The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please)

[sillyflower]

but he does not care.

What he dows is to maximise supply efficiency (his words) to speed up tempo. His AFV losses may be what you would expect for T9 but so are russuan losses. He will run his mobile forces into the ground to destroy soviet army utterly in '41 - and he's right to do so as he never has to face '42

[Balou]

Good argument. But still, he can't fight his way with Inf Divs only. This Veterans-AAR will hopefully answer a question: can you burn your panzers like this and get away with it?

[Flaviusx]

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

[hfarrish]

Agreed - from my games and this AAR I find it pretty clear that a German player who really knows what he is doing can thrash the Soviet pretty thoroughly, and "no retreat" rules only serve to magnify this by 10. Glad Tarhunnas agreed to the rules though just because it will hopefully put a stop to all the "Soviet bias" whining.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Agreed - from my games and this AAR I find it pretty clear that a German player who really knows what he is doing can thrash the Soviet pretty thoroughly, and "no retreat" rules only serve to magnify this by 10. Glad Tarhunnas agreed to the rules though just because it will hopefully put a stop to all the "Soviet bias" whining.

Yes, I suspect this game has finally proven a historical Soviet defence (at least until the Kiev disaster) will clearly lead the e-Red Army to the utter destruction. And that's what my guts were telling me. What the heck! Every single Soviet player knew this (even an intuition). They didn't run away without reason...

The question is what will Michael say when he will notice the nearest Soviet line (no rear-guards eh) is 15 hexes away his hordes. You're a chicken, Tarhunnas! [:D]

[RCHarmon]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

I think Michael T has the right to defend himself. A statement should not be made like this in a public forum that the accused doesn't have access to. This should be copied and presented to Michael T so he may provide a rebuttal. I think the author of this post should see to this. Or just edit the post and I will edit mine.


There has been a lot of discussion about a fight forward defense and I am sure many players are watching this to see how it plays out. The agreement is (to my understanding)that the Axis player will not withdraw during blizzard. Shouldn't we balance all the variables before coming to a conclusion?

I would prefer a Soviet fight forward defense, but I have wondered if it was possible without the troops usually lost in the Lvov pocket. Maybe this game will provide an answer.

[gregorit]

Given the changes to MP costs for regimental units, does Michael T's opening even work any more? If not, it seems like a moot point to try to debate counters to his style. I'm also curious -- is his opening in the north DELIBERATELY below par? (It doesn't capture Riga nor does it breach the Divna.)

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: RCH

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

I think Michael T has the right to defend himself. A statement should not be made like this in a public forum that the accused doesn't have access to. This should be copied and presented to Michael T so he may provide a rebuttal. I think the author of this post should see to this. Or just edit the post and I will edit mine.

+1. And I have repeatedly said that I would have tried to fight forward even if there had been no "no runaway" agreement. I was not suckered, I simply overestimated the efficacy of a forward defense and found that a really good Axis player can demolish it.

It is unfair to slander Michael T in an AAR he cannot read. Read, the AAR, comment on game play, tactics and strategy, but do not cast doubts on the players.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: gregorit

Given the changes to MP costs for regimental units, does Michael T's opening even work any more? If not, it seems like a moot point to try to debate counters to his style. I'm also curious -- is his opening in the north DELIBERATELY below par? (It doesn't capture Riga nor does it breach the Divna.)

It was started after that change, so yes, it does work!

[janh]

ORIGINAL: RCH
There has been a lot of discussion about a fight forward defense and I am sure many players are watching this to see how it plays out. The agreement is (to my understanding)that the Axis player will not withdraw during blizzard. Shouldn't we balance all the variables before coming to a conclusion?

I would prefer a Soviet fight forward defense, but I have wondered if it was possible without the troops usually lost in the Lvov pocket. Maybe this game will provide an answer.

I think the answer is evolving, and as far as I can judge this, it is going to be a clear no. It is only one AAR, though. But Michael has also made some mistakes, among them the one that got his AGS Panzer shut down for a turn by Tarhunnas "bear hug". I think in the next game, Michael would be a little more careful and less reckless, while I don't see much room to improve on Tarhunnas side. Both have been using the whole toolbox outside of house rules.

I was also hoping that this AAR could prove that the Soviets can suffer worse, but survive intact until blizzard, and see how badly Michael could get thrashed in return if the only step back his Germans made would be one by force. With the current blizzard rules, and a semi-intact Red Army, this Axis no-retreat houserule could be as detrimental as the Soviet one here (or worse, as reinforcements are more scarce for Axis), but it will probably never come to that since Tarhunnas might be too weak. We will see.

Regarding Axis unready tanks: I noticed substantial oscillations in this in the various AARs, the dice gods are probably very active in that area. But in my own experience the readiness will come up quickly again if you give them a month rest. After winter the Panzers surely ought to be in shape again, and before then it won't matter as long as he keeps Tarhunnas off-guard and running.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: RCH

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

I think Michael T has the right to defend himself. A statement should not be made like this in a public forum that the accused doesn't have access to. This should be copied and presented to Michael T so he may provide a rebuttal. I think the author of this post should see to this. Or just edit the post and I will edit mine.

I agree. I have not seen him tailor/use house rules before. I do, however , think for him to expect a russian to agree to any that help the germans as unreasonable/unnecessary ( delete to preference) given the way he exploits supply rules per rules but beyond historical plausability

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: gregorit

Given the changes to MP costs for regimental units, does Michael T's opening even work any more? If not, it seems like a moot point to try to debate counters to his style. I'm also curious -- is his opening in the north DELIBERATELY below par? (It doesn't capture Riga nor does it breach the Divna.)

