A Day in the Life of a Disputer
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:12 pm
Gents,
I'm embroiled deep into '43 in my PBEM game and I'm having alot of fun. The game is tense and challenging and vast in scope. At times the game can be vexing (due to abnormalities or bugs) or tedious (lord have mercy at the micromanagement).
Part of the growing pains of a new and vast and complicated game is identifying and then addressing bugs and abnormalities. The burden of proof is rightfully on the person suggesting that something is out of whack and should be fixed. That is there should be credible evidence that a problem exists before changes are made.
Since my opponent and I have gone further into the game than most, we've perhaps had more of a chance to encounter, note, and publicize problems. Being in this position is not particularly pleasant. Here's a flow chart of how things tend to go for a "complainer." Just to humor me, assume that a player has identified a genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed - say, that Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers.
Disputer: Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers. In the real war, the Americans lost 47 destroyers in the Pacific. Three were lost to submarines. None of those three were serving as escorts or in ASW TFs. That's right, Japanese subs claimed ZERO DDs serving as escorts and in ASW TFs. In my game I've lost seventeen ASW DDs in four weeks to Japanese subs. Something needs to be fixed.
Skeptic One: Seventeen destroyers in four weeks? That sounds about right to me.
Skeptic Two: Well, sub doctrine is off so what do you expect?
Disputer: Um, since sub doctrine is off, doesn't that mean that a higher percentage of Japanese subs would be targeting merchant ships, leaving even fewer to flail unsuccessfully against destroyers?
Skeptic Three: You're just biased.
Skeptic Four: You're an idiot.
Skeptic Five: You're wrong. (I've developed a dislike for you. Therefore, I'm going to gainsay anything you say no matter how reasonable and justified).
Skeptic Two: Do you have skillful captains in command of your destroyers?
Skeptic Four: What is the training level of your crews?
Skeptic One: What about their nighttime experience?
Skeptic Six: Perhaps you've used your destroyers improperly.
Skeptic Seven: Your opponent is a very gifted player. He's far more intelligent than the entire Japanese Naval Staff and therefore I would expect him to better employ Japanese submarines.
Skeptic Eight: Quit whining.
Skeptic Nine: Your opponent says you keep sending your DDs to this one particular hex. He has 132 subs parked there.
Disputer: Um, I don't send my destroyers to one particular hex. They're in various escort and ASW TFs all over the map.
Skeptic Nine: Do you have data to back that up? Let me see it.
Skeptic Ten: Yes, I'd like to see detailed information for every American destroyer - date arrived, every hex in which they've passed through, Japanese subs confirmed or suspected in each such hex, salinity of the water in said hex, weather for that particular moment.
Skeptic Eleven: Your complaints are upsetting those who worked long and hard on the game. Please desist your whining.
Skeptic Twelve: You're wrong. In my game no detroyers have been sunk by Japanese subs and it is already December 9, 1941. Something's wrong with Japanese subs.
Skeptic Thirteen: Since we're getting complaints both ways it must mean there's no problem.
Skeptic Fourteen: I'm not seeing this. In my game against the AI it's already January 1, 1944 and I haven't lost a single Allied ship of any kind anywhere on the map. I've only lost thirteen aircraft. On the other hand, I've sunk 5,987 ships and my opponent has lost 125,865 aircraft. I've already occupied Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Osaka. The game looks pretty balanced to me.
Hijacker One: Speaking of Osaka, the Cubs have a third baseman who played in the Little League World Series against a team from Taiwan a few years ago.
Skeptic Six: Even if this is a problem, which I seriously doubt, it should just be handled by a House Rule.
Skeptic Four: The game is already hard enough on the Japanese. If you make it any harder I won't play.
Disputer: We've played another four months and I've lost seventeen more ASW destroyers to enemy submarines.
Skeptic Fifteen: I'm not sure I understand your point.
Disputer: [repeats point]
Skeptic Seven: Okay, we get it. You think there's a problem with Japanese subs. Will you quit repeating yourself endlessly? What a whiner. Sheesh.
Skeptic Sixteen: I don't doubt you are seeing skewed results in your game, but I'm not seeing it in my own games.
Hijacker Two: The rations of Japanese crews included lots of starches (rice). Same with German crews (potatoes). I wonder if German destroyers were the most powerful afloat?
I'm embroiled deep into '43 in my PBEM game and I'm having alot of fun. The game is tense and challenging and vast in scope. At times the game can be vexing (due to abnormalities or bugs) or tedious (lord have mercy at the micromanagement).
Part of the growing pains of a new and vast and complicated game is identifying and then addressing bugs and abnormalities. The burden of proof is rightfully on the person suggesting that something is out of whack and should be fixed. That is there should be credible evidence that a problem exists before changes are made.
Since my opponent and I have gone further into the game than most, we've perhaps had more of a chance to encounter, note, and publicize problems. Being in this position is not particularly pleasant. Here's a flow chart of how things tend to go for a "complainer." Just to humor me, assume that a player has identified a genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed - say, that Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers.
Disputer: Japanese subs are too lethal against Allied destroyers. In the real war, the Americans lost 47 destroyers in the Pacific. Three were lost to submarines. None of those three were serving as escorts or in ASW TFs. That's right, Japanese subs claimed ZERO DDs serving as escorts and in ASW TFs. In my game I've lost seventeen ASW DDs in four weeks to Japanese subs. Something needs to be fixed.
Skeptic One: Seventeen destroyers in four weeks? That sounds about right to me.
Skeptic Two: Well, sub doctrine is off so what do you expect?
Disputer: Um, since sub doctrine is off, doesn't that mean that a higher percentage of Japanese subs would be targeting merchant ships, leaving even fewer to flail unsuccessfully against destroyers?
Skeptic Three: You're just biased.
Skeptic Four: You're an idiot.
Skeptic Five: You're wrong. (I've developed a dislike for you. Therefore, I'm going to gainsay anything you say no matter how reasonable and justified).
Skeptic Two: Do you have skillful captains in command of your destroyers?
Skeptic Four: What is the training level of your crews?
Skeptic One: What about their nighttime experience?
Skeptic Six: Perhaps you've used your destroyers improperly.
Skeptic Seven: Your opponent is a very gifted player. He's far more intelligent than the entire Japanese Naval Staff and therefore I would expect him to better employ Japanese submarines.
Skeptic Eight: Quit whining.
Skeptic Nine: Your opponent says you keep sending your DDs to this one particular hex. He has 132 subs parked there.
Disputer: Um, I don't send my destroyers to one particular hex. They're in various escort and ASW TFs all over the map.
Skeptic Nine: Do you have data to back that up? Let me see it.
Skeptic Ten: Yes, I'd like to see detailed information for every American destroyer - date arrived, every hex in which they've passed through, Japanese subs confirmed or suspected in each such hex, salinity of the water in said hex, weather for that particular moment.
Skeptic Eleven: Your complaints are upsetting those who worked long and hard on the game. Please desist your whining.
Skeptic Twelve: You're wrong. In my game no detroyers have been sunk by Japanese subs and it is already December 9, 1941. Something's wrong with Japanese subs.
Skeptic Thirteen: Since we're getting complaints both ways it must mean there's no problem.
Skeptic Fourteen: I'm not seeing this. In my game against the AI it's already January 1, 1944 and I haven't lost a single Allied ship of any kind anywhere on the map. I've only lost thirteen aircraft. On the other hand, I've sunk 5,987 ships and my opponent has lost 125,865 aircraft. I've already occupied Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Osaka. The game looks pretty balanced to me.
Hijacker One: Speaking of Osaka, the Cubs have a third baseman who played in the Little League World Series against a team from Taiwan a few years ago.
Skeptic Six: Even if this is a problem, which I seriously doubt, it should just be handled by a House Rule.
Skeptic Four: The game is already hard enough on the Japanese. If you make it any harder I won't play.
Disputer: We've played another four months and I've lost seventeen more ASW destroyers to enemy submarines.
Skeptic Fifteen: I'm not sure I understand your point.
Disputer: [repeats point]
Skeptic Seven: Okay, we get it. You think there's a problem with Japanese subs. Will you quit repeating yourself endlessly? What a whiner. Sheesh.
Skeptic Sixteen: I don't doubt you are seeing skewed results in your game, but I'm not seeing it in my own games.
Hijacker Two: The rations of Japanese crews included lots of starches (rice). Same with German crews (potatoes). I wonder if German destroyers were the most powerful afloat?
