| Author | Message | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1842 Registered: 5-2003 |
“But the rules say I can do it!” “Nope, I’m not going to allow it.” | ||
| Quovynyte (Quovynyte)
New member Username: Quovynyte Post Number: 586 Registered: 6-2009 |
Uhh, what are all those ”'s and “'s? Are they meant to be there? Should the puzzle read: But the rules say I can do it! Nope, I'm not going to allow it. If so, Are two people talking to eachother? Both HAM A + B (Alive and Breathing?) Era/Location/Profession relevant? Competitions relevant? Examinations? Sports? Is anybody in danger in this? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1845 Registered: 5-2003 |
Uhh, what are all those ”'s and “'s? Are they meant to be there? They're quotation marks. Should the puzzle read: But the rules say I can do it! Nope, I'm not going to allow it. If so, Are two people talking to eachother? Both HAM A + B (Alive and Breathing?) Yes to all. Era/Location/Profession relevant? Yes to all. Competitions relevant? Noish. Examinations? Sports? No to both. Is anybody in danger in this? No. | ||
| Quovynyte (Quovynyte)
New member Username: Quovynyte Post Number: 593 Registered: 6-2009 |
Modern era? [LPTF list of centuries]? Physical geography? Political? Was the profession relevant: * Artistic / musical / writer * Banking / financial / real estate * Clerical / Administrative * Computer related / Hardware * Construction / Craftsman * Criminal / Questionable Repute * Education / Academic Research * Entertainment / Media * Environmental / Outdoors / Nature * Executive / Management * Hospitality / Travel * Legal Services * Manufacturing / Distributions * Medical / Health Services * Politics / Government / Military * Sales / Marketing * Technical / Science / Engineering * Teaching / Child care * Transportation * Food Service * Other ? Any more people relevant? Animals relevant? Food? Clothing? Other tangible objects? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1851 Registered: 5-2003 |
Modern era? Yes. [LPTF list of centuries]? 20th. Physical geography? Yesish. Political? Noish. Was the profession relevant: * Artistic / musical / writer * Banking / financial / real estate * Clerical / Administrative * Computer related / Hardware * Construction / Craftsman * Criminal / Questionable Repute * Education / Academic Research * Entertainment / Media * Environmental / Outdoors / Nature * Executive / Management * Hospitality / Travel * Legal Services * Manufacturing / Distributions * Medical / Health Services * Politics / Government / Military This. * Sales / Marketing * Technical / Science / Engineering * Teaching / Child care * Transportation * Food Service * Other ? Any more people relevant? Yes, maybe a dozen. Exact number irrelevant. Animals relevant? Food? Clothing? Other tangible objects? Possibly, no to the others. | ||
| Quovynyte (Quovynyte)
New member Username: Quovynyte Post Number: 597 Registered: 6-2009 |
Politics? Government? Military relevant? Mountains relevant? Volcanoes? Deserts? Bodies of water? Waterfalls? Temperature? Time zones? Rainforests? Arctics? Jungles? Cities/towns? Natural disasters? Tropics? Forests? Tundra? Other? Wars relevant? Elections? Inventions? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 560 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did he do it anyway? Or did he not do it? Did he do something else instead? Did disaster ensue? Did someone die? Military rank relevant? If so, is the first person lower in rank than the second? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1853 Registered: 5-2003 |
Politics? Government? Military relevant? This. Mountains relevant? Volcanoes? Deserts? Bodies of water? This. Waterfalls? Temperature? Time zones? Rainforests? Arctics? Jungles? Cities/towns? Natural disasters? Tropics? Forests? Tundra? Other? Wars relevant? Yes. Elections? Inventions? No to both. Did he do it anyway? No. Or did he not do it? Yes. Did he do something else instead? Irr. Did disaster ensue? Yes. Did someone die? Yes. Military rank relevant? Possibly. If so, is the first person lower in rank than the second? Probably. | ||
| Quovynyte (Quovynyte)
New member Username: Quovynyte Post Number: 617 Registered: 6-2009 |
Body of Water: (going to continue in my next post.) * Arm of the sea * Arroyo (creek) * Barachois * Basin * Bay * Bayou * Beck * Bight * Billabong * Boil * Brook * Burn * Canal * Channel * Cove * Creek * Creek (tidal) * Dam * Draw * Estuary * Firth * Fjord Other ? War: Second World War First World War Korean War Chinese Civil War Iran-Iraq War Russian Civil War Chinese Civil War French Indochina Mexican Revolution Spanish Civil War French-Algerian War Afghanistan Russo-Japanese War Riffian War First Sudanese Civil Russo-Polish War Biafran War Chaco War Abyssinian War ? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1856 Registered: 5-2003 |
Second World War, and ocean. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 563 Registered: 9-2009 |
Would disaster have ensued, had he been allowed to do "it"? Are they on a ship? In a sub? Do they die? People on their side? The enemy? Would "it" have been done to the enemy? Are they allied forces? Axis? Was the death: by drowning? Shooting? Explosion? Fire? suffocation? Did more than one person die? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1867 Registered: 5-2003 |
Would disaster have ensued, had he been allowed to do "it"? Possibly not. Are they on a ship? No. In a sub? No. Do they die? Irr. People on their side? The enemy? Yes to both. Would "it" have been done to the enemy? No. Are they allied forces? Axis? This. Was the death: by drowning? Shooting? Explosion? Fire? suffocation? All of the above, except maybe the latter. Did more than one person die? Yes. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 588 Registered: 9-2009 |
Are they at sea? Any of them in command of a vessel? Or fleet? Would doing "it" mean to: avoid the enemy? Have a better chance against the enemy? Do they lose a battle? Radar relevant? Relevant why "it" is not being allowed? Are they Japanese? German? Italian? Other? Pacific, Indian, or Atlantic ocean? Some kind of honor or ritual relevant? Military secrets relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1870 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are they at sea? No. Any of them in command of a vessel? No. Or fleet?Noish. Would doing "it" mean to: avoid the enemy? Have a better chance against the enemy? Thisish. Do they lose a battle? Yes. Radar relevant? Relevant why "it" is not being allowed? Yes. Are they Japanese? This. German? Italian? Other? Pacific This, Indian, or Atlantic ocean? Some kind of honor or ritual relevant? No. Military secrets relevant? No. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 597 Registered: 9-2009 |
Are they planning an attack? Or a defense strategy? Is the thing not allowed: the use of some strategy? some tactic? Some weapon? A specific piece of hardware? A ship? A location? Were the rules changed to allow it? Or was it always allowed according to the rules? Is it not being allowed because of: tradition? Personal opinion? Risk? Cost (monetary? time? materiel? manpower?) | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 679 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is "it" not allowed because of fear of being spotted? other danger? chivalry? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1875 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are they planning an attack? Yes. Or a defense strategy? No. Is the thing not allowed: the use of some strategy? some tactic? This. Some weapon? A specific piece of hardware? A ship? A location? Were the rules changed to allow it? No. Or was it always allowed according to the rules? Yes. Is it not being allowed because of: tradition? Personal opinion? This, primarily. Risk? Cost (monetary? time? materiel? manpower?) Is "it" not allowed because of fear of being spotted? other danger? chivalry? No to all. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 655 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is this tactic predominantly japanese? Such as kamikaze planes? Is it the battle of Wake Island? Is retreating the forbidden tactic? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 657 Registered: 9-2009 |
Oops, I meant the battle of Midway. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1877 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is this tactic predominantly japanese? No. I'm not actually sure it could be called a tactic. Such as kamikaze planes? No. Is it the battle of Wake Island? No. Is retreating the forbidden tactic? No. Oops, I meant the battle of Midway. Yes. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 703 Registered: 3-2004 |
So, these two people are talking before the battle begun? two Japanese officers talking? high officers? Is the discussion about: which ships should be used/not used? where the ships should be deployed? use of aircraft? communication between parts of the fleet? timing of the attack? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1879 Registered: 5-2003 |
So, these two people are talking before the battle begun? Yes. two Japanese officers talking? Yes. high officers? Mid-level, probably. Assume captains. Is the discussion about: which ships should be used/not used? where the ships should be deployed? This, but all the others are relevant to a smaller extent. use of aircraft? communication between parts of the fleet? timing of the attack? Watch out for FAs. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 705 Registered: 3-2004 |
I'll watch out for mines, FAs and torpedoes... So the two captains were talking, and one's personal opinion was to dis-allow something? use of something tangible? a procedure? giving information? using radio? using radar? Were the captain high rank enough to disallow this himself? or just to not pass on a request in the hierarchy? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1881 Registered: 5-2003 |
So the two captains were talking, and one's personal opinion was to dis-allow something? The other way around -- he disallowed something because of his personal opinion. use of something tangible? No. a procedure? Noish. giving information? using radio? using radar? No to the rest. Were the captain high rank enough to disallow this himself? He had the authority, though his exact rank is irrelevant. or just to not pass on a request in the hierarchy? No. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 711 Registered: 3-2004 |
His personal opinion was that by disallowing (something):
| ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1883 Registered: 5-2003 |
His personal opinion was that by disallowing (something): * The battle would be more "like it should be", according to Japanese tactics? This. * Japan stood a greater chance of becoming victorious? * The chances of his ship not being involved in the battle increased? * A "high risk" was eliminated? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 680 Registered: 9-2009 |
does this mean that they: don't attack something? Don't defend something? Don't take advantage of a situation? Change the time something is done? Take unneccessary risk? Don't take a neccessary risk? Do something stupid? Don't take prisoners? Fight to the last man? Would they have won, had he allowed it? Or would it at least have increased their chances? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 744 Registered: 3-2004 |
Was it some use of the ships he thought inappropriate? just one ship? all ships? Did he think certain American targets should not be attacked? Was his opinion that the Japanese should not concentrate their forces? Not spread out? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1892 Registered: 5-2003 |
does this mean that they: don't attack something? Yesish. Don't defend something? Don't take advantage of a situation? Yes. Change the time something is done? Take unneccessary risk? Don't take a neccessary risk? Do something stupid? Don't take prisoners? Fight to the last man? Would they have won, had he allowed it? Possibly. Or would it at least have increased their chances? Yes. Was it some use of the ships he thought inappropriate? Yes. just one ship? No. all ships? Possibly, but not necessarily. Did he think certain American targets should not be attacked? No. Was his opinion that the Japanese should not concentrate their forces? Not spread out? No to both. Oh, yes, I believe you guys do have an FA. ;) | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 746 Registered: 3-2004 |
Are these two officers standing on a ship? Is this particular ship taking part in the Midway attack? or is the thing that it's not allowed to take part? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1894 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are these two officers standing on a ship? No. Is this particular ship taking part in the Midway attack? or is the thing that it's not allowed to take part? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 749 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is the discussion about certain ships taking part in the attack or not? Are they talking about anything specifically military? or about allowing/not allowing pea soup for dinner on the ships (or similar)? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1895 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the discussion about certain ships taking part in the attack or not? Yes it is, but... ;) Are they talking about anything specifically military? Yes. or about allowing/not allowing pea soup for dinner on the ships (or similar)? No. They're dealing with a serious matter. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 687 Registered: 9-2009 |
Carriers relevant? How to use the aircraft? Where to place certain ships? what role they will play in the attack? Reserves relevant? Does it result in the attack being badly coordinated? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1896 Registered: 5-2003 |
Carriers relevant? Yes. How to use the aircraft? Possibly. Where to place certain ships? Yes. what role they will play in the attack? Yes. Reserves relevant? No. Does it result in the attack being badly coordinated? Not at all. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 751 Registered: 3-2004 |
And this is about the actual Battle for Midway? or a simulation? game? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1898 Registered: 5-2003 |
And this is about the actual Battle for Midway? or a simulation? This. game? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 711 Registered: 9-2009 |
Simulation used in planning the actual battle? Is it just about the carrier(s)? Or about the use of other ships also? More "Japanese" = more like Pearl Harbor? Does it result in the defense being badly coordinated? Some kind of flank or rear attack relevant? Drawing the enemy away and then attacking a weakened base? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1902 Registered: 5-2003 |
Simulation used in planning the actual battle? Yes. Is it just about the carrier(s)? Yes. Or about the use of other ships also? More "Japanese" = more like Pearl Harbor? No. Does it result in the defense being badly coordinated? No. Some kind of flank or rear attack relevant? Yes. Drawing the enemy away and then attacking a weakened base? No. You've worked out one FA, but there are others. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 810 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is the discussion just about what should be allowed for the simulation? or do he think further on, he thinks it should be dis-allowed in the actual battle as well? or more specific, since something can't be done in the real battle he won't allow it to be done during the simulation either (even if it saves planning time or is insignificant)? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1906 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the discussion just about what should be allowed for the simulation? Yes. or do he think further on, he thinks it should be dis-allowed in the actual battle as well? Disallowed isn't the right word. or more specific, since something can't be done in the real battle he won't allow it to be done during the simulation either (even if it saves planning time or is insignificant)? Something like this, but again, look out for FAs... | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 745 Registered: 9-2009 |
Would it be a very unjapanese thing to do in a real battle? Or impossible/highly unlikely to succeed? Is it possible but: dangerous? Impractical? Likely to be objected to/not followed by the ship's commander(s)? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 746 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does disaster ensue: in the simulation? In the battle itself? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1909 Registered: 5-2003 |
Would it be a very unjapanese thing to do in a real battle? Technically, yes! But also FA. ;) Or impossible/highly unlikely to succeed? No. Is it possible but: dangerous? Yes. Impractical? No. Likely to be objected to/not followed by the ship's commander(s)? FA. Does disaster ensue: in the simulation? In the battle itself? This. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 872 Registered: 3-2004 |
That, which is not going to be allowed during the simulation before the battle, is it it something that couldn't possible be done during the actual battle? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1922 Registered: 5-2003 |
That, which is not going to be allowed during the simulation before the battle, is it it something that couldn't possible be done during the actual battle? No. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 879 Registered: 3-2004 |
Are they doing the simulation so that one (or more) will play the Japanese side and another the American side? are they playing it with "limited knowledge" (they realistically don't know the other force's deployment)? relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1924 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are they doing the simulation so that one (or more) will play the Japanese side and another the American side? Yes. are they playing it with "limited knowledge" (they realistically don't know the other force's deployment)? Probably. relevant? I doubt it. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 882 Registered: 3-2004 |
Are the two captains talking going to be the two playing the simulation? or only one of them? Is the one saying “But the rules say I can do it!” going to play one side? Japanese side? American side? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1926 Registered: 5-2003 |
Are the two captains talking going to be the two playing the simulation? or only one of them? This. Is the one saying “But the rules say I can do it!” going to play one side? Yes. Japanese side? American side? This. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 883 Registered: 3-2004 |
The "American Player" - he knew something the American forces could do, and wanted to use that during the simulation? or was it something he wanted to do, regardless of the real American troops capabilities? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1927 Registered: 5-2003 |
The "American Player" - he knew something the American forces could do, and wanted to use that during the simulation? Yes. or was it something he wanted to do, regardless of the real American troops capabilities? No. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 886 Registered: 3-2004 |
For what the "American Player" wanted to do:
| ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1929 Registered: 5-2003 |
* Carrier ships relevant? * Aircraft relevant? * Cruisers and destroyers? * Submarines? * All different forces relevant? * No forces specifically relevant? No. * Superior knowledge of opposition's deployment relevant? Yesish. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1930 Registered: 5-2003 |
Blooper: * No forces specifically relevant? Correct. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 843 Registered: 9-2009 |
If he had been allowed to do what he wanted, would the American forces in the simulation have: taken advantage of a weakness of the enemy? Been somewhere more advantageous? Moved away from somewhere less advantageous? Used a resource they now didn't? Reinforcements relevant? Counterattacks? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1955 Registered: 5-2003 |
If he had been allowed to do what he wanted, would the American forces in the simulation have: taken advantage of a weakness of the enemy? This. Been somewhere more advantageous? This. Moved away from somewhere less advantageous? Used a resource they now didn't? Reinforcements relevant? Counterattacks? Possibly. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1997 Registered: 5-2003 |
Hints: You're getting close. There are two things to figure out: - Why Person 2 refused to allow Person 1 to do something that was perfectly legal according to the rules. His reasons are simple and irrational. - How disaster ensued, and how this related to the simulation. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 886 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was person 2s refusal related to: his/person 1's rank? His personal opinion of person 1? Anything else to do with person 1? His opinions about the US? His belief in Japanese superiority? Belief in something supernatural? Other belief? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 2004 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was person 2s refusal related to: his/person 1's rank? His personal opinion of person 1? Anything else to do with person 1? No. His opinions about the US? This. His belief in Japanese superiority? And this. Belief in something supernatural? Other belief? Puzzle is ready to solve at this point. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 926 Registered: 9-2009 |
Did he belive that: Americans wouldn't be able to do it? That they would be too scared to do it? Play it safe? That the Japanese could easily stop them from doing it? The simulation lead to this not being accounted for when pleaaning/executing the real battle, where the Americans did this thing, with great success? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 2009 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did he belive that: Americans wouldn't be able to do it? This. That they would be too scared to do it? Play it safe? That the Japanese could easily stop them from doing it? And this. The simulation lead to this not being accounted for when pleaaning/executing the real battle, where the Americans did this thing, with great success? Yep. ************* SPOILER ****************** Before the Battle of Midway, the Japanese wargamed it. The American players managed to ambush the Japanese fleet and destroy half its carriers, but this was disallowed because the referees reckoned the real Americans couldn't possibly do such a thing. In the real battle, they did, and the Americans won. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 962 Registered: 9-2009 |
Good story, and thanks for a fun puzzle. WWII is a very interesting subject. |
