V1.03 -The Downside

[K K Rossokolski]

OK, I have been subject to concentrated attack, including private messages, one actually quite incoherent -don't need those, say what you want to say in public. The points at issue seem to be, as far as I can see through the emotive stuff:
a. that I attacked V1.03 with no good reason, and by extension personally attacked those involved in creating it.

b. that I did so in an arrogant and sarcastic manner etc etc etc.

c. that this outcome shouldn't be criticised because of how hard people have worked and how much time has been put in, and

d. that I merely offered criticism, and presented no alternative solutions.

Point by point

a. Not so, and I pointed out some aspects I thought were excellent. That was not being patronising but congratulatory. Admiring, if you like.
What I did attack was the attempt to get CS to fight WWII at sea, resulting in drolleries such as the non-submerging submarine with a defence value off the scale, and a land-sliding/airborne torpedo that shoots down aeroplanes...As I said, if V1.03 had come up with a land unit of similar supernatural qualities, the criticism would rightly have been very widespread and lively, because the bottom line is that WF, EF and RS are land warfare games. People play them because they are interested in land warfare. The knowledge of WWII land warfare demonstrated on this forum every day is awesome. The team came up with land elements that are sound simulation, because the land aspects were approached professionally... demonstrably not so with the new sea stuff. I acknowledge the first, while getting stuck into the last.

As for personal attacks on the V1.03 team.. if I express a dislike for the Mona Lisa, does that mean I attack da Vinci? It probably does, by implication. I used the term "amateur" for the Navy garbage, and I stand by it. One characteristic of amateurism is lack of subject knowledge, which is manifestly clear in new navy stuff. No one with any worthwhile knowledge could sign up to the outcomes reached.

b. Purely a matter of opinion, and incidently the subject of most of the attacks. I am more interested in substance than style. Attacks on 'arrogance' and 'sarcasm', attacks which themselves could be seen as displaying these selfsame characteristics, won't upset my sleep. Refute my arguments, don't attack my personal style. An explanation of the virtues of the non-submarine submarine would be a good start. How one can get an aeroplane parked in a cow paddock to drop its gravity bombs over the distant horizon would be of great interest to both myself and the shade of Isaac Newton. I daresay he will be devastated to see how wrong he was!!. As for sarcasm, the lowest form of wit, well that is very much a matter of subjective opinion. And I think, for me to acknowledge, rather than be attacked for, as it is a term with derogatory implications Sarcasm, poking fun, irony, coppery, and leady, and grey hair, has been my style since I was a little chap playing submarines in the bath. Not illegal, as far as I am aware. Freedom of speech is greatly treasured down our way. And some might see the tone of the attacks as a go at my character personality, and integrity, which is really not on, is it? However, I choose to laugh.

c. This is a line of argument that is, in the democracies in which most of us live, quite frightening. Allow to me to give a topical example. Down here in the land of Oz, where politics is a tough game, the relatively new Government is struggling with the petrol price dragon, in part because the leader (now Prime Minister), when in Opposition, claimed he could keep pump prices down. The Government is working extremely hard 24/7 on all kinds of schemes....some quite bizarre.. Naturally, the Opposition is in full attack mode, and scoring plenty of hits. Would you expect them simply to lie down and shut up, merely in deference to the Government's hard work. Not in a country that believes in the freedom of speech, the rule of law and the supremacy of the governed over the governing..which is why we have elections, is it not?
Therefore, any suggestion that attack on the results of hard work is improper is a sophistry, and can reasonably be disregarded.

d. Not so. Criticism certainly. My previouly expressed answer to the sea warfare problems was simplicity itself...do away with it. It is not necessary. CS already has ample means to simulate the aspects of direct naval interface with land warfare. What the landing craft and offboard arty does is a reasonable simulation of the real thing. Nothing else is needed. If you want sea warfare, play a specialist sea warfare game. It will probably be realistic, because it will have been put together by people who know what they're about, just like the land warfare aspects of CS. It will NEED to be realistic, as these games have to face the marketplace. A naval game with the dreaded antircraft landgoing torpedo may not have much sales appeal among serious people.

As for the air, a reasonable simulation of WWII era must have tactical air simulation. Again, as I stated in my original piece, the results, in particular the horizontal longe range bomb trajectory from the aeroplane fixed on the ground, do not engender confidence that any understanding of air power has been applied. My solution here was perhaps not well stated originally, but I will restate-examine the issues thoroughly with necessary professional assistance, and proper attention to detail. And of course eliminate the Supermarine Newton non-flying horizontal bomb dropper!