Battlefront.com Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Schoerner . You, Mr. head-teachers Emry or Mr. Speaker are not the censors in here, deciding, what is allowed to say, in which mood, by which person and what not.Very true for them, not true for me. I do get to say what is allowed and the one in which it is presented. Quite frankly you have very often show a very poor attitude. Agressive and offensive for no other reason than to get your jollies. Take some advice from those who have posted here... chill out. If you want to use this forum as therapy for your unresolved anger, that is very much against Forum rules. Improve your attitude or find another place that doesn't care how badly you behave. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Steve, thanks! I was able to determine the ground conditions. Unfortunately, dry. Considering it is March, 43 and he has at least two Tigers, poor ground conditions would have been much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Schoerner, I for one never said that 'uber' tanks are undestroyable, I've killed plenty. What sometimes annoys me with them is that after repeated sight they are plain DULL. And now you want to take away their main weakness which is a potential mobility problem, by being able to fix perfect running conditions for them every time you wish. Importantly it is a weakness which is no doubt reflected in the overall purchase cost. If you did get this option then I would equally insist that all tanks with high ground pressure take a massive points hike, as you have just covered their potential Achilles heel with a nice pair of Nikes. For others, AFAIK post 1.01 patch Dry conditions exist on all fronts, obviously more likely in Hot weather. Pre-patch I spotted the fact that we were only getting Dry ground on the Southern Front, and BTS fixed it or somefink. [ January 08, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Kloss Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Schoerner Your fat heavy pigs are supposed to sink in a mud If ground pressure wouldn't be an issue, heavy vehicles would be more expensive in game terms or light vehicles be cheaper. As it was said earlier if you set game conditions to "random" you know them before your opponent does. I can't see anything unfair here. Maybe not knowing the weather and ground conditions is not realistic, but only to prevent gamers like you from even more unrealistic behavior - purchasing equipement and units for specific weather conditions or even time of a day. /Company commander to his superior: "Can't you see comrade we are going to fight our quick battle in a thick fog. Take away those maxims and give me flamethrowers! And the same for rifle squads. Let them rest. I NEED smg teams! At once! Mud? You said MUD? Trade my trucks for halftracks! No? You can't?! Treachery! I will complain to Comrade Stalin himself!!!"/ Just see how silly it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Schoerner: Originally posted by Lindan: I like surprises in my games: you don't. Wrong. I LOVE surprises. But it's not possible to switch them off for certain reasons. Is that so hard to understand, here?!No, I fully understand what you want. It just doesn't matter much to me and will IMHO lead to more bad than good. Regarding to my comments explaining why I don't like ladder-games you replied: Yes, this can happen. But where's the connection to the topic about missing information? In a previous post (page 2) you wrote: Obviously some are talking about things they don't know. Ladder games and boring. Ladder games and only heavy tanks (this statement includes the assumption, that Übertanks are undestroyable; obviously made by a worse player, cause a good player kicks your ass, if you rely to much on heavy tanks; a cheap PAK40 can knock out everything with a sideshot) Before talking such BS, i suggest to subscribe to a ladder and to play against good players. The difference is, they're not good in talking here, but in achieving good results. As I commented about ladder play, I felt I should clarify why I don't like them anymore (thats an opinion that AFAIK everybody is allowed to have), and to dispell your notion that I (among others) don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps I was also a bit offended that you called my post "BS". I can't understand the whining about ladder-players. If loosing doesn't matter to you, where was the problem? If you've won on battle after the other, you stopped playing, 'cause the oponents were not keen on talking about their defeat? This documents nicely what your problem is. I don't whine about ladder players. You made this up. Fact is that there are enough other good players around who, like me, enjoy playing in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Why should I bother then? Is that so hard to understand, here?! BTW: you can question my player skills as long as you want, there is no ego for me to lose (I know that you possibly can't grasp this concept, as shown by your statements above. I already said that I won and lost.) Why the bitching about ladders, instead of trying to understand what the problem is? I'm not bitching. Each to his own. btw: WHO stops playing, (usually with lots of strange arguments), if he's going to lose? WHO disapears? The ladder players? Definately not.I'm sure you can prove that. And finally another quote, this time from page one: I don't play competively.Are you sure about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Schoerner . </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You, Mr. head-teachers Emry or Mr. Speaker are not the censors in here, deciding, what is allowed to say, in which mood, by which person and what not.Very true for them, not true for me. I do get to say what is allowed and the one in which it is presented. Quite frankly you have very often show a very poor attitude. Agressive and offensive for no other reason than to get your jollies. Take some advice from those who have posted here... chill out. If you want to use this forum as therapy for your unresolved anger, that is very much against Forum rules. Improve your attitude or find another place that doesn't care how badly you behave. Steve</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Schoener, i was just having some fun with you, don't take me so seriously, or yourself so seriously, lighten up a little if you can. *edited because i spelled seriously wrong* [ January 08, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Axe_ Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Schoerner: ...big Steve appears...And for your next trick would you make your attitude disappear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Hmmm, You know all other things aside Schoerner that may have not been the best way to state the way to express yourself. Personally I would back off the issue, the presentation was poor (regardless of your opinion after the fact) and once Battlefront took notice (a chance to clearly get your idea across btw) you instead use the opportunity as another chance to spout "much ado about nothing". Steve and Charles and all of BFC have all been very open to all of our suggestions, and listened intently when presented properly. Sometimes they make changes when changes are warranted and wanted and (this is important) when they are inline with their vision of the game they made. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that Steve and company are smart enough that in two years of building CMBB (and changing the info available at the start of a PBEM) they thought about the weather and ground conditions issue. And they made a decision on them. Presented properly you may have had an opportunity to influence them to re-evaluate that position but alas you did not capitilize on the situation. I personally have no issue displaying weather (heck I never look at that stuff anyway I just play) but as long as no one knows the ground conditions before force choice then what is the point. Especially since ground condition seriously plays into game balance. If you want to have a "heavies" war go to the scenario editor, randomly generate a map and do as you please. It is almost as if you want a car to fly so to speak. If you want an exact situation to play within then use the editor, if you want to just jump into the game then choose a QB. BTW one last example, when I play Falcon 4 or IL-2(?) and want some Instant Action (similiar to a QB) I don't get automatically a perfect optimized situation for what I want to do. I would have to use an editor for that, why do you expect different here. Also if I want to find out what is faster, a Sherman or a T-34, I can either look it up or set up a quick test track. Now would I go to the QB generator to do this or would I go to the scenario editor. If I did go to the QB generator and it did not give me two straight parallel strips of road without any interference would I come on the board and complain? I think not. [ January 08, 2003, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Priest ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Why don't you read all the posts in the right cronology?I did, starting with the title you gave this thread: f...ing incomplete info on quick-battles!Right there, before reading one word of the first post you have already started the thread down the wrong road. Completely unnecessary, aggressive, and in violation of the Forum rules (saying "f...ing" is not any different than saying "fucking"). Then of course there is this line in your first post before anybody else posted: Such a mistake in the best game ever, is not excusable!Compliment (thank you) and an agressive demand (no thank you). And this is what I warned you about. Your attitude sucked before anybody posted a single word. And I have seen your attitude expressed poorly in other threads as well, so I find it fair to point out that you have an attitude problem. Mr. Speaker, Terrapin, and all the replies getting personal. I don't give anything, what you say, if you aren't able, to be just.When I find one person being attack and attacking a dozen, I go to the source of the problem. And it is you and your attitude. It doesn't make other people's behavior totally correct, but as I have said this is NOT the first time you have posted in such a way. Yes i was angry. But i complained about a game issue.You said yourself that you posted to let out your anger ("All i did, was to start a thread to get rid of my anger"). How can you say that you posted angry and yet say there is nothing wrong with your attitude? This is not acceptable behavior. And you wonder why you attracted negative attention? You asked for it and you got it, now you are complaining about it. What comes back, are childish answers with personal attitudes.No, what came back was quite a bit of discussion why other people did not find this to be a problem. You, on the other hand, clearly showed that you did not value their opinions. Apparently you are correct and everybody else is wrong, and once again that shows a very poor attitude. And you got called on it. For example, on the first page a bit further down you stated: If damp ground can happen almost always, this makes multiplayer quick battles almost useless:People disagreed with this quite strongly because your statement was ridiculous. It was totally unqualified and unsupportable. Again, you invited the discussion to continue to get worse. If i strike back, as the childs in here deserve it, when their beloved baby CM is criticized, then the big Steve appears, and speaks about attitudes.It is almost a rule that people with bad attitudes, who get called on them, claim this kind of utter horsecrap. They aren't defending the game but reacting to your bad attitude. You don't want an honest discussion. You KNOW you are right and so if someone doubts you they are obviously beneath you. Again, nice attitude. For example, you said: It's my right, if i lost two hours for nothing, to find clear words about the f...ing bad implemented info for the second player and the non choosable or displayed ground conditions.Again, you give no credit to the other side of the discussion. It is obvious that we have horribly screwed up and it isn't just you blowing something out of proportion. Please be more specific what you mean instead of such a generalizing idle talk.See above. And i suggest not to pull out single sentences of my answers (although it's practiced quite often in here, to subordinate things), but instead taking a look at the provoking statements that caused the repliesSorry, all the quotes are in context if someone wants to read them. What am I supposed to do, requote all your posts? That is not how it works. (btw: i still can remember very well, how you acted during the infantry-model discussion; all those who defended the auto-sneak problems were allowed to attack the ones complaining about the much to easy panicking troops, personally and you didn't say a word - although you knew and had already decided, that the threshold-levels for panicking/sneaking in open terrain, will be adjusted; you were not defending the complainers, against personal attacks).That is your opinion. It is an opinion I do not share because you only saw what you wanted to see and forget the rest. And it does not surprise me since people with bad attitudes always do this. With this behaviour, you've lost IMO your credability.I highly doubt that. And in this thread, you prove your selective recognition once again.Correct. You started a fight, you got one, and now you are crying about it. Not on our fourm. Watch your attitude or find yourself looking for another place to vent your anger about trivial things. And it might interest you to know that weeks ago Charles changed the 1.02 code to not show the settings to either player. Obviously that means I am not attacking you to hide the ugly truth you uncovered. Someone else started up a very nice, polite, and intelligent thread that lead to us making a code change. You should try this instead of venting anger. It works MUCH better and people won't attack you for being angry. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Ken Talley: Steve, thanks! I was able to determine the ground conditions. Unfortunately, dry. Considering it is March, 43 and he has at least two Tigers, poor ground conditions would have been much better.No problem, Ken. Geez, I think that's the first time we have addressed one another in a thread without attacking each other's opinions! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGriffon Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 I have 3 words for you...."Command and Conquer". You'll be in gamey uber-tank heaven. For those of us cursed with enjoying the element of surprise, thinking on our feet, and that utterly blasphemous concept of realism, I guess we'll just have to settle for CMBB. GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty's Double Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Most of the best wargames include what I would term a "meta-game", somewhere in the terrain layout/scenario conditions/force selection/set-up area. These often take the form of a little poker game where each player knows some but not all of the info and has to make choices that will affect the main battle. Generally speaking, these meta-games tend to make balanced armies the least risky and very "themed" ones (eg lots of heavy tanks, all infantry) more risky; they either pay off big time or they screw up royally. Now that Steve has addressed the issue of the "bug" (ie an imbalance of info between opponents) I think it's clear that the degree of uncertainty involved in QB's is absolutely a feature. One of the joys of CM is poring over those huge force lists trying to balance all the factors, and the degree of uncertainty over conditions adds to that excitemnt. Schoerner's assumption that because most people like it that way they obviously don't care about ground conditions just doesn't hold up. We understand, we care, and we value that uncertainty because it adds depth to the game. Hmm, I have a suspicion this equine may be deceased... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Personally, I think it is backers of the gold standard, and international conspirationalists that worked together to ensure Schoerner's impending demise in this game, by cleverly manipulating the ground condition, which they can do using their special, err, stuff... It is all part of the Masterplan, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: This are very good news. 1. this will reduce the problems a lot 2. it prooves i was right 3. it prooves once again, provocative articulations are quite confusing for philistines, but they clear things and quite often force the decisive people, to explain their position Thanks, Schörner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Schorner - you're really going to catch it. The people who I have seen posting on this thread are anything but philistines you twerp. Heck, they even know what capital letters are for which makes them a good deal more sophisticated than you before we start. [Edit] Also, how on earth does that prove 'you are right'. You wanted to know what the ground conditions were before you started a battle. Well read what Steve said and think for a moment. Yes, that's right, you STILL won't know what ground conditions will be. Idiot. I've just seen his 'location' in his profile. I think that says what kind of person we're dealing with. Grrrrrr. I'm going for a more reasonable chat with Master Goodale! [ January 09, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by Schoerner: This are very good news. 1. this will reduce the problems a lot 2. it prooves i was right 3. it prooves once again, provocative articulations are quite confusing for philistines, but they clear things and quite often force the decisive people, to explain their position Thanks, SchörnerPoint for point: This are very good news. (indeed, the news are dated though) 1. this will reduce the problems a lot (yes, and YOU made it happen! the community bows before you.Oh, I forgot it was changed weeks ago. ) 2. it prooves i was right (no, it doesn't.) 3. it prooves once again, provocative articulations are quite confusing for philistines, but they clear things and quite often force the decisive people, to explain their position (No. It proves, once again, that you like to piss people off with your rants and that your social skills are lacking when it comes to debating a topic. If you want to celebrate this as a victory, go ahead. I also did this quite often(back when I was 14). The fact that you are probably older than 14 only makes it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Just once in this forum I would like to see something like: - I found a minor detail with the game that doesn't seem quite right. Still, it doesn't effect game play, so don't worry about it. As for this debate, I haven't seen the old CMBO "My tiger got hit by a {insert tiny weapon of choice here}, this game is rubbish please fix" thread for ages. This is a subtle new variation of it! I have never understood the type of people who think that the mistake the Germans made was not building the Panzer VIII Steroid tank using the spare triple 11" turrets from Scharnhorst, 'cos they would be brilliant in combat, whilst somewhat forgetting that they wouldn't be able to move. I suspect that our complaining friend is related. If you want to see what a Brummbar/KT/Sturmtiger looks like without 'real' constraints, go play with yourself in a range test! Final word: if you know a better game - GO PLAY IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 OK, folks... I understand your continued frustration with Schoerner... but best to let it go. He can go away smugly if he wants, but it is meaningless because we all know what the real score here is. Rex, I've just seen his 'location' in his profile. I think that says what kind of person we're dealing with. Grrrrrr. I see you have not been fortunate enought to stumble upon a political thread in which Schoerner was involved with. For those of you who don't know your history, General Fieldmaschal Ferdinand Schörner was one of the most "Nazi" Generals of the war. He was also one of the most hated. Perhaps the most hated. Here is a very short bio on him: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschorner.htm Steve [ January 09, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts