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

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports



Message

Michael T -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 2:45:15 AM)

quote:

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



Are you serious Pelton? Last time I proposed to play on even with the handicap you said no. Sure I will play it out if you are serious. I will gladly stomp you even without SU in my Corp, or warping HQ's. No problem. Post a message in the AAR that its all on again and away we go.

As for my game with Kamil he and I both agreed on a restart. It would be news to me if he was claiming victory. You should ask him and see what he says.



mmarquo -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 4:15:56 AM)

"you should stop to use "son" or "stupid", that is very poor manner"

Tours,

Please do not allow this ill-mannered person's boorish comments to detract from our enjoyment of the AAR. I suggest you use the green button at the bottom of one of his posts, and he will be no longer be able to annoy you.

Turn to follow soon [:)]

Marquo




mmarquo -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 4:28:27 AM)

[/quote]

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

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.


[/quote]


1. MKTour's opening is vastly superior to anything else posted in an AAR, and I have read them all.
2. He skillfully and methodically took advantage of the opening Soviet positions including decreased mobility and frozen units to create a situation where running and extracting units was difficult if not impossible.
3. It is one thing to refer to game play as "stupid", but categorizing players as "stupid" is a new low, even for you.

Pelton, please do not post in this AAR anymore, you are not welcome here.


Thanks for abiding by this request.








mktours -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:00:04 AM)

Thanks, Marquo
let it go, never mind. I didn't know how to use the button properly so I didn't use it. I believe he got the message and would not come again. he have already known that it is poor manner, I suppose.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"you should stop to use "son" or "stupid", that is very poor manner"

Tours,

Please do not allow this ill-mannered person's boorish comments to detract from our enjoyment of the AAR. I suggest you use the green button at the bottom of one of his posts, and he will be no longer be able to annoy you.

Turn to follow soon [:)]

Marquo






mktours -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:06:20 AM)

Thanks, Marquo
all the credit should go to you indeed, it is your generous mind that allow our game continue, as I have got much advantage which I do not deserve, our game is unbalance and is greatly in favor of the GHC after 3 turns, and it is not your fault.
win or lose in this game is not relivant, but we could enjoy the process,[:)]



Michael T -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:08:18 AM)

Sorry to hijak your AAR. But I couldn't let the 'stupid' remark go or the other aberations of the facts. Enjoy your game.



mktours -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:26:28 AM)

Michael, I completely agree that the "stupid" remark is ill manner, when I said "let it go, never mind" I meant "we don't need to let this assault ruin our mood", I am not a native English speaker and I might not use the expression correctly.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Sorry to hijak your AAR. But I couldn't let the 'stupid' remark go or the other aberations of the facts. Enjoy your game.



mktours -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:27:03 AM)

edited: repeated post



Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 10:27:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"you should stop to use "son" or "stupid", that is very poor manner"

Tours,

Please do not allow this ill-mannered person's boorish comments to detract from our enjoyment of the AAR. I suggest you use the green button at the bottom of one of his posts, and he will be no longer be able to annoy you.

Turn to follow soon [:)]

Marquo





Lol..I never knew that button existed.

Thanks!



timmyab -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:14:33 AM)

I'm not seeing any stupidity here, quite the opposite.It looks like I dodged a bullet on this one, I very nearly took this game on.By turn three I'd have just been staring dumbly at the screen thinking - WHAT THE?!?!?!
The advance in the South is amazing to me, almost unbelievable.The Luki advance looks kind of weird.Surely this shouldn't be possible giving a realistic logistics system?



carlkay58 -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:31:00 AM)

Those types of advances are possible, but should they be sustainable? i.e. should the supplies be able to make it up to the spear head for them to keep moving? Air supply was used and fairly extensively by the Germans in 1941, the amount of supply delivered, on the other hand, was not the massive amounts that the current version of game allows.

Air drop supply existed for quite some time before WWII. The Italians used it in Ethiopia - including parachuting cows to their spear heads! British supply commanders discussed it in detail in the late 30's as possible methods to keep a spear head supplied.

Air dropping fuel supplies were very rare events. The transports needed a friendly airbase to land the fuel supplies - something about *SPLAT* ruining fuel containers made it kind of bad. So perhaps a limitation on fuel dropping might be something to look into.



mmarquo -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 1:27:25 PM)

It is the logistics which have me baffled; I will post shots of Axis spearheads cut off, glowing yellow, in multiple ZOCS and yet they still surge forward almost unimpeded. [:)]



Gabriel B. -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 2:21:59 PM)

Did anyone try to beat romanian cavalry from the border to open the railway ?



[image]local://upfiles/45093/F4487E66AA944FC6800313C29D755B2A.gif[/image]



timmyab -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 3:44:47 PM)

Excellent suggestion.Any stats on the probability of success?The one in the rough hex behind the river would be quite tough I would think.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:05:04 PM)

No idea, generally it succeds if you have enough MP for it ,
anyway you risk losing the entire SW front, if you do not atempt it.



Shupov -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:10:10 PM)

quote:

Did anyone try to beat romanian cavalry from the border to open the railway ?


The upcoming patch should take care of this, correct?

quote:

In all campaigns and scenarios starting June 22, 1941, moved 2 Rumanian units back from the border near Chernovtsy. This allows Soviet units to use the rail next to the border on turn 2 if it is not cut by German units from the north. This was done to reduce the effectiveness of the German Super Lvov Pocket strategy.



Gabriel B. -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:22:15 PM)

I wish it would not, romanian cavalry was really there .
plus is always more fun to fight your way out...[:)]



Erik Rutins -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 5:51:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
It is the logistics which have me baffled; I will post shots of Axis spearheads cut off, glowing yellow, in multiple ZOCS and yet they still surge forward almost unimpeded. [:)]


I'd be interested in seeing that and also in hearing from Mktours with any insights on his method for sustaining his advance (I assume heavy air resupply is a large part, but he is likely planning much more carefully than that).

Regards,

- Erik



timmyab -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 6:17:52 PM)

I'm just wondering if there may be a problem with HQB.I don't normally use it so I could be wrong but as far as I remember it used to be good for just one week, is that so?
I did one last week and I got a big hit of supplies and fuel.I've just done a quick experiment and one HQB gave five divisions two and a half weeks of fuel.About 1000 fuel and 2400 supplies.Maybe this is normal, but it was enough to send the pz corps from Proskurov through enemy held territory via Cherkassy and nearly as far as Orel.



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 6:36:11 PM)

I believe you are correct timmyab.

Maybe mktours does an HQ buildup and then on the next turn he reassigns all units attached to that HQ, sends the HQ forward and assigns the spearhead divisions to the still pretty well supplied HQ. Even if the units are cut off they would still get plenty of gas just as long as the HQ is together with the units in the pocket.

I've never done anything like that. It's just too much clicking for my taste. [:)]



gingerbread -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 7:44:39 PM)

HQB give fuel & supplies equal to 100% of supply, fuel & ammo of the combat units (not sure how SU are factored in) assigned directly to the HQ. If the units have any SFA before the BU, the units' stores are brought up to 100% and the rest is stored at the HQ.

So you get a weeks allotment no matter how much there was before the HQB.



timmyab -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 8:00:16 PM)

So should you be able to drive through enemy territory from Proskurov to Orel on one HQB?That's minus any air supply.
I've just done it again with six divisions.The HQ had 1100 fuel and 3000 supplies.

Edit.I'll put this here to avoid clogging this AAR up too much.
This corps started at Proskurov and has had no rail or air supply.All divisions have between 22 and 24 MPs.The HQ had 495 fuel at the start and 490 when it got here.All divisions had close to zero MPs at the time of HQB.


[image]local://upfiles/36871/18C62F4F70454407AA488F2C57C7D535.jpg[/image]



mmarquo -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 8:35:17 PM)

Yes, but cutoff units can't be supplied until the turn after they are liberated...and he is way too forward for HBU; need to be 20 MPs from a railhead IIRC.



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 8:43:32 PM)

quote:

Yes, but cutoff units can't be supplied until the turn after they are liberated...and he is way too forward for HBU; need to be 20 MPs from a railhead IIRC


If the HQ is within the pocket the units will get supplies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I just had this situation in my game with Griefhead. I did an HQ Buildup and during the following turn encircled some of his units. He cuts of my tanks and despite the fact that they are cutoff they have 38 MP the following turn. Only one unit that was also separated from the HQ only had 1 MP.

Also, mktours might be daisy chaining his HQs.



mmarquo -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:04:44 PM)

Someone with more insight (MT) will need to explain how it possible for units in the following condition to maintain/attain good MPs. The northern most Axis units in this picture were cut off by a Soviet counterattack, with the lead unit at SP 90; all of the units are > 50 MPs from a railhead, yet are moving in a column seemingly at will; and through multiple layers of ZOCs.



[image]local://upfiles/1355/32BC9AB87053485E914239D2C4EEB172.jpg[/image]



Michael T -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:32:50 PM)

Well INF units will have at least 8MP no matter what supply state. His Pz/Mot will still get some fuel unless totally isolated. But if the HQ has fuel and the unit is within 5 hexes/ 20mp then it will draw supply from said HQ regardless of isolation. The only way to stop this is to dislocate the HQ. But he will still be air supplying directly to Pz/Mot. These guys will have high MP. Nothing can be done to counter that. But lots of Fighters can slowly cripple the Air Fuel Fleet.

To be honest I don't see the necessity for all the panic about this Luki drive in column thing. I would love my opponent to try it. It's similar to Pelton's Right hook ploy. Using all your best troops in rugged terrain is a fools paradise IMO.

Anyhow Marquo, if you save over 300 ARM, 270 HVY and don't lose your Army you will achieve at least a draw and will most probably still win in the end. Would love to see a Map at T9. Even if you just email me a pic.



M60A3TTS -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:39:44 PM)

Soviet player doesn't have 270 Heavy Industry, MT. Maybe you mean 170.



Michael T -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:57:49 PM)

Yes, sorry 170.



Flaviusx -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/14/2013 11:59:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

To be honest I don't see the necessity for all the panic about this Luki drive in column thing.



It's crazy and not realistic. Just goes to show you how loose the logistics in the game really are.

Can you gum up the works in the terrain? Sure. But that's not the point, really, and this flying column could in principle be made somewhere else where the terrain is less favorable for defense.

What's missing here is any sense of friction in the Clausewitzian sense. These are logistical feats that I am not sure could be accomplished in the 21st century, never mind WW2.





Michael T -> RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG (8/15/2013 12:03:58 AM)

My comment is only about how it affects the end result of the match. As to its realism, that is another debate.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.092773