Quitting this series

Discussion relating to Battles in Normandy

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Quitting this series

Postby SS Hauptsturmfuhrer » Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:06 pm

Due to insulting messages received from JSS who claims to be working for SSG, I will not be buying any more SSG games.

To avoid this problem, hire staff that do not harass paying customers. Fire those that do.
User avatar
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:54 pm

Postby falco » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:02 am

.....the entire membership of the SSG forums breathes a collective sigh of relief.
- falco.
Image Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
falco
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:06 am
Location: Yongin-si, South Korea

Postby Abwehr » Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:11 am

Could you show a printscreen of one of those messages from JSS?

According to JSS's title, he's the site admin, although I don't know if he literally works for SSG, or is just an admin.

I'm not too sure whether it was necessary to post the message in multiple forum sections.

falco, to reply to one of your messages in a duplicate thread of this one: where does he call people cheaters? I've checked his posts up to June 2009 and I don't see much mention of unfair play.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby falco » Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:08 am

I'm sure if you ask JSS he'll fill you in on all the sordid details. The offending post that the OP wrote on the BIN forum was in fact deleted by JSS on Tuesday (I think).

Meanwhile this was sent to me by our collective friend this afternoon -

"Why do you bother cheating to end the game in two turns, and then lose an opponent? Is it worth it? There are only like 4 people left playing this game series and you are just killing the game even more by cheating to piss people off. Better you man up and tell people you are a cheater before wasting our time setting up the game".

I started a BIN game with this clown and two turns in he gives up and starts slagging me off on the BIN forum calling me an idiot, loser and cheat among other things. Anyway I'm getting tired of drawing attention to this fool now so I'll leave it at that I think.
- falco.
Image Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
falco
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:06 am
Location: Yongin-si, South Korea

Postby JSS » Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:02 am

To: SS Main Assault Leader,

1. Its well known that the folks supporting the Run5 site do this to support the gaming community. Nowhere has it been implied that the Run5 crew works for SSG (in fact its been pretty explicitly stated that we don't before).

2. There's two main things that aren't allowed on these forums:
- public accusations of cheating
- political discussions... (you could expect religious discussions to be added to the list if anyone had the bad taste to start one up too).

3. My PM to you was neither insulting nor rude in anyway. It didn't support your position, but that is a matter of fact, not one of personal attack on you.

JSS
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Gregor Whiley » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:49 am

I would just like to say that JSS has made a massive contribution to the SSG community, over many years and on an honorary basis. He has the complete and unconditional support of SSG for his actions as Site Admistrator.

I would also like to add that the actions of JSS and the other volunteers who help with the site, testing, scenario creation, manuals and tutorial materials and answering people's questions free up a lot of our time to devote to game and scenario creation and we at SSG are very, very grateful to all those who have contributed, both now and in the past.

Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, SSG
www.ssg.com.au
User avatar
Gregor Whiley
SSG
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:55 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby critter » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:41 am

falco wrote:I'm sure if you ask JSS he'll fill you in on all the sordid details. The offending post that the OP wrote on the BIN forum was in fact deleted by JSS on Tuesday (I think).

Meanwhile this was sent to me by our collective friend this afternoon -

"Why do you bother cheating to end the game in two turns, and then lose an opponent? Is it worth it? There are only like 4 people left playing this game series and you are just killing the game even more by cheating to piss people off. Better you man up and tell people you are a cheater before wasting our time setting up the game".

I started a BIN game with this clown and two turns in he gives up and starts slagging me off on the BIN forum calling me an idiot, loser and cheat among other things. Anyway I'm getting tired of drawing attention to this fool now so I'll leave it at that I think.


I played SS and had no problem with him till his computer went down. BUT...when it came back up he never wanted to renew our match or start a new one. He never called me a cheater.
Falco did you not invade with the Americans on turn 1 in BIN? Which while not cheating I think it's unfair.
Which since I know SSG is watching this thread needs to be fixed. Making the 3-4 beach head hexes on Omaha beach worth about 1000 German points per turn should do it. Go ahead. Don't invade.
SS I've dealt with JSS. Seems a nice guy to me. You sure your're just not reading stuff into his response? As you've stated..Our hobby needs people.
Image
critter
Major
Major
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: Marine IL.

Postby falco » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:58 pm

Critter wrote:
"Which since I know SSG is watching this thread needs to be fixed. Making the 3-4 beach head hexes on Omaha beach worth about 1000 German points per turn should do it. Go ahead. Don't invade."


I have to admit I really dont get this one. If my memory serves me right, BIN was released in 2004 right? How come its taken over six years for this to be recognised as a problem? If the Omaha beach points problem was such an anomaly, why wasn't such a glaring omission rectified in the patches created after the games release?? Or, for that matter, spotted in the playtesting before it was even released as a new product?

Yes, I delayed landing the US troops on Omaha for a couple of turns (note - the remaining US troops landed on Utah as per normal). This enabled me to concentrate all the sea-based firepower on blasting away the fortifications on Gold, Juno & Sword. I was then able to land the British troops quickly and squeeze a few across the Orne before the German player realized what was happening and block access, blow bridges etc. Anyway heres my point - Is this such an outlandish scenario? Could this never have possibly happened on D-Day and the days that followed?? Could the combined Allied navies not have mainly focused on these beaches on D-Day and D-Day+1? I thought part of the appeal of games like BIN was that it was possible for the ordinary guy to alter the possible course of history.

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir anything up here. Just putting my own point of view across. If the general concencus here is that the aforementioned is unfair, I will gladly concede my current battle and cease the practice in any future games.
Last edited by falco on Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
- falco.
Image Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
falco
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:06 am
Location: Yongin-si, South Korea

BiN opening move tactics

Postby JSS » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:10 pm

Don't see a delayed Omaha Beach invasion as too gamey (IMHO). Here's my reasons for thinking this way:

Like everything else in BIN or BII, its a trade off. What you gain in focused naval barrages is offset by delayed landings by an entire corps... each one day delay builds on itself and can have crippling effects around turns 20-25. Plus the German commander gets to send Panzer Lehr toward GJS (not a good thing for the Allied commander!).

As the German player, I hope my opponent takes that tactic (delayed Omaha landings)... get a one to two day reprieve from 4-5 divisions and lots of artillery. Get to send four panzer divisions at the UK early... often with devastating effect.

As far as points to get the Allied commander on Omaha... in my OTP variants, the ends of Omaha beach are each worth 25 pts per turn (a top level VP value) and Isigny + Trevieres another 25 pts per turn together (on turn 8 they become worth a collective 60 pts per turn).

If the Allied player gets this wrong, a strong defensive line can be set to hold the 60pt value line for a long time... this is a bad thing (from the Allied perspective).

JSS

PS This thread will move from Kharkov to BiN as thats what the discussion is centered around.
Current PBEM Games
1. Sealion (Air Parity) t11 out

User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

My .02

Postby critter » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:58 pm

@ Falco...Never said you were cheating..But the people I play on here refuse to play that way.
@ Jss I respectfully disagree. While I don't have as much experiance in not invading I'm very experianced in the "Regular game." Provided the air and naval bombardments isn't a disaster
As the German I can hold the Americans for 3 turns on Omaha either way. The only difference is by not invading They will be less shot up.
I don't care where you send the Lehr because I'll use air int to interdict them all the way in. And to stop you defending St Savior from 101 airborne.
I'll use the air to put any defender who heads to St Sauveur out of supply and take the city, kill the units and cut off the pennesula before you can do any thing about it.
Turn 4-5 will see me holding St Savior, Cherbourg cut off or soon will be, I'll be holding Bayeaux, I'll be across the Orne and very proubly be in 1 or two hexes of Caen. IF I move right and don't release units before I kill them you'll end up with less units in your defense.
How you think you'll hold off the nearly full strenght Americans turn 4+ is something I'd like to see. The 352 Div can't do it and by now I'll be using the navy to put them out of supply while I Int your roads that I know you have to reinforce with from playing the game 100 times.
Which is my point..The Germans are forced to play by the rules while the Allies get to bend them. Creative use of Air Int, while the German 352,716,243,91 Divs are stuck in place because of the release rules is fatal. Bring on the Lehr against my full strenght Tommies. By the time you get to use them I'll be further inland with stronger units.
Lethal Swede chime in here..He's the best at it I've played. We did 4-10 turns twice and I couldn't stop what I described above.
Why can't the British shell Cherbourg in the regular game? Because the capital ships were kept in the mine swept channels. To think that they could have switched beaches in 3 days is kinda ahistorical.
Why did Monty want the Invasion stretched to 5 div's ? He didn't know about the German release rules I guess.
Last edited by critter on Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
critter
Major
Major
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: Marine IL.

