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: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis)

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 3:53:42 PM   
room

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline 		That is very gamey imo. I had one opponent not taking London to trigger not trigger the capital change for a while... It is about the same. I would not do it even in a turnament and even with my opponent aggreement cause I would lose any fun in the game.

As for this game, well that s not my call

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 61
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 4:12:41 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: room

That is very gamey imo. I had one opponent not taking London to trigger not trigger the capital change for a while... It is about the same. I would not do it even in a turnament and even with my opponent aggreement cause I would lose any fun in the game.

As for this game, well that s not my call





Agreed. I wouldn't do it but it is within the rules. Like the London decision Room mentions its obviously bogus and hard to see anything other than something that fell thru the cracks from AI => PBEM. This doesn't seem as egregious but I'd take the higher ground.

_____________________________


(in reply to room)
Post #: 62
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 4:39:15 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline 		These are 2 different cases: there's nothing you can do about London or Paris, but in case of the DAK there are still several options. Other points are 1. the strength of the Italians (could have sent more troops), and 2. he's not yet there.

Both players participated in creating these conditions (if I hadn't attacked his garrison, I would have saved 1 or maybe 2 turns), I find it odd to expect my opponent not to make use of it. I would.




(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 63
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 4:54:31 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: room

That is very gamey imo. I had one opponent not taking London to trigger not trigger the capital change for a while... It is about the same. I would not do it even in a turnament and even with my opponent aggreement cause I would lose any fun in the game.

As for this game, well that s not my call


Agreed. I wouldn't do it but it is within the rules. Like the London decision Room mentions its obviously bogus and hard to see anything other than something that fell thru the cracks from AI => PBEM. This doesn't seem as egregious but I'd take the higher ground.


I definitely think gaming the unfavorable spawning of the DAK (unfavorable to the Axis), and the gaming of not triggering the capital change by not taking London, are issues that should be remedied by the developers for the sake of better PBEM play not requiring the use of house rules.

I wouldn't do either, and would certainly hope that any of my opponents would not do the same.

To any of the developers that may be following along here, could you kindly weigh in on these two issues?

@Sugar and KZ, thanks for posting this interesting and very insightful AAR!
I am learning a lot!

What version are you playing, if not the latest Beta?

Cheers,

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 64
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 7:04:19 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline 		In this case it's a matter of balancing imho: attacking the Axis during the deployment phase of the DAK is the only way to achieve an advantage for the Brits in this decisive theatre. We're still playing V1.12, and it would be completely unfair and also counterproductive to deny this opportunity, since I myself benefitted from this strategy during my last tourney match. Remember one reason to arrange this tournament was to figure out the balancing, implementing houserules after the start would falsify the image as well as the result.


(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 65
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 7:46:53 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline 		It just doesn't seem right for Allies to take Msus/Derna/Mekili and not Gazala so they can surround the DAK. A quick fix would be for the Axis to have a choice of placement. In this case the Allies are making a decision that the Axis should make. It's correct that it isn't as bad as the London stunt but still shouldn't be.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 66
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 7:51:40 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		Additionally, if Benghazi port is at 0 (or really at any value less than 5), the DAK shouldn't be able to off load there. It couldn't via normal rules.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 67
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 7:59:44 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline 		Maybe we should start a "Wall of Shame" and report players who use things like the London stunt.

_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 68
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 8:20:30 PM   
PJL1973


Posts: 159
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline 		A solution to the London loophole re US/USSR intervention would be to extend it to a couple of other cities as well (Portsmouth for example). Certainly I would argue that Sealion itself would raise US intervention levels.


_____________________________


(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 69
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/26/2018 9:35:45 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Its never happened to me but its my understanding that its a popular "trick" for Axis to take all of GB but just surround London (w/o taking it). This will prevent the re-localisation of GB capital, prevents deploying new units and also locks the convoy routes. Its something that should probably change, its an AI => PBEM thing.

The PBEM game is quite different you should try it.





Above is the London issue, I think its more complex than US/USSR intervention. You can't move to another city without taking the other.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 4/26/2018 9:37:32 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to PJL1973)
Post #: 70
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/27/2018 12:55:58 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		Not much to report this turn (sept 22). The Axis finaly makes their move vs Malta... it should fall next turn. Some unit shuffling around Tobruk as UK troops refit for the next stage of their offensive. UK bombers get to work and finish off Graziani, however Guzzoni is nearby to pick up the slack. USSR finally reach their tech research limit...

Regarding DAK, interesting points on both sides, even if one of the sides is just one person.

I made my mind, and shall be merciful (footage from the front lines included)

I tend to agree with the general consensus that trapping the DAK seems less like a shrewd knock-out blow than a kick in the balls.

To me 'could have sent more troops' and 'do it to figure out the balancing' arguments can be turned on their heads to plead the opposite. In the first case, it could be technically be used by 'london siegers' by saying 'hey you didn't protect vs sealion, your fault'. For the second, I could say I'm testing the 'balancing' by see how well I can do without having to resort to it.

I would say that given the poor win-loss ratio achieved by the Axis so far, tweaking the DAK spawning seems like a low hanging fruit to give them a little break. Have the westernmost boundary be a radius around Tobruk or Bardia free of allied troops rather than be Gazala ownership. Make the Axis a bit more paranoid and that way they won't deploy out of supply or within bomber range.

On this, I initiate the radio-silence sequence. I'll be patrolling the board but no turn will be posted before Sunday!

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 4/27/2018 2:26:06 AM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 71
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/30/2018 12:09:36 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		Hi I'm back! Tobruk falls. Malta holds because of rain. I'm tired so that's all you're getting. :0)

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 72
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/30/2018 6:26:25 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		Nov 1940



Same ol', Same ol'. UK bleeds ships at sea, Italians bleed units on land. Malta falls. Brits take Gazala. For those that doubt of the use of the maritime bombers, this game shows how powerful they can be. A single unit based in Sicily almost singled handledly saved the Axis position from collapse in the Med by clearing benghazi and tripoli from allied naval presence.

A little bonus for your patience, a look at some countries in the tech/diplo race.







< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 4/30/2018 6:29:56 AM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 73
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/30/2018 3:11:35 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline 		I have to admit Sugar taught me the true value of the Maritime Bomber.

_____________________________


(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 74
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 4/30/2018 11:30:05 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		right on cue...



UK tank crushes an italian corp and force the Italian HQ to retreat.

Bad news is, that's just too many planes to handle even with the bare-bone garrison screen.
Good news is, weather turned sour so I won't be blown to bits next turn.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/1/2018 12:31:37 PM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 75
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/1/2018 10:02:49 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

right on cue...





That is a sight to behold, and to be feared!

Thanks again to the both of you for the AAR.

Cheers,

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 76
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/2/2018 12:49:48 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

That is a sight to behold, and to be feared!

Thanks again to the both of you for the AAR.

Cheers,

C


To be truthful, the tank was worrying me more than the planes in the short term. This was proven to be a prescient because the Str 11 tech 2 panzer, sniped my tech 1 tank at a rate of 1 to 8. That seems... harsh. Considering that the unit associated HQ is rating 8 and has 2 pip of experience, I wasn't expecting anything so one sided. Especially since this was achieved without any air support, just as a straight up land attack (and not even a prepared attack to boot!).

Operation crusader is cancelled, retreat!!!

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/2/2018 1:02:45 AM >

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 77
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/2/2018 2:58:58 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		Geez... sounds kinda familiar....

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 78
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/2/2018 8:27:02 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Geez... sounds kinda familiar....


Yeah... but IIRC in our game it was tech level 4, str 13 panzer vs tech 1 tanks supported by zero pip HQs

In the present case I was thinking 1:3 or 2:4 odds. Not 1:6.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 79
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/2/2018 10:57:40 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		April 1941

Quiet turn in NA as German/Italian force advance but keep their distances.

The new objective for the UK is to draw out the battle in NA for as long as possible to ease the pressure on the soon to be started Barbarossa. (For those that want to fight air war vs Germany, double chit Command and control tech all the way! You need to get those two level of tech ASAP or you'll get slaughtered.) An empty Rhodes is invaded to use as a bargaining chip towards Turkey (aka 15-25% mobilization increase towards Allies). Income-wise UK and USSR collect around 280 each, USA 150 while Germany 650 mpp and Italy 100. It is closer than in a normal game at which point the mpp proportion tend to be one-sided towards the Axis.

Let's look at the status of mpp collection and loss...



UK took a beating at see losing about half a dozen naval asset (1 destroyer, the rest larger ships) which is reflected in their losses. The rest is constituted from the tank and from the air war in NA. It's about to get higher because Yugo just joined but Germany haven't had a chance to crush them.



Germany has been getting through the war mostly unscathed. The two late spikes were due to NA air battles.



Italy jumped on the UK grenade to protect Germany from harm. They lost 1 Battleship, 1 cruiser and a sub, the rest is land units. When I saw so many garrison in Cyrenaica I figured some areas had been stripped to save Benghazi (Re: Rhodes).

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/4/2018 3:11:35 AM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 80
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/3/2018 10:18:18 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		April 26, 1941

Yugo survive another turn and retire inland... Maybe Sugar is saving the Yugo surrender morale penalty for use in conjunction to some offensive.
UK Royal Air force does a good account of themselves in the desert. My Air HQ isn't losing exp in the defensive engagements. When our fighters meet, it drains my entire budget at the cost of half of germany's. Not too shabby. As you can see below, Sugar is being prudent with his air positioning with the UK carriers in the area. Germany is getting a bit more serious about its sub raiding after being mostly quiet during the earlier stages of the war. Axis score a Spain diplo hit (now 58%).





< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/4/2018 1:08:18 AM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 81
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 1:20:33 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		May 1941

Yugo falls, Croatia is formed. German subs seen sneaking into the med. Airwar in NA still in full swing. The Italians form a screen at Gazala, stretching south. UK hit and run two garrisons out of their line (Not much but I need all the exp I can!!!). USSR at 72%.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/4/2018 1:21:19 AM >

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 82
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 6:50:24 AM   
room

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline 		If not on the MPPs losses , you seem do be doing at least more than fine strategically KZ. Match doez not seem won for Sugar at this point. SU is going to thougher than normal while UK might still be holding ground somewhere in NA by the time barba starts. But I wouldn't sell out Sugar by this point... Just seeing how he traded german losses for italian ones is marvellous... I feel German will have a very high impact at start of barba with all the initial thec invest and the relatively loww german losses. I wannnnnnna seeeeeeee

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 83
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 9:55:52 AM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: room

If not on the MPPs losses , you seem do be doing at least more than fine strategically KZ. Match doez not seem won for Sugar at this point. SU is going to thougher than normal while UK might still be holding ground somewhere in NA by the time barba starts. But I wouldn't sell out Sugar by this point... Just seeing how he traded german losses for italian ones is marvellous... I feel German will have a very high impact at start of barba with all the initial thec invest and the relatively loww german losses. I wannnnnnna seeeeeeee


Since my last snapshot the germans added something like 1000mp worth of tech research IIRC. They are clearly running at max speed on that front. (Interestingly, German Inf tech still at 1. Probably timed its completion at the last possible moment before Barbarossa so that the Russians don't benefit from tech catch up bonus ) However, between that, extensive air unit buying, and their diplo-involvement, their land unit count seems lower than typically seen. So far we had 3 heavy air engagement in NA, but never on consecutive turns. Since the battles are not one-sided, Germany has had to refit their fighters after each attempt which has allowed me to catch my breath a little. Germany has the economy to sustain this longer than me though...

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/4/2018 12:24:11 PM >

(in reply to room)
Post #: 84
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 5:05:41 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: offline 		This is an unrealistic exploit: Herman ships sneaking in the Med. In reality the Allied player cannot counter this. Ships go to the loop space, and immediately transport to the other side, ready to proceed in the player's next turn. If you've seen the 'Das Boot' you will remember that crossing the Gibraltar straits was a lethal endeavour even for u boats, imagine for surface vessels. Straights should be closed for surface vessels and uboats should take hits or be flatfooted for 1 turn next to the Gibraltar.

(in reply to KorutZelva)
Post #: 85
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 6:05:44 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

This is an unrealistic exploit: Herman ships sneaking in the Med. In reality the Allied player cannot counter this. Ships go to the loop space, and immediately transport to the other side, ready to proceed in the player's next turn. If you've seen the 'Das Boot' you will remember that crossing the Gibraltar straits was a lethal endeavour even for u boats, imagine for surface vessels. Straights should be closed for surface vessels and uboats should take hits or be flatfooted for 1 turn next to the Gibraltar.




