Slitherine

Jon, you obviously have not only an issue with KingT but seem to favour the Axis. All the while decry me as being impartial?!

KingT just asked a simple question as to whether the Typhoons are normal BA Typhoons or had you done something to them...and you turned it into a grudge match...worse, made it public here (bypassing your own conflict resolution process).

Not very becoming of an impartial GM imo.

I would suggest that you stand down as GM (perhaps take up a spot on the Axis) or I can take a hike and you can run this however you like.

One thing I will not tolerate is anyone belittling others. Again, this does nothing to further the game.

Jon, Let me know what you decide.

kingt wrote:I wasn't demanding anything. I was asking how it works. We started with regular infantry and ended up with improved infantry. The same thing could happen to Air support, and if it were to happen, it should be clear before June 8 battles.

KT, as you know well, strengthening infantry was something that I asked everyone about before we started, reminded about once we started, and then took a vote on... You are the first to be raising issues of Allied air superiority in GJS'44 because none of the rest of us know how the 'planes will work out yet. The first time they'll be used will be June 8th, so let's see.

To some extent whether an attack value should be 120 or 100 is an unknown. It's too early for me to say. And to be honest, those numbers are simply meaningless to me until we try 'em out in '44.

How about we just welcome Mowby and Mlazar (who are both new to '44) to the campaign, let 'em settle in and play a few games before we start agitating over the correct stats for Allied aircraft.

Let's just play ok? Mac is correct that this exchange isn't helping so I'll call it a day here, and Mac can explain more if necessary... Peace 'bro

Brummbar44 wrote:Jon, you are being an ass...plain and simple. You obviously have not only an issue with KingT but seem to favour the Axis. All the while decry me as being impartial?!

KingT just asked a simple question as to whether the Typhoons are normal BA Typhoons or had you done something to them...and you turned it into a grudge match...worse, made it public here (bypassing your own conflict resolution process).

Not very becoming of an impartial GM imo.

I would suggest that you stand down as GM (perhaps take up a spot on the Axis) or I can take a hike and you can run this however you like.

One thing I will not tolerate is anyone belittling others. Again, this does nothing to further the game.

Jon, Let me know what you decide.

Mac, I know you were on the Allied side and you're having a tough time settling in as a neutral GM but this is unnecessary. There is no conflict here. But it would help (I) if people read rules before asking questions covered by them, and (ii) if folks calmed down and played the game rather than worrying whether attack values are 120 or 100. I've answered the question several times over. As we've privately exchanged, but now you've made public, I will be disappointed if you feel the need to resign but I'll understand...

On belittling others, would you like me to make public your comments about Leci, K9mike and Gort, or will you please come down to earth with the rest of us... Let's cool it, stop messing with rules, and just play...

Ok, I'm done.

Everyone else...I tried. Sorry it turned out this way...for the record, I didn't even get to play a game.

GottaLove88s wrote:On belittling others, would you like me to make public your comments about Leci, K9mike and Gort, or will you please come down to earth with the rest of us... Let's cool it, stop messing with rules, and just play...

Sure, go ahead...I didn't belittle any of them but your post here surely implies that I did.

You are really starting to show some true colours Jon.

For the record, everything was going fine today until Jon shot his mouth off...then couldn't seem to stop. It was a lot more behind the scenes than what appears here...but I don't feel it needs to be paraded out...simply said, I'm done with all of this...I didn't sign up for the BS that despite what some people claim they don't want, their actions sure betray that.

Brummbar44 wrote:Ok, I'm done.

Everyone else...I tried. Sorry it turned out this way...for the record, I didn't even get to play a game.

You were (are) an awesome GM Mac. Thank you.

I really enjoyed playing Vimont and Villers-Bocage with you. It was great fun and I learned a lot.

As I tried to keep privately, please sleep on it overnight.

GJS'44 should just be about everone playing the game, and all of us having fun. You will be welcome back anytime... Including tomorrow!

GottaLove88s wrote: You were (are) an awesome GM Mac.

But apparently not impartial enough in you opinion. It seems that the stigma of being the Allied command for a day is enough to permanently give me that bent. Despite what you or leci believe, I was trying to be impartial (or maybe that means only favouring the Axis). Sorry Jon, you seem to be stuck in your ways no matter what is presented you. Your apparent dislike for KingT foremost (or perhaps the Allies in general).

I do not want to leave with the cloud you've now cast over me with regard to disparaging comments.

I was upset that leci posted the two posts recently. I found them openly combative trying to draw me into a flamefest. I wasn't happy about them, but I didn't belittle him. I chose instead to simply ignore them.

As for Mike and Gort to summarize, my comments were by the way of the fact that Gort just dropped in (rather, was convinced to) and then left as he didn't have the time...Mike played one battle that delayed the start and didn't pick up another. I also went on to say they were both decent fellows and that there was no hard feelings in them dropping out...we'd simply carry on. I felt that the three players weren't a loss as they didn't really impact the situation (ie. leci wasn't a BG command, Mike had played one and didn't sign up for another and Gort was parachuted in).

No hard feelings to anyone...honestly (and that includes you Jon despite todays exchange)...I just don't think this was the kind of thing I wanted to get into...I just wanted to play and now it's all this.

It's best for me to step aside on this one. Perhaps in the future, I'll run one and we can all start fresh.

Thanks Mac,

Listen, you know what you wrote to me, and I know what you wrote, so let's just leave it at that. After some of your more heated emails/posts, you did push it this way unfortunately. Apparently, it's far too easy for folks to get too excited about Battle Academy campaigns, and then say things that seem to qualify for your definition of belittle, if you really believe that's what I was doing to KT. For the record, I wasn't, but KT needs to learn that it is just a game, and sometimes just to play it.

Part of the reason I wanted you to join me as a GM was to realise that it's genuinely hard work trying to manage a muddle, when some folks just throw in hand grenades and constantly try to pull in their direction, as I experienced throughout the weeks when you were Allied Commander. I had earnestly hoped, once you realised that, you would have been able to focus on keeping it fun for everyone without getting derailed by rules, or by people who wanted to do that, even non-intentionally.

No hard feelings either Mac. I know it's not easy. My objective was always just to create great maps for the Battle Academy community, which remains my aim. If we can release those maps within a campaign where everyone can chill a little, and just enjoy playing the battles, it will all be worthwhile...

Take care and good luck, ok. As always, you this week, and of course, Leci, Mike & Gort, who left after the Brit-German squabble last week, will be welcome to play any time...

Thanks for the great games we played on the new Vimont and Villers-Bocage maps. They were pretty good predictors for what actually happened eh?

GottaLove88s wrote:

kingt wrote:I wasn't demanding anything. I was asking how it works. We started with regular infantry and ended up with improved infantry. The same thing could happen to Air support, and if it were to happen, it should be clear before June 8 battles.

KT, as you know well, strengthening infantry was something that I asked everyone about before we started, reminded about once we started, and then took a vote on... You are the first to be raising issues of Allied air superiority in GJS'44 because none of the rest of us know how the 'planes will work out yet. The first time they'll be used will be June 8th, so let's see.

Let's set the record straight. Most of the people that voted before the first battle started went for tougher infantry, me included, but you postponed that vote until after the first day. I have also voiced concerns regarding Air support since back then, it's not something I came up with just now, and it came up because I saw it was a problematic bonus for the Allies in the first campaign:

From what I've read in the other forum, Allies encountered problems after the landings, as some of the historical advantages such as aerial superiority and a larger number of troops and tanks were not replicated correctly in the fame to offer a more balanced game play especially once German heavy armor BGs would have been engaged.

There are some very strong German BGs in the order of battle, which would have no problem repelling Allied attacks under current conditions and push Allied BGs back to the beaches. Take the Lehr BGs that are coming about a week in after the landings, and you'll see what I mean. I don't want to offer any hints to the enemy, but I certainly know how I'd order play those BGs in battle

So then, if infantry gets suppressed as easily as I have read, especially with the new stronger mortar teams, and airplanes don't do any real damage against armor, then not everything would be that historically correct, would it?

Not to mention that tanks won't get any move penalty because of the Allied air supremacy.