It was started after that change, so yes, it does work!

Given that Michael says he spends more time practising than playing, I have no doubt that every MP he spends is deliberate

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: janh
I think the answer is evolving, and as far as I can judge this, it is going to be a clear no. It is only one AAR, though. But Michael has also made some mistakes, among them the one that got his AGS Panzer shut down for a turn by Tarhunnas "bear hug". I think in the next game, Michael would be a little more careful and less reckless, while I don't see much room to improve on Tarhunnas side. Both have been using the whole toolbox outside of house rules.

Michel T makes almost no mistakes, and the few ones he does are mostly inconsequential. As the Soviet in 1941, you live on the mistakes the Axis player does, and Michael T makes almost none at all. Every move seems carefully considered. I suspect he spends far more time than the average player on his turns. I would not describe him as careless at all, rather the opposite, very deliberate. If there is one weakness in his play, it is might be his avoidance of risks.

On my side there is certainly room for improvement I would say. I simply haven't been up against a German player that is as good as Michael T, and I have to improve some things in my play. Above all I have learnt that forward defense works, if the Axis player allows you, otherwise it can be very dangerous.

[Balou]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

On my side there is certainly room for improvement I would say. I simply haven't been up against a German player that is as good as Michael T, and I have to improve some things in my play. Above all I have learnt that forward defense works, if the Axis player allows you, otherwise it can be very dangerous.

If he allows you. But you were forced to do so by the house rule you agreed to. Has your forward defense been really that deliberate ? I am curious to know about what improvements you think of.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Balou

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

On my side there is certainly room for improvement I would say. I simply haven't been up against a German player that is as good as Michael T, and I have to improve some things in my play. Above all I have learnt that forward defense works, if the Axis player allows you, otherwise it can be very dangerous.

If he allows you. But you were forced to do so by the house rule you agreed to. Has your forward defense been really that deliberate ? I am curious to know about what improvements you think of.

What I mean is that forward defense works well against some Axis players and not against others. If the Axis player makes some mistakes or is just a little bit sloppy in pocketing or so, it gives the Soviet player the openings he needs. With no mistakes, a forward defense is much more difficult and outright dangerous, a little like playing with fire.

Overall, while I still believe in a forward defense, I might adapt it to be a little less forward than before, and as I noted above, less dependent on checkerboard and more on picket and MLR. I am not sure about the improvements yet, I am trying out some modifications in my other game against glvaca.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: RCH

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

I think Michael T has the right to defend himself. A statement should not be made like this in a public forum that the accused doesn't have access to. This should be copied and presented to Michael T so he may provide a rebuttal. I think the author of this post should see to this. Or just edit the post and I will edit mine.

I agree. I have not seen him tailor/use house rules before. I do, however , think for him to expect a russian to agree to any that help the germans as unreasonable/unnecessary ( delete to preference) given the way he exploits supply rules per rules but beyond historical plausability

Sillyflower...virtually every game I've seen him post opponents for has conditions which I regard as traps and unacceptable. He never plays it straight up, ever.

People need to stop being naive about this. If you're going to play him, insist on stock rules and random weather. Stop giving him handicaps...he hardly needs them, he ought to be handicapping his opponents. And this is what I don't get about him, he hardly seems interested at all in a competitive game, and particularly one that lasts into 1942.

Poor Tarhunnas here is playing with both hands tied behind his back. It's painful to watch, especially since half the things I'd do in his place cannot be done due to the game's baroque restrictions. So I'm reduced here to pleading players to stop being played for suckers. It's not just the runaway thing, either. Look at the way use of reserves has been neutered in this game. If you limit the amount of units that can be placed in a reserve to a low number, this will necessarily favor the German, due to leadership. The Soviet has to put lots of units in reserve in order to get any reactions at all.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: RCH

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Morale of the story: beware Australians bearing house rules. Make him play with the stock game and use every legitimate tactic available. Reserves, non cheesy paradrops, runaways, etc. And random weather.

Michael always tailors the house rules to his favor. Don't let him sucker you into fighting the war on his grounds. If he does, blame the guy you see in the mirror.

I think Michael T has the right to defend himself. A statement should not be made like this in a public forum that the accused doesn't have access to. This should be copied and presented to Michael T so he may provide a rebuttal. I think the author of this post should see to this. Or just edit the post and I will edit mine.

I agree. I have not seen him tailor/use house rules before. I do, however , think for him to expect a russian to agree to any that help the germans as unreasonable/unnecessary ( delete to preference) given the way he exploits supply rules per rules but beyond historical plausability

I have seen it. What do you call it when a person says how you can use your paratroopers but will use muling in all its forms? IOWs, I can exploit the rules and you can't.

[Tarhunnas]

You are of course free to criticize Michael T, but it is manifestly unfair to do so in an AAR he shouldn't read! Please, this is my AAR! If you want to discuss Michael T and his house rules, it is my wish that you don't do it here, but in a thread he can read and respond to!

[Flaviusx]

Fair enough. I'm not saying anything here I haven't told him in public threads, however.

[juret]

flaviux go play michael T, gets boring couse u always brings up the same points.

tarhunnas and MT made rules and agreed on em. the rules they agreed on are fair and between them.