RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> After Action Reports

Message

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 8:53:56 AM)
Turn 53: Some nasty counterattacks my Jeremy. He's clearly not going to give up on the fighting in Iowa, and here a National Guard division is cut off. More alarmingly, he also killed the armoured division that I had slipped into the rear of his forces in northern New Mexico. His forces here are junk after a turn out of supply, though, and I aim to cause some damage to them. The odd thing, though, is that Jeremy didn't react in Canada. He actually made an attack in the west, whilst failing to consolidate his railroad guards near Quebec into whole divisions to backstop his line- which would have been my first move. He also crucially failed to destroy the bridge over the St. Lawrence which is my first objective for the attacks here, or to bring up extra fighters. I reinforce with another four armoured and four national guard divisions, but I may struggle to keep this pace of buildup for another turn. In the Plains, Jeremy's own buildup of Japanese troops has caused the front to begin to stabilise, and I'm forced to redirect my remaining combat-ready units over the border into northern Texas to find a seriously vulnerable stretch of the line. I intend to keep up the pressure here as long as possible in order to encourage Jeremy to use his rail lift here rather than Canada. All my airpower focusses as much as possible on Canada. On the first round, my three AAC divisions hit 33rd Acqui, the Italian infantry division guarding the intact bridge over the St. Lawrence, backed by some artillery and most of the USAAF. The RCAF for its part launches a preliminary bombardment on the adjacent German unit, which will be the target of followup attacks. After the first round, Acqui is reduced to a 3-3. My turn then ends. Well, my force proficiency isn't quite as high as Jeremy's, so I suppose I can hardly complain- but there'll be no more crap from Jeremy about how I only get early turn ending when it suits me. A 3-3! I could have got through that in one more round, then had a third to exploit- that's if the unit hadn't RBCd. I didn't attack with the National Guard at ALL, and next turn there'll be too little frontage for me to bring my entire force to bear. I guess I don't need to worry about not being able to reinforce rapidly enough since it doesn't look like I can use the forces I have. Not that it matters, but I also fail to make progress in Iowa or north Texas. The sprawling plains front begins to stabilise as major US armor units are withdrawn for the Quebec offensive [image]local://upfiles/1060/8986FC9CF95D4E4DA2AA42BF1327E150.jpg[/image]

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 1:55:37 PM)
Washington D.C. is irrelevant at this time. On turn 80 it might be worth considering because the game could come down to points but on turn 50 it just does not really matter. I can't possibly afford to divert a bunch of strength there with you raising havoc and destroying Divisions on the Plains. I don't react in Canada because I desperately need time here. All those little regiments spread out guarding the rail lines are Fortified and Fortified has this weird ability to ignore retreats 65% or some such amount of the time regardless of how good the unit actually is. Those are Croatians and the like. Very weak third line units. Form them into a mobile Division and they can't stop anything. But spread out as a slew of Fortified Hedgehogs then maybe, just maybe. As you note it takes 2 turns for me to get anything to Quebec City so I am desperate for time. I actually have refitted Panzers Divisions just about to return and can cull the line in Manitoba but I need time and my only chance is those Croatian Hedgehogs slowing you up.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 2:27:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald It would never play out like that at all. Yeah, reading the AAR back I think this was me trying to justify having enough time to pound you into dust. It's not realistic. quote: I am coming to the conclusion that a wide flanking move around Lake Superior can't work because the supply difficulties are just to insurmountable. I agree it's more or less impossible for the Axis to break past the line between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Superior without compromising on everything else. The thing of it is that it's not essential for the Axis to link up, so long as they cut the Allies in two. If the Axis can reach Lake Huron from Quebec (easy) and Lake Michigan from Galveston (difficult but not impossible) then the Allies have basically the same problem. If you really want the photo-op of the two armies joining hands you can shoot for Sault-Ste.Marie later on. The Lake Michigan angle is not as bad as it sounds, the Allied player is going to be so focused on stopping Axis forces showing up in central Illinois (if that happens it's basically game over) that he's actually going to be relieved when they're deflected off to the north and hit the lake somewhere north of Chicago. There was actually a match where the Axis did reach lake Michigan and then went on to lose the game- but that was on the 50km map. If anything though I think the issue in this match was you put so much effort into fighting me up the Piedmont, which ultimately didn't help you very much. I was never going to keep Charlotte and Norfolk because the terrain here is too open and the Axis logistical situation is pretty good. It would have served you better to get going in the Plains a bit earlier and with more of your strength. I guess the other question is, would it actually be practical for the Axis to contain the US heartland by defending on its natural frontiers and at the same time overrun the whole western two thirds of the continent? If so, that would easily be enough for marginal victory, and you can keep feeding on industrial cities: Albuquerque Denver Salt Lake City San Diego Los Angeles (2) San Francisco Seattle Vancouver Calgary Winnipeg Minneapolis-St. Paul Sault-Ste.Marie That's enough to keep Allied replacements down the rest of the match. I suppose the thing would be to race for the various supply points and isolate those, then it doesn't matter that the Axis supply situation will also be terrible. However that itself is a big job as there are at least four Allied supply points in the west, albeit only one (LA) is 100%. Thinking about it, Allied rail repair is so bad in the scenario that the Axis would only need to hold the trap shut at Lake Michigan long enough to overrun the space immediately northwest of here. Then the Allies are going to have a lot of trouble transferring troops to the west even if they do break out later on. Well an interesting idea - not sure it would work but then again not sure it wouldn't. One of the upsides is grabbing the Industrial Cities in Eastern Canada. The Axis can pretty easily get the South West Cities and even some on the plains but that is not enough. They have to find a way of picking up some from somewhere else - this as an adjunct to a Western Offensive might have possibilities - the danger is if the pressure ever comes off the Allies enough then there is a danger of a defeat in detail.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 3:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald I don't react in Canada because I desperately need time here. All those little regiments spread out guarding the rail lines are Fortified and Fortified has this weird ability to ignore retreats 65% or some such amount of the time regardless of how good the unit actually is. Those are Croatians and the like. Very weak third line units. Form them into a mobile Division and they can't stop anything. But spread out as a slew of Fortified Hedgehogs then maybe, just maybe. As you note it takes 2 turns for me to get anything to Quebec City so I am desperate for time. I actually have refitted Panzers Divisions just about to return and can cull the line in Manitoba but I need time and my only chance is those Croatian Hedgehogs slowing you up. Yeah- that became clear later. It might have been worth putting some divisions together from bits further back, but the ones near the front needed to stay fortified.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 3:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald Well an interesting idea - not sure it would work but then again not sure it wouldn't Hopefully we've done away with unbeatable strategies in Fall Grau so this- it might work or it might not- is about where we land. I think as an Axis player in Fall Grau one needs to be flexible. One can make a plan to draw a big circle around the Allied heartland, but if the Allies mess up somewhere along the line and give you an opening into the northeast, or leave the door open to Chicago, then by all means the Axis player should take that. It's also nice to be able to wave the possibility of cutting the map in half in front of the Allied player even if it's not critical to the Axis plan. The Allied player has to keep a lot of balls in the air in the middle part of the scenario and the more threats the Axis can pose, the likelier something is going to get dropped.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/14/2021 7:47:32 PM)
It would be worth at least considering. The real difficulty with around Lake Superior is the difficulties of setting up a functional supply line. If one where to do this then the goal would be something like having Axis 2nd Army suddenly appear out of the Canadian Forests and descend on Manitoba. if the Allied player is not ready for it they maybe grab the city. If the Allies are ready for it best to simply withdraw away again. You don't want to fight a drawn out battle that far from the Axis supply lines.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/15/2021 10:19:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald It would be worth at least considering. The real difficulty with around Lake Superior is the difficulties of setting up a functional supply line. If one where to do this then the goal would be something like having Axis 2nd Army suddenly appear out of the Canadian Forests and descend on Manitoba. if the Allied player is not ready for it they maybe grab the city. If the Allies are ready for it best to simply withdraw away again. You don't want to fight a drawn out battle that far from the Axis supply lines. The Allies would only ever need a light force to protect Winnipeg and the routes south. I think an offensive north of Lake Superior is only going to work if the Allies are already on the ropes elsewhere and can't even find two good divisions for this sector.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/16/2021 7:23:04 PM)
Turn 54: A goodly reaction from Jeremy. All his rail bridges fixed and plenty of reserves en-route to the front. I throw everything into the attack of course but this is just depressing at this point. I do however rail another four armoured divisions here from Iowa, where the front is now more or less static. Things are close to locked down in the west. I could shift west again to the slightly less completely fortified section of Jeremy's line, but I am still facing some fairly weak units and so I opt to make the most of these positions rather than losing more time redeploying. Some of my cavalry also swings around behind the line on the border with New Mexico, creating the opportunity for a small pocket. This works, with four divisions put out of supply, half of them mechanised. In general though my attacks here, without airpower, are anemic, and may have to be scaled back next turn. A better turn. Of the three defending units closest to Lake Ontario, two are annihilated and one is reduced to a 2-1. I'm not able to exploit much- and I do see the wisdom of keeping the rail guards in position, as one of them on fortified status resists my armoured division- but this front is now mobile, and Jeremy only has about four infantry divisions behind the line to respond with (I note also a Japanese brigade landed at Portland, presumably the first of many). For good measure, the RCAF blew three rail bridges again, though I suspect Jeremy has engineers on all three. I'd say that a) I'll get to Quebec but b) Jeremy will have pulled in most of this wing of his army by the time I do, and it'll be a damp squib. Still, it does serve to liven up the match a bit more than if I'd just kept harassing his flank in the Plains. It also works as a proof of concept for assaulting a fortified line. This works- provided I can put enough power into it. If I can keep a vague concern over the West ticking over for the next ten turns while the Quebec campaign plays itself out, I may repeat the process somewhere in the southeast- perhaps Knoxville. A continuous frontline now extends from the Chesapeake to North Texas, but in New Mexico the situation remains highly fluid with large gaps between the major forces [image]local://upfiles/1060/C8FCBC6745634994B143241577A06942.jpg[/image]

cathar1244 -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/17/2021 6:26:42 AM)
Niggle -- the town's name is Alamogordo, not Almogordo. Is that road between Soccoro and Roswell supposed to be broken? Love the map, it is is huge. Cheers

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/17/2021 10:32:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cathar1244 Niggle -- the town's name is Alamogordo, not Almogordo. Noted... actually I have a vague intention of revisiting the map to fill in additional place names as the limit for these is a lot higher than when the map was originally made, and it shows in some of the wide open spaces. quote: Is that road between Soccoro and Roswell supposed to be broken? Checking my sources... https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~23824~920008:Rand-McNally-road-map-United-States Yes! You'll note that the road drops off to a lower grade for a short stretch there, and given the scale lower grade roads don't appear on the map at all. I.e. you might be able to happily drive your jeep along the road but if 20,000 other guys have the same idea at the same time it won't end well. quote: Love the map, it is is huge. Thanks, this was a labour of love over a number of years, and the product of trying to be rigorous about every single aspect of the terrain. I also enlisted local expertise for California and the Lower South. I was originally inspired by Tane Woodley's similar scale map for his American Front series but I felt that it needed a fresh treatment for Fall Grau. At the old 50m/hex scale the unit density was all wrong; one couldn't really concentrate properly for an attack and it was too easy to draw a continuous fortified line across the map. As you can see here we simply run out of pieces, and the Axis line in particular is creaking because the units are just not strong enough to cover a hex. I spent so long on it that I keep trying to come up with new uses for it. Must justify the effort spent mapping remote stretches of the Canadian prairie...

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/17/2021 7:28:38 PM)
Turn 55: Quebec A good start to the turn as the brigade on the shoulder of my breach in Jeremy's line is RBC'd out of the way. Scouting ahead with various pieces find his line drawn up east of Montreal, bridging the gap to Lake Champlain. I then switch over toward Ottawa, where subdivided brigades bar the door to the rest of Ontario. These too are RBC'd out of the way. It's at this point that I realise that I've cut Jeremy's rail line already. I had thought for some reason that he had fixed the line straight east from Quebec, but instead his line runs via Ottawa. This means that everyone west of here is on minimal supply and, more importantly, that he can't reinforce Quebec by rail. I think I'll make two advances- one directly at his new line near Montreal, and the other north from Ottawa to approach from the other side of the St. Lawrence. I certainly have the forces for both. The latter of these goes well immediately; with Jeremy's odd brigades shoved out of the way, I'm able to push my four AAC divisions as far as they will go, with the lead unit more north than west of Montreal. With this achieved, I pour most of my regular armour in to follow; the direct route will be the focus of the National Guard. Behind the armour, a brigade of 1st Canadian division re-enters their National capital. This is rather good. Jeremy will probably have something up his sleeve, but assuming I can't cross the super river I'm now ten hexes from Quebec City. I could in all probability be in possession of it by turn 57. But there are other fronts. The West On what I've been thinking of as the El Paso front, I'm in dire straits. Jeremy has brought up the Argentine army from Mexico and swamped the light forces I had here. I will extract the Commonwealth mobile army from Albuquerque and bring some or all of it around here with a view to routing these light forces; I also send a number of reconstitutes from Los Angeles here this turn. The Albuquerque front itself I allow to go quiet, and indeed most of the west is the same; I do continue limited offensive operations on the border between North Texas and New Mexico, but much of my armour is withdrawn from this front to rest. I also make a local counterattack at Iowa, but this has little effect. Jeremy has largely closed this offensive down so he can rebuild supply using the local bonus from Kansas City. So with such rapid success achieved in Quebec, the question is whether I need to further reinforce this area now, or should I focus on keeping the situation mobile in the west, or even on opening up the southern front as mentioned last turn? I think on balance it's best not to be too overconfident in Canada, and as such I do send more forces to the north, but on a significantly reduced scale, and prioritising rail movement of units in non-combat areas (which includes the second line positions from Detroit, which this turn are stripped out). Nevertheless, the front still receives two full divisions, one armoured, two engineer brigades, copious artillery and a range of smaller infantry detachments which will cover my flanks as I advance. I resolve to send no more major reinforcements to this front from next turn unless the situation changes. As such, I am able to recommit two fresh armoured divisions in the southwest, as well as bringing down my resting reserve of seven armoured divisions to Trinidad, Colorado, the nearest point to this sector where I have full rail supply. ANOTHER early turn ending! My turn was mostly movement so this isn't particularly troubling, but they seem to come up about one turn in three at the moment, and it may be the end of the Plains front (unless Jeremy decides it's time for his own offensive here, which is doubtful). With the capture of Ottawa (worth 25 points), my victory level is very briefly marginal victory, but I slip back to draw after combat. I suppose Jeremy will have Japanese troops at Quebec City before I get there, so he may hold the port itself; but I hope to be able to have his entire Ontario army out of supply by turn 58. I estimate this force at approximately forty divisions, plus attendant engineers and artillery (sadly all the panzers have withdrawn). By turn 70 I should be able to annihilate all of it. If I do get Quebec City quickly, I will take a shot at getting Portland, too, which bags me about another fourteen divisions, most of them good German troops. However that'll be a tougher fight. If I can't, I'll extract most of my forces and aim to start a new major offensive in the south around turn 70. But Jeremy's not done yet; he has a huge amount of strength on the board and he has just shipped the reconstituted IX Panzerkorps into Galveston. I think I have to assume that any gains outside of Canada will be extremely hard won. But I note that the section of front along the Cumberland is a good 12 hexes from the Axis rail head, and guarded by the weak 28. Jaeger division. I'll keep this in my back pocket for my next offensive. Allied forces breakthrough the Axis crust and envelop Montreal [image]local://upfiles/1060/1E132FE1193B4483A91B331E8DF5754A.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/18/2021 6:56:40 PM)
Turn 56: Jeremy has brought up some of his panzertruppen at Quebec City, and positioned them behind the tributary of the St. Lawrence just west of Trois Rivieres (though on closer inspection these are the old models, not new ones). This, together with the positioning of German infantry adjacent to my route of advance, makes this drive less straightforward than I otherwise would have liked. However I have enough forces here to hedge my bets; this drive splits into two, one of which drives up the road toward Malartic, where it meets the east-west road which heads back to Quebec City. Blocking this road is a priority in any case as it's the best route for Axis reinforcements to this front. The other half of this force focuses on continuing the drive directly towards Quebec City. At the same time, on the right bank of the river my National Guard launch a full-blooded assault on Jeremy's line east of Montreal. I add the equivalent of about three more divisions here; any more and I would have serious density problems. The serious addition of force in Quebec on Jeremy's turn convinces me to continue reinforcing this front with the addition of another two armoured divisions. But there are other fronts. The most promising of these is the El Paso front, where Jeremy has been overrunning my troops and now I have a chance to fight back with the powerful Commonwealth armoured corps. This front also receives two divisions of reinforcements from the western Canada front by rail. I also continue to attack on a narrow front near Nara Vista, with the aim of keeping this area mobile. Results A healthy four rounds of combat sees me surge forward with all three prongs of my advance; the Italian armoured division blocking the road to Malartic is destroyed and my own armour swings around onto the main road toward Quebec. To the southeast, the screen Jeremy had in the forest is also all but annihilated, putting 6th AAC division just over the river from Jeremy's panzer troops. More importantly, I'm only one hex from it further north, where it's not super river. On the other side of the St. Lawrence, I'm left regretting leaving no fast troops with the National Guard to exploit as they smash the three hexes of Jeremy's line east of Montreal and advance as far as Sherbrooke. I should be able to flood Maine with these troops next turn, putting Portland at risk, whilst bringing up my two new armoured divisions to exploit toward Quebec City. I also really want Montreal. At the moment, my entire force north of the St. Lawrence is supplied via the bridge at Ottawa. I hope Jeremy doesn't notice it and find some bridge bombers. The Nara Vista offensive was surprisingly good, too, as I shattered a number of German divisions, though I may have left myself open for counterattack if Jeremy has good forces behind the line here. I see Panthers and King Tigers advancing up the road here but they're more than a turn out I think (It's possible Jeremy may make another play for Albuquerque here). West of El Paso I inflict some losses, but didn't get the raft of RBCs I was hoping for. It occurs to me I only actually have to reach the Nottaway river and Jeremy's army is out of supply. I don't think I can do this next turn as he will have at least two German divisions at Malartic, probably more. Still, if I can put heavy pressure on him from all three prongs for the next several turns, there's no way he can resist all of them. I'm on marginal victory at the end of the turn this time, as Jeremy's loss penalty creeps above mine for the first time in the match. I'd like to see if I can get this to significant victory before the end of the match, or else push Jeremy into conceding before turn 90. Allied forces surge towards Quebec City on a broad front [image]local://upfiles/1060/E50344B7876F44C8BEAF257EAFB1FC2A.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/20/2021 3:12:08 PM)
Turn 57: So, I do still have supply over the bridge at Ottawa- that was my main worry. Jeremy has disengaged from southeastern Ontario, leaving a couple of divisions cut off, and allowing me to walk into London and Toronto. He's opposed me strongly with three mechanised divisions near Malartic, so I don't expect to make rapid progress there, but I am ready to get to grips with the defences he has in front of Trois Rivieres (also three mechanised divisions) and here I expect to get forward; two divisions press the destroyed bridge on the bank of the St. Lawrence whilst the remainder of the force attacks further north where the river is narrower. On the other bank, a mixed scratch force opposes my National Guard, but I expect to be able to brush this aside and then exploit with the armour brought up here last turn. I rail up a further large batch of reinforcements (8 divisions, three armoured) from quiet fronts this turn. The other fronts as before are somewhat moribund. Jeremy counterattacked on the Plains, destroying an armoured division and most of a second. Here I'm able to commit about half the armour from Trinidad to join the battle and keep things fluid until I can build up this army again. To the west, Jeremy's Japanese are nibbling at my line in front of Albuquerque, but don't threaten the city yet. More concerning is the El Paso front (now nearer Deming, NM). III Panzerkorps hit the line here rather than Albuquerque, trapping three and destroying one of my Commonwealth armoured divisions. On the plus side, I still outnumber him here and should be able to outfight him whilst I am in good supply and he isn't. I swing the remaining two Canadian armoured divisions around via road from Albuquerque ready to join this engagement next turn. Hm. This wasn't quite the rapid surge forward in the northeast that I had hoped for; I didn't really get over the river in front of Trois Rivieres (I dislodged the panzer division holding the broken river crossing but didn't advance) and I only made it forward one hex on the south bank. However the defenders are seriously disrupted here and fully engaged with my still quite fresh forces. A major effort next turn ought to allow me to destroy what remains of these positions- unless Jeremy has significant reinforcements coming into Quebec by sea before then. I was also disappointed not to get Montreal this turn, providing a second supply route to the north bank, but I will get it next turn. The fighting near Malartic was successful as well, with a panzergrenadier division routed and 10. Panzer put out of supply. My attacks toward Nara Vista were also profitable, inflicting some serious damage on the German forces here, although most of my armour was exhausted and forced to withdraw back to reserve at the end of the turn. To the south, I rescued the two armoured divisions at Deming, and made a final round attack on 4. Panzer, with a view to trimming its claws before it can really get into the fight. I'd like to have the Quebec campaign decided in the next couple of turns. The constant funnelling of all my best troops to this sector (I now have eighteen armoured divisions here) has seriously impacted my situation in the southwest. Once I have a lock on the city and have definitively cut off everything to the west, I can start withdrawing these forces and sending a huge stack to pastures new every turn. The only question is whether I seek a mobile battle in the southwest, or try to open another new front in the Southeast. I think I prefer the latter option, given my difficulty fixing the rail net and as VPs will be much easier to come by down there- and at this stage of the match that's what this is about. However with the new panzer divisions coming online Jeremy may have a narrow window in which he has the initiative. One nice side effect of being on the offensive is that I've been able to choose where my losses fall- the National Guard and my armour have done a lot of heavy lifting while the regulars have only been involved in a few minor engagements. The result is that almost my entire army is now on the board- I can only find one brigade of regular infantry which is "Eliminated" and not due to come back in the next few turns. With the majority of Allied armour tied up in Quebec, the fighting in New Mexico enters a new phase [image]local://upfiles/1060/6C8174CEE4314BA780D7F16B6741AD1B.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/21/2021 8:43:48 AM)
Turn 58: Quebec A powerful response from Jeremy in Quebec this turn; at least three divisions of the reconstituted III and XVII Panzerkorps arrived at Quebec City to relieve the beleaguered XIII. This proves to be a blunder. On the South bank of the St. Lawrence, he only has a few fragments- and the unbloodied 3rd AAC division blasts them all aside, seizing the (destroyed) bridge over the St. Lawrence at Quebec City. 13th and 17th Armored divisions then blast through the rear area units defending the city itself. The trap is shut. I've no doubt Jeremy will retake the port on his turn, but I fully expect to take it back again on mine. This puts his whole army out of supply. It's just as well, as the situation on the west bank of the St. Lawrence is bad. 2nd AAC Corps is in reorganisation, meaning a crossing of the super river towards Trois Riviers is out of the question. I make some attacks on the panzertruppen here but don't expect serious progress. In fact I transfer three armoured divisions over to the far bank where they can be used to press Quebec City directly next turn. Even more serious is a heavy German counterattack from the direction of Malartic; here, Jeremy's three mechanised divisions were joined by five of infantry, seriously mauling two of my armoured divisions. It's vital that these forces be kept in place here and not allowed to break through to the road east where they can support Quebec City. I send three divisions of National Guard here to reinforce this turn. Jeremy's also responded heavily to my probes south of the Ottawa river, cutting off a Canadian brigade with a mixed force of 7 Italian and German divisions, and this sector receives the other two fresh National Guard divisions. Southwest Over in the west, as predicted Jeremy made another play for Albuquerque, flanking strongly from the East and almost taking the supply point which made it so untakeable previously. Here I commit three divisions of armour from reserve at Trinidad, which should allow me to flank the flankers. This doesn't interfere with my Nara Vista offensive, which is now aimed to interfere with the rail line Jeremy is building towards Albuquerque from Amarillo. The situation in southwestern New Mexico continues to be highly fluid. The fresh panzers here destroyed a Canadian armoured division here last turn but I still have strong armoured forces of my own. It's my intent to cut off and destroy 16. Panzergrenadier, which is flanking dangerously to the south. If this fails, though, I will be seriously exposed and as such I divert from my policy of the last six turns and send major reinforcements to this front. I had intended to send 9th National Guard to this front- but I find that with no north/south rail line east of California they're not in range. Instead, these troops rail to southern Colorado, where they will either be available to deal with Jeremy's flanking move should it develop, or free to rail on to New Mexico next turn. This front does receive four National Guard divisions which were closer to hand, plus two fresh Canadian divisions. Results My attacks come off well. I seriously disrupt Jeremy's defence in front of Trois Rivieres although I'm not really over the river, and I shove back the panzers to the west, putting a ZOC on the road to Quebec (in addition to the National Guard division I have dug in further back). More importantly, I rout the remaining Axis troops on the east bank of the St. Lawrence, allowing 12th and 19th Armor to join 3rd AAC in the hex adjacent to Quebec City. Jeremy will be hard pressed to resist this force with whatever he lands at the city on his turn, and there are significant follow-on forces on the far bank. I've also largely opened the road to Portland, whence more National Guard troops will move next turn with a view to putting Jeremy's static positions in New England out of supply as well. Down south, at Nara Vista I inflict heavy losses on the Axis, but I expect a counterattack next turn and my power is fading here with the forced diversion of armour to Albuquerque, where I threaten but do not cut off Jeremy's advance. In the northern tip of Mexico, I'm successful in destroying 16. Panzergrenadier, but I have a horrid feeling that Jeremy will make me regret it- he still has at least four mechanised divisions here and a lot of my units look eminently RBCable. Still. The main point is I took Quebec City. I count 20 German and fifteen other divisions that I can see put out of supply this way. There must be at least another five guarding the rail line. This is as close to Totaller Sieg as I'm likely to get. The fall of Quebec City makes the success of Axis counterattacks irrelevant, as everything west of the St. Lawrence is now out of supply [image]local://upfiles/1060/870F8C5BA1EC4C1CAEC9BB1FDDE057B9.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/22/2021 7:00:47 PM)
The End On receiving my turn 58 Jeremy concedes the match- which is a little disappointing, but understandable. My victory level is over 300 and I'm about to wipe out about 10% of his army. So it seems I don't have to answer the dilemma of what to do next, nor deal with the problem of my low rail repair level. Thoughts on winning: Jeremy had two strategies which emerged at the start of the scenario. One was a direct drive, with forces from Quebec moving toward New York City and from Mobile towards Chicago, and the second was an indirect approach, with both bodies being swung around to the west for a game-winning linkup in the Plains. Both are viable strategies. The problem is that Jeremy didn't finally commit himself to either strategy until around turn 25 when it became apparent that the direct approach had failed, and in committing to a long game in the western part of the map he was then running contrary to the strategic decision he made right at the start of the match to front-load his power by taking three sealift boosts. [It turns out Jeremy's strategy was the indirect one from the start so this could be rephrased as not getting on with it quickly enough] On top of this, Jeremy did not do enough to co-ordinate his offensives across the map. From turns 8 to 14 I was able to concentrate my power in the northeast whilst withdrawing in the south, then from turns 15 to 29 I was able to focus on the southeast while delaying Jeremy with relatively light forces in the west. It was only from turn 30 that Jeremy started to put real pressure on in the west, at which point the situation in the southeast had improved to the point where I would shortly be withdrawing substantial forces. The only point at which I felt a dilemma about where to focus (besides in the initial turns when the Axis offensives are still developing) was in the space 35-40 when Axis forces were bearing down on me in the West at the same time as I was heavily engaged in Ontario. Jeremy was also, to my mind, too precious about the supply state of his troops. Around turn 30 he notes having a large number of panzer divisions getting up to full supply in his rear areas. Where were these troops five turns earlier when both of us were fighting on a shoestring in the west with a wide open flank? Had these units been committed at 50% supply when the situation was critical, Jeremy could have conquered Oklahoma for free, and potentially achieved that linkup in the West. Again, ten turns later, Jeremy responds to the faltering defence of Kansas by pulling everything back to Oklahoma to resupply. In general, because of this need for units to be at full supply, Jeremy tended to develop his offensives piecemeal, rather than committing a decisive amount of force at the outset. This happened in Ontario, too, where I was allowed to discover for myself over a period of several turns that, yes, Jeremy really did mean business up here. If he'd waited to develop this front until he had the forces for it, he could have surprised and routed the tiny forces I had available and broken through past Duluth while I was still scrambling to mobilise a defence. Finally, Jeremy showed a marked tendency to tolerate quiet fronts. It's strongly in the Allied player's interest to systematically shut down one section of the line after another into solid fortified lines. This happened progressively in this match: Maine and Upstate New York, then Buffalo and Detroit, then Kentucky, then Virginia, then Ontario. It's striking looking at the situation around turns 25-30, where Jeremy is grinding forward in extreme terrain against the flower of my army, whilst weeds are growing around the exceedingly light screen I had guarding the north bank of the Cumberland in the west Kentucky plains. I think a lot could have been gained from switching the emphasis of his offensive to this sector the moment that I abandoned the good terrain I had been holding in the Tennessee bend. But this sector was already "locked down"- in Jeremy's mind, it essentially did not exist. I achieved good results later in the match by going after one such fortified sector. This was a hard fought game. I was on the back foot through to turn 24, and not truly confident of winning (despite some bravado) until almost turn 40. Had Jeremy committed full-bloodedly to one of his two strategies from the outset- either more vigorously prosecuting his drives to the northeast or ensuring that he got into the west much earlier- the outcome could very well have been different. Further, the concept of a grand encirclement via the Plains, forcing the Allies on to the offensive while the Axis win on points is an excellent one, and if carried out vigorously with a lower sealift option could be decisive. Even as it stood, his overall strategic dilemma would not necessarily have precluded victory had he been more prepared to push units to their limit when the situation was mobile as out in the west, or challenge me where I was not expecting it, such as on the fortified line in western Kentucky. Strategic Map, turn 58 [image]local://upfiles/1060/9A0A1BC7A041495A8B2718A94D4D8E0B.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/22/2021 7:05:09 PM)
Victory Level, start of Allied turn 58. The capture of Montreal and Quebec City alone during the turn would shift this to 267. Although this is only "marginal victory", the scenario lasts until turn 90 and strong Allied replacements make a reversal of fortunes late in the match more or less impossible [image]local://upfiles/1060/61C544023A1D409E862884E293216A3E.jpg[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/23/2021 7:02:28 PM)
This concludes the AAR- Happy to post any additional screenshots, though I'm not convinced anyone is still reading.

Edwire -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/24/2021 6:50:24 AM)
I'll be honest that I find it hard to follow the details as I haven't play the scenario, but the screenshot and overall overview is always enjoyable to read, and the summary in the end wrap it up superbly, thanks golden delicius! Well done to both player! Awesome AAR! This makes me interested in the scenario, might give it a try in the future [sm=00000028.gif]

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/24/2021 12:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwire This makes me interested in the scenario, might give it a try in the future [sm=00000028.gif] That's the idea! The link's in the first line of the first post- Let me know how you get on.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/24/2021 4:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Thoughts on winning: Jeremy had two strategies which emerged at the start of the scenario. One was a direct drive, with forces from Quebec moving toward New York City and from Mobile towards Chicago, and the second was an indirect approach, with both bodies being swung around to the west for a game-winning linkup in the Plains. Both are viable strategies. The problem is that Jeremy didn't finally commit himself to either strategy until around turn 25 when it became apparent that the direct approach had failed, and in committing to a long game in the western part of the map he was then running contrary to the strategic decision he made right at the start of the match to front-load his power by taking three sealift boosts. [It turns out Jeremy's strategy was the indirect one from the start so this could be rephrased as not getting on with it quickly enough] This is true - in reality with a complex shifting fronts strategy like this I should have recognized that the highest supply possible was actually critical. Instead of deciding to take two hits to my supply for more sea lift I might have considered the second hit to Replacements or gone with lower sea lift. Here it turns out that the very thing I was trying to accomplish with my high sea lift (a local advantage in units in the west for a short window of opportunity) was being sabotaged by the very low supply rate. quote: On top of this, Jeremy did not do enough to co-ordinate his offensives across the map. From turns 8 to 14 I was able to concentrate my power in the northeast whilst withdrawing in the south, then from turns 15 to 29 I was able to focus on the southeast while delaying Jeremy with relatively light forces in the west. It was only from turn 30 that Jeremy started to put real pressure on in the west, at which point the situation in the southeast had improved to the point where I would shortly be withdrawing substantial forces. The only point at which I felt a dilemma about where to focus (besides in the initial turns when the Axis offensives are still developing) was in the space 35-40 when Axis forces were bearing down on me in the West at the same time as I was heavily engaged in Ontario. This is very true and really a major Achilles Heel in the strategy. It tends to take the pressure off the Allies from one front to the next. quote: Jeremy was also, to my mind, too precious about the supply state of his troops. Around turn 30 he notes having a large number of panzer divisions getting up to full supply in his rear areas. Where were these troops five turns earlier when both of us were fighting on a shoestring in the west with a wide open flank? Had these units been committed at 50% supply when the situation was critical, Jeremy could have conquered Oklahoma for free, and potentially achieved that linkup in the West. They where the spear heads conquering the South.If they had not been there you would not have been there either and instead we would have been fighting with much of these armies in the west. This was not as decisive as I wanted it to be and could have gone off so much better with a higher supply rate but this part of the plan did at least partially work. I was launching diversionary attacks in Virginia with Infantry and you where pilling up a strong double line including armoured reserves out there even as the Panzers had left and shifted to the West (resupplying once they arrived in the western theatre). I don't think 50% supply is very reasonable. There is a major time sink as you move the Panzers to a fixed rail head well behind the line and get them stopped with an HQ beside them. You get pretty much no supply until you do that but once you meet all these checks even with this low supply I would be getting 22% a turn. I could have committed them 5 turns earlier but at 1% supply - for 50% supply it is closer to two turns earlier and now it is less clear it was worth it. As it was I was struggling desperately to shift you and having to constantly deal with your counter attacks as you aim to kill them. Attacking with much weaker Panzers would just mean you find it that much easier to kill them. No point in making that easy for you. quote: Again, ten turns later, Jeremy responds to the faltering defence of Kansas by pulling everything back to Oklahoma to resupply. In general, because of this need for units to be at full supply, Jeremy tended to develop his offensives piecemeal, rather than committing a decisive amount of force at the outset. This was a problem but really I could not wait You where only going to be tricked in Virginia for so long before you started to figure this out and your defences where only going to get better. I could not wait for everything to be ready and had to commit forces as I had them for the initial offensive. quote: This happened in Ontario, too, where I was allowed to discover for myself over a period of several turns that, yes, Jeremy really did mean business up here. If he'd waited to develop this front until he had the forces for it, he could have surprised and routed the tiny forces I had available and broken through past Duluth while I was still scrambling to mobilise a defence. Now here sort of agree with you. This is a sort of special case as here there was hope for full on surprise. Though I could never actually be sure that you had not seen this coming. quote: Finally, Jeremy showed a marked tendency to tolerate quiet fronts. It's strongly in the Allied player's interest to systematically shut down one section of the line after another into solid fortified lines. This happened progressively in this match: Maine and Upstate New York, then Buffalo and Detroit, then Kentucky, then Virginia, then Ontario. It's striking looking at the situation around turns 25-30, where Jeremy is grinding forward in extreme terrain against the flower of my army, whilst weeds are growing around the exceedingly light screen I had guarding the north bank of the Cumberland in the west Kentucky plains. I think a lot could have been gained from switching the emphasis of his offensive to this sector the moment that I abandoned the good terrain I had been holding in the Tennessee bend. But this sector was already "locked down"- in Jeremy's mind, it essentially did not exist. I achieved good results later in the match by going after one such fortified sector. I disagree. This is the offensive into the endless desert situation - you don't do it unless there is a reasonable objective. There is nothing there except one good defensive chunk of terrain after another. If your strategy is to cross the Ohio then sure attack here - but if it is not then you have chosen to fight in poor terrain for no real benefit. As it was by turn 25 I am already leaving for the West - my infantry are pushing up against the flower of your army because I want you to keep it here. The attack toward Baltimore is not expected to succeed - it is expected to hold as many of your Armoured Divisions out here as possible for as long as possible and it does that. You say the Allies benefit from locked down fronts and while that is true the Axis can't just jump from front to front searching for the Allied weakness. The Allies are faster on a unit by unit basis , have massive rail lift and better supply. The Axis needs to pick where the battles will be fought and be willing to let the unimportant areas go static. quote: This was a hard fought game. I was on the back foot through to turn 24, and not truly confident of winning (despite some bravado) until almost turn 40. Had Jeremy committed full-bloodedly to one of his two strategies from the outset- either more vigorously prosecuting his drives to the northeast or ensuring that he got into the west much earlier- the outcome could very well have been different. Further, the concept of a grand encirclement via the Plains, forcing the Allies on to the offensive while the Axis win on points is an excellent one, and if carried out vigorously with a lower sealift option could be decisive. Even as it stood, his overall strategic dilemma would not necessarily have precluded victory had he been more prepared to push units to their limit when the situation was mobile as out in the west, or challenge me where I was not expecting it, such as on the fortified line in western Kentucky. Here I agree - Though I think the real problem was that the idea on a drive that clears out the south and then shifts to the West is actually flawed. It creates dead periods that allow the Allies to more effectively recover. Balance this with the fact that the drive to the North West was just inherently unworkable and there is a real problem. In reality a better strategy would have been to be weaker in the South but also starting on persecuting the West from very early on - back that with a drive that cuts the rail line through Canada but focuses on attacks in the North East and the Allies never get a respite. My plan should never have been to clear the south and go to the west. It should have been that I will finish in the south right about the same time as I arrive at Lake Michigan and finally cut the Allies off and even that has some issues since it still means a period of respite as the Axis shift to the far west and head for California. That said while I don't think the Axis ought to make plans that involve giving the Allies a respite there is one exception to that. At some point the Axis player will need to swap out the Panzers. A plan that see's a shift that coincides with that swap is not to bad at all since the new Panzers come back from Europe in any case. So with this plan if one was anticipating getting to Lake Michigan and clearing the south by turn 55 or so then one could start withdrawing the Panzers to coincide with the offensive ending in the South, Northeast or the West. Instead of shifting the units they would just bring in the new ones and send them toward their new objectives in the far West.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/24/2021 4:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald I disagree. This is the offensive into the endless desert situation - you don't do it unless there is a reasonable objective. There is nothing there except one good defensive chunk of terrain after another. But you noted above that your offensive in the southeast was intended to keep me tied down while you exploited the west. You were attacking in Virginia for about ten turns after the last industrial city (Norfolk) was secured. quote: Here I agree - Though I think the real problem was that the idea on a drive that clears out the south and then shifts to the West is actually flawed. It creates dead periods that allow the Allies to more effectively recover. Balance this with the fact that the drive to the North West was just inherently unworkable and there is a real problem. In reality a better strategy would have been to be weaker in the South but also starting on persecuting the West from very early on - back that with a drive that cuts the rail line through Canada but focuses on attacks in the North East and the Allies never get a respite. Yeah, I'm thinking something like a landing at Quebec or Boston plus one each at New Orleans and Norfolk or Wilmington. Then you've got the Allies sweating three ways: 1) A link up west of New York 2) A link up north of Atlanta/Birmingham 3) The big link up on the Great Lakes One is a push with the current version but so deadly the Allied player has to keep his eye on it. Two is kind of a gimme with this landing but will prevent the Allies from holding the lower South in any strength. This then allows you to focus on getting 3. I'm not sure when or if I'll play the scenario again otherwise I'd be keeping this one to myself. quote: So with this plan if one was anticipating getting to Lake Michigan and clearing the south by turn 55 or so then one could start withdrawing the Panzers to coincide with the offensive ending in the South, Northeast or the West. I think this is late. I'd say if the Axis player hasn't really screwed the Allies already earlier than this then there's a problem- and anyway the first TO for withdrawing the panzers comes in about ten turns earlier and (especially if you have a low sealift option) you'll want to take it ASAP so you can spread out your withdrawals and not find yourself either in a position where you simply have no panzers on the board, or you wind up with Panthers cooling their heels in Europe waiting for enough sealift.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/24/2021 7:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald I disagree. This is the offensive into the endless desert situation - you don't do it unless there is a reasonable objective. There is nothing there except one good defensive chunk of terrain after another. But you noted above that your offensive in the southeast was intended to keep me tied down while you exploited the west. You were attacking in Virginia for about ten turns after the last industrial city (Norfolk) was secured. That is a reasonable if limited objective. quote: quote: Here I agree - Though I think the real problem was that the idea on a drive that clears out the south and then shifts to the West is actually flawed. It creates dead periods that allow the Allies to more effectively recover. Balance this with the fact that the drive to the North West was just inherently unworkable and there is a real problem. In reality a better strategy would have been to be weaker in the South but also starting on persecuting the West from very early on - back that with a drive that cuts the rail line through Canada but focuses on attacks in the North East and the Allies never get a respite. Yeah, I'm thinking something like a landing at Quebec or Boston plus one each at New Orleans and Norfolk or Wilmington. Then you've got the Allies sweating three ways: 1) A link up west of New York 2) A link up north of Atlanta/Birmingham 3) The big link up on the Great Lakes One is a push with the current version but so deadly the Allied player has to keep his eye on it. Two is kind of a gimme with this landing but will prevent the Allies from holding the lower South in any strength. This then allows you to focus on getting 3. I'm not sure when or if I'll play the scenario again otherwise I'd be keeping this one to myself. I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given. Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out. quote: quote: So with this plan if one was anticipating getting to Lake Michigan and clearing the south by turn 55 or so then one could start withdrawing the Panzers to coincide with the offensive ending in the South, Northeast or the West. I think this is late. I'd say if the Axis player hasn't really screwed the Allies already earlier than this then there's a problem- and anyway the first TO for withdrawing the panzers comes in about ten turns earlier and (especially if you have a low sealift option) you'll want to take it ASAP so you can spread out your withdrawals and not find yourself either in a position where you simply have no panzers on the board, or you wind up with Panthers cooling their heels in Europe waiting for enough sealift. quite Possibly. I suppose part of the point of this strategy is you flank around Chicago so the Allies are not defending as strongly. That said Axis supply up this far must by abysmal and you can't really go west until you more or less contain the Allies. I'd sort of be surprised if you can get this whole thing sorted before turn 55 though you probably could start withdrawing the first of the Panzer Corps earlier. All that said this almost feels like a plan that comes with a built in Plan B. Plan A - if the Allies are badly defeated on the Plains then take Chicago and fall back to this if that is not going to be all that easy. In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/25/2021 9:33:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given. You're probably right- this would need a Quebec landing. quote: Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out. I think this is a double-edged sword. The Allies engaging the Axis closely is always a risky strategy. With all these super rivers in the area there's a risk of the kind of trap you sprung on me in the middle of this match, where I wound up losing multiple armoured divisions trapped between the Red, Arkansas and Mississippi rivers. quote: In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario. Oh boy. Well I will need a little bit of a break because the match with Pierre is at turn 150 or something and we still have 80 more turns to go, which will take most of the rest of 2021 as the pace is a bit variable. I'm going to be burnt out by the end of it. On top of that I'm working on another new scenario which I'd like you to take a look at when I get it to a stage where it's a bit more stable.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/30/2021 2:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given. You're probably right- this would need a Quebec landing. quote: Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out. I think this is a double-edged sword. The Allies engaging the Axis closely is always a risky strategy. With all these super rivers in the area there's a risk of the kind of trap you sprung on me in the middle of this match, where I wound up losing multiple armoured divisions trapped between the Red, Arkansas and Mississippi rivers. quote: In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario. Oh boy. Well I will need a little bit of a break because the match with Pierre is at turn 150 or something and we still have 80 more turns to go, which will take most of the rest of 2021 as the pace is a bit variable. I'm going to be burnt out by the end of it. On top of that I'm working on another new scenario which I'd like you to take a look at when I get it to a stage where it's a bit more stable. Fair enough.

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (3/30/2021 6:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald Fair enough. Just stay alive a couple more years- I'm pretty sure we'll play this scenario again.

Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (4/6/2021 1:44:06 AM)
Well that is certainly incentive to keep doing that living thing.

StuccoFresco -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (5/17/2021 10:52:51 AM)
It's always interesting to see how the different players approach the scenarios' challenges. Good AAR.

Hellen_slith -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (5/17/2021 8:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious This concludes the AAR- Happy to post any additional screenshots, though I'm not convinced anyone is still reading. Ain't nobody here but us chickens! Oh yes, still reading L:) and great AAR, love it! Looking forward to the next one :)

golden delicious -> RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben (5/18/2021 12:02:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith Looking forward to the next one :) Thanks- I have a couple of AARs which I might repost here at some point.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875