RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol

RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (Full Version)

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

Message

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 6:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain Lots of German rhetoric in this post :-) I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)] The post reads Pro-German. But maybe it is just me... Everyone believes the losses are just 100% "A" ok so I have left it alone Just you! [:D] My knowledge of the loss statistics comes from what you and others have written in these forums so nothing I could add. On the battle result though more will be in the Axis AAR when we catch up. Then it is probably just me then. :-)

EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 6:53:07 PM)
Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf. The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop. The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here. Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 7:08:03 PM)
So there is no German "Extreme Luck" in any of this since these battles are a forgone conclusion a Soviet loss pretty much every time. So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies!

Crackaces -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 7:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf. The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop. The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here. Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle. Excellent Post EvK. I might propose that manpower is a real problem for the Soviets on Turn 54 that began to be noted by the German team at this point. From what I can see by Recon my intuition tells me that the TO&E at 100% might be over 7M? The Soviets have around 5.6M total in units with around a high 5.4M undamaged. That tells me that maybe a lot of Soviet units are lacking manpower. By turn 54 it has become very apparent. AGS snatched a bunch of units had shown prior to this turn in question. The Soviets went up tempo a few turns and by turn 54 have not grown in active TO&E. We can post a graph. My play has been more aggressive thinking that a critical point has been reached worth the attrition costs.

Telemecus -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 7:33:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies! Well I think the point is the Soviet side made choices. If they had put their best commander with units close to full ToE in Sevastopol, I think it would still have been taken. But it might have taken turns of sequential fort reduction before a final successful result. And it would be questionable whether the losses could have justified the victory. We had 14 units in the Crimea partly to make reserve activations more likely, but also to replace units depleted in the first attacks. And we had more on their way by rail already to add to the 14. We would not have got the 8.8 to 1 first battle result and not even risked a second attack in the same turn on Sevastopol. Instead the Soviet team invested in guards units that spent the last few turns chewing up 1st Panzer Army at the Don Bridgehead. You can see the previous posts of our Panzer and motorised divisions being routed there by Soviet cavalry corps. You can debate whether they would have been better off spending more resources in Sevastopol instead of the Don Bridgehead - but there are strong arguments that they took the right decisions. I assumed the criticism was going to be we put too much into a marginal battle in Crimea, not that we won it as a result? Where the Soviet team invest in they get results, where they do not they do not. Strategy is about making choices - and this is a game of strategy.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 8:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies! Well I think the point is the Soviet side made choices. If they had put their best commander with units close to full ToE in Sevastopol, I think it would still have been taken. But it might have taken turns of sequential fort reduction before a final successful result. We had 14 units in the Crimea partly to make reserve activations more likely, but also to replace units depleted in the first attacks. And we had more on their way by rail already to add to the 14. We would not have got the 8.8 to 1 first battle result and not even risked a second attack in the same turn on Sevastopol. Instead the Soviet team invested in guards units that spent the last few turns chewing up 1st Panzer Army at the Don Bridgehead. You can see the previous posts of our Panzer and motorised divisions being routed there by Soviet cavalry corps. You can debate whether they would have been better off spending more resources in Sevastopol instead of the Don Bridgehead - but there are strong arguments that they took the right decisions. I assumed the criticism was going to be we put too much into a marginal battle in Crimea, not that we won it as a result? Where the Soviet team invest in they get results, where they do not they do not. Strategy is about making choices - and this is a game of strategy. I understand all of this. Plus I know all the lessons given by other members in this thread which I learned long ago. It is like everyone and his brother comes out of the woodwork to substantiate why this was a forgone conclusion and shouldn't question what is going on. IT WAS NOT a FORGONE conclusion. It is lucky that BOTH hexes were taken IMO and I haven't changed my opinion. YES, I know the mechanics of the game AND I know that decisions have consequences. But thank you for a refresh on the lessons. I will be keeping an eye on the Southern Commander, I hope he has more good stuff to look at since I like lucky people. *NOTE* I have no part in this game other than a bystander looking in.

Zorch -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 8:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf. The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop. The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here. Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle. Excellent Post EvK. I might propose that manpower is a real problem for the Soviets on Turn 54 that began to be noted by the German team at this point. From what I can see by Recon my intuition tells me that the TO&E at 100% might be over 7M? The Soviets have around 5.6M total in units with around a high 5.4M undamaged. That tells me that maybe a lot of Soviet units are lacking manpower. By turn 54 it has become very apparent. AGS snatched a bunch of units had shown prior to this turn in question. The Soviets went up tempo a few turns and by turn 54 have not grown in active TO&E. We can post a graph. My play has been more aggressive thinking that a critical point has been reached worth the attrition costs. My impression is that the Soviets have a manpower problem in this game. They are likely to lose the war in late 1942.

chaos45 -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 9:04:46 PM)
yes if the soviets lose Moscow/Leningrad the game in this current patch is basically a loss for the soviets. This is doubly so with the increased combat losses added in this last patch. the Patch team has tweaked to many levers on soviet manpower over several patches now as I told them long ago when they reduced it by like 20% when it is already drastically lower than historical and while in general the German OOB stays about 25% higher than historical almost the entire war. Statistics from recent games are showing very high combat/attrition losses to the soviet army 1941/1942 easily as much if not more than total soviet manpower recruitment. Which leaves the soviet army having a massive manpower crunch almost the entire war while the germans have almost no manpower issues in comparison. Soviet losses would be fine if soviet manpower recruitment was closer to historical...but with drastically less men than historical its proving an issue with game balance IMO. Also not saying it needs to be historical as the game engine cant handle that...but it probably needs returned to prior to the approx. 20% reduction.

M60A3TTS -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 9:10:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits A big stack of AA in Sevastapol would of been a great help for some extra support and guns What in your opinion qualifies as a big stack?

M60A3TTS -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 9:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles. This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something.

chaos45 -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 9:43:05 PM)
prolly something that should be added is an option for no intercept of recon missions.... Also it seems the Germans have tons and tons of recon planes, I seem to remember reading that they had shortages of them in the real war, yet in WITE they have more than enough to burn. Seem to also remember that in the past the German side had far fewer recon aircraft and targeting them as the soviet players actually mattered...maybe before a "fix" was put in giving the Germans tons more recon the game was working as intended where the Germans had limited recon and wouldn't want to waste them being shot down by soviet fighters to fatigue them. Its a pretty gamey tactic and in general IMO shouldn't be done but its allowed, its been the problem with some of the matches with players basically playing to exploits in the game system instead of playing a game to match skills. Kinda gets at my point that not all patch "fixes" have been good for game balance. Maybe some things were left intentional in the original game code to limit some of the game abuses that have been popping up lately.

Telemecus -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 9:51:33 PM)
I originally thought the recon escort option during an opponents turn was the off switch for intercepting recon and something like that would have been useful. There are historical examples of recon being used to fatigue and wear down an enemy air force. I was reading one RAF commander talking about keeping the Luftwaffe nerves on edge in the North of France after the battle of Britain. The tactic was repeated reconnaissance raids. So there does need to be some reflection of how an active air war can keep enemy pilots fatigued from being on call for more time even if not always flying interceptions. It would not be correct to call players using this wrong. You have to remember this is the air analogue of soaking attacks - you cannot call one side doing this a match of skills and the other side exploiting a game. You can agree rules to stop some actions for both sides, but you should not question the character or intentions of players.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 10:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus I originally thought the recon escort option during an opponents turn was the off switch for intercepting recon and something like that would have bene useful. There are historical examples of recon being used to fatigue and wear down an enemy air force. I was reading one RAF commander talking about keeping the Luftwaffe nerves on edge in the North of France after the battle of Britain. The tactic was repeated reconnaissance raids. So there does need to be some reflection of how an active air war can keep enemy pilots fatigued from being on call for more time even if not always flying interceptions. It would be not be correct to call players using this wrong. You have to remember this is the air analogue of soaking attacks - you cannot call one side doing this a match of skills and the other side exploiting a game. You can agree rules to stop some actions for both sides, but you should not question the character of players. No where near the scale that has been performed on the East front in this game for sure. M60 said 800 missions on a turn. I did mine for true recon when playing Germany, the Germans in this game are using it to further enhance their advantage in the Air War even further in their favor. Sounds like a new house rule of limiting Recon missions or hard code the game with a set max of recon missions available in a turn. If the Combat Results chart were not so DAMN bad for Russian Fighters shooting down recon planes this could be curtailed. But the damn CRT makes it so the Soviets can't even shoot the side or front of an aircraft hangar sitting inside with the doors shut sitting 1 centimeter away from said side or front of hangar.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/4/2018 10:14:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles. This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something. Ya, you inherited a mess in this game M60. But yeah for now on I am including a house rule for no saturation Reconning. This is just nuts.

Crackaces -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 12:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles. This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something. Ya, you inherited a mess in this game M60. But yeah for now on I am including a house rule for no saturation Reconning. This is just nuts. I believe this is fixed now .. no more than 2 recon per hex .