Postby Talos » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:01 am

Though Normandy is not one of the scenarios i play regularly, i do agree with JSS about the pros and cons of not landing at Omaha for the Allies. It has some advantages and it has some disadvantages, air interdiction being one that which has not been mentioned yet. Having the American interdiction available to hep slow down the Pz's in the BC sector can be a life saver, if you don't land at Omaha its not available.

In the end what you gain from this tactic you lose elsewhere, probable more in the medium to long term and just for the record i always try and land something at Omaha, but i have played people who don't and i certainly don't have a problem with it.

The whole point about gaming is changing the paramaters of the battle to a greater or lesser extent to see what might have been possible.
User avatar
Talos
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 5:59 am
Location: Kent, UK

Postby Spuddy64 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:46 am

Talos wrote:Though Normandy is not one of the scenarios i play regularly, i do agree with JSS about the pros and cons of not landing at Omaha for the Allies. It has some advantages and it has some disadvantages, air interdiction being one that which has not been mentioned yet. Having the American interdiction available to hep slow down the Pz's in the BC sector can be a life saver, if you don't land at Omaha its not available.

In the end what you gain from this tactic you lose elsewhere, probable more in the medium to long term and just for the record i always try and land something at Omaha, but i have played people who don't and i certainly don't have a problem with it.

The whole point about gaming is changing the paramaters of the battle to a greater or lesser extent to see what might have been possible.


Amen to that
Spuddy64
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Michigan

Postby critter » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:56 am

Talos wrote:The whole point about gaming is changing the paramaters of the battle to a greater or lesser extent to see what might have been possible.


I agree..But lets do it on both sides. Free up the German units. If I don't have the Omaha beach hexes covered with units. I'll have +4 die rolls on any that do plan on landing. Why not move the panzers to the beach? If you can blow off Overlord why does Rommel got to listen to Herr Shickelgrouper?
I just finished playing turns 1-3 three times vs myself.
In all three the Brits got in with less than 6 hits. & 7 if you count the time I took an exchange against the Mville battery. They stood there on the beach turn 1 so they could take 10-1 over run attacks against 21 Pz units and the 716 th unit behind the beaches. Twice the 21 pz couldn't even move a unit till turn 2. Which let me forget about actually holding the Orne bridges and take out towns with intensic AA. Once I could have taken a hex of Caen but chose not to free up 21 pz. Turn 3 saw Bayeaux fall and the Brit cutting behind Omaha. 352 was stuck till I chose to release them on turn 3.
The Americans had mixed luck as they can't get the landings lower than 2 dice due to "unit steps" in the area. But in all 3 games I was 2 hexes from St Sauvuer with the only option the German had to reinforce was if he used his trucks on 243rd div on turn 3. The whole area was interdicted and out of supply. Which ment his south edge reinforcements walked to the beach due to no trucks and the unentrenched 352 was taking 7-1 attacks from almost full strenght Americans, out of supply from the British light cruisers and being pocketed by British troops . Tell me this is fair.
In 3 landings I lost 1 ranger unit.
Like I said it ain't cheating..But if the option is on the table, I wanna know..Cuz I want the Allies.
Image
critter
Major
Major
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: Marine IL.

Postby Joe » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:46 am

Would suggest people play the little known scenario "Rommels Way" for another take on the D-Day scenario.

-
Joe
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:32 pm


Return to Battles in Normandy Public Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron