Mktours(Ger)VsMarquo(Sov)

[SigUp]

This may be, but still, it's turn 4 and a German division is standing in Vyshny Volochek. This is plain fantasy and has nothing to do with realism anymore. And going by marquo's screens it is possible to keep the MPs of the divisions at a high level even when they are surrounded. This logistics system has been completely broken. Hats off to guys like mktours and MT who manage these kind of things, but from a realism standpoint it is just utterly ridiculous.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

This may be, but still, it's turn 4 and a German division is standing in Vyshny Volochek. This is plain fantasy and has nothing to do with realism anymore. And going by marquo's screens it is possible to keep the MPs of the divisions at a high level even when they are surrounded. This logistics system has been completely broken. Hats off to guys like mktours and MT who manage these kind of things, but from a realism standpoint it is just utterly ridiculous.

yep completely agree. This is reducing the game to a game of chess with the mindset 'if its not forbidden by the rules its ok'. Find a lot of this sequence of AARs utterly depressing to be honest - brilliant game play and exploitation of the system but nothing to do with reality.

What turned me off say HOI3 was the series of AARs taking countries like Albania on world conquests due to rigorous exploitation of every known flaw in the game engine. Well yes you can do it ... but why?

[2ndACR]

Been gone a long time and see that a bunch of things have been changed but not for the better. No matter what the German player does, unless he gets auto victory, he will lose out. The German is crushed by strict lowering of morale, reduced fixed TOE down grades and the Russians get to custom build their army from the ground up basically. Including more support units while the German is stuck with fixed units and fixed withdraw's.

Game has been fantasy for a long long time. So basically from day 1 of game release, the German has been forced to go for auto victory at all costs and come up with the way to attain them. He has no chance if the game goes past 1942. So personally, I don't cry foul about his play, and never will. The day the Russian player's forgo custom building their armies and stick with exactly what they get in the arrival screen except for auto upgrades, I might actually load this back up.

[SigUp]

Hmm, if a human Soviet gets historical arrivals he may end up with a bigger army than he truly has. And I certainly don't agree that if the game gets past 42 the German has no chance. Yes, he has to do better territory-wise due to the blizzard etc. to get there, but if you look at the hex-counting of Pelton for example, it is possible to get a draw. And it's kind of an unfair comparison to compare Vyshny Volochek in turn 4 with Berlin in late 1944, early 1945.

But seeing this I wonder, what effect does the logisitcs setting have? If too generous logistics is the achilles heel of the game, how about people playing at like 40 logistics for both sides?

[2ndACR]

Way back when, I saw AAR's that had the Russian at Polish borders in 1943. But that was many versions back when the Blizzard would butcher the German army worse than now, then you had the ultimate turtle game where not a single attack was made in winter 1941/42 and the German army broke their teeth and shattered trying to advance against muti level 5 forts.

Never played as the Russians so have no clue what their historical unit arrivals look like. But I have seen the massive cavalry corp build's for use in Blizzard that can gut the German if he aint careful. But this digress' so will not take up any more this AAR.

[Michael T]

I am curious as to what the pro-realism faction would like to suggest to make things more - "real"

Gee I would be happy to play a game without HQBU, No LB Air Supply and Random weather even.

But will the Soviets stop putting units on Refit just to get the morale increase?
Will they agree to massive blizzard restraints?
Will they agree to build a historical OOB?
Will they impose some drastic Logistical restraints from 1