M60A3TTS -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 12:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles. This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something. Ya, you inherited a mess in this game M60. But yeah for now on I am including a house rule for no saturation Reconning. This is just nuts. I believe this is fixed now .. no more than 2 recon per hex . The change lessens the effect to some degree, but not to the point I would define as a fix. Look at this example: [image]https://i.imgur.com/4BKDTnn.jpg[/image] If an airbase were to be directly overflown by recon, two missions could be performed. At a range of only one hex for air units in the airbase, the number of available recon missions is 14 (2+12). At a range of two hexes, it increases to 38 (2+12+24). Imagine what the number would be if the air units defending such as I-153's were ten hexes away? A much bigger number to be sure, and P-40 aircraft have a range of 33.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 1:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles. This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something. Ya, you inherited a mess in this game M60. But yeah for now on I am including a house rule for no saturation Reconning. This is just nuts. I believe this is fixed now .. no more than 2 recon per hex . The change lessens the effect to some degree, but not to the point I would define as a fix. Look at this example: [image]https://i.imgur.com/4BKDTnn.jpg[/image] If an airbase were to be directly overflown by recon, two missions could be performed. At a range of only one hex for air units in the airbase, the number of available recon missions is 14 (2+12). At a range of two hexes, it increases to 38 (2+12+24). Imagine what the number would be if the air units defending such as I-153's were ten hexes away? A much bigger number to be sure, and P-40 aircraft have a range of 33. Excellent summary M60 👍. As can be seen this grows exponentially and coupled with the range factor can be still used to shut out the fighters.

SparkleyTits -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 5:46:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS quote: ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits A big stack of AA in Sevastapol would of been a great help for some extra support and guns What in your opinion qualifies as a big stack? If there if a fortress city that cannot hold a HQ for the SU and airframes have trouble reaching it then I pump it full of as many AA as possible with heavy AA getting priority for some kind of SU support in ground and air Problem is tbh I am not sure this would of been worth it in this situation as it was a one turn death roll It would of helped survive for one more turn sure then it would of cost AP removing it all or letting it die for the red tide So yeah in this case probably a good job you did not do that tbh

chaos45 -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:16:53 AM)
recon spam is still an issue, its an exploit that needs to be fixed.

Crackaces -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 5:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chaos45 recon spam is still an issue, its an exploit that needs to be fixed. I am pretty new to this game and my play is quite sophomoric, but I might suggest the following: Don�t put airbases in range of cheap �storks�. When counting hexes include staging bases that might extend range.there are limited JU88-1D�s so the exponential problem of expanding rings is limited by the number of longer ranged German recon. During the German turn minimize fighter ranges to what you really need to protect. Yes a P40 has a really long range but use it offensively and with a staging base to extend the projection of power. From a safe airbase in the rear. Again on airbases .. the Soviets have a couple of times put airbases just outside of range at the beginning of the turn. But the kubuki dance and staging bases can upset that formula in a hurry. My sudden plunge in the middle was strategically aimed at putting the Luftwaffe in range of Targets. The Germans can extend range in the center by 5-6 hexes with a focus. As a team we have not always had that focus .. I suspect a new vigor in the air war. Understand how the air war policies work .. Very soon all these suggestions will be very relevant. <smile>. I will retire to my hermit kingdom. I await turn 55 ..

chaos45 -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 6:42:17 PM)
crackaces your suggestions show you don't understand the game well. By placing our airbases so far back it in effect removes the soviet airforce from most phases of the game even with staging bases as staging bases only work on the active player turn not for Ground support or interception. So the recon spam/exploit effectively forces the soviet players not to use their airforce defensively or to ground support their attacks at all. This is pretty blatantly unbalancing and due mainly due to what is basically an exploit of something not considered previously in the air war. This exploit has been talked about in the past but as a matter of fair play most players do not exploit this weakness in the game system. In fact I would say in recent game memory this is one of the only games its been used continuously to completely unbalance the airwar. Some of us understand the game quite well. Its abit ridiculous recon planes run the Soviet fighters out of sorties due to a game design issue....its not due to any brilliance or "great" play on Axis players part sorry to say. An thats why its an exploit of the game system.

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chaos45 This exploit has been talked about in the past but as a matter of fair play most players do not exploit this weakness in the game system. In fact I would say in recent game memory this is one of the only games its been used continuously to completely unbalance the airwar. I agree with the rest of your post but I think this bit is not really fair. As a result of the complexity of the game there will always be areas where either or indeed both sides can gain an advantage by manipulating the game engine in an ahistorical way. The way to deal with this is either to specify house rules at the outset in specific areas (with the implication that anything outside of these rules is fair game) or to have a general agreement, again at the beginning of the game, to endeavor to play in a 'historical' manner. As far as I am aware in this game neither was the case at the outset in terms of recon specifically or 'historical play' generally. So for me it is very harsh to retrospectively suggest that the Axis team has been contravening some notion of 'fair play'. What they have been doing with the recon has been clear from the beginning and (again as far as I am aware) this is the first time that a serious objection has been raised. That said from a neutral viewpoint it seems to me that using the recon in this way is as you say a clear exploit and there needs to be a house rule agreed for this game moving forward and for others in general until the developers have come up with a solution.

Telemecus -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:40:52 PM)
I should say that there has never been a problem with introducing new house rules since the game started. So far every request has been granted. This includes two times being asked by the Soviet team to redo their turn after they had already sent the turn to us - the last time after two days. A team game is different and it has until now been pursued in the sense of an adventure and fun. There has always been an understanding that it might have to be adapted as it progressed into later years and as players have come and gone. Given this background there was a request that chaos45 retract his comments about players in the game here and elsewhere but they felt not able to do so. So with the impasse the game is now being forked. There is going to be a game file carrying on forward in which I will be playing and another that chaos45 is welcome to pursue. Players in both teams, past and present have been told they are welcome to play in either or both, and with any vacancies there will be the opportunity for new players to join the game.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chaos45 crackaces your suggestions show you don't understand the game well. By placing our airbases so far back it in effect removes the soviet airforce from most phases of the game even with staging bases as staging bases only work on the active player turn not for Ground support or interception. So the recon spam/exploit effectively forces the soviet players not to use their airforce defensively or to ground support their attacks at all. This is pretty blatantly unbalancing and due mainly due to what is basically an exploit of something not considered previously in the air war. This exploit has been talked about in the past but as a matter of fair play most players do not exploit this weakness in the game system. In fact I would say in recent game memory this is one of the only games its been used continuously to completely unbalance the airwar. Some of us understand the game quite well. Its abit ridiculous recon planes run the Soviet fighters out of sorties due to a game design issue....its not due to any brilliance or "great" play on Axis players part sorry to say. An thats why its an exploit of the game system. Well, he did make me smile and laugh with the suggestion. +1 for that :)

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus Given this background there was a request that chaos45 retract his comments about players in the game here and elsewhere but they felt not able to do so. So with the impasse the game is now being forked. There is going to be a game file carrying on forward in which I will be playing and another that chaos45 is welcome to pursue. Players in both teams, past and present have been told they are welcome to play in either or both, and with any vacancies there will be the opportunity for new players to join the game. Huh? Put this in Layman terms please. U.K. English makes my head spin ;-) Thank you

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus Given this background there was a request that chaos45 retract his comments about players in the game here and elsewhere but they felt not able to do so. So with the impasse the game is now being forked. There is going to be a game file carrying on forward in which I will be playing and another that chaos45 is welcome to pursue. Players in both teams, past and present have been told they are welcome to play in either or both, and with any vacancies there will be the opportunity for new players to join the game. Huh? Put this in Layman terms please. U.K. English makes my head spin ;-) Thank you I'm sure my English drive you Brits crazy too ;-)

SparkleyTits -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:53:43 PM)
Wowzer

Telemecus -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:55:07 PM)
I will do my best today, but may be able to post something better tomorrow. There will be two team games - until and unless they get better names let us call them "8MP A" and "8MP B" Both will have the same PBEM game saves up to the Axis Turn 54. From Soviet turn 54 two different Soviet teams will be doing and exchanging turns with two different Axis teams. Although the two team games will be the same up to the Axis turn 54 after that they will be diverging and be as different as any of the other team games ongoing.

Telemecus -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 9:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus Given this background there was a request that chaos45 retract his comments about players in the game here and elsewhere but they felt not able to do so. So with the impasse the game is now being forked. There is going to be a game file carrying on forward in which I will be playing and another that chaos45 is welcome to pursue. Players in both teams, past and present have been told they are welcome to play in either or both, and with any vacancies there will be the opportunity for new players to join the game. Huh? Put this in Layman terms please. U.K. English makes my head spin ;-) Thank you I'm sure my English drive you Brits crazy too ;-) Why can you not say Aluminium? And what do you have against the letter U? [:D]

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Week 47- May and Sevastopol (10/5/2018 10:05:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telemecus I should say that there has never been a problem with introducing new house rules since the game started. So far every request has been granted. This includes two times being asked by the Soviet team to redo their turn after they had already sent the turn to us - the last time after two days. A team game is different and it has until now been pursued in the sense of an adventure and fun. There has always been an understanding that it might have to be adapted as it progressed into later years and as players have come and gone. Given this background there was a request that chaos45 retract his comments about players in the game here and elsewhere but they felt not able to do so. So with the impasse the game is now being forked. There is going to be a game file carrying on forward in which I will be playing and another that chaos45 is welcome to pursue. Players in both teams, past and present have been told they are welcome to play in either or both, and with any vacancies there will be the opportunity for new players to join the game. I'd gently suggest that you all (on both sides) take the weekend off to cool down a little and come back to this issue next week. You are all reasonable adults and for me this is a situation that you should be able to work out with a little give and take. It would be a shame to see a game that has been so interesting and played in such a good spirit to break down because of a short term clash of personalities.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125