Arrogant Unnecessary B.S. in the MA

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Fariz

Well, my position in this issue is quite simple, if I have a rank to move fleet, see the possible correct use of fleet, I will take command and use it the way, I consider is correct. Same time it is normal situation when I give fleet back when someone contact me and give some reason why it shall be given away, even if it is against my understanding of strat. It haven't happen in this case because communication was offensive from the very start, which left me with no much choise. When it is possible I try to put it all to more mature level, but as you can see by the comments and namecallings which still exist at this forum, it was not possible in this case.

It would be nice to ask rather than throw your weight around simply because you can.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oedipus
It's better than no contols at all which is what AH has now. And in the RL the penalty for simply grounding a CV is pretty severe on the captain.


 Oed

Which is one of the things that is really screwy about the modern US navy.

Hell... Even Halsey ran a ship aground and he still got his stars.

[Corrs]

Rank? I didn't know AH had Ranks. Guess I'm Enlisted rank E-0.001, PVT less than first class head toliet swap..

[cobia38]

10 vote comander eject good idea:D rooks would benifit by this.to many little generals.

[VOR]

E-I owe ya one?

[Fariz]

Originally posted by Dago
What you have to consider is if the effect of your actions will have a negative impact on the plans/actions of others.

I make a mission which make many rooks and nits unhappy. Shall I stop making them for this reason?

I pork fuel at enemy bases or kill fh's, which deny many friendlies of a happy low furball. Shall I stop porking fuel and kill fh's at enemy bases?

When I deny enemy of a chance to kill me, and leave him unhappy, is it wrong? SHall I fly straight to make him happy to kill me?

As you can see, your point is not absolute. Back to this thread discussion:

Please go back and read my posts again. Game made the way that person who has bigger rank has a control of a fleet. Same time you can easily talk with this player. That is what I do when someone with bigger rank get a fleet from me, adding a "pls.", explaining my position if needed,  and guess what, it works often. When it is not, I find some other ways which work. Dago, will you be happy to discuss anything with a person who start a dialog with calling you a dickhead?

Anyway, nothing much to discuss here. Though some interesting suggestions, it is more a "throw a stone" fest. If you want situation to change adress HTC with some suggestion, or learn to talk with other people, beside that situation will stay the way it is now.

[lord dolf vader]

you justify you actions with "cause i can".

translation into american .  "diddly you i have a mental problem"

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by Lazer1
lol.. rank doesn't mean fariz can get anything done.  I could be ranked 300000000,000,0000000000000,928 and still fly the pants off of him.

LOL we know ewe mean  "charm the pants off him"

[lazs2]

sooo... all is not cooperation and good will amungst the "missun" boyz?
lazs

[Saurdaukar]

Dude, you spelled "boys" wrong.

[Angus]

Fariz takes AH seriously, and by doing so adds a lot of positive things to the side he is on, - bishops more or less.
I have not yet seen him making any particular tactical/strategical mistakes and neither bullying people around with the score related supremacy of CV controlling.
So think again, or just stuff it up yer khyber!!

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Angus
Fariz takes AH seriously

That's his first mistake.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Fatty]

What did I just read?  and why?

[eskimo2]

Bodhi,

In order of importance, what are all of the factors that one should consider when choosing what to do with the CV?

eskimo

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
This thread strongly supports a statement that I made in a thread about arena numbers in the Gameplay forum a little while back.  That is:

"The strategy for successfully resetting the map in AH is not necessarily the same strategy for ensuring plentiful and balanced air combat."

And so yet again we have the emphasis in AH on "winning" the war conflicting with the desire for "furballing" and relatively balanced air combat.  Winning requires overwhelming force, attacking undefended or lightly defended bases, and thinking "strategically" in the choice of bases to capture; success comes from avoiding large quagmire-inducing furballs over strategically unimportant bases (how many times have people complained about the furballing going on at the central island on the NDIsles map?).  

Furballing on the other hand, to the detriment of winning the war, thrives on large, evenly balanced encounters over bases that may or may not possess strategic importance.  Every participant in a furball reduces the numbers available to attack the poorly-defended and strategically important bases elsewhere, reducing the chances of lightning quick base capture and prolonging the time until a reset.

It makes me wonder sometimes which game AH would like to be.  Strategy is well and good, but what is the point of an air combat simulator that by design discourages air combat?

-- Todd/Leviathn

DMF hits it right on the head... I have been ranting about this all along.