You say that the rest of you don't know how the planes work. YOU know and everyone else that was on the Allied side in the other game. So it's okay for you to complain about planes, but only when the Allies are losing, but it's not ok for me to ask a week in advanced whether or not the planes will be bumped up or not. Not to request it, mind you. Here's what you wrote back then, and then went on about it for several pages:

4. typhoons are a nearly useless bonus... in actual ww2, typhoon squadrons used to wait in "cab ranks" in the sky to be called down by squaddies, immediately as required; 2nd TAF flew an average of 1,200 sorties per day in normandy, so Germans would never move tanks during daylight; Eisenhower credits typhoons with winning d-day because they almost single handedly crippled the most dangerous SS tank divisions (mostly through suppression)... But in GJS, weather seems to have a disproportionate effect; on a cloudy day, typhoons don't just fly less... they don't fly at all (nice to be a pilot, lol )... and even if the lazy sobs did fly, the Germans have their 50x 88s and about 40x wirbelwind AA, so the few typhoons we can use fly occasional aerobatics, rarely damaging anything... quite unlike d-day for real... So with rare typhoons and no other effective method (naval never in range, reg infantry with few/useless charges and easily suppressed ie. dead; piats never able to close to effective range on these maps, with little effectiveness even when they can fire) "normal" German armour has become immune... and the 80 or so panthers and 30-40 tigers will be absolutely invincible... The difficulty will be, against impossible odds, GJS will stop being fun for Allied players...
5. so it feels like real world Allied advantages at d-day, ie. naval arty, mass use of airpower, strong infantry with plenty of charges, don't exist... but real world disadvantages for Germans at d-day, ie. tanks too scared to move during the day, tigers that routinely broke down, panthers that ran out of fuel, don't exist either... So i'm trying to figure out how to keep it fun for everyone???

So how can you say that none of the rest know how the planes will work? Do I know how they work? No, that's why I was asking. Again, I just wanted a simple answer so I know what the course of my strategy will be.

Sure, some of the things you mentioned in that lengthy exchange were "fixed" in this campaign, but not air support. In case the Allies are losing will you then take an Allied-biased position and start thinking of ways to keep this more fun?

How about we just welcome Mowby and Mlazar (who are both new to '44) to the campaign, let 'em settle in and play a few games before we start agitating over the correct stats for Allied aircraft.

How is this about them not being welcomed or not having time to settle in when we're talking about June 8 battles? I think I saw games setup by them and they did say they played a few already so it's really no pressure on them. In fact, they may have played more than we did.

You're the only one agitating over air support, all the while trying to make me look like I have unwarranted concerns. Instead of having provided a simple answer you choose this way of settling what wasn't a problem.

GottaLove88s wrote:but KT needs to learn that it is just a game, and sometimes just to play it.

Any game is played by the rules, and you as a GM should know better. If the rules aren't yet set in stone and clear for everyone, you can't react as you did since yesterday to a simple question. Provide the answer and move on without assuming things.

So then let me tell you what you need to learn since we're doing this...

You need to learn to be a non-biased GM. You're not anyone's father to try to make it fun for everyone. Everyone is having fun and nobody has left because they've been on a two-day losing streak out of a 25-day campaign.

Now you know why they left? Because of conflicts generated by your rules, decisions and map mistakes.

When the Panthers and Tigers start rolling over some Allied BGs, will you then try to make it fun for the Allies? Because let me tell you that I won't need your patronizing help to deal with the tanks. Nor do I need advanced Air power, which you seem to imply that I want.

Back to these conflicts you helped create, your rule 4.33 addition, which was uncler, generated the first conflict. We accepted the ruling but you still raged on after that, which prompted the first leaving decisions, mine and Brummbar's.

Then we have your maps that generated all the other conflicts after which people left - again, they left because of the debates, not because of gameplay / winning / losing. Leci, Gortwillsaveus, k9mike announced their departure after those conflicts, and morge4 said he was on the fence.

In total there are 6 people in the campaign that considered leaving or left at one point or another. Because of you.

You need to learn how to release maps and to abide by your own rules. So that you don't generate conflicts.

The Gold mistakes (Puma and 29 units for the Allied side) and the Caen AFD defense, all generated mistakes. Not to mention aerial recon that was off. We let the latter slide and the Gold one, but on the Caen map you even had the audacity to suggest that game should go on, despite clearly disadvantaging the Allies. With your rules and changes you transformed the battle from ASD attack for us in an sort-of-AFD-defense for the Germans. Why, because the Germans were losing at the time?

How did you fix everything then? By imposing new rules to make up for your own mistakes. And we let them slide too, because you were on vacation.

Since we're on it, on June 6 you also released unplayable maps for the Germans which needed to be adapted, and battles needed to be restarted.

Also since we're on it, I was the one to point out all these three major errors, and yet you still seem to have a problem with me asking questions, while all I'm doing is trying to help the campaign. And you have the balls to tell me to go read the rules? It's because I read the rules/oobs/strat maps that I was able to spot those issues as fast as possible.