Agreed, no surface ships & large hit to subs going thu Gibraltar. There should also be large penalties for the entire Italian Navy in the Atlantic.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 5/4/2018 6:06:02 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 86
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 6:29:14 PM   
crispy131313


Posts: 2055
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

This is an unrealistic exploit: Herman ships sneaking in the Med. In reality the Allied player cannot counter this. Ships go to the loop space, and immediately transport to the other side, ready to proceed in the player's next turn. If you've seen the 'Das Boot' you will remember that crossing the Gibraltar straits was a lethal endeavour even for u boats, imagine for surface vessels. Straights should be closed for surface vessels and uboats should take hits or be flatfooted for 1 turn next to the Gibraltar.




Agreed, no surface ships & large hit to subs going thu Gibraltar. There should also be large penalties for the entire Italian Navy in the Atlantic.




I'm not 100% up to speed on the history of Gibraltar, but in the absence of any naval presence in the region could the local garrison prevent Axis naval units from crossing?

I myself often park UK Naval units on those transport hexes (or adjacent) to intercept the Axis if they would try to enter/exit the Med, if I did not I would not have an issue with ships breaking in or out.

I could argue that if the Gibraltar ports are occupied by Allied naval units perhaps the transport hexes should be nullified however. It would after all give some incentive to Italy/Germany to build their decision event Carriers so that they could knock out the UK Navy at Gibraltar in effort to link up the Axis navies.

_____________________________

Fall Weiss II - SC3 Mod
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4183873

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 87
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 6:32:44 PM   
LLv34Mika


Posts: 350
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline 		1. it takes too much time for Axis ships to get into or out of the medeterranean sea. There are just not enough loop hexes. Just two loop hexes mean that you need 5 turns or even more to get your fleet out into the Atlantic. AND it gives the allied player a very comfortable situation. You only have to fear two ships at once from that side. Sure, there can be a wolfpack of subs waiting to protect the incoming Italians but again that seems very risky to me. All in all there is much more to lose than you can win.

2. Just protect those loop hexes. A few ships there can show you what is going on. Two UK subs sitting ON the hex fields prevent everything. If someone thinks going through the street of Gibraltar was very risky in WW2 you might also know that a big part of the Italian fleet was sunk before and the British had many ships there protecting this important passage.

Demanding to make it harder to get through is easy... not so easy is sinking most of the Reggia Marina to make it "easy" to protect Gibraltar. WW2 should not be our reference all the time. Especially not the more the game continues. Poland and France surrendered very fast but then the first strategic errors started. Comparing this game with history would mean that every player would have to repeat all errors made on both sides.

_____________________________

"Oderint, dum metuant."

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 88
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 6:57:16 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 1066
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline 		Time to roll out the youtube dude Ktonos

I think everyone is ok with what if's that don't mirror actual WW2 events, its events that are undeniably impossible that people have an issue with.

_____________________________


(in reply to LLv34Mika)
Post #: 89
RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) - 5/4/2018 9:17:10 PM   
KorutZelva

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline 		Re: Gibraltar, I'm ok with Gibraltar sneaking but I wish the Allies would be allowed equal opportunity for sneaking if the Axis holds it. Either make it a thing for both, or not a thing for both.

June 9th 1941

Very active turn for Germany! They get a diplohit with USSR (only from a 5% chance but that one had been siting a while), setting its mobilisation back to 62%. The DAK realizing they can't take down the RAF in dogfights, decide its time to rush the airfield. The strike from the south overwhelming the defenders and managing to take down a tank and two fighters.

The UK counters by destroying one of the two German tanks. Small consolation, this unit likely can't be rebuilt (provided the DAK event sent Germany over the tank building limit).



I had expected Germany to try just that... but not this turn! I thought it would take 2 turns to get into position to strike south but they managed to do it in one. Mobility is an expensive upgrade but as seen here, it can be a killer! This will give Germany uncontested control of the air for a while. However, the low number of land units might give me time to regroup another defensive line in Egypt. I suspect DAK is operating with 4 HQs (1 Italian, 3 Germans) but they will also need to conquer some cities from the coast to advance their supply line further.

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 5/4/2018 11:52:57 PM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tourney game AAR: KZ (Allies) vs Sugar (Axis) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109