RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 7:10:51 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Rasmus .

Sorry for stating the obvious, but mktours did not reach kiev on 26th .

on 26 june he starts at Novogorod Volnsky .
on 3th july he starts at Kiev.

In all fairness, you must admit that there is nothing spectacular about turn 2, becuse 13th panzer did cover the distance from Novogorod Volnsky to Kiev in less than 5 days.

turn 1 when he destroyed practicaly the best mechanised corps in the ukraine is the isuee here.

As said it depence on what dates u use. It isnt as simple as the 25th vs 3rd july tho. The inherit problem of IGO-UGO is that it might be the germans at Kiev at the end of the german 26th June-3rd july turn, sure. Problem is that doesnt count in the fact that the russian side has only had 1 move. The 22th-25th first turn. They have no other option to move or react by the time the germans are in Kiev on the end of their 2nd turn. They still only have had their first turn until the the 26th june to respond/react/move to so stop such a move. So for all intend and purposes its still the 26th june from their POV. So neither 26th or 3rd is a real answers but some quasi time in between.
A first turn where they btw are limited to the reponces tho certain supprise rules concerning the first turn.

Non the less if one is to apply that logic that one uses the end dates of turns as a mesasure stick. 19 days from the above post isnt correct. Its 26 days then. As apart from recce parties the 11th july we into turn 5 now as the 4th is turn starts on 10 july and as majority parts was still held up at the 10th july by the Korosten counterattack some 10'ish hexes from Kiev the germans wouldnt be able to be near Kiev in any sigificant force until end of turn 4/start of turn 5 aka 17th july. Some 26 days into the campaign.

So the math doenst change much.

Marquo clearly made some mistakes as i said as recently as a few days ago in another ARR, u always always always garrison ur cities/prodcution center. So lets say Mk wasnt able to get Kiev as he shouldnt be able too if not for that fault. Actually u then at a more comparible outcome as Kiev didnt fall on the 11th july. This isnt the first time an advance to Kiev in turn 2 is seen and with the frankly limted ability in turn 1 to react i'd say any one with some skills can get there or very close by turn 2, cuz what u can do to react as russian is limited in turn 1 coupled with the movement abilties of the german side. Not necesarrily saying its the best thing to do but there just isnt much to stop it with if the german choose to go that route.

So its a question of looking at the whole. Is what the german are able to advance and here turn 2 is a direct link of what happens in turn 1 within the first 2 turns with in what u can plausibily expect. Could the germans by end of turn 1 make it to the rumeanian border or to Kiev by turn 2. No, not even with extra forces. Again looking at the war diaries of the korps involved those first days are packed with information on how the korps wasnt even able to deploy its own forces. If 2 korps cant 4 certainly cant either as it would have taken even more room. Ppl make it to rumenia blind folded if the so wish in the first 4 days when They had barely moved more than a few hexes across the border.
Is turn 1 "worse" seen from a plasubility PoV than turn 2, sure. One creates the other tho. It toke longer to overcome the the initial russian forces and counter attacks historicly than turn 1. So they still there to be dealth with in turn 2 and u couldnt just "drive". In that sense the turn 2 is far from plausible. Clearly, had there not been any russian forces there then the advance in it self wasnt spectacular. Its just that it wasnt possible as they still batteling at the time of a larger part of turn 2. Not to mention its "free" as a result of the IGO-UGO in terms of russian possible responces.

Had this been a one in 10 chance no big deal. Problem is its automatic. I never seen, not that u couldnt if u wanted too, any AAR that replicate the historic or close too advances on those first turns in the AGS area. Its pretty much tho with varying degree going much better to extremly much better. The possibility of it actually going better for the russian side isnt even an option. Why do russians run after this. Do they have any other option?

Any how my main point is that the terrain excuse is had no leg to stand on. As explained in the my first post in this thread. It really couldnt have gone much better than it did in those first turns time as the germans them self explain in the war diaries of those pz korps involved. Less given some magic wand expelling the issues of friction within the germans them self not to mention the russian troops, the dept of their defence and 5000ish tanks, that couldnt just be bypassed as they activly moved in the way. Nor would extra forces from AGC has helped in those early days as they had no room to deploy in. It was alrdy an huge issues for the forces invovled.

