why do air units rest so much?

[Adam Rinkleff]

white rabbit: ..as, probably, the only organic farmer here with some 25 years behind a plough, i'm willing to debate that, i'll even lead..

I worked on midwest dairy farms for several years; so I think I know what I'm talking about when I describe them as appalling concentration/death camps. Meanwhile, I'm glad to know that certain people here are stalking me online; its kinda cute, although mildly pathetic. Anyways, I'm quite content to support the organic farm movement, and I'm not at all ashamed to admit that I think industrial farming is highly immoral and unhealthy.

rhinobones: In scenarios with 6 hour, half day and full day turn lengths I can easily see units immobilized or disorganized for the entire turn. However, when the turn length is half-week or longer the question becomes, should the unit(s) actually be immobilized for the entire time period? Should the engine be modified so that units have a reasonable probability of coming back on line after a few pulses of the turn? Think so... in any scenario with a time parameter of one half week or longer there should be a possibility that rested, disorganized, reorganized and retreated units have a probability or returning to the battle as functional units.

You see? The very voice of reason itself... He has perfectly expressed what I think.

[Adam Rinkleff]

Colin: tanks are hardened steel packages that move at up to forty miles per hour whilst infantry are little meat bundles who have a hard time averaging more than three. So it would follow that the system should treat them completely differently. But it doesn't. So why this demand that the system automatically handle your air units when it doesn't do the same for your ground units?

First off, I am not demanding that the system automatically handle my air units; it already does, duh, and what I'm asking is that it STOP. The time to fix this could probably by measured in minutes, and would essentially involve highlighting some code, and hitting the delete key; or, a very simple switch function could be made which gives people the option of turning the offending function off. Secondly, it would not be very difficult to make an improvement to the code, which involves some method by which auto-rested air-units are returned to duty. Thirdly, easy fixes like this should be given high priority, rather than complicated changes such as a revision of naval combat or supply -- this is a concept known as 'triage'. Thirdly, the system DOES treat infantry and tanks differently; that is the whole point of armor and AT.

Meanwhile, just look at how the program handles air units currently... ooooh, you see all that about combat support, interdiction, air superiority? Notice how ground units don't have those options? Yah, see, it ALREADY treats them differently, so how am I being ridiculous by concluding that since they are in fact fundamentally different, that they should be treated differently? Why would you even ask me about the difference between ground and air units? Isn't it patently obvious?

Ground units get pinned down, lost, disorganized, diseased, physically blocked by terrain, and extremely demoralized; meanwhile, air units are stationed at airfields, and no matter how tired or depressed the pilots are, its never really all that hard to start the engine, drive down the runaway, take off, and fly around... therefore, so long as readiness/supply are high, air units should basically NEVER rest for more than 6-12 hours, except when the player specifically orders them to do so -- this is particularly true of air superiority missions. Quite simply, an air unit resting is absolutely NOT the same thing as a ground unit aborting an attack; a ground unit aborting attack involves a commander screaming over the field telephone that they can't advance, whereas an air unit resting involves guys standing around eating doughnuts, drinking coffee, and playing golf.

[sPzAbt653]

'during PM turns the computer tends to automatically put units into a permanent rest state until the user manually changes their status -- thus, the problem is not that they rest at night, but that they don't unrest the next day.'

Thanks for that, you got me clear now. I don't know anything about internet trolls, Iowa, military service, prions or fat women, but the above statement brought back memory of the time I started COW. Learning a new system (left click, right click, this button not that one...) was one thing, but my computer won't hold the orders I gave to about half of my air units! Maddening at the time, eventually it seemed they did that so they didn't continue fighting until evaporation. I'm quite used to it now. I feel I can reset them until they go orange, then I can leave them alone without fear they will return to the air. If there was a setting for a player chosen point at which to rest it would be nice, it's probably on the Big Wishlist somewhere, near the bottom with the Elephants and red ass monkeys.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Colin: tanks are hardened steel packages that move at up to forty miles per hour whilst infantry are little meat bundles who have a hard time averaging more than three. So it would follow that the system should treat them completely differently. But it doesn't. So why this demand that the system automatically handle your air units when it doesn't do the same for your ground units?

First off, I am not demanding that the system automatically handle my air units; it already does, duh, and what I'm asking is that it STOP. The time to fix this could probably by measured in minutes, and would essentially involve highlighting some code, and hitting the delete key; or, a very simple switch function could be made which gives people the option of turning the offending function off. Secondly, it would not be very difficult to make an improvement to the code, which involves some method by which auto-rested air-units are returned to duty. Thirdly, easy fixes like this should be given high priority, rather than complicated changes such as a revision of naval combat or supply -- this is a concept known as 'triage'.

No, actually triage doesn't work like that. Among other things, injuries not requiring immediate treatment are ignored. Like -- say -- your need to see air units keep flying without your resetting them each round.

Thirdly, the system DOES treat infantry and tanks differently; that is the whole point of armor and AT.

Meanwhile, just look at how the program handles air units currently... ooooh, you see all that about combat support, interdiction, air superiority? Notice how ground units don't have those options? Yah, see, it ALREADY treats them differently, so how am I being ridiculous by concluding that since they are in fact fundamentally different, that they should be treated differently? Why would you even ask me about the difference between ground and air units? Isn't it patently obvious?

The point is that if you want a ground unit to repeat an attack, or to continue to dig in, or to have another go at fixing the bridge, you have to tell it to do so.

Apparently you don't perceive this as a problem -- but it is a problem that air units will stop flying combat support of their own accord. What's the distinction?

Ground units get pinned down, lost, disorganized, diseased, physically blocked by terrain, and extremely demoralized; meanwhile, air units are stationed at airfields, and no matter how tired or depressed the pilots are, its never really all that hard to start the engine, drive down the runaway, take off, and fly around... therefore, so long as readiness/supply are high, air units should basically NEVER rest for more than 6-12 hours, except when the player specifically orders them to do so -- this is particularly true of air superiority missions. Quite simply, an air unit resting is absolutely NOT the same thing as a ground unit aborting an attack; a ground unit aborting attack involves a commander screaming over the field telephone that they can't advance, whereas an air unit resting involves guys standing around eating doughnuts, drinking coffee, and playing golf.

Does it? Perhaps it involves getting more ammo for the tail guns, or doing something about the fact that no fully-trained lead navigators are still alive, or catching up on needed maintenance, or whatever.

Anyway, you can just reset the units to whatever you want. I still don't see why this is a 'serious problem.' You never explain that. You've just seized upon this 'issue.' It's a trival point. It's hard to imagine a more trivial point.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

white rabbit: ..as, probably, the only organic farmer here with some 25 years behind a plough, i'm willing to debate that, i'll even lead..

I worked on midwest dairy farms for several years; so I think I know what I'm talking about when I describe them as appalling concentration/death camps. Meanwhile, I'm glad to know that certain people here are stalking me online; its kinda cute, although mildly pathetic.

This is cute. You apparently have no idea what stalking is. I've been subjected to far worse than you've gotten to date -- and it didn't even occur to me to regard it as 'stalking.'

[Adam Rinkleff]

If you want a ground unit to repeat an attack, or to continue to dig in, or to have another go at fixing the bridge, you have to tell it to do so. Apparently you don't perceive this as a problem -- but it is a problem that air units will stop flying combat support of their own accord. What's the distinction?

Ok, um, look, um, air superiority missions, right, well, basically, you take your planes up, every single day, and try to find enemy planes, and shoot at them... so, um, yah, if you rest... then you aren't doing air superiority. So yah, basically, an air unit resting is not like a land unit sitting there, because that land unit is still active, and it will still actively engage in battle, and if you set it to tactical defense it will still do that, and if you set it to local defense it will still do that... but if you set an air unit to do something... it'll quit, and you'll have to go back turn after turn and remind it.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

white rabbit: ..as, probably, the only organic farmer here with some 25 years behind a plough, i'm willing to debate that, i'll even lead..

I worked on midwest dairy farms for several years; so I think I know what I'm talking about when I describe them as appalling concentration/death camps.

You're just proving my point about your inability to use language with any precision.

[Adam Rinkleff]

Colin: You're just proving my point about your inability to use language with any precision.

Either that, or you are proving my point about your utter ignorance of the subject...

Colin: Perhaps it involves getting more ammo for the tail guns, or doing something about the fact that no fully-trained lead navigators are still alive, or catching up on needed maintenance, or whatever.

Um, could you stop spamming the thread up with your poorly considered comments? Seriously, do you think clicking on an air unit magically finds more ammo for the tail guns, or magically generates fully-trained lead navigators? And what part of 100% supply, 100% proficiency, 100% readiness do you have trouble understanding? Duh, anyone who thinks being forced to click on every single unit, every single turn, in order to issue them the exact same orders that they were issued last turn is... well... lets just say that you probably waste a lot of time in your daily routine.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Colin: You're just proving my point about your inability to use language with any precision.

Either that, or you are proving my point about your utter ignorance of the subject...

Okay, human beings are being herded into camps and gassed by the millions in Iowa. I didn't realize.

Colin: Perhaps it involves getting more ammo for the tail guns, or doing something about the fact that no fully-trained lead navigators are still alive, or catching up on needed maintenance, or whatever.

Um, could you stop spamming the thread up with your poorly considered comments?

Why are they 'poorly considered comments'? Your assertion was that the units were shutting down for coffee and donuts. Actually, they're shutting down when their readiness and supply drops below a certain level. What do you think those drops represent? I think they represent the sort of things I mentioned.

[Karri]

Whatever the issue here is, why do air units go on rest so often? Not talking about re-organisation...but for example I set x numbers of unit on air superiority, then an enemy interdiction happens and my air units go to rest. Then I have to change them to air superiority again. I see no point in this.

[Curtis Lemay]

This isn't just an issue of convenience. If the turn ends early, you can find all your air units in "rest" for the duration of the enemy player turn. That means spending the enemy turn without air support, even if you have air supremacy. It's similar to the issue that wishlist item 7.12.2 tries to address.

Curiously, note that air units in garrison formations never change to "rest" state. They keep their assigned orders regardless of seeing action.

[Veers]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Veers]

Now a couple things.

A) Wolflars: Wrinkle here went after James in the 'fundraiser' thread. I ran defence for James with an angry, though level-headed, reponse. He got mad, I got mad, he through a funny out, I threw a funny out. At about the same time he was making posts in this thread (first page). You'll see that I reprimanded him for trying to tear a strip off of Desert and then threw my funny about being the 'King of Canada' out. At that point, he was angry and I was just having fun with it.
So, if running defence of people I felt were being unduely attacked and then responding in kind to later comments is trolling, then yeah, I'm guilty. [:D]

B) In my experience, air units do not go into rest all that often. Perhaps this is because I generally play large-scale games, but still, that is my experience. I, personally, quite like that my units go into rest, it lets me know which units I need to evaluate to see if they really do need a rest. Most times I will follow the comp's advice, unless the situation is desperate and I need those birds in the air. However, Bob's (Lemay's) comment about the computer's descision meaning the unit is turned off of air sup for the next turn is valid.

However, the only scenario I have really played that had air as vital and saw units put onto rest often was atourney game I played of JL's Operation Lion Der Mer.
During this game I would often see that my opponent's AS number was quite low, until after the first round of combat, at which point my opponent's AS values rose dramatically, indicating to me that the units that were stuck on rest were coming back to AS (Anyone know for sure if this is a correct assumption?).

C) Oh yeah, knew I had one more thing. Rinkleff never did say he wasn't that guy from Wikipedia, did he?

D) Also, kudos for trying to deflate the situation Wolflars. Too bad somebody made that attempt fail...[8|]

[Adam Rinkleff]

Colin: Okay, human beings are being herded into camps and gassed by the millions in Iowa. I didn't realize.

Cows, chickens, and pigs, not humans.

Colin: They're shutting down when their readiness and supply drops below a certain level.

Nope, they are not shutting down because of readiness and supply, I made sure of that by setting the values to 100 -- please stop posting, you are clearly not paying close attention to what people are saying.

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]... etc

Dude, seriously, could you stop spamming us with your immature BS?

Kerri: Why do air units go on rest so often? Not talking about re-organisation...but for example I set x numbers of unit on air superiority, then an enemy interdiction happens and my air units go to rest. Then I have to change them to air superiority again. I see no point in this.

Exactly what I think.

Lemay: This isn't just an issue of convenience. If the turn ends early, you can find all your air units in "rest" for the duration of the enemy player turn. That means spending the enemy turn without air support, even if you have air supremacy.

I agree, although it is an issue of convenience, it is not merely one; the problem is also unrealistic and disrupts the game -- scenario designers should have the ability to create more durable air units, rather than being forced to use units which require constant micro-management.

[wolflars]

Christ, why am I bothering?

Note: Mr Rinkleff, read the entire thread for the happy ending. I apologize to all for the unnecessary length.


I know I said I was done here but…I think, despite the obnoxious behavior (some of which is proudly mine) Mr Rinkleff has finally gotten around to the crux of his complaint.

I honestly wish this discussion was going better because I have no problem with minor issues being revisited for discussion. New and inexperienced players like Mr Rinkleff can sometimes bring fresh and new ideas into the fray against what is, and I agree with this kid on this point, a very entrenched community. But again, I suggest to Mr Rinkleff that he take a good hard look at his stance to determine if he is just being obstinate or if the complaint is valid.

But before I get down to brass tacks, I feel the need to entertain myself by trolling, elfing or whatever he calls it—sorry not too familiar with all the hip new D&D lingo all the cool kids are using these days.

@ the King of Canada , I like the new pic and keep up the smiley faces. This kid has accused you of immature BS which pretty ironic when you read his or anybody’s posts. The King simply reminds us that we are all full of **** and some people take themselves way too seriously.

@Mr Colin

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This is cute. You apparently have no idea what stalking is. I've been subjected to far worse than you've gotten to date --

He is right about this…I’m outside his house right now…Good morning Colin.

@Mr rhinobones

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Norm Koger is a veteran of the US air force.

US Air Force, wow! That's almost like being in a military service.

It also explains a lot about the problems with land and sea combat.

Regards, Rhinobones, USMC

I laughed at this. Go over to strategypage.com and find the joke called Military rules, by Service.

@Mr Rinkleff, Colin’s question of “what precisely” is obviously what you have trouble with here. Listen kid, if you want to pin down what you are trying to get at stop talking about realism, doughnuts, trolls, and magic click and say what you mean. Kid, you are obviously not stupid but you seem to have a hard time explaining why you think this is a problem, if it is at all. I told you earlier: stop getting so flustered. You let these guys get under your skin too easily and you have responded with a kind of whining tone that makes most of us want to take your lunch money. It’s not productive.---by the way if you are the same Rinkleff who wrote the scathing review of wikipedia, kudos to you. I teach a whole segment on why wikipedia threatens liberty, it’s a pet peeve of mine. Furthermore, since I was the one who brought this off topic item up, let me assure you I am not stalking you. Actually, how I came across it was when I was looking for the thread on Veers and trolls. I copy pasted “Adam Rinkleff troll” into Google instead of the forum search and it came up with all the stuff about “Adam Rinkleff is a troll” blah blah blah. You have to admit after all of your troll accusations, it is funny.

Now here is---finally---this Mr Rinkleff’s point (correct me if I am wrong kid)

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Lemay: This isn't just an issue of convenience. If the turn ends early, you can find all your air units in "rest" for the duration of the enemy player turn. That means spending the enemy turn without air support, even if you have air supremacy.

I agree, although it is an issue of convenience, it is not merely one; the problem is also unrealistic and disrupts the game -- scenario designers should have the ability to create more durable air units, rather than being forced to use units which require constant micro-management.

Finally.

Okay, first throw out convenience. That is irrelevant. It’s not even a point of bad UI. TOAW is complex, it is supposed to be. In terms of UI it’s average—with the possible exception of the event editor. You got nothing here kid.

Does it disrupt the game?

It can, but the more important question is whether or not it is supposed to. Evidently, it is intentional. So, the disruption is intentional. You got nothing here kid.

Unrealistic?

Here is where conjecture comes in on all sides. No game is realistic. I have a back full of shrapnel, none of it came from a game. Now, doughnuts, trolls, commanders calling airfields and all that non-sense aside we should be trying to determine if the model is as realistic as is reasonably possible. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of explaining reason into the mechanism (eg the model exists, so therefore it is realisitic, therefore the units going into rest MUST represent some kind realistic and necessary action). Again, I teach logic, trust me this does not work. You have to start from the left side of the equation, so to speak. We must ask ourselves, if we were to build a model from scratch, in the end, would it look like this?

Mr Rinkleff wants to build air units (aka the Iron Eagle group) that are capable of doing unrealistic feats yets complains that the way existing units perform is unrealistic. Weird? Yes. However, we don’t know what kind of scenario he is building, so how can we say he is absurd. I know some of his scenarios are fictional based and some are pre-20th century so he probably has good reason for wanting air units that are relentless. Specifically, we don’t know and he hasn’t said.

Critiquing Mr Rinkleff for wanting this is absurd too. Many designers have done “weird” things in order to get the existing system to do what they want it to. If he is building a France 1940 under normal circumstances, for example, then we can perfectly well say he is wrong for wanting this but otherwise we simply don’t know. Regardless, however, Mr Rinkleff must be brought to realize that the TOAW engine was initially designed to simulate Operational Warfare—mostly ground—in the middle 20th century. If he is trying to stretch the engine, great.

But, he has to be prepared for possible disappointment. Look at the Waterloo scenario. Good attempt, really puts the engine to the test but I don’t think it works. It’s just not fun. And despite what some might say, TOAW is a game, games are supposed to be fun. (note: I meant no slam to Bob’s work, Waterloo just doesn’t do it for me, CFNA is one of the best however.)

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
scenario designers should have the ability to create more durable air units,

No doubt—but I also think scenario designers should have the ability to do a lot of stuff they can’t but this does not mean the system is broken or wrong (bigger map, more units slots, breakdown limits, in game command/formation exchange etc, river hexsides AND river hexes). This has to do with expectations however. The game provides very intentional limitations. Those limitations are not up for discussion in the present engine. It does what it was intended to do. The Iron Eagle Group is clearly outside of what is intended by the original design. TOAW is not, nor has it ever been, a 100% cure all-does all wargame construction kit capable of simulating every type of warfare. It has a window, a very specific one and as narrow as it is, that was its promise from the very beginning.

If Mr Rinkleff wants to explore the unrealistic vs realistic aspect further, we really need to look at the equation. Where is Ralph? Further discussion on this topic is moot without a precise examination of the formula (s) used to determine when and how air units revert to rest. The “why” in this case is irrelevant because the best anyone can do is feed explanations back into the existing model, this does not work and is largely pointless.

Note: I still regard the feature as it exists as being the best solution but am always willing to entertain new ideas provided they are reasonable. As is I think it introduces a welcome variability in regards to early turn endings.

This is not crippling no matter how you look at it, the supply system is the real joke. How this affects Mr Rinkleff is dependant on what kind of scenario he is building. If TOAW were supposed to be all encompassing and without limitations I would agree with his desire to somehow override this feature. However, TOAW is not and the only area that is can be truly debated is the when and how of air units going into rest. As ridiculous as any unit with 100% proficiency, supply, etc might be, they should, theoretically be largely immune to the engines attempt to re-direct orders. Then again, you should never get more than one round with these types of units too since they would literally fly until they fell out of the sky.

[Adam Rinkleff]

Wolflars: Okay, first throw out convenience. That is irrelevant.

Sorry, convenience is relevant. A working GUI interface with logical player-program interfaces is critical to every computer application.

Wolflars: Does it disrupt the game?It can, but the more important question is whether or not it is supposed to. Evidently, it is intentional. So, the disruption is intentional.

That isn't a very logical argument; just because something is intentional, does not mean it is correct, accurate, realistic, or appropriate. Furthermore, I doubt that this is truly intentional; none of you really has any idea what exactly Norm intended, but I think it is obvious that the program is imperfect, and therefore does not reflect his intentions with perfect accuracy. In my opinion, this problem is not intentional, but it is an accidental oversight.

Wolflars: No game is realistic.

So? Should we accept mediocrity, simply because the world is full of it?

Wolflars: Mr Rinkleff wants to build air units (aka the Iron Eagle group) that are capable of doing unrealistic feats yets complains that the way existing units perform is unrealistic.

For someone who pretends to teach logic, you apparently have no grasp of what a 'strawman argument' is -- in no way whatsoever have I wanted to create units capable of doing unrealistic feats; what I want, is an air unit which can generally maintain an air-superiority combat-mission for at least 12 hours a day, for several days in a row, without having to be told every single day to get back to work. If you think that is unrealistic, then you don't know what you are talking about.

Wolflars: TOAW is a game, games are supposed to be fun.

So, you think it is fun to click on every single air unit, every single turn, to issue it the same orders you gave it last turn? Doesn't sound fun to me...

you are obviously not stupid but you seem to have a hard time explaining why you think this is a problem, if it is at all.

At least three people have posted here in apparent agreement with me, which indicates that they understood me perfectly; so I don't think I've had a very hard time explaining this at all. Instead, I would suggest that certain people have a hard time understanding.

Wolflars: As ridiculous as any unit with 100% proficiency, supply, etc might be, they should, theoretically be largely immune to the engines attempt to re-direct orders.

I agree, and the program should be fixed so that high profiency/supply levels can be used to create competent air units. I'm glad we agree!

[desert]

I don't really care either way - never had a problem with this.
 
Since the next patch wont come out for some time, you will not see this fixed anytime soon.
 
You would like to see a fix included in the next patch, wouldn't you?
 

For someone who pretends to teach logic, you apparently have no grasp of what a 'strawman argument' is -- in no way whatsoever have I wanted to create units capable of doing unrealistic feats; what I want, is an air unit which can generally maintain an air-superiority combat-mission for at least 12 hours a day, for several days in a row, without having to be told every single day to get back to work. If you think that is unrealistic, then you don't know what you are talking about.

 
That isnt a strawman, since he isnt arguing that you want to build units capable of unrealistic feats. You have therefore commited the fallacy of abstraction. [:)]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
If there was a setting for a player chosen point at which to rest it would be nice, it's probably on the Big Wishlist somewhere, near the bottom with the Elephants and red ass monkeys.

Damn...we need to find the leaker. Somebody talked about the red ass monkeys again...[:D]

[Adam Rinkleff]

That isnt a strawman, since he isnt arguing that you want to build units capable of unrealistic feats. You have therefore commited the fallacy of abstraction. [:)]

Um? He said, "Mr Rinkleff wants to build air units (aka the Iron Eagle group) that are capable of doing unrealistic feats." I've never wanted to build such air units.

[desert]

Is that his whole point?

PS: What ARE the red ass monkeys?