation about "JFD" --- that was with someone else. I haven't a clue about that one and can't help you on that account because I do not recall your participation in a thread like that anywhere. Regarding highly critical assessments of UV in the WitP forum I think you need to address your remarks to TristanJohn, since he is the chief complainer about that around here.You seem to feel that this event was 'peaked' at 'the best the Japs could have possibly done' I do NOT agree.
Tristanjohn wrote:P.S. as for my "insane" use of the game's naval assets, that's the biggest irony of all, for you see that part of the test demonstrated that the model is able, at times, to get the naval aspects of war about right when the players do indeed use these assets in historical manners.
I guess the most obvious question would be "How could you miss that?" If I were Gary and Joel and reading this ongoing nonsense I'd be behind the screen yelling "Go back and look at the friggin' results again you dummies! Look how historical the results from that naval battle were!"
But no. You people would rather hurl insults and stay mired in your general denial rather than observe what's going on around you and learn anything useful. It's just the way you are, I guess.
No Mdiehl you are the target not TJ. You maintain the pretense of objectivitymdiehl wrote:Again, you have confused me with someone else. This is getting really wierd. OK, for your edification, TIMJOT said that a few posts back (post # 53). Your conversation about "JFD" --- that was with someone else. I haven't a clue about that one and can't help you on that account because I do not recall your participation in a thread like that anywhere. Regarding highly critical assessments of UV in the WitP forum I think you need to address your remarks to TristanJohn, since he is the chief complainer about that around here.
Chiteng, the names of the persons posting are clearly displayed (upper left margin bordering each post). I can't channel for third parties that vex you.
I have never ignored his "data. That claim is a transparent lie. First, the SPI boardgame "War in the Pacific" does not present any data. It's a game, not a source. Second, you and I have never discussed the SPI board game "War in the Pacific." Third, you and I have never discussed anything else written by Jim Dunnigan. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever seen you mention Dunnigan in any context.James Francis Dunnigan - Noted author and Wargame designer.
This man almost singlehandedly founded our hobby. But you ignore his data,
because it doesnt suit your bias. I offer you the BOARD game, 'War in the Pacific' as an example.
Then you are uneducated in the basic precepts of scholarship or simply beyond reason. To quote some other person, attribute that quotation to me, and attack the position therein, can only be a foregivable (as long as it is not frequently repeated) identity error or else simply transparently disingenuous. Since you have ruled out the possibility that you represented Timjot's opinion as mine by accident, it is a clear cut and transparent case of extreme intellectual dishonesty and fraud.No Mdiehl you are the target not TJ. You maintain the pretense of objectivity NOT TJ.
Nor did I say we had. I said it was designed by JFD. It was. It DOES have datamdiehl wrote:I have never ignored his "data. That claim is a transparent lie. First, the SPI boardgame "War in the Pacific" does not present any data. It's a game, not a source. Second, you and I have never discussed the SPI board game "War in the Pacific." Third, you and I have never discussed anything else written by Jim Dunnigan. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever seen you mention Dunnigan in any context.
Then you are uneducated in the basic precepts of scholarship or simply beyond reason. To quote some other person, attribute that quotation to me, and attack the position therein, can only be a foregivable (as long as it is not frequently repeated) identity error or else simply transparently disingenuous. Since you have ruled out the possibility that you represented Timjot's opinion as mine by accident, it is a clear cut and transparent case of extreme intellectual dishonesty and fraud.
You have done this three times with three different persons, in each case representing the other party's opinion as mine as a precurser to a straw man argument. Forthwith follows my petition to the moderators to ban you for a month.
pasternakski wrote:It all depends on how you define "win." A huge proportion of the VPs the Japanese get (and can usually hang onto) in UV are the allotment for Truk and Shortlands. This tends to keep them in games that, when you look at the map and all the Allied control markers in late '43, you would swear to be decisive losses for the Japanese. Thoughtful configuration of victory conditions should be part of any wargame, promoting play balance and rewarding players for having done better than their historical counterparts.
Why is it I'm not surprised? I am merely saying that the measure of "victory" in a wargame is the degree to which you satisfied the "victory conditions," as built into the system by the designer. Any other criterion is nonsense.Tristanjohn wrote:I'm not sure what your ultimate argument is here.
Then you miss the entire point of historical simulation gaming, and it is no surprise to me that you play abysmally.I haven't bothered to check on the "victory points" scheme for UV as it's a matter of complete indifference to me who garners more "points," as it surely will be come WitP. I'm more of a "glance at the map and draw the appropriate conclusions" kind of wargamer when it comes judging "victory" at the end of play.