It baffles me how going far beyond the historicly plaussible in the AGS raises no eyebrows or that many. If the same pace of advance had been multiplied in AGC/AGN it sure would have.
Again i have no problem with ppl doing better than historic or taken otehr avenues of approches. I appluad that. It just have to be within limits of the plausible and as said we cant even disucss it going better for the russians in this case. The doing better is only possible in this partilcular case for one of the sides.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2013 7:30:56 PM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 61

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 8:43:43 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

It baffles me how going far beyond the historicly plaussible in the AGS raises no eyebrows or that many. If the same pace of advance had been multiplied in AGC/AGN it sure would have.
Again i have no problem with ppl doing better than historic or taken otehr avenues of approches. I appluad that. It just have to be within limits of the plausible and as said we cant even disucss it going better for the russians in this case. The doing better is only possible in this partilcular case for one of the sides.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Very well said, truly. I also think that it isn't or shouldn't be nearly as unusual or bad to have AARs where the Russian does better, or just throws better dice in 41 and stops Axis way early. Nonetheless the new patch seems to do some minor changes in favor of Axis, and I am curious whether it will have a big or detrimental effect in the sense of plausibility. Maybe it will achieve its aim and make the 41 game as well playable for both sides as can be presently. I just wish they had also touched up the floats for the blizzard modifiers, but this stark blizzard concept has always been a part of the G&G games, unfortunately.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 62

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 9:17:21 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

1. MKTours is a skilled player who has learned how to manipulate the game engine to great advantage. I have no problem with anything he did during the course of our match. In fact, I was/am very intrigued. I did not ask to stop the match nor did I express any dissatisfaction to him. I believe he is a very sensitive person who stopped because he feels that I am unhappy; however, this is not the case. My posts were to express dismay at what the engine allows, not what he did with it. I wanted to continue so that developers who might peruse these AARs can draw their own conclusions.

2. As for Kiev: the super-Lvov pockets left me with very few units to deploy on turn 2. Remember, he did not release the Southern Front. I pincered his lead panzer units, and deployed a checkerboard in depth. I have never seen a Axis player be able to move so fast through so many layers of "checkers." He was across the Dnepr on turn 2.

I am in the habit of deploying units in front of industrial cities such as Kiev, along the axes of projected advance. My theory is that since an Axis unit adjacent to the city prevents evacuation, I may as well deploy in front of the city to try to stop an advance next to it. Either way the city will be lost so I may as well try to shield it. Is this a questionable idea?

3. Velikie Luki: I pulled back from it on purpose, since I had very few units to shuttle from the South or Center. In another game as the Axis my Soviet opponent has fled very deep leaving only screens; by the time I make contact his units are deeply entrenched and refit with high morale.

More to follow later :-)

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 63

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 10:03:28 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 64

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 10:12:30 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

I agree. Generally I think we see too many resignations from Soviets that may well have gone on to acheive at least a draw. But it will be a moot point soon enough as the new patch will pull the rug out from this opening. But in this game I get a sense Marquo was not resigned to defeat, but rather just incensed with what the engine allowed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 65

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 10:42:14 PM

Shupov

Posts: 286
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: United States
Status: offline

Saper and I are having a balanced and fun game (I hope he agrees). We are playing non-random weather, no house rules and I have benefited from rapid morale gain. He used the "Super Lvov" opening on my Soviets(which I think he invented) without the Romanian rail variant. Most of my Southern and Southwestern fronts were decimated, including loss of the powerful tank formations near the river Sluch. Russia survived Barbarossa and manpower reached 6MM on T35. I'm looking forward to an exciting summer of '42!

I have complete screen shots of our game and am happy to share, but only with Saper's permission.

< Message edited by Shupov -- 8/13/2013 4:03:33 AM >

_____________________________

STALINADE

The real RED soda!

(in reply to Saper2229)

Post #: 66

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/12/2013 10:53:22 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

Well, would disagree then in the part this is one AAR, not in teh subject of the resignation

This isnt really a question of this one AAR. Even ppl with no experience in the game what so ever far surpass the historic advances with the axis on turn 1/2 in the AGS area. Are there ppl that has "perfected" the opening to achieve the near maximum. Sure, but that isnt even a small list. Extended Lvov is now the norm also for the "average" player not the odd thing out. Are there variation of that opening, sure. Do the russian player have some say. Sure but as u only have 1 turn with limited mobility to react the ability to perfect counters is limited. Its 90-95% up to the axis player how the first two turns, turn out.
Again as said earlier IMO u cant leave Kiev open but even that wouldnt have changed the overall result particular much. Dneiper would just have been crossed on the next turn or teh following at the latest.

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2013 10:55:11 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 67

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 12:43:45 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

"Generally I think we see too many resignations from Soviets that may well have gone on to acheive at least a draw. But it will be a moot point soon enough as the new patch will pull the rug out from this opening. But in this game I get a sense Marquo was not resigned to defeat, but rather just incensed with what the engine allowed."

I would never, ever resign so early; even in a game where MT was gutting me like a fish it was he who proposed an end not I. In this case MKTours simply felt I was "unhappy," and nothing could be further from the truth.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 68

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 1:32:40 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Hi, Marquo
I am glad to learn that you are not unhappy with our game, then we can continue. sorry for my misunderstanding of your message.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Generally I think we see too many resignations from Soviets that may well have gone on to acheive at least a draw. But it will be a moot point soon enough as the new patch will pull the rug out from this opening. But in this game I get a sense Marquo was not resigned to defeat, but rather just incensed with what the engine allowed."

I would never, ever resign so early; even in a game where MT was gutting me like a fish it was he who proposed an end not I. In this case MKTours simply felt I was "unhappy," and nothing could be further from the truth.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 69

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 1:42:49 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Marquo,
The checker board is not a good idea against panzer breakthrough, it could be overcome by right tactics, if you are interested, I could do a detail explanation of how I reach Kiev with more screenshots.
perhaps I misread your message of "I would play on for a while to see what happen", I interpret that as dissatisfying of the game, I hope we could play to the end, no for a while. I could be wrong so forgive me if I was.
If you like, we could continue the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

1. MKTours is a skilled player who has learned how to manipulate the game engine to great advantage. I have no problem with anything he did during the course of our match. In fact, I was/am very intrigued. I did not ask to stop the match nor did I express any dissatisfaction to him. I believe he is a very sensitive person who stopped because he feels that I am unhappy; however, this is not the case. My posts were to express dismay at what the engine allows, not what he did with it. I wanted to continue so that developers who might peruse these AARs can draw their own conclusions.

2. As for Kiev: the super-Lvov pockets left me with very few units to deploy on turn 2. Remember, he did not release the Southern Front. I pincered his lead panzer units, and deployed a checkerboard in depth. I have never seen a Axis player be able to move so fast through so many layers of "checkers." He was across the Dnepr on turn 2.

I am in the habit of deploying units in front of industrial cities such as Kiev, along the axes of projected advance. My theory is that since an Axis unit adjacent to the city prevents evacuation, I may as well deploy in front of the city to try to stop an advance next to it. Either way the city will be lost so I may as well try to shield it. Is this a questionable idea?

3. Velikie Luki: I pulled back from it on purpose, since I had very few units to shuttle from the South or Center. In another game as the Axis my Soviet opponent has fled very deep leaving only screens; by the time I make contact his units are deeply entrenched and refit with high morale.

More to follow later :-)

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 70

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 5:08:21 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

I believe saper222 would surely be able to defend this opening properly. I myself would be eager to defend this opening as I know it inside out. It is not difficult at all, for example, the south, the SHC could just retreat to the back of Dnepr in T1, given the entire 2PZG has been sent to south, who cares lossing 15 more divisions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 71

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 5:52:20 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I believe saper222 would surely be able to defend this opening properly. I myself would be eager to defend this opening as I know it inside out. It is not difficult at all, for example, the south, the SHC could just retreat to the back of Dnepr in T1, given the entire 2PZG has been sent to south, who cares lossing 15 more divisions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

The solution offered here is part of the problem. The other part of the problem being that the whole thing is simply fantastical.

We already know that when the south gets blown up, all you can do is run, and the harder it gets blown up early on, the more you have to run. Running behind the Dnepr on turn 2 is just another way of saying that things are badly awry.

This, I repeat, is not a "balancing" issue, that lacks a response. There is a response to it. But the entire business defies belief, and this is the fundamental issue.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 72

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 6:02:15 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

you certainly misunderstood my message.
I meant retreat to the back of Dnepr in T1 and make a stand there as long as possible afterwards.
As I said, it is a double edge sword to GHC, I could sacrifice the entire army defending the Dnepr and not retreat a single foot to tight down 2 pzG there as long as possible. that is worthwhile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I believe saper222 would surely be able to defend this opening properly. I myself would be eager to defend this opening as I know it inside out. It is not difficult at all, for example, the south, the SHC could just retreat to the back of Dnepr in T1, given the entire 2PZG has been sent to south, who cares lossing 15 more divisions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I for one would like to see this continue a bit longer if possible, or see another experienced player who is aware of Mktours' strategy try to stop it. I'm not sure how may conclusions can be drawn based on one AAR and just three turns.

Regards,

- Erik

The solution offered here is part of the problem. The other part of the problem being that the whole thing is simply fantastical.

We already know that when the south gets blown up, all you can do is run, and the harder it gets blown up early on, the more you have to run. Running behind the Dnepr on turn 2 is just another way of saying that things are badly awry.

This, I repeat, is not a "balancing" issue, that lacks a response. There is a response to it. But the entire business defies belief, and this is the fundamental issue.

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/13/2013 6:05:11 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 73

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 6:32:29 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

We're talking past each other.

You see this merely as a chess like game maneuver or gambit that can be dealt with.

To me, this isn't even the point. This ain't chess. None of this is historically plausible in the first instance, and therefore the fact that it is in some incredibly abstract way "balanced" and that a proper mathematical response to it can be made is completely irrelevant to me.

I'm just floored that anybody playing a game like this is putting historicity not merely in the back seat, but throwing it out the window entirely. But very obviously there is a substantial number of people who play this game who are in your school of thought.

I think that perhaps the best thing we can do here in PBEM, is separate ourselves into our respective camps and play against people who share our goals and views. Simulationists and gamers do not mix.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 74

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 7:46:03 AM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

Rasmus ;

Did you look well at the turn 1 map ? this is no pincer trust (3 hexes wide ) as the germans OTL did with asociated trafic jams and lack of room to deploy .

The front was completly blown up from lvov to kovel, there are no mechanised forces left to react, either in 26 or 3 or whatever, even the 5th mechanised is traped and unable to rail north. The only remaining mechanised forces are along the hungarian -romanian border or in the 19th army along the Dnepr.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 75

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 9:48:29 AM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

Rasmus ;

Did you look well at the turn 1 map ? this is no pincer trust (3 hexes wide ) as the germans OTL did with asociated trafic jams and lack of room to deploy.

You seem to miss my point i talk about historicy. The fact that historicly the troops at the border resisted to so such a point and was deloyed in such away that the germans couldnt advance more than some hexes across the border and that, that leads to congestion and lack of room to deploy the panzer forces. The chance of such happening in turn one IN GAME is Zero, zip, nalch, nada, never, etc.
This again leads along with what the engine allows to the advances we see in turn 1. These are "Automatic" in the sense that the russian side has no chance to respond to to this and if u sandbox/train at this u can do the turn 1 results blindfolded. Be it advancing towards Kiev or to the rumeanian border.

Historcly u had speaking but transformed into game term the defences in this sector/dept of forces/density of forces avaible was of a different proportion than what u saw in the AGC/AGN area where the breakthroughs happen. This toke time to overcome. All plasutibilty speaks too that in game it should/would have taken time too. It doesnt. U replicate the AGC/AGN advance rate with out taking into the account the dfferency in the situasion. Leading to the historicly speaking to very different advance rates in the first days in game(in game terms the first turns)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.
The front was completly blown up from lvov to kovel, there are no mechanised forces left to react, either in 26 or 3 or whatever, even the 5th mechanised is traped and unable to rail north. The only remaining mechanised forces are along the hungarian -romanian border or in the 19th army along the Dnepr.

Exactly, which then lead to a "automatic" advance to Kiev in turn 2, if less so than turn 1, but not really by much. Shouldnt he have been able too and it was preventable to crossing the river, yes. It would have in all likelyhood have happend the next turn tho so the strategical difference isnt terribly big. The turn 2 advances is a direct effect of the turn 1 results. That doesnt make the turn 2 results/advances more historic it just makes it a result of the turn 1 effects.

When u read the different war diaries of the pz korps u see the problems they faced was very different and how this affected the "mood"/problems that is present in these HQs. It doesnt even stop there. The russian counter attacks/battle of Brody even reaches a point where there is concern all the way up to the OKH that even starts to get hessitant. Orders are given to stops of advances all be it on a limited scale, in time and space. This is wholly different than the "mood" in for example LVI pz korps and those concerning that corps. Not that there arent concerns they just tend more towards supply/lack of fuel, problems associated with out pacing ur flanks and lack of support and so on. This goes to show the very different situasion in the differnet area's. Non of the first can(puposely using the word can not is, to imply its not even a possbility) be replicated in game as is.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/13/2013 10:35:30 AM >

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 76

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 2:02:39 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

"The checker board is not a good idea against panzer breakthrough, it could be overcome by right tactics, if you are interested, I could do a detail explanation of how I reach Kiev with more screenshots.
perhaps I misread your message of "I would play on for a while to see what happen", I interpret that as dissatisfying of the game, I hope we could play to the end, no for a while. I could be wrong so forgive me if I was.

If you like, we could continue the game."

Tours,

I understand the difference between checkerboard, multiple lines in depth, and simply running

Turn one was not a simple breakthrough, rather the entire front was either surrounded or frozen; and in addition, with limited mobility, most of the few remaining units could not run back as far as people may think. My best option was a checkerboard in depth.

As for the northern front, you simply cut through everything in your path, and this despite multiple successful counter attacks, cutting off the spearhead several times, and isolating half of the panzer fist 2 times. Further I did place layers of lines in front of you, commanded by the some of the best leaders.

To quote you, "In the north, when I opened your turn, I was shocked, I didn't expect so many units mushroomed over the entire zone; you really did an amazing job. Fortunately, I have got enough troops to cut a corridor to link up with the spearhead again."

In effect, you will have cut through multiple lines of well-commanded troops in very defensible terrain, survived multiple successful counterattacks, and managed this despite being surrounded, cut-off and well-beyond railroad logistical support, to reach the northern most railroad out of Leningrad by turn 7. This is an amazing feat, bravo.

My only potential salvation: I managed to rail out the requisite number of production factories from all the major cities, and a fair amount of armaments. In fact, once I realized how fast you are moving, my priority has been evacuations rather than railroading units up to the slaughter.

A benefit of losing so many units: those that remain refit that much faster...

Next turn, please.

Marquo [:)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 8/13/2013 2:05:03 PM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 77

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 3:30:29 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

Marquo,
I have just sent you my T8, please have a check.
I am glad that our game has resumed! I hope we could have fun in the game, I am looking forward to the defending of the blizzard, in which you could enjoy the attack, not just counter-attack, and see if I could counter-attack you.
As I said in our communication, we have got an interesting story to tell, many dramatic events. You didn�t know my initial aim is assaulting Moscow, it was the dramatic events that forced me to change the direction towards Leningrad.
Indeed, before the dam cracked in T7, our game is full of challenge, and well-matched, things could be very different if you redeployed your troops in the Poskov region to cover the rear of your line before I attacked out with mass power in T7.
I am certainly enjoying our game and your challenge. That is why I am so disappointed when I misunderstood your message. Sorry for that, hopefully we could still enjoy the game from now on.
Cheers
Tours

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"The checker board is not a good idea against panzer breakthrough, it could be overcome by right tactics, if you are interested, I could do a detail explanation of how I reach Kiev with more screenshots.
perhaps I misread your message of "I would play on for a while to see what happen", I interpret that as dissatisfying of the game, I hope we could play to the end, no for a while. I could be wrong so forgive me if I was.

If you like, we could continue the game."

Tours,

I understand the difference between checkerboard, multiple lines in depth, and simply running

Turn one was not a simple breakthrough, rather the entire front was either surrounded or frozen; and in addition, with limited mobility, most of the few remaining units could not run back as far as people may think. My best option was a checkerboard in depth.

As for the northern front, you simply cut through everything in your path, and this despite multiple successful counter attacks, cutting off the spearhead several times, and isolating half of the panzer fist 2 times. Further I did place layers of lines in front of you, commanded by the some of the best leaders.

To quote you, "In the north, when I opened your turn, I was shocked, I didn't expect so many units mushroomed over the entire zone; you really did an amazing job. Fortunately, I have got enough troops to cut a corridor to link up with the spearhead again."

In effect, you will have cut through multiple lines of well-commanded troops in very defensible terrain, survived multiple successful counterattacks, and managed this despite being surrounded, cut-off and well-beyond railroad logistical support, to reach the northern most railroad out of Leningrad by turn 7. This is an amazing feat, bravo.

My only potential salvation: I managed to rail out the requisite number of production factories from all the major cities, and a fair amount of armaments. In fact, once I realized how fast you are moving, my priority has been evacuations rather than railroading units up to the slaughter.

A benefit of losing so many units: those that remain refit that much faster...

Next turn, please.

Marquo [:)

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 78

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 4:29:01 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

T3north
There was not much story to tell about T3 in the north, my infantry cleared the soviet units that harassing the road, the panzer divisions stroked out, cleared the east vicinity of LUKI. Indeed I was in very good mood, the 11 motorize divisions formed a beautiful column, seemed to be invincible. But the two 7CV motorize division were to be counter-attacked and the entire 10 motorize divisions were to be cut off and 3HQ and 1 airbase full of AC would be sent flying to far rear in the Soviet turn.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 79

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 4:35:06 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

All the center-north region was quiet, all the troops were marching towards LUKI, Yes, I planned to commit the entire 2 army group to the east area of LUKI, which was just cleared by the column of panzer & motorizes divisions. After that, they will attacked towards Moscow.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 80

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 4:45:54 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

T3 south
The infantry marched through the highway, release the entire 2 PzG, they fought cross a short corridor of defense and then drove into a literally free way, not a single solider could be seen. This had puzzled me when I did the turn, later, when I count the POW of the massive pocket, I realized Marquo have evacuate literally all the troops that was not unfrozen. Good job.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 81

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 4:55:27 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

T3 Odessa
The 3 SS and two 90 morale panzer division all had 50MP this turn, preparing to crush any resistance, only for them to discover that there was no resistance at all, Marquo didn�t send a single solider to the region, instead, he evacuate anything except of the frozen ones. the Soviet had got very good intelligence officers.
The good news for me is that I could reserve much of their MP for later offense.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 82

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 5:29:35 PM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

To defend this south opening, one solution is to deploy the troops from the Lvov region to the Romania east border, they could not escape anyway, the key here is to cover the route for the GHC motorize troops to reach and sack Odessa in T3, the frozen Odessa defense is very weak, but the GHC need very high MP to reach there, so the key is to guard the key positions, for example, rough hex, river bank.
it would be very challenging for the SHC to handle this opening, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. to anyone who is disliking this opening, here is my apologize. for anyone who have a generous mind to accept or allowing them to happen, here goes my thanks.
the reason for me to use this opening is that I view myself as a beginner, and was expecting my opponent could be far better than me. I want to see how they would react. I thought this have been talked about for a long time and people should not feel surprise to it, but I was wrong. I agree that it gave me much advantage in the games and I didn't deserve it.

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/13/2013 5:46:50 PM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 83

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/13/2013 6:35:53 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

To defend this south opening, one solution is to deploy the troops from the Lvov region to the Romania east border, they could not escape anyway, the key here is to cover the route for the GHC motorize troops to reach and sack Odessa in T3, the frozen Odessa defense is very weak, but the GHC need very high MP to reach there, so the key is to guard the key positions, for example, rough hex, river bank.
it would be very challenging for the SHC to handle this opening, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. to anyone who is disliking this opening, here is my apologize. for anyone who have a generous mind to accept or allowing them to happen, here goes my thanks.
the reason for me to use this opening is that I view myself as a beginner, and was expecting my opponent could be far better than me. I want to see how they would react. I thought this have been talked about for a long time and people should not feel surprise to it, but I was wrong. I agree that it gave me much advantage in the games and I didn't deserve it.

How you and MT find people to defend forward in south is amazing to me game (AAR) after game (AAR)

I am guessing no one can read or have not read one the last 18 months heheheh

The last 6 I have played people run and never stop.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/14/2013 7:48:48 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 84

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:09:20 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

I am sorry, but how you manage to do the Lvov opening from time to time and never bored of it is beyond my imagination, given you are playing so many games. In my opinion, that is a very bad opening and it was directly relating to why you lost to MT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

To defend this south opening, one solution is to deploy the troops from the Lvov region to the Romania east border, they could not escape anyway, the key here is to cover the route for the GHC motorize troops to reach and sack Odessa in T3, the frozen Odessa defense is very weak, but the GHC need very high MP to reach there, so the key is to guard the key positions, for example, rough hex, river bank.
it would be very challenging for the SHC to handle this opening, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. to anyone who is disliking this opening, here is my apologize. for anyone who have a generous mind to accept or allowing them to happen, here goes my thanks.
the reason for me to use this opening is that I view myself as a beginner, and was expecting my opponent could be far better than me. I want to see how they would react. I thought this have been talked about for a long time and people should not feel surprise to it, but I was wrong. I agree that it gave me much advantage in the games and I didn't deserve it.

How you and MT find people stupid enough to defend forward in south is amazing to me game (AAR) after game (AAR)

I am guessing no one can read or have not read one the last 18 months heheheh

The last 6 I have played people run and never stop.

< Message edited by mktours -- 8/14/2013 2:10:01 AM >

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 85

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:17:25 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I am sorry, but how you manage to do the Lvov opening from time to time and never bored of it is beyond my imagination, given you are playing so many games. In my opinion, that is a very bad opening and it was directly relating to why you lost to MT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

To defend this south opening, one solution is to deploy the troops from the Lvov region to the Romania east border, they could not escape anyway, the key here is to cover the route for the GHC motorize troops to reach and sack Odessa in T3, the frozen Odessa defense is very weak, but the GHC need very high MP to reach there, so the key is to guard the key positions, for example, rough hex, river bank.
it would be very challenging for the SHC to handle this opening, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. to anyone who is disliking this opening, here is my apologize. for anyone who have a generous mind to accept or allowing them to happen, here goes my thanks.
the reason for me to use this opening is that I view myself as a beginner, and was expecting my opponent could be far better than me. I want to see how they would react. I thought this have been talked about for a long time and people should not feel surprise to it, but I was wrong. I agree that it gave me much advantage in the games and I didn't deserve it.

How you and MT find people stupid enough to defend forward in south is amazing to me game (AAR) after game (AAR)

I am guessing no one can read or have not read one the last 18 months heheheh

The last 6 I have played people run and never stop.

But son my opening is not about to get nerfed as your and Mt's is.

My opening does the same damage as yours, but will survive the next and final patch

My current opening was not used vs MT and the game is corrupted so a non-game.

So you be coping my opening from now on :)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/14/2013 2:20:21 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 86

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:25:05 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

My current opening was not used vs MT and the game is corrupted so a non-game.

Only in your own mind Pelton. You lost.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 87

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:28:00 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

How you and MT find people stupid enough to defend forward in south is amazing to me game (AAR) after game (AAR)

These kind of remarks should not be tolerated by the moderators. They only cause to provoke unsavory exchanges.

Please Joel or someone take appropriate steps to stop this disrespectful rubbish.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 88

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:31:30 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

My current opening was not used vs MT and the game is corrupted so a non-game.

Only in your own mind Pelton. You lost.

So you lost to Kamil your first game?

he was winning, but game was bugged or whats your excuse?

I am more then willing to finish our game your the one that stopped playing its your turn.

Admit you lost to me or finish the game or its a tech error draw.

Actions speak louder then words.

Its your turn

< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/14/2013 2:35:12 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 89

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 8/14/2013 2:43:33 AM

mktours

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

I did this opening only 3 times, but have some variant in each game, this opening is the strongest of them as I expect my opponent to be better. even so, Three time an opening has reached my limit, I would not play it any more as I am bored. To release the south front 1 turn earlier than the GHC side is wrong in itself.
you should stop to use "son" or "stupid", that is very poor manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

I am sorry, but how you manage to do the Lvov opening from time to time and never bored of it is beyond my imagination, given you are playing so many games. In my opinion, that is a very bad opening and it was directly relating to why you lost to MT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

To defend this south opening, one solution is to deploy the troops from the Lvov region to the Romania east border, they could not escape anyway, the key here is to cover the route for the GHC motorize troops to reach and sack Odessa in T3, the frozen Odessa defense is very weak, but the GHC need very high MP to reach there, so the key is to guard the key positions, for example, rough hex, river bank.
it would be very challenging for the SHC to handle this opening, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. to anyone who is disliking this opening, here is my apologize. for anyone who have a generous mind to accept or allowing them to happen, here goes my thanks.
the reason for me to use this opening is that I view myself as a beginner, and was expecting my opponent could be far better than me. I want to see how they would react. I thought this have been talked about for a long time and people should not feel surprise to it, but I was wrong. I agree that it gave me much advantage in the games and I didn't deserve it.

How you and MT find people stupid enough to defend forward in south is amazing to me game (AAR) after game (AAR)

I am guessing no one can read or have not read one the last 18 months heheheh

The last 6 I have played people run and never stop.

But son my opening is not about to get nerfed as your and Mt's is.

My opening does the same damage as yours, but will survive the next and final patch

My current opening was not used vs MT and the game is corrupted so a non-game.

So you be coping my opening from now on :)

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG