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

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 2:49:49 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

Hi mktours,

I feel a little bit sorry for all the negative feedback your are receiving in this AAR and in other threads. There have been a lot of AARs lately where the Soviet player gets beaten badly due to fuel exploits, HQ buildups etc. However, you at least didn't change the moral settings in your favor like some other players did in the past. Lots of players object to the way you play the game. They say it's unhistorical, unrealistic and that your are just exploiting the loopholes of the game. But the real problem goes deeper. My impression is that you have found a way to take the other player completely out of the game. It looks like the game is unfolding according to your plan and any actions from the Soviet player are futile. The question then is why to play a game against a human opponent at all.

I myself am a mixture of a gamer and a history buff. When I see a game like this I don't feel disgusted. I just want to find a way to screw up your perfectly conceived plans.

Whether that's possible or not is another question. I'd be more then willing to try.

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 211

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 2:50:15 PM

mktours

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

T15 Rostov end of turn

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 212

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:08:40 PM

mktours

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

Thanks Bozo,
indeed I am very upset by those negative feed back, I could say I am very indignant about them. I just didn't fight back. Real life is more deserve our time, isn't it.
In this game the SHC didn't react correctly, if saper 222 is in charge of the soviet side, I believe I would be defeated easily. I made many mistakes in this game as well, it is certainly not a perfect plan, just a good one, I suppose.
I believe many others would like the challenge, just like you did. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Hi mktours,

I feel a little bit sorry for all the negative feedback your are receiving in this AAR and in other threads. There have been a lot of AARs lately where the Soviet player gets beaten badly due to fuel exploits, HQ buildups etc. However, you at least didn't change the moral settings in your favor like some other players did in the past. Lots of players object to the way you play the game. They say it's unhistorical, unrealistic and that your are just exploiting the loopholes of the game. But the real problem goes deeper. My impression is that you have found a way to take the other player completely out of the game. It looks like the game is unfolding according to your plan and any actions from the Soviet player are futile. The question then is why to play a game against a human opponent at all.

I myself am a mixture of a gamer and a history buff. When I see a game like this I don't feel disgusted. I just want to find a way to screw up your perfectly conceived plans. Whether that's possible or not is another question. I'd be more then willing to try.

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/2/2013 4:14:43 PM >

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 213

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:11:45 PM

mktours

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

T15 OOB end of turn

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 214

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:13:38 PM

mktours

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

T15 loss1 end of turn

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 215

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:17:38 PM

mktours

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

T15 loss2 end of turn

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 216

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:18:52 PM

mktours

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

T15 loss3 end of turn

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 217

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:21:39 PM

mktours

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

T15 captured industry
87 armament captured, 7 armament locked
73 heavy industry captured, 9 heavy industry locked
14 vehicles captured, 15 vehicles locked

N_MOscow(locked)
3 armament
5 vehicle
24 Mig3

Moscow(locked)
4 armament
10 vehicle
24 MIg3
9 heavy industry

W-Moscow(captured)
5 vehicle
24 Mig3

Rostov(captured)
8 armament
4 heavy industry

Kharkov
12 armament
15 Su-2
9 heavy industry

Kursk
2 armament

Leningrad
7 armament
20 BA-10
6 vehicle
8 heavy industry
vsevolzhsky
5 armament

Kaluga (captured industry)
7 armament
1 armament
2 heavy industry

Mogilev (captured industry)
3 heavy industry

T7
Bryansk
4 armament
4 heavy industry

Ordezhoni
4 armament
3 heavy industry

T6
Stalino
3 vehicle
14 armaments
5 heavy industry

Makeevka
3 armaments
3 heavy industry

Gorlovka
3 armaments
3 heavy industry

Gomel
2 heavy industry

Zaporozeye( locked in T6)
4 heavy industry

T2
Kiev
4 armaments
4 heavy industry

T3
Odessa
3 armaments
3 heavy industry

Kremencrug
1 armament
2 heavy industry

T4
Kirovgrad
3 heavy industry

Nikolaev
3 heavy industry

Krivoil rog
3 heavy industry
D-town
9 armament
5 heavy industry

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/3/2013 4:47:10 PM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 218

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:27:46 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Thanks Bozo,
indeed I am very upset by those negative feed back, I could say I am very indignant about them. I just didn't fight back. Real life is more deserve our time, isn't it.
In this game the SHC didn't react correctly, if saper 222 is in charge of the soviet side, I believe I would be defeated easily. I made many mistakes in this game as well, it is certainly not a perfect plan, just a good one, I suppose.
I didn't take the opinions of those so called historians, I just didn't want to argue. I believe many others would like the challenge, just like you did. Thank you.

It doesn't matter what mistakes Marquo did or didn't do. It also doesn't take a historian to see that what you did, while ingenious, is completely unrealistic. Supporting that kind of advance, keeping units moving even after being cut off is absolutely ridiculous. You did great by figuring out something like this. But the fact that the engine allows this is painful to see.

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 219

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:50:45 PM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

Supporting that kind of advance, keeping units moving even after being cut off is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree. Yet it is equally unrealistic for units to be reduced to a CV of 1 after being cut off. The Demjansk and Stalingrad pockets would never happen in this game.

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 220

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:52:41 PM

mmarquo

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

MK,

Please allow me to make this perfectly clear: no one is criticizing your character or what you are doing; what is being questioned here to what the game engine allows a fine player like you to do. And as Bozo so succinctly commented: you have found a way to take the other player out of the game. AAR's help the developers to see what needs to altered or tamed to make for a more competitive game.

I can accept perfectly well that my lack of ability and mistakes may have enabled you to capture Vladimir and Tambov on turn 15, but I think that this is not the main reason you did so well. Please remember that with the new patch you can't rail units through Rumania to attack the frozen Southern front on turn 2, and therefore unless you play Sapper with an older patch so you can do the Super-Lvov pocket as well as the Rumanian gambit to encircle the entire South and SW Fronts by turn 3, no further game will ever be comparable to this one.

"I didn't take the opinions of those so called historians,"

Now this is where you and I are going to have a difference of opinion. Thus far our fellow players have all posted that flying fuel forward to panzer divisions and corps as allowed in this game was beyond the capability of the Luftwaffe. If you have credible information to the contrary, please share.

Here is what you did on turn 14 prior to the large Turn 15 breakout; not that you did it, rather that it is possible in the game is the germane issue that I and others are commenting on. Please do not take this personally, rather a comment for the betterment of the game.

Thanks

13 airlifts, almost certainly to an HQ which you then moved forward to keep panzer divisions in supply after they moved into a logistically difficult situation is without historical precedent.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 9/2/2013 3:58:03 PM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 221

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 3:55:29 PM

mktours

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

being temporarily cutting off for one turn didn't spell the death of an army, you got the wrong impression as Marquo that I could keep the troops moving regardless of being cutting off, I didn't have the magic. I have proved it in this AAR, please read the AAR carefully and you would see being cut off did cause the trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Thanks Bozo,
indeed I am very upset by those negative feed back, I could say I am very indignant about them. I just didn't fight back. Real life is more deserve our time, isn't it.
In this game the SHC didn't react correctly, if saper 222 is in charge of the soviet side, I believe I would be defeated easily. I made many mistakes in this game as well, it is certainly not a perfect plan, just a good one, I suppose.
I didn't take the opinions of those so called historians, I just didn't want to argue. I believe many others would like the challenge, just like you did. Thank you.

It doesn't matter what mistakes Marquo did or didn't do. It also doesn't take a historian to see that what you did, while ingenious, is completely unrealistic. Supporting that kind of advance, keeping units moving even after being cut off is absolutely ridiculous. You did great by figuring out something like this. But the fact that the engine allows this is painful to see.

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/2/2013 4:03:54 PM >

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 222

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:02:38 PM

mmarquo

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

"It is an AAR, for recording what happened in a game, why feel bad about something irrelevant to you?"

What the game engine allows as demonstrated in the AAR is relevant to everyone who plays and enjoys this game. And this is where we part ways, as friends I hope,

Enjoy the game,

Mark

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 223

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:12:27 PM

mktours

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

Mark,
It is the HQ of 56Pz corps, which just maneuver from the north to the moscow front, the units under its commend is further north or east than it, within 5 hexes of supply range.
What you see in your turn is the final move of my turn, when you see the HQ there, it is there. what you are saying"almost certainly to an HQ which you then moved forward to keep panzer divisions in supply after they moved into a logistically difficult situation" certainly didn't happen.
Please refer to the picture I posted later and you would see what you are suspecting didn't happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Here is what you did on turn 14 prior to the large Turn 15 breakout; not that you did it, rather that it is possible in the game is the germane issue that I and others are commenting on. Please do not take this personally, rather a comment for the betterment of the game.

Thanks

13 airlifts, almost certainly to an HQ which you then moved forward to keep panzer divisions in supply after they moved into a logistically difficult situation is without historical precedent.

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/3/2013 2:44:28 AM >

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 224

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:16:09 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Supporting that kind of advance, keeping units moving even after being cut off is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree. Yet it is equally unrealistic for units to be reduced to a CV of 1 after being cut off. The Demjansk and Stalingrad pockets would never happen in this game.

Honestly, this rules benefits the Germans more than the Soviets. I'd like to see the reactions of German players, being held up for three turns while clearing a pocket. Furthermore, with supplied airbases inside a pocket (like in a Demyansk and Stalingrad situation), your units don't get reduced to 1 CV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

being temporarily cutting off for one turn didn't spell the death of an army, you got the wrong impression as Marquo that I could keep the troops moving regardless of being cutting off, I didn't have the magic. I have proved it in this AAR, please read the AAR carefully and you would see being cut off did cause the trouble

No, but I never said that. What I said was, your units were well supplied, despite being cut off. Even after being cut from the supply lines they could walk forward like it didn't matter supply wise. Realistically speaking, your units should be long out of supply, reaching those lines and being in such narrow corridors.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 225

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:23:51 PM

mktours

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

SigUp
don't you think when someone do an AAR, he might not be coming to take a history lesson?

It is just a sharing. That is it. I didn't want to offend anyone.
I have withdrawn the sentence"so call historian", I think that might cause you misunderstand, Please note my english is poor, but I have the right to have my opinion. I didn't meant to offend you,

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Supporting that kind of advance, keeping units moving even after being cut off is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree. Yet it is equally unrealistic for units to be reduced to a CV of 1 after being cut off. The Demjansk and Stalingrad pockets would never happen in this game.

Honestly, this rules benefits the Germans more than the Soviets. I'd like to see the reactions of German players, being held up for three turns while clearing a pocket. Furthermore, with supplied airbases inside a pocket (like in a Demyansk and Stalingrad situation), your units don't get reduced to 1 CV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

being temporarily cutting off for one turn didn't spell the death of an army, you got the wrong impression as Marquo that I could keep the troops moving regardless of being cutting off, I didn't have the magic. I have proved it in this AAR, please read the AAR carefully and you would see being cut off did cause the trouble

No, but I never said that. What I said was, your units were well supplied, despite being cut off. Even after being cut from the supply lines they could walk forward like it didn't matter supply wise. Realistically speaking, your units should be long out of supply, reaching those lines and being in such narrow corridors.

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/2/2013 4:26:59 PM >

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 226

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:33:14 PM

mktours

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

Mark,
here is the situation of what you pictured, it is the end of my T14
and air drop has been made to the HQ of 56pz corps, which just maneuver to the Moscow front from north.
What you see in your turn is the final move of my turn, when you see the HQ there, it is there. what you are saying"almost certainly to an HQ which you then moved forward to keep panzer divisions in supply after they moved into a logistically difficult situation" certainly didn't happen.
I see that in your picture you didn't do recon, so there are many units missing in your picture.
you could also see that a 10CV pz division have 23MP in reserve at the end of the turn. that offer more clue to you about why I was able to do the big break through, normally I spent 2-3 turns to accumulating power, preparing the big assault, so when the power is released, it is more unstoppable. in the north wing, the break through has been prepared for 3 turns, and finally 12 motorized units would join the assault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Here is what you did on turn 14 prior to the large Turn 15 breakout; not that you did it, rather that it is possible in the game is the germane issue that I and others are commenting on. Please do not take this personally, rather a comment for the betterment of the game.

Thanks

13 airlifts, almost certainly to an HQ which you then moved forward to keep panzer divisions in supply after they moved into a logistically difficult situation is without historical precedent.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/3/2013 2:21:25 AM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 227

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:38:48 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

It's not about a history lesson. You keep missing the point. It's about what the game engine should allow. This game is a historic wargame, so the engine should not allow things that are greatly exceeding what was realistically possible. That's why people are negatively commenting your AAR. Not because they think you are a cheater, or that your achievements are not impressive, because they are. For a second, just imagine if at some point in the game the Soviets suddenly get alien technology, their CV gets upped to 100, their MP to 1000. What would you think? Because in its core, that's what the airsupply engine of WITE is - utter fantasy.

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 228

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 4:46:41 PM

mktours

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

SigUp,
I think when someone take effort to share something, people should appreciate the time he spent in the sharing, it is not a bad thing itself, isn't it.
people are fine to have different opinions. You didn't give negative comments, someone else have the negative comments. I didn't refer to your comments.

< Message edited by mktours -- 9/2/2013 4:54:10 PM >

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 229

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 5:59:01 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Sure it is unhistorical but it is still amazing and as someone else pointed out an outlier as far as results. I bet you would squeeze the Japanese economy if WITPAE like no other!

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 230

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 6:04:57 PM

Flaviusx

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

Sigup isn't saying anything that I'm not saying, Mktours. And you're still not really responding to any of this criticism in any kind of substantive fashion, so there's not much room for a discussion here.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 231

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/2/2013 7:42:07 PM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

I agree. Yet it is equally unrealistic for units to be reduced to a CV of 1 after being cut off. The Demjansk and Stalingrad pockets would never happen in this game.

I disagree. I showed this in my AAR how fully isolated units can have a CV of much greater than 1. I was very surprised to find this out. So either a lot of people know this and don't talk about it or I found something out that isn't well known. My test case was very limited and it only applied to 2 tank divisions but after hitting X number of supply and fuel the defensive CV's of 2 of my armor divisions went from 0.3 to around 6. This allowed me to hold a pocket throughout the mud. Play around with air supply and see for yourself..this may only apply to mech or there may be a factor missing but it seems air supply can work. Oh and this is without an airfield.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 232

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 2:30:17 AM

mktours

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

Ketza
while the result seemed one sided, the process is very difficult, Marquo play well in this game and his counter attacks are formidable, that is why the German casualty so high.
The problem on the SHC side in this game might be that Marquo made some misjudgment on the strategic level. the game is very competitive in the process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Sure it is unhistorical but it is still amazing and as someone else pointed out an outlier as far as results. I bet you would squeeze the Japanese economy if WITPAE like no other!

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 233

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 2:56:01 AM

Bozo_the_Clown

Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline

quote:

I disagree. I showed this in my AAR how fully isolated units can have a CV of much greater than 1. I was very surprised to find this out. So either a lot of people know this and don't talk about it or I found something out that isn't well known. My test case was very limited and it only applied to 2 tank divisions but after hitting X number of supply and fuel the defensive CV's of 2 of my armor divisions went from 0.3 to around 6. This allowed me to hold a pocket throughout the mud. Play around with air supply and see for yourself..this may only apply to mech or there may be a factor missing but it seems air supply can work. Oh and this is without an airfield.

I'm trying it out right now but I have to wait until my opponent sends his turn. If it's true (which I don't doubt) then this would be an awesome feature. It would also explain why the game designers allowed bombers to be used for supply purposes.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)

Post #: 234

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 4:06:25 AM

mmarquo

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

Airfield supply of isolated units was added much after the initial release which always has add the flying fuel fairies

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)

Post #: 235

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 4:38:24 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Come on, it has been in there from day 1...................everyone has used it, you just ran into someone who maximized it's use to the utmost.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 236

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 10:41:02 AM

Dangun

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/8/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours
Since the LUKI story has ended, and I only got one comment from DV, I have decided to jump to the last turn.

Pity. I was really enjoying this AAR.
Being a noob, I don't (didn't) really know enough to comment.

(in reply to mktours)

Post #: 237

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 12:49:20 PM

KamilS

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline

I deeply dissapointed by scale of criticism of Mktours gameplay. It is not his fault, that authours of WitE massively failed in logistical aspect of the game. Developments demonstrated in his AAR are not historical at all, but this wargame is far from being historical.

Initiall rampage that Wehrmacht can wreck blurs the picture once again - game is biased in Soviet favour.

I am far from liking the fact such fantasy advace is possible - it massivly limits enjoyment that can be taken from initial turns of the game, but lets be clear it has nothing to do with Mktours. So why all this fuss?

It is like in my game vs MT, it is good play vs bad one.

Due to poor logistical model my stupidity during first turn forced me loose 1/3 of industry in order to avoid loosing game in '41.
In this case Marquo could and should have done better and to be honest game was far, far from being decided.

And like 2ndACR said - crazy logistics is nothing new and it is really easy way to come to wrong conclusions about reasons of current situation in the game.

(in reply to Dangun)

Post #: 238

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 1:36:33 PM

mmarquo

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

2ndACR, airhead supply is in fact a new feature in V1.05.08, and has not been around since the inception of the game. It is an attempt to increase the survivability of pocketed troops.

"v1.05.18 - September 6, 2011
Airhead supply. Isolated air units may be changed to beach/air supply status (same as old beachhead status) under certain conditions. If a player flies in supplies to an air base in a pocket, the supplies will immediately be distributed amongst all of the isolated units that can trace to the air base. If the amount received during the turn at some point equals 5% or more of the total needs of the unit, then the unit will be immediately set to beach/air supply status (it will display in orange instead of red when toggle unsupplied units is toggled on). "

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 239

RE: Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)41CG - 9/3/2013 1:45:54 PM

Dangun

Posts: 74
Joined: 7/8/2013
Status: offline

quote:

I deeply dissapointed (sic) by scale of criticism of Mktours gameplay.

Yep. Criticize the game not the player.
I learn quite a lot from his AARs. I might not like what I learn, but its all learning.

(in reply to KamilS)

Post #: 240

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

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