Montague vs Chrimigules
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
So you're saying that your destroyers were in range to fire their missiles before your fighters, which were sent first and move faster, were in range to fire their missiles? And you decided against saying that they were all fired simultaneously. I mean, this all neglects the fact that you thought wrong that all of my fighters were in the air, rather than a 4-fighter patrol. You were wrong about their location just as I had been, and in that instance, you insisted that I simply got "duped" and should live with it.
When were your ships reloaded by a supply ship? There isn't one in your OrBat, even listed as a noncombat vessel. Whose supply ship? Or maybe you'd like to try again and find another way to put more missiles on your ships. Maybe your crew cut some holes in the deck and slid some more missiles into them when noone was looking?
And I haven't been in any previous recwars with you. I had to hunt the information down because you refused to post any actual unit data in the OrBat thread or on the Lovelian board threads that you had linked to. And I only looked into missile capacity because you refused to answer the question.
And now, I really love how the argument has gone. First, you said that it didn't matter how many missiles you fired because Anunia didn't count them directly. Now that it's revealed that you really did fire way too many more missiles than you should have (112 and counting), you're all "ROFLMAO, they wuz rel0ded. U l00z0red."
When were your ships reloaded by a supply ship? There isn't one in your OrBat, even listed as a noncombat vessel. Whose supply ship? Or maybe you'd like to try again and find another way to put more missiles on your ships. Maybe your crew cut some holes in the deck and slid some more missiles into them when noone was looking?
And I haven't been in any previous recwars with you. I had to hunt the information down because you refused to post any actual unit data in the OrBat thread or on the Lovelian board threads that you had linked to. And I only looked into missile capacity because you refused to answer the question.
And now, I really love how the argument has gone. First, you said that it didn't matter how many missiles you fired because Anunia didn't count them directly. Now that it's revealed that you really did fire way too many more missiles than you should have (112 and counting), you're all "ROFLMAO, they wuz rel0ded. U l00z0red."
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Yes, the fighters attacked when the fleet entered radar range and then missile range. If that wasn't the case I would have used a completely separate post for the fighter attack. Simply because there wasn't the exact amount of fighters I said there was doesn't negate the fact that there were fighters in the air and missiles were fired at them. Your losses should be greater. Yes, I was wrong about the number of fighters in the air but there were still some in the air remember. It is ridiculous to try and compare that situation with the situation in which you fired at a group of ships that weren't even there. There were aircraft there though in this case. Obviously that situation seems to be a sore spot for you as you seem to go on about it like a broken record.chrimigules wrote:So you're saying that your destroyers were in range to fire their missiles before your fighters, which were sent first and move faster, were in range to fire their missiles? And you decided against saying that they were all fired simultaneously. I mean, this all neglects the fact that you thought wrong that all of my fighters were in the air, rather than a 4-fighter patrol. You were wrong about their location just as I had been, and in that instance, you insisted that I simply got "duped" and should live with it.
chrimigules wrote:When were your ships reloaded by a supply ship? There isn't one in your OrBat, even listed as a noncombat vessel. Whose supply ship?
Its always been part assumed that ships can be resupplied at sea and its happened in every major recwar for the past year and a half. It happened in my first recwar, Circum Raynor. They were reloaded when they were out in the open ocean during their time in a secret location. Supply ships do not need to be included in an orbat. Who's supply ship? My supply ship obviously.
Yes, that's exactly what they did.chrimigules wrote:Or maybe you'd like to try again and find another way to put more missiles on your ships. Maybe your crew cut some holes in the deck and slid some more missiles into them when noone was looking?
And I haven't been in any previous recwars with you. You haven't posted information on your Javelin missiles but I'm not whining. And the Lovely pages do have information available to you.chrimigules wrote:And I haven't been in any previous recwars with you. I had to hunt the information down because you refused to post any actual unit data in the OrBat thread or on the Lovelian board threads that you had linked to. And I only looked into missile capacity because you refused to answer the question.
It doesn't matter, you're quite right. Annunia does not make provisions of that kind and neither did SNARL. I think the only system that came close to doing so the ADB and possibly ZRS. And please, I'm not the one who writes "PWNT" at the end of a post. I don't speak in such a way, Chrimigules.chrimigules wrote:And now, I really love how the argument has gone. First, you said that it didn't matter how many missiles you fired because Anunia didn't count them directly. Now that it's revealed that you really did fire way too many more missiles than you should have (112 and counting), you're all "ROFLMAO, they wuz rel0ded. U l00z0red."
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
But when you asked about my missiles, I answered speedily. I asked you some days ago about your missile usage, and I had to go hunting for the information myself. I have the information around if you ask me about it, and I admit that I did leave specific parts blank in my OrBat, details that I have no intention of leaving out next time. But at least I put some details into it.
As for your usage of Aster missiles versus my usage of cruise missiles, it's the same situation. You thought my planes were all in one location. I thought your ships were in a particular location. You fired missiles assuming that. I fired missiles assuming that. You said "you missed me" and I said "they had no targets to hit". The difference is that cruise missiles have a bit of a longer range and were redirected. I made the assumption that your ships fired their Aster Missiles when our groups were close enough that you could at least fire them. You could have at least stated "and fired Aster missiles at such and such a distance" or else I have to make it up. I'm sorry I demand details in my posts.
Noncombat units should be included in the OrBat simply so that people know that they're there. It's been discussed elsewhere, and there was a whole discussion over whether noncombat units should be given points values because they act as power multipliers (I forget the exact term that was being thrown around). It was eventually agreed that they shouldn't because they have no direct combat value, but that they ought to be easy to shoot down because they're noncombat vessels. Now, don't go try to twist that into me saying that I shot your supply ship down. My argument is that they were never mentioned in the first place.
You use the examples of previous recwars to back up your position. The problem, however, is that this recwar is not the same as the previous recwars. Different issues have come up and have been discussed. Different people with different ideas have participated. Different people notice different problems.
As for your usage of Aster missiles versus my usage of cruise missiles, it's the same situation. You thought my planes were all in one location. I thought your ships were in a particular location. You fired missiles assuming that. I fired missiles assuming that. You said "you missed me" and I said "they had no targets to hit". The difference is that cruise missiles have a bit of a longer range and were redirected. I made the assumption that your ships fired their Aster Missiles when our groups were close enough that you could at least fire them. You could have at least stated "and fired Aster missiles at such and such a distance" or else I have to make it up. I'm sorry I demand details in my posts.
Noncombat units should be included in the OrBat simply so that people know that they're there. It's been discussed elsewhere, and there was a whole discussion over whether noncombat units should be given points values because they act as power multipliers (I forget the exact term that was being thrown around). It was eventually agreed that they shouldn't because they have no direct combat value, but that they ought to be easy to shoot down because they're noncombat vessels. Now, don't go try to twist that into me saying that I shot your supply ship down. My argument is that they were never mentioned in the first place.
You use the examples of previous recwars to back up your position. The problem, however, is that this recwar is not the same as the previous recwars. Different issues have come up and have been discussed. Different people with different ideas have participated. Different people notice different problems.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Its not the same situation here. Think of it this wayAs for your usage of Aster missiles versus my usage of cruise missiles, it's the same situation. You thought my planes were all in one location. I thought your ships were in a particular location. You fired missiles assuming that. I fired missiles assuming that. You said "you missed me" and I said "they had no targets to hit". The difference is that cruise missiles have a bit of a longer range and were redirected. I made the assumption that your ships fired their Aster Missiles when our groups were close enough that you could at least fire them. You could have at least stated "and fired Aster missiles at such and such a distance" or else I have to make it up. I'm sorry I demand details in my posts.
The cruise missile issue:
Montague mentions he has fired missiles at your base in Germany from the directions of Finland and Norway.
You, being in Germany, fire your cruise missiles at his base in Norway.
His base however is at Finland (and this was i am assuming informed to Vilhelm prior to his missiles being fired).
The Aster missile issue:
You, being in Germany, have sent out aircraft patrols over Germany to protect your base, as well as have sent most to Switzerland (in-land).
Montague send his units and fires his missiles at your aircrafts that are flying in Germany.
It doesn't matter how many aircrafts you sent to Switzerland, you still got aircrafts flying around in Germany. And it is these aircrafts that are being targeted. Be it 1 or 4 or 100, if its in Germany, its targeted.
The difference between the two issue is that in the cruise missile one, you assumed that he had bases in Norway, when in fact he doesn't and never did. He didn't post (as far as I am aware) saying so either. What he did post was the direction they were coming from. And in doing so, he managed to make your commanders (as well as you in person) believe that there was enemy units in that direction. In the other case, your aircrafts were present. You mentioned it and even used it as an argument. No matter how many aircrafts you sent inland, there are some flying here by your ships, as you said several times. And it is these flying aircrafts that are being targeted. The rest inland are not threatened at all, other than maybe a flock of seagulls crapping on it.
Non-combat units were never required to be mentioned. MRWS tried to force people to use them, as its a vital part of strategy and wars, but we aren't fighting under those rules. SNARL, Annunia are built more for ease and thus, its not essential.Noncombat units should be included in the OrBat simply so that people know that they're there. It's been discussed elsewhere, and there was a whole discussion over whether noncombat units should be given points values because they act as power multipliers (I forget the exact term that was being thrown around). It was eventually agreed that they shouldn't because they have no direct combat value, but that they ought to be easy to shoot down because they're noncombat vessels. Now, don't go try to twist that into me saying that I shot your supply ship down. My argument is that they were never mentioned in the first place.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
It'd be helpful to know that noncombatives at least exist.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
They do. It should be assumed. Otherwise naval battles would never occur. You think its possible for US navy to fight a battle against Afghanistan or Iraq for even a day without supply ships?
Similarly, I doubt even your units (or those of foghorn's) have the ability to fight in this war without the assumptions that you already have a good logistics system in place. Its not just weapons that you have to assume about, its also food, drinking water, and medicines for the personnel as well as fuel and repair parts for vehicles (ships, aircrafts, tanks, trucks, jeeps) etc...
If one had to mention that non-combatants were present, imagine how many trucks and jeeps one would have to mention to move their ground forces. And then there's other type of specialized vehicles.
Oh, just so you know, you too have in fact already used a non-combatant unit without mentioning it in the orbat. Not sure what name of the aircraft you used (the AWACS), but its not mentioned in the orbat. And we don't care, because its assumed you have them. Now, if you say there are hundreds of AWACS on board, obviously flags are going to be raised. But if you say 3 or 5, then those can be accepted. Similarly with transport and cargo aircrafts.
Anyways, getting slightly off the issue here.
Similarly, I doubt even your units (or those of foghorn's) have the ability to fight in this war without the assumptions that you already have a good logistics system in place. Its not just weapons that you have to assume about, its also food, drinking water, and medicines for the personnel as well as fuel and repair parts for vehicles (ships, aircrafts, tanks, trucks, jeeps) etc...
If one had to mention that non-combatants were present, imagine how many trucks and jeeps one would have to mention to move their ground forces. And then there's other type of specialized vehicles.
Oh, just so you know, you too have in fact already used a non-combatant unit without mentioning it in the orbat. Not sure what name of the aircraft you used (the AWACS), but its not mentioned in the orbat. And we don't care, because its assumed you have them. Now, if you say there are hundreds of AWACS on board, obviously flags are going to be raised. But if you say 3 or 5, then those can be accepted. Similarly with transport and cargo aircrafts.
Anyways, getting slightly off the issue here.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Yeah, I noticed that they weren't listed in my OrBat and I kicked myself for it, because I used a slightly out of date version of that orbat where they weren't included in the listing.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
I was thinking that as well as the 25,000 points for offensive units there could be a 50,000 point reserve for logistical, support and rear area units to reflect the fact that for every toe hold in enemy territory there is a massive footprint behind making it possible.
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:42 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
but is there definitions for how much non-combatant units should be worth? Usually point value is determined by how many combatant units it could kill, but non-combat obviously cant...
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Is it really? And there was me thinking it was completely subjective and arbitrary. Now give a clerk or a truck driver a gun and he'll manage to kill somebody... probably himself but he might also stand half a chance of a lucky shot against the enemy charging towards him, or he might run away so lets say rear unit personnel are worth only 0.5. However the real purpose of the rear sector units would be to supply and convey so therefore the points system would need to equate to lets say carry load for instance, 1 point = ten tonne load?.Longbow of Toketi wrote:but is there definitions for how much non-combatant units should be worth? Usually point value is determined by how many combatant units it could kill, but non-combat obviously cant...
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
I still wonder if there is a way to explain the Type 45L Destroyers firing Harpoons and Tomahawks, but the explanation of resupplying... I guess. Perhaps someone could put a rule in that, at least to some degree, noncombat support ships and units are included. It could even be as little as including a vaguely described Support Battalion into each land-based unit, including the ground crew technicians into each air-based unit, and tenders into each sea-based unit.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Congratulations all of you.... what you are now trying to achieve is what we tried with MRWS.
The important lesson (from MRWS) to know is that when it comes to war, people want a bit of simplicity. Putting in points for non-combatants or forcing people to mention all the cooks and ground staff and technicians in their orbat is all going to be looked down upon as being too complicated.
The important lesson (from MRWS) to know is that when it comes to war, people want a bit of simplicity. Putting in points for non-combatants or forcing people to mention all the cooks and ground staff and technicians in their orbat is all going to be looked down upon as being too complicated.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
Well it doesn't have to be too complicated. It's just adding one extra thing.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
No. Anunia is (meant to be) designed so that it can be as simple as SNARL, and a few minor complications can be added for experienced people (that's mainly more experienced units, specifying non-standard units, and National Defence, which is already getting vastly more complicated). Putting in non-combatants as another 50000 points would just be crazy. While you're welcome to discuss them with other combatants who also understand those matters, it wouldn't be appropriate to do so with everyone.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Montague vs Chrimigules
You say it would be crazy but you do not specify why a separate non-transferable points allowance for support and rear area units would be crazy. As far as I am concerned it would be infinitely preferable to the current system where little wretched equivalent of a third world country assumes it has the transportation infrastructure of a superpower and can get anywhere any time.