You need to learn not to screw up GJS campaigns anymore.

Considering these two threads, it's more and more clear to me that you're the reason the first one stopped, and now you're the reason for this one stalling.

You need to stop taking things personally, because they aren't.

Everyone appreciates this initiative, but you can't play it by the rules but without the rules and expect everyone to be okay with that. And you aren't the one tipping the balance in the game.

If you don't want the hassles of such a complex game then just generate 40x40 football fields with two teams that use exactly the same units, either German vs German or Allies vs Allies so you can't take sides and then everyone will have fun.

Bolding and underlining is so much fun, next time I'll explore with colors. Now lets slide in a smiley too.

Finally, I also happen to agree with what Brummbar said since this thing started yesterday.

Yes, it's because we were on the same team, it's a big conspiracy for the Allies to take over Normandy whatever means necessary.

KingT,

Thanks for your politely worded emails...

Let's keep this strictly factual. As I have consistently said, I'm impressed by your passion, curiosity and determination to win. I've gone back through all of your threads, and there's nobody else on the forum, who has taken it to the level that you have, in terms of asking questions... and, as you know, that's excluding the very many directly PMed and emailed questions that I've answered for you. For a GM, you're high maintenance, but you're mostly high quality, high maintenance.

CONSTRUCTIVE INVOLVEMENT FROM KINGT

Maps shouldn't show the Arty bonus -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=100#p364538
Carryover promotions -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=100#p364677
Sequential battles -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=100#p364681
Introduce dice rolls for mud effect on tanks -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=120#p364930
Carryover elites -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=220#p365641
Question on Kangaroos -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=220#p365647
Orders in Excel format -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=220#p365658
Agreed no in-game arty -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=240#p365692
Original question on aircraft; GM supplied full stats -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=240#p365737
Battle map questions -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=260#p365879
Questions on multifront -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=260#p365907
GJS for Russia -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=400#p367289
Question on whether air support would be "tuned up" -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=660#p370452

Unfortunately, your enthusiasm lets itself spill over into an unwillingness to accept generally accepted principles, like the results of player votes, that GMs should be able to run campaigns that they have created, and that your opinion may not be the prevailing one if the majority prefer a different one...

NEGATIVE INVOLVEMENT FROM KINGT

Complaint about historically matching availability of Kangaroos -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=240#p365671
Complaint on pointlessness of timezone matching -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=340#p366710
Complaint about new relief movement rule. Told GM to add it from a later date -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=380#p367078
Attempt to change the vote that everyone else is voting on -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=380#p367156
GM agrees to adapt result of vote in KT's favour, if others agree -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=380#p367158
Complaint about result of a vote by all players -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=400#p367427
Further complaint about vote by all players -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=400#p367434
Forgot that V & VB wouldn't be affected by his complaint -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=420#p367442
Grudging acceptance of vote results -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=420#p367443
Complaint about processing of relief movement -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=460#p368666
Unwillingness to accept any outcome other than his own -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=460#p368682
Pointing out "one more error" -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=460#p368684
Complaint about "losing advantage" -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=460#p368687
Further challenging of GM (by then we were pretty much fighting) and further complaining about the result of the agreed vote -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=480#p368750
KingT resigns -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=500#p369004
KingT posts that he agrees to come back -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=520#p369362
Fair complaint about extra Puma in Caen; removed by GM -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=560#p369637
Unhappy to replay Caen; GM agrees -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=560#p369669
Unhappy with error in Caen map; wants a restart -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=620#p370237
Complaint about Leci (opposing commander) -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=620#p370237
Playing the game not an acceptable solution -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=620#p370323
(btw the guys did agree to finish this one and Jcb still won easily)
Agreement to new rules with some objections on timing -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=660#p370452
Unhappy about being asked to read rules/prior posts -> viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=700#p370854

I confess, given the tone of your emails today, I broke a cardinal rule and took a look at Allied and Axis private threads too. I'm surprised by the number of times that you've offered to "raise an objection" with the GM, to various other small issues that didn't favour your team, mostly where your guys have suggested that they're not actually problematic. I should count myself lucky that you restricted yourself to only the complaints above.

If you look at my actual track record, I've agreed with you about half of the time, and implemented many of your proposals, occasionally only to see you continue griping about them when player votes didn't go the way that you wanted them to.

KingT, I'd urge you not to re-write history on why the three Axis players left, one week after I foolishly persuaded you and Mac to come back after resigning. If you really want to get into a flame war they could happily tell you why they left, but fortunately for you, they're too much gentlemen to tell you.

From the tone of your mails, it's clear that you don't accept my decisions here, and you're not happy with my many "mistakes" in creating this campaign, in listening to votes you didn't agree with, in adopting rules that you didn't like, in creating maps that by your own admission were "wonderful" but sometimes had, for example, a single vehicle that, in your words, didn't affect the outcome.

I'm delighted that you will be creating your own campaign, distinct and separate from GJS'44, instead of continuing to disrupt this one with your complaints and objections. I have unsubscribed you from the Allied private thread and we'll have to find a new commander to replace you. I'm sorry to have wasted your time by attempting to persuade you to come back last week (which is where you and Mac do differ, because at least Mac had the manners to reply at the time).

I wish you every luck in your own new campaign, and I trust that you will be blessed with players who are as constructive and sportsmanlike as you have been...

Take care, KT. It's been a pleasure playing with you.

You'll find that your question on Air Superiority was answered in detail on November 10th, with full statistics... where Allies get shorter delay, and double the AP attack stats, so there never was a need to "tune them up [even more] to reflect the Allied air superiority" that you were agitating for... viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=240#p365737

Can I take a moment to thank everyone who works(worked) on building this GJS game. No one (except for me) is perfect I know the maps may have an occasional mistake. It is hard work building these maps. I know the rules occasionally change as this developing game requires readjustment. (Sort of a shame you all aren't clairvoyant and able to see all of the implications of a rule you made. Like most game designers you require readjustment as a game is played). You are all doing this for FREE and out of you love of the game. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!

For point of comparison, If anyone played Mark Herman's excellent board game Empire of the Rising Sun, it went through FOUR post game release rules changes as players found loop holes in his game design. (Took a year after I bought the game to shake all this our).

mlazar wrote:Can I take a moment to thank everyone who works(worked) on building this GJS game. No one (except for me) is perfect I know the maps may have an occasional mistake. It is hard work building these maps. I know the rules occasionally change as this developing game requires readjustment. (Sort of a shame you all aren't clairvoyant and able to see all of the implications of a rule you made. Like most game designers you require readjustment as a game is played). You are all doing this for FREE and out of you love of the game. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!

For point of comparison, If anyone played Mark Herman's excellent board game Empire of the Rising Sun, it went through FOUR post game release rules changes as players found loop holes in his game design. (Took a year after I bought the game to shake all this our).

Thanks Mlazar, You'll always be welcome to play anything that I can create.
Apologies for some of the recent disruption everyone. I have made mistakes, but I'm doing my best to correct them now.
Guys, please think about who's willing to replace KingT? To avoid the risk of any unpleasantness, PM me rather than posting.
If necessary, we can rejig teams to keep them balanced. I'll get our new maps uploaded as soon as the Hillman result is in.
Very much looking forward to playing all of you...
Apologies for the past fortnight...

GottaLove88s wrote: KingT, I'd urge you not to re-write history on why the three Axis players left, one week after I foolishly persuaded you and Mac to come back after resigning.

For clarity, this is simply not true. Jon, you were the reason we were going to leave in the first place!

You did no 'persuading' in fact, you clung to your position even well after any debate was over (the debate just kept going in your own mind!) and prolonged the problem. You, at that point insisted either KingT or I move over to the Axis command...you were even pushing for a restart of the whole thing! It was then that I voluntarily opted to be a GM (again, no persuading other than to say I could GM alone and you would join the Axis...wish now that I took you up on that) and it was I who convinced KingT to stay on as the Allied command.

Your perception of the facts is one of the prime reasons I don't wish to participate as a 'co' GM.

However you may want to twist and turn reality in your favor the fact is that your GM-ing has lead to all this talk and the departure of players. There are plenty of mistakes in your quotes above and I only skimmed through it, after all you did need to edit the post quite a few times. Maybe when you'll have a final version I'll take another look.

I see you took me out of the Allied forum as well, you must really feel threatened by my opinions You really don't have the authority of doing that actually, not to mention there wouldn't be a point to do it either. But hey, you apparently really need this.

Down to 7 turns in Hillman...pretty much of a stalemate at the moment...casualties 9 for Allies and 7 for Germans. This will be an interesting finish

What's the VP/Flag situation like?