Why people don't post...

[Der Kuenstler]

I can understand why so few people post game tips and tactics on this MB. It is generally a place where the only posts you find are for those wanting games or posts looking for awol opponents. Good game tips and strategy opinions are scarce. Three main reasons I know of are:

1) Fear of criticism. As you can see by my "speed" post last week - I was immediately brushed off and everyone was referred to another site where all the REAL experts are. Along with that were all the cries of "that would never work" blah blah blah. However, I believe that everyone knows SOMETHING about this game that I don't, and I wish everyone was actually encouraged more to share their ideas. Yes - even new players should share what they know - it helps them feel a part of the club. So what if YOU knew it already - somebody else might not have. But no new guy is going to write anything when they fear being tongue-whipped by the old icons of ladder glory. I've been lashed before for jumping on new players with game offers, and I admit now I probably deserved it. I've been mending my ways there. We DO need to help new players more. But how about when we jump on someone new who has a game tip and make them feel like a total idiot? Or don't respond at all - like we're saying "who are you?" We can disgree nicely - in a way that will encourage more sharing. Also, why does every opposing view have to end with a showdown - "Oh yeah - let's battle - you do it your way and I'll do it mine and we'll SEE who knows best." Get real - we all know the terrain and weather usually decide what's best more than our own pet tactics.

2) Sideshows - The name calling should totally stop - that's for sure. If you don't agree with an idea, you could say "I see how you could think that way BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE..." and state your point. There is no need to get personal - we are discussing THE GAME and how it works. It's amazing how hard it is for some of us to get along when we all like this game so much - this specialty game that you can't even find on most store shelves. That should be an immediate bond right there - the game itself - that's what we could be talking about instead of who said what about who.

3) The competition factor - Because this is a competitive ladder site, there's the chance that if I tell you what I know, you might use that information to beat me some day. That's true - however, if you become willing to tell me what you know, we're even again, and we're both better players. AND we've gained a closer friendship, which is really better than a computer ladder rung anyway. Something I've learned after being here over a year - NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT YOUR RECORD BUT YOU. So, believe me, jumping up and down and celebrating your amazing W-L record is pretty hollow and empty when no one else is cheering. Wouldn't it better to celebrate the game itself by sharing the ideas we come up with to help make each other better? And really - don't you think most guys here have shortcuts to those other MB sites on our computers anyway - are we really learning any "classified secrets" over there that no one knows here? Maybe a few newbies that don't know the links yet, that's all.

Lastly I want to say I'm very thankful for this site and its officers - you've helped me fill up many an otherwise dismal hour on the vitual battlefield. I believe the Blitz could easily be the best site on the net for opponent finding AND learning if we could all band together and contribute to make it happen.

[Fullhouse]

I agree that the name calling should stop and as a name caller I apologize for the derailment of your thread.

It is hard to hold your tongue when you see what you think is injustice taking place. I think this the motivation for both the pro geordie and pro red dev name calling in your thread. As I think 99.999999999% of the posters on this forum are genuine good blokes (including those I have called names)(.0000000000001%= Para) then a sense of injustice can lead to much name calling but the motivation is the rightings of wrongs and the upholding of the British way.

Also it is hard to let the name callee get in the last name call so you then have a circle of name calling ad infintium.

Again my apologies. However It is worth remembering that compared to other boards these kinds of derailiments happen alot less frequently.

[Copper]

An excellent post DK.... kudos to you for standing up and saying what so many are thinking.

Bootie

[RedDevil]

Kel, my apologies for mucking up your thread with club business and bringing the wrath of Geordie supporters down on my arse.

I Do owe you a game, and when I get things opened up enough in RL here, I do hope you'll allow me that honor.

[GreenHornet]

Excellent post DK. Thank you for eloquently stating the way I've been feeling about this board ( and the lack of good, quality CM posts) for a long time.

I wholeheartedly agree with all three of your points. Especially number 3.

Bravo.

[Zemke]

Excellent post on how things should be. It has always been hard to get contributions to tactical posts for the very reasons you stated. I really thing people are afraid of giving away their secrets because of the ladder.

And please don't get me wrong about my comment on QBME flag rushing, I know if you are going to play that type of battle, and if the terrain allows, then rushing the Flags (Objectives) will give you a big advantage, and a likely win. I have done it and had it done to me, its just after playing that way I started to ask myself what relavence does this have with real combat at the tactical level. I could not think of very many instances where soldiers would do that, because during a movement to contact, (which is what a meeting engagement is), you are feeling your way forward to avoid surprise. There are very few instances where two forces are rushing towards the same objective at the tactical level, (operationally, yes, at this level no). So a proper meeting engagement should not give points for flags but rather for exiting the map, which forces you to fight your way through, or die trying. And even that would not be what the likely outcome of a Meeting engagement, which would be both forces would pull back a bit, continue to recon to determine enemy dispositions, and more than like wait for further orders or conduct a hasty attack. But none of that would hppen in a 30 minute time frame. Regardless, the game does not allow a QB like that, so we are stuck with what we have or forced to build our own, which goes back to what I was trying to say all along, the game's ME QB is not a very realistic representation of a meeting engagement IMHO, and I thus prefer other "types" of CM battle options. Der Kuenstler I respect what you are trying to do, times past I tried the same.

[ATCS]

DK, great post. I think some folks around here take constructive criticism/critical discussion of tactics as a personal attack, or submit personal attacks instead of valid discussion. I think if you fear disclosing a tactic you use for one type of battle, then you could probably use a few whippings to learn a new method.

All in all, great points. I would really like to see our message board get back on track.

[Copper]

Well thats one thing we can thank Geordie for... him getting told to s*d of has certainly brought this place back to life. Funny though he was always complaining it was quiet round here - now when it picks up he aint here to enjoy it.

I think its a good idea to rehash old posts for the simple fact that new players are joining all the time and it will be new to them. Its just afactthat we will have to respond in these posts to help new players even though it may be ground tat we have covered over and over throughout the years... but that doesnt bother me... I'd happily tell people how I maintain my fabulous winning percentage... LOL

[Der Kuenstler]

I Do owe you a game, and when I get things opened up enough in RL here, I do hope you'll allow me that honor.

Sounds good, Randy!

[Kil Roy]