Forum Message
| City: | Fort Wayne  | | Personal Data: | Male, | | Membership | 19years 195days ago. | | Last Login | 14years 183days ago. | | Last Move | 16years 232days ago. | HeadMMoid is currently  | Send a mail to HeadMMoid |
| Message header | Area/Game: | Blue Max | | Topic: | Suggestions, improvement, critics | | Subject: | Re: 30, 40, 50 of fuel | | Posted by: | HeadMMoid  - 17years 317days ago. |
|
|
| Message text TXWard wrote:
HeadMMoid wrote: Your attempt to impugn the motives of those who disagree with you is most assuredly not an acceptable method of polite discussion. True, it is not nearly as acceptable as your labeling those who don't agree with your point of view as intolerant, appalling, unwilling, dumb, illogical, reactionary, and intellectually blinded. I suppose next you will point out that my sarcasm is not as acceptable as your labeling method. Whether you want to be the pot or the kettle, you're still black so keep your rocks to yourself or move out of the glasshouse before throwing them. That, by the way, was not sarcasm but a semi-ridiculous string of cliches.
SteveMartin attacked the motives and intentions of those persons against his position instead of responding to the discussion. Had he possessed a valid point, perhaps he would not have failed to back up his accusations when his improper argument method was pointed out.
However, if you are going to make claims about what people say, you really should make an effort to get it correct. Most notably, I said things about the statements, arguments, and positions taken by people, but (with the exceptions noted below) I didn't say the things you state about the people themselves. Before you launch another poorly thought out and spiteful attack, I suggest you learn how significance that difference is, as you do not appear to understand it at all. Now, let's see what I really said.
intolerant - "I am frustrated at the intolerance of people on this site for change and possible improvements." [33213] It was quite apparent at the time of this post that many of the posters were not interested in discussion, but only in preventing change. When one considers that it was made clear early in the discussion that the existing manner of play would still be available to people, and that the changes would be options, yet there was still vehemently negative posts, then one can only interpret this as a form of intolerance.
appalling - No, I is said; "I continue to be appalled … at the unwillingness of some players on this site to allow possible improvements in the game …." [33208] I did not say that I found the people "appalling", as you claim.
unwilling - See the previous quote. Yes, I said people were unwilling to allow improvements in the game. As events proved, I was completely correct.
dumb - I said; "And, just to continue on how dumb this suggestion is …" [33309] Calling a suggestion dumb is one thing. Calling a person is dumb is another. And, just to reinforce the point, the suggestion was very dumb and deserved to be called worse. I probably should have taken the time to word a more biting response.
illogical - I said that a lot, and I'm not going to try to find all the occurrences. But then, when people keep repeating the same thing without responding to the issues, ignore arguments inconsistent with their preconceptions, ignore historical reality, ignore common sensibility, ignore refutations of their arguments and continue to use the original argument, or make it plain they don't care about the discussion and just want something their way; then I think illogical is a rather mild term to use.
reactionary - I said; "I do not understand this sort of unreasoned and reactionary attitude." [33139] Note first the "reactionary" was with respect to the attitude, not the person. Second, the attitude expressed in that post was reactionary (although regressive and insulting might have been better descriptions). I guess it isn't acceptable to be accurate.
intellectually blinded - I said; "The third was an intellectually blinding refusal to accept the way history was …" [33340] I did not say that someone was "intellectually blinded". I said they caused intellectual blindness by their responses.
Of the seven things you claim I said about people, your score is; 5 wrong and 2 correct, but I claim that both of the "corrects" were justified. For someone giving advice about throwing rocks, perhaps you should work on your aim a bit.
Your constant twisting of statements made by others is a big reason why you fail to gain much ground for your fuel rules campaign. SteveMartin did not state that adding historical accuracy to a historical game does not make it historically relevant. Your quote of him shows that his statement was that the proposed changes would not be historically relevant. Not everyone agrees with your argument that your fuel changes are more historically accurate. You've made similar distortions by stating that those who disagree with you are unwilling to accept improvements to the game. What you've missed, or try to distort, is that many of those opponents to your proposed changes do not believe that the changes would be an improvement and many believe that the opposite is the case - the game would be harmed by such a change.
What you see a me twisting statement, I see as me pointing out the fallacies in the statements. And as regards so many of those statement, they were provably wrong. Learn your history. Correct your opinion (I know that isn't going to happen, but good advice is still worth the offering).
Consider a compromise which, by your arguments, would seem to be historically accurate in your eyes. Gliders would crash after, say 3 turns. The fuel capacities of the planes would not be changed, but multiplied for scale. Therefore, an Allied plane has 67*3=201 fuel boxes, the Axis plane has 37*3=111 fuel boxes. The planes must use some of this fuel to get to and from the engagement site. Obviously, this could vary based on whether it be a intercept or patrol, but for illustration we will use a location at midpoint between airfields, 15 turns each way at average fuel usage of 2/turn = 30 fuel boxes from each plane. That means at the start of the engagement, the Allied plane has 171 fuel boxes to the Axis plane's 81. However, in order to survive, the planes must disengage when their fuel gets down to 30 fuel boxes for the trip home. The effective combat fuel boxes for the engagement would then be 141 for the Allied plane and 51 for the Axis plane.
Except for a few glaring historical problems, this isn't a completely bad idea.
World War I aircraft glided very well; unbelievably well by modern standards. There are plenty of first hand reports of aircraft with inoperable engines gliding back from engagements over enemy trenches and making it to their own airfields. Landing, of course, presented certain problems, but at that point the aircraft was well out of combat. The problem is that the game does not force "gliders" to perform as actual aircraft would have done, since the options available to those aircraft are not offered in the game. That is a historical inaccuracy of the original rules and the rules on this site.
Your fuel numbers are incorrect if you wish to include going to and from a fight (and I apologize to Calsir at this point for butchering the endurance concept). An aircraft with a 2-1/2 hour endurance would have roughly 3,000 boxes of fuel, not 201 (201 boxes of fuel would allow for a hair over 10 minutes of flight at an efficient speed 2, which is insufficient for the scenario you propose). An aircraft with 1-1/2 hours of endurance would have about 1,800 boxes of fuel, not 111. It isn't the relative values that I am highlighting here, but rather your knowledge of the game. For someone warning; "You should really try to better understand a game ...", you should take your own advice (it looks like you have that problem with rocks and glass houses).
You continue to make the same mistake of those with your attitude with regard to the overall fuel issue. Fights didn't last that long. Engagements ran from a few seconds up to a long fight of about fifteen minutes; with Phil Hall's claim of two to three minutes to a fight being quite typical. A long "Phil Hall" game would be 3 minutes, 60 turns, or 180 boxes of fuel (Snipe or D.VII at a constant speed 4).
I suspect such a setup would be just as objectionable to you due to the even greater discrepancy between fuel levels in the engagement. The only way to level them is to pretty much have the engagement over the Axis airstrip. In reality, the amount of fuel spent on cruising to the engagement would have been much greater than the 15 turns I used, but that would lead to the thimble of German fuel you complain about. I think that is the point that SteveMartin has been making - if you take into account the cruising to/from the engagement, what is left for the engagement is what is reflected in the game. From your microcosm examples in your argument, leveling out the fuel may make sense, but from the overall picture, I don't think it holds enough water for such a change to the rules of the game.
Can you not see how minor the fuel used in combat (see above) is compared to the capability of even the lowest endurance aircraft?
Can you not realize that pilots knew their fuel states (or preset their patrol times to allow for their fuel capacity) and went home when combat would be inadvisable due to low fuel?
The sort of engagements that are constantly postulated here would be the exception, when someone miscalculated or was caught in a compromised position.
Why do you (and others) insist on claiming that the exception is the standard form of a fight?
I am really at a total loss to understand how someone cannot see how simple and obvious this is.
|
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
