Some comments about QB point changes

January 22, 2001

One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player. Tanks feared infantry, especially in buildings, but when they can pick out which enemy is carrying a small PIAT amongst 20 other targets, it seems to me to be unrealistic. I have discussed this aspect with many ww2 non-CM gamers and they all agree. You might as well make a mod for a bright orange PIAT so it reflects CM reality. Too bad it is hard coded

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

M Hofbauer · January 22, 2001

Steve,

thanks for the explanation. I think I now understand what you mean regarding the "disparity despite equal points" - issue. Although I think that the example of the Puma is not a good one, Jarmo is right in his assessment that the Puma is a far cry from a superweapon, I have come to the personal conclusion that all it takes is a 60mm mortar and a 50cal HMG to disenchant the turtle-turret Puma )

me: "I'm an infantry player, a cc-borne tank hater, but if CM is reduced to "mostly infantry" it loses a lot."

Steve/BTS: "I disagree.(...)"

yes, my fault, I should have written "if CM was reduced to infantry it would lose a lot."

again thanks,

yours sincerely,

M. Hofbauer

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

Jarmo · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

I bet Steve runs around the office screaming a lot...

LOL!

I can just imagine him reading the forum, gasping for breath, pulling his hair,

shouting obscenities, kicking down things.

"Guess where you can stuff your point difference!"

January 22, 2001

Panther wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And now the german player is more hard pressed to deal with allied armor. So what is really fixed here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that the Germans had the easier time in 1.05. I challenge you, or anybody, to establish that the Germans now have a TOUGHER time engaging Allied armor than the Allies have engaging German. In fact, I am willing to bet that the Germans still have the easier time with 1.1, just not as much as 1.05. So what did we fix? We didn't fix anything. We did make it closer to being equal though. And since the Germans had the advantage, the new balance obviously must come at their expense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I cant prove this to you but I can give you my gut feeling. I have played, and in 95% of tcp/ip games I have played, the one with the last tank wins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is the case, now it is certainly better balanced. I can take care of a lone Allied tank far easier than I can a lone German one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jeesus....who is talking about rolling out 10 Jagdtigers? My god, this is ludicrous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was intentional to hammer home a point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And it increases others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, so that now both sides are more evenly matched. You can't achieve parity from inbalance without taking away from one side and giving to the other. If your position is that we have gone overboard and made the Allies stronger, you have presented not even a hint of a case to support this assumption. On the contrary, the only detailed look into this has produced results that prove our case and not yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So in a sense my idea that this does not helps decrease historical accuracy is fairly right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you assume that the Allies now have an ADVANTAGE. As I have said from the beginning... if this is your position, establish it present it here. We will listen. Otherwise, your assumption is unfounded and therefore not to be taken seriously.

To sum up.... the people against our changes have not presented anything to demonstrate that the situation now is less balanced than it was in 1.05. If someone can do this we will gladly look into making further changes. Until this happens I will easily bat asside any suggestion for changes or charges that the system now is unfair.

Steve

January 22, 2001

Mr. Clark:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I bet Steve runs around the office screaming a lot...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... then I pick up something like my G3 and go outside and blast a little piece of paper into shreads And people wonder why I need something that is full automatic! Days like the last two I have had here really call for a Vulcan (A-10 weapon) with 4000 rounds of ammo nearby

Steve

ColumbusOHGamer · January 22, 2001

Move over, I'm jumping on the bandwagon!

I usually don't get in the middle of these things, but I just wanted to point out one thing:

The 1000 pt QB will now be more historical, but maybe not as enjoyable.

If you play veteren(sp) 1000pt game, Axis can only have one tank with a turret, PZ IV, and Amis get 2. I'd pick a M4A3 and either another M4A3 or M10. Like someone else said, if I play with 1/2 a brain (like my wife says I have), I'll be at a big advantage. As Jerry, I'd better hide my little panzer until I've got a perfect shot or if I don't, it'll be a long game.

Not complaining (I always wondered when I'd see a 3-5:1 ratio Sherm:Panzer), just pointing out that the playability may be affected. Thanks.

COG

Gunny Bunny · January 22, 2001

This person plays CM, they understand what is REALLY happening. You get the truth from playing CM not from running tests.

Gunny Bunny

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player. Tanks feared infantry, especially in buildings, but when they can pick out which enemy is carrying a small PIAT amongst 20 other targets, it seems to me to be unrealistic. I have discussed this aspect with many ww2 non-CM gamers and they all agree. You might as well make a mod for a bright orange PIAT so it reflects CM reality. Too bad it is hard coded

Jarmo · January 22, 2001

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

The fact that the Germans had the easier time in 1.05. I challenge you, or anybody, to establish that the Germans now have a TOUGHER time engaging Allied armor than the Allies have engaging German.

I wonder where this came from? I'd really like to know. (seriously, no sarcsm)

There were several sometimes heated debates about this a while back.

After those I was left with a feeling that an understanding was reached there was no imbalance.

Rugged Defense tournament results seemed to back this up.

Note, I'm not saying there's necessarily an imbalance now. Really too early to tell.

One, or even dozen games don't prove anything yet. It'll take maybe a month more to

say anything concrete.

Slapdragon · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

posted by BTS:

Jeesus....who is talking about rolling out 10 Jagdtigers? My god, this is ludicrous. Who wants that? It is obvious that if one wants 10 Jagdtigers they will play an armor battle? No? I dont understand this statement becouse IT IS OBVIOUS we are talknig about small 1000 point ca me's. I dont see the relevancy.

Until a Rarity system is in place, there will be no elimnation of "gamey" unit choices. However, it does reduce certain balancing problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it increases others. So in a sense my idea that this does not helps decrease historical accuracy is fairly right. If you essentaily change to less armor, but add more mechs for axis this merely changes th units you use, but does not decrease historic accuracy...In fact some may argue that it is less so...considering the extreme rarity of the pumas. Panthers were made in the 1000's (6000), and that panthers were used often in normandy. Geeshh...I wonder how many panthers were on the western front then pumas?

Anyway...I do not have anymore time right now to write this post, I will leave it as is and continue later.

Thanks for your time

In theory, I agree that the last tank standing is a winner in 500 and 1000 point MEs, but I think it is not for reason you think. I think it is because it represents the last concentration of mobile power on the board in some cases, thus becoming the arm of descsion, especially when in smaller games it is a concentration of from 1/10th to 1/5th the total force structure firepower. I think the last halftrack team can also servce this function, as can the last complete infantry task group with a good load of ammunition. It is not that it is a tank. It is that it is concentration of mobile power.

Now, in the way the game works, the tanks is actually the most vulnerable concentration of power because so many things kill it out right. This is double for the Allies because they are facing much better antitank weapons (panzerfaust and panzerchreck) that make being within 200 meters of any unidentified enemy dangerous.

So the last tank standing, while a balance tipper, can also be gone in sixty seconds. Which is what would happen in historical battles anyway: tank attrition being higher than infantry attrition.

I would point out the number of very effective under 100 point tanks that can take on any tank on the other side that the Germans have, while the US really do not have it. Sure, some Axis players fear the Stuart and the Greyhound irrationally, but only because they probably do not keep flank support out and got burned by them popping up from behind. Compare the tank killing power of a Stug with a Stuart, both in the same price range, and tell me the Germans do not have the ability, well played, to attrit Allied tanks forces even with fewer tanks. And this does not include the other antitank forces running around.

Treeburst155 · January 22, 2001

I agree the tac AI sure is good at picking out AT assets. I'm not sure yet but I think it can even pick out the squad in a platoon that has the best panzerfaust capabilities (quantity/range). I'll need to run some tests on that. I'm not so sure this is unrealistic however. I haven't paid close enough attention to what ranges the AI regularly detects AT units. That would have a bearing on how realistic things are IMO.

Treeburst155

January 22, 2001

Jarmo wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I wonder where this came from? I'd really like to know. (seriously, no sarcsm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue has come up in many threads since practically the first release. The inherent problem of Allied quantity vs. German technical superiority. 1.05 and prior made it very difficult to achieve this because the Allied point distributions did not take into account weak Vehicle choices and the inherent advantage German vehicles have (point for point) in AFV vs. AFV situations. The only way to correct this in 1.05 or prior was to puchase Allied "heavies" and as many M8s as possible, play a much better game tactically, get really lucky, or a combo of all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There were several sometimes heated debates about this a while back.

After those I was left with a feeling that an understanding was reached there was no imbalance.

Rugged Defense tournament results seemed to back this up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the RD results prove that, over a certain average, QBs were equal. What it doesn't show is what kind of forces were used. I expect that we will see RD results in a few months that split winnings 50/50, but if one looked at the details the unit compositions would be different. However, if the Allied players are more used to playing "smarter" they might have an edge against some German players that rellied too heavily on brute strength rather than skill.

Steve

Panther131 · January 22, 2001

Ok...BTS, I would like to see what kind of discussions were taking place before the betas and 1.1. Do you have a link for a thread on this or was it all in e-mail? I did a search, but found nothing.

CavScout · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player.

Sounds like poor tactics or play style more than anything. I have won several games with nothing but infantry left and the enemy having three (or maybe it was 2) Stugs left. Giving up because you lost your tanks is like quiting a baseball game because the other guy scores 4 runs in the first inning. You got to play the whole game out.

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

JoePrivate · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ok...BTS, I would like to see what kind of discussions were taking place before the betas and 1.1. Do you have a link for a thread on this or was it all in e-mail? I did a search, but found nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a few links to give you a bit of history, I did a search also and there is a lot out there. This will get you started anyway.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011102.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011362.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011026.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011166.html

DanE · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

Ok...BTS, I would like to see what kind of discussions were taking place before the betas and 1.1. Do you have a link for a thread on this or was it all in e-mail? I did a search, but found nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Round and round it goes, where it stops...who the hell knows?

The first demand was for BTS to change the points back to v1.05. Then came the demand for BTS to explain why the change was made in the first place. Now comes the demand to see the discussions that BTS had that led to the change.

What next, a demand to know why BTS listened to that group and now won't listen to this discussion? And what comes after that, a demand to change the points back to v1.05?

I mean, BTS has explained why the change was made. If it is a truely unfair change, it should not be that hard to prove your case.

And we must all remember that this is BTS' game. They can make changes without first getting approval from us.

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

Dan

PS: How many topics on this subject are under discussion right now anyway?

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

Slapdragon · January 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DanE:

Round and round it goes, where it stops...who the hell knows?

The first demand was for BTS to change the points back to v1.05. Then came the demand for BTS to explain why the change was made in the first place. Now comes the demand to see the discussions that BTS had that led to the change.

What next, a demand to know why BTS listened to that group and now won't listen to this discussion? And what comes after that, a demand to change the points back to v1.05?

I mean, BTS has explained why the change was made. If it is a truely unfair change, it should not be that hard to prove your case.

And we must all remember that this is BTS' game. They can make changes without first getting approval from us.

This is one of the reasons why people who want BTS to prove why the game is the way it is, or to prove negatives like proving Shermans had no tungsten in a particular month, is absurd. Everytime you see this sort of argument come up, usually some German tank is perceived as too weak, German tanks cost too much, or German somethings are getting some sort of shaft (but once in a while you will get surprised with an Allied bitch session) it usually includes a demand that BTS prove why things are the way they are.

From the point of view of getting the game changed, it needs to be the other way around. We need to not only offer the grip, but offer the evidence and the solution. Look at ethe point costs thread http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015328.html, the freedom of choice thread http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015348.html, or any of about 20 German tank thread to see this thinking.

Not that I think many people who think this way are evil or deluded or stupid, just that they are use to complaining and getting without having to present and prove. CM of course is not a democracy in any sense, although on a chat room we are all equal and our money all spends the same.

Panther131 · January 23, 2001

Dan E: Don't get your pants wet. I was merely asking for the links to the discussions not "demanding" them as you imply.

Geesh...I know alot of people are tired of this and that in this disscussion. But after awhile it seems people just want to squash you for uttering a single word.

Geesh.

Also, as slapdragin mentions, there are a few people asking BTS to prove the change. I am not part of this. I was simply asking for the actual discussions prior to the change, as BTS had mentioned taken place. Nothing wrong with this.

In prior posts (Dont know if you have read them Dan E.) but I never asked BTS to prove anything. I have always taken the stance as to try and understand something with more clarity and soemtimes I like to ask questions to clear stuf up. So STOP with your "stop making a stir" b.s. at least aimed at me.

You could say that I should read the reasons BTS stated originaly, well I have, twice. Sometimes you might have questions to clarify certain areas of the reasons that may seem "grey"

Slapdragon · January 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

Dan E: Don't get your pants wet. I was merely asking for the links to the discussions not "demanding" them as you imply.

Geesh...I know alot of people are tired of this and that in this disscussion. But after awhile it seems people just want to squash you for uttering a single word.

Geesh.

Also, as slapdragin mentions, there are a few people asking BTS to prove the change. I am not part of this. I was simply asking for the actual discussions prior to the change, as BTS had mentioned taken place. Nothing wrong with this.

In prior posts (Dont know if you have read them Dan E.) but I never asked BTS to prove anything. I have always taken the stance as to try and understand something with more clarity and soemtimes I like to ask questions to clear stuf up. So STOP with your "stop making a stir" b.s. at least aimed at me.

You could say that I should read the reasons BTS stated originaly, well I have, twice. Sometimes you might have questions to clarify certain areas of the reasons that may seem "grey"

I want to clarify that Panther is definately not one of the ones who were braying and muling earlier. He has consistantly made useful arguments. Nor is he in the prove it BTS group. In my eyes, he has the highest reputation. He merely did not agree with me (and others).

That said, I do not think Dan-E meant anything either. The nerve gets touchy when it gets burned so often. Everytime I see a "Make Germans More Powerful" thread I want to scream, and the "Make Shermans more powerful" threads likewise get my goat. Sometimes though it can be innocent, or even a well reasoned argument. It is just you have seen the same thread 10 times before, know the trolls will pouce on it asking for hover tigers, and that the Rexfords (or someone who owns more than just a copy of Hunnicutt) will be drowned out by those trolls, so you react with a knee jerk that is possibly not warranted in all circumstances (but sometimes clearly is).

Juardis · January 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player. Tanks feared infantry, especially in buildings, but when they can pick out which enemy is carrying a small PIAT amongst 20 other targets, it seems to me to be unrealistic. I have discussed this aspect with many ww2 non-CM gamers and they all agree. You might as well make a mod for a bright orange PIAT so it reflects CM reality. Too bad it is hard coded

Exactly the point I've been trying to make the past few weeks! Exactly the point. Which is why it is very challenging to win if you have no armor. By increasing the infantry allowed and decreasing armor allowed, it actually makes it more realistic in that infantry will have a fighting chance (provided your piat team removes his bright orange vest ).

Steve, on a seperate note. Are we to expect these ratios to be maintained for larger battles? I know I can test this when I get home, but I ain't home

thanks

Panther131 · January 23, 2001

Posted by Slapdragon: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I want to clarify that Panther is definately not one of the ones who were braying and muling earlier. He has consistantly made useful arguments. Nor is he in the prove it BTS group. In my eyes, he has the highest reputation. He merely did not agree with me (and others).

That said, I do not think Dan-E meant anything either. The nerve gets touchy when it gets burned so often. Everytime I see a "Make Germans More Powerful" thread I want to scream, and the "Make Shermans more powerful" threads likewise get my goat. Sometimes though it can be innocent, or even a well reasoned argument. It is just you have seen the same thread 10 times before, know the trolls will pouce on it asking for hover tigers, and that the Rexfords (or someone who owns more than just a copy of Hunnicutt) will be drowned out by those trolls, so you react with a knee jerk that is possibly not warranted in all circumstances (but sometimes clearly is).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Slapdragon.

I also feel your pain...it is frustrating when a axis lover and a allied lover get into a shall we say, lovers quearl? I enjoy rexfords posts very much as well, and wish we did not have to enter the "I am better then you " mentality of discussion. But that can be discussed in another thread

Thanks for all who posted informative / logical and interesting posts involving this issue.

Jeff Heidman · January 23, 2001

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

Well, I too think this is much ado about nothing. People like Jeff are very quick to pass judgement and cry fowl, but are fairly slow to produce a well balanced, logical argument to counter ours. And having a chip on his shoulder doesn't help either

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now wait a minute. This really pisses me off.

You solicited opinions, I gave mine. I have no chip on my shoulder, and it is grossly unfair to automatically dismiss my argument as unsupported and illogical. It was at least as supported as your own. I raised valid questions, and made supported arguments. I might not be correct, but I sure as hell am not unsupported or illogical.

I can as easily make these kind of sweeping generalizations about you, or anyone else, but for the most part I do not.

You can certainly disagree with it, and that is fine. But it is complete bull**** to make these kinds of claims. I did not cry foul, nor did I pass judgement, whatever that means. I just stated why I thought what I thought.

This kind of crap is exactly what gets these discussions turned into flame fests. I made a well thought out, concise, point by point response to what you stated. You can disagree with it, you can say it is complete bull****, you can say that I do not have a leg to stand on.

But don't f****** ask for people opinions and then turn around and insult them when they give them to you. Don't accuse me of having an agenda that does not exist, and don't make unwarranted personal attacks merely because I did not kiss your ass like 90% of the other people on this board.

I posted that message thinking it would be the last word I had to say on the subject. I did not agree with you reasoning, but that is ok, I can respect your position without agreeing with it. You have your reasons, I have mine, no problem.

So much for any expectation of civility from Steve. I thought we were over that little pissing match, but apparently I was mistaken.

Jeff Heidman

Tiny · January 23, 2001

I really don't see the problem. Tank or no tank.

Bring on a KT and I'll kill it with a bazooka.

Bring on a Jumbo and I'll kill it with a panzerschrek/faust.

Done it before and will do it again.

Armour cannot win a battle, armour cannot hold a position on it's own.

I don't see any posts regarding the superiority of the majority of Axis infantry. Or allied players moaning about their 'inferior' infantry.

ie : regular Brit platoon waiting in formation with support. In marches regular girbiljaegers - result dead Brits.

The fact that the new point split gives the axis player more infantry with it's inbuilt AT capabilities I think makes up for the fewer armour points.

That is my opinion flame me if you want.

Tiny

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

War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

Bertrand Russell

Major Tom · January 23, 2001

I also think that one of the problems is that too many people are playing chance encounter like QB's and expecting results to be historical. Rarely did either side engage eachother's spearheads like CEQB's have them. Usually combat was between two incompatable units (ie. primarily Infantry vs. primarily Armour), not units of equal makeup. Expecting to reflect historical accuracy by starting off playing a relatively unhistorical battle is a game in futility.

In this type of warfare, with no defender and 2 attackers mobility is all important. Your troops rarely get a chance to inflict casualties, because they are too slow to engage AFV's. Since the VP's are in the centre of the map, whoever gets there first will usually win (ie. have the benefit of defending with equal numbers of troops as the attacker). In QB's with an attacker and a defender these problems are rarely found, as, roles are clearly defined. Mobility ISN'T the sole requirement for EITHER side, since they both know the goals.

Infantry AT isn't quite as effective here, as, they must be manuvered into position, usually within clear sight of their enemy. Defending Infantry AT is extremely powerful, as they are hidden from the beginning, and positioned by the defender in the best possible areas. Possibly players are playing too many even battled QB's, where only mobility plays an important part? Attacker/Defender battles offer for more diverse plans of action, where more military arms are useful.

I played a game against Germanboy a while back where I was the attacker and lost all my AFV's to his one Hetzer, yet, still won the game by utilizing my Company of Infantry. This wouldn't be quite as easy in a CEQB, since his forces would be roughly equal to mine, and I was still able to outgun him with my Infantry and supporting 3" mortors.

No unit or AFV is invincible. Each unit has its point value measured by its statistics, not just its ability to either kill JUST infantry or JUST armour. There may be a problem with the rarity factor, like the Puma, not appearing in sufficient numbers to warrant a specific counter to be developed, BUT, they aren't uber-weapons. Pumas can be killed by other Allied AC's pretty easily. Sure, a Puma has a chance at taking out a Sherman from a reasonable range, but, if it is up against another armoured car the 50mm gun will only hinder its performance. A single hit from a 20mm, 37mm, 40mm, 50mm etc. will make no difference for a weak skinned vehicle. Sure, a Daimler cannot kill a Panther, and has a tough time against a Mark IV, but, its ability to kill light skinned vehicles is invaluable, where the Puma is only usefull to take out Sherman tanks. Against any other target they aren't as effective.

Try to kill masses of infantry with a slow rotating Tiger I turret. See what happens when your StuG's run out of HE during an Infantry assault.

CM tries to portray a game of WWII that is fair. Historically, rarely was any battle fairly fought. One side usually outclassed/outnumbered the other. If we are looking for historical outcomes, or historical OOB's for QB's then we are defeating the purpose of the QB. The QB is a jump into a fictional battle, using fictional equipment. This doesn't mean that every Gamey tactic should be used, but, from the nature of the mission the battle is already unhistorical. If you are looking for a more historical battle, try the Attack/defence option. It won't solve the unhistorical problem of Puma's appearing in large numbers, but, it will balance the arms a heck of a lot better than a CEQB.

Slapdragon · January 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Now wait a minute. This really pisses me off.

You solicited opinions, I gave mine. I have no chip on my shoulder, and it is grossly unfair to automatically dismiss my argument as unsupported and illogical. It was at least as supported as your own. I raised valid questions, and made supported arguments. I might not be correct, but I sure as hell am not unsupported or illogical.

I can as easily make these kind of sweeping generalizations about you, or anyone else, but for the most part I do not.

You can certainly disagree with it, and that is fine. But it is complete bull**** to make these kinds of claims. I did not cry foul, nor did I pass judgement, whatever that means. I just stated why I thought what I thought.

This kind of crap is exactly what gets these discussions turned into flame fests. I made a well thought out, concise, point by point response to what you stated. You can disagree with it, you can say it is complete bull****, you can say that I do not have a leg to stand on.

But don't f****** ask for people opinions and then turn around and insult them when they give them to you. Don't accuse me of having an agenda that does not exist, and don't make unwarranted personal attacks merely because I did not kiss your ass like 90% of the other people on this board.

I posted that message thinking it would be the last word I had to say on the subject. I did not agree with you reasoning, but that is ok, I can respect your position without agreeing with it. You have your reasons, I have mine, no problem.

So much for any expectation of civility from Steve. I thought we were over that little pissing match, but apparently I was mistaken.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, I think BTS is referring to the entire set of threads and not just this one. In a previous thread you were the one that wanted BTS to prove its point rather than you presenting a documented counter argument of your own. Since all of these threads were related, BTS did not make the distinction that your post here was solicited and in another was exactly what BTS was talking about -- the requirement that they prove the negative rather than you prove the positive.

So BTS was in no way starting a pissing war. In fact, BTS never has, although if I were them and started reading flames about themselves posted on usenet then I would get angry and be less likely to take you seriously. Insteadm they were using your previous posts in the prior threads to contrast a style of argument that does not result in collected discussion or change in the game system. The worst they can be accussed of is using you as a teaching point without mentioning they were referring to a previous post.

Jeff Heidman · January 23, 2001

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

Jeff, I think BTS is referring to the entire set of threads and not just this one. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice apologetics, but I long since listening to anything you had to say.

You are too adept at mixing your lies in with truth to make it worth my time to sift through your posts.

As far as BTS is concerned, I will respond to what they say, not what you think they might have meant by what they say.

Actually, I take that back. I doubt I will be responding to anything they have to say either, unless it starts with an apology, and I am not holding my breath on that.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-22-2001).]

Some comments about QB point changes

Recommended Posts

Guest Napoleon1944

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements