Freedom of choice

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Even with the force restrictions in place, it's easy enough to use QB's to experiment. For example, if you want to have an unlimited set-up 1000 point game, set up a 3000 point game but only buy 1000 points worth of equipment.

The disadvantage of this approach is that, if you are playing the computer, you will need to either choose the computer's equipment yourself (which would interfere with FOW), or fight a significantly larger force.

You may be able to address the latter option, somewhat, by using the handicapping function that reduces the opponent's available points (i.e., Attacker -50%).

Should be good enough for experimental purposes, anyway.

[Robert Olesen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I don't know why people are picking on Slapdragon. He is being serious. This is not the frist time a position like his has been presented. The "Fantasy Football" type environment is as legit as the one Robert is asking for, so why pick on him for it? Robert wants the line drawn in one place, Slapdragon in another. I have no problem with either request, nor should anybody else.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, on both points. Slapdragons first post was a bit challenging, but the gist of it was clear enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

CM2 will almost certainly have a no force pool point restriction option. The rest of the suggestions, which remove even more restrictions, are probably not going to happen simply because we don't want to spend our time on them at the expense of other features.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I have stated my position clearly and you have understood the message and made (previously, it seems) a conscious decision regarding both issues (map and point limit). Thanks.

That concludes the issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Robert. I think people will generally not use this feature much because it should, in theory, lead to total mismatched battles. Meaning that they won't be much fun for either one or both of the players. Hence why we have force pool restrictions in the first place

Steve

[Robert Olesen]

Just to contradict myself One more answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Thanks Robert. I think people will generally not use this feature much because it should, in theory, lead to total mismatched battles.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right. I probably wouldn't (won't?) use it a lot myself, but I would definitely use it, either to educate myself in hypothetical situations, or because I wanted a force setup that did not quite fit into the given point limits.

An thanks to Andrew for his suggestion, it is a good one.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Slapdragon's a big boy and can take care of himself, but he seems constitutionally incapable of explaining his own jokes. So, here I go:

What Slap is doing is called, amongst rhetoricians and logicians, reductio ad absurdum, taking a proposition to its logical conclusion to show that it produces an absurdity.

From Robert Olesen:

I realise that BTS is putting a lot of effort into making the force setup in QB's as historically correct as possible. That's good. What I do not understand is why this precludes the choice of an unlimited force selection. I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter, as are most if not all ) others who play the game. Why am I not allowed to do that?

I like playing a "historical" QB, and I think the rarity option in CM2 is a good option. But I would also like to be able to experiment with other possibilities. The ability to have a free force selection would not detract from the "historical" QB in any way and I do not see why it should not be implemented as another option.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap simply takes exactly what Robert wants and hypothetically gives it to him. If Robert doesn't like where it leads, well, I'm reminded of an old proverb.

The people on the board who have already declared Blood Hamster™ on Slap refuse to see the joke, and impute to him all sorts of malice, even though he has said (and I think, oddly enough, sincerely) that he has nothing against Fantasy Football per se. He might even enjoy it. But he names it for what it is.

That's it. Back to the 'Pool for me.

Viva la HLF!

Thank you Hakko, an educated man, UNC must be a better school than we Gamecocks think it is.

reductio ad absurdum is indeed an effective debate technique. When the other side does not properly define their argument then it does two things. It magnifies the fallacies of reasoning and it provides a clear rational position when used correctly. This case was tailor made, since there is no good reason why only one historical setting is to be removed and not them all, except displeasure by some people who mostly play Germans at have to choose between quantity and quality in armour selection (which is nothing compared to what the Allies face). It can be abused, for example if we debate that just because we let a brain dead patient die we shoudl let all patients die because the position you choose as absurdim must also be one you would handily take up and accept in defeat. Fantasy Football indeed is a workable way of playing the game, I am totally serious that it would not bother me one bit to have the setting coded into CM2, and it is still an absurdim position becauseyes, it gives people everything they want, just demonstrates they may not really want what they think they want.

As for people getting all uptight and proclaiming that my reasoned arguments are not wanted. Well, they can start a campaign to have me banned, which may or may not work. Or worse, they can start a campaign to have me restricted to the cesspool, a fate worse than death. However, people freaking and ending rational arguments in favor of character attacks and censorship of message usually mean you have come up with a strong, difficult to counter argument, and in essence shot down the opposing argument through logic. Seeing if the opposing side of a discussion is reduced to name calling by the strength of your argument is one reason why I do not particularly explain reductio ad absurdum when I use it.

[Jarmo]

For me, this topic is happily concluded.

I fail to come up with words to show my respect on the way BTS handles these things.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Wow, Cav and Slap really take the cake. You two do nothing in the way of "adding" to a discussion. You only belittle, mock, and generally act like spoiled little brats. One would be hard pressed to recognize your ages above that of 12 at times.

Some people here want to talk about making the game more flexible and different and all you two can contribute is hair pulling and childish attitudes.

What Robert suggested is completely reasonable but you, Slap, take it to the extreme and then mock him. Why don't you grow up or better yet leave this BBS to the adults.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it ironic that those crying for changes to the game to suite their playing needs instrad of using the available options to set-up a game that suits them are calling others "spoiled little brats".

Cav

------------------

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Thank you Hakko, an educated man, UNC must be a better school than we Gamecocks think it is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me state categorically and for the record:

<font size=14 color=blue>Go To Hell, Carolina, Go To Hell!</font>

Or, as it is sometimes abbreviated, GTHCGTH. I have no connection with the University of Carolina, other than as an occasional guest lecturer. My wife (BA Oxon) is a graduate student at Duke; and I went to what was, once upon a time, an institution so far above the common muck that is Carolina as to defy the imagination. I can't begin to imagine why Michael Jordan didn't go there instead. Oh, yeah, better babes at Carolina.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Let me state categorically and for the record:

<font size=14 color=blue>Go To Hell, Carolina, Go To Hell!</font>

Or, as it is sometimes abbreviated, GTHCGTH. I have no connection with the University of Carolina, other than as an occasional guest lecturer. My wife (BA Oxon) is a graduate student at Duke; and I went to what was, once upon a time, an institution so far above the common muck that is Carolina as to defy the imagination. I can't begin to imagine why Michael Jordan didn't go there instead. Oh, yeah, better babes at Carolina.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are being completely unfair. I have met several Carolina students who can read, and even one who could write.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK... on that note, I think it might be good to put this thread to bed and make room for another one on the front page

Steve

[Lordfluffers]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I don't know why people are picking on Slapdragon. He is being serious. This is not the frist time a position like his has been presented. The "Fantasy Football" type environment is as legit as the one Robert is asking for, so why pick on him for it? Robert wants the line drawn in one place, Slapdragon in another. I have no problem with either request, nor should anybody else.

CM2 will almost certainly have a no force pool point restriction option. The rest of the suggestions, which remove even more restrictions, are probably not going to happen simply because we don't want to spend our time on them at the expense of other features.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough BTS... Cant wait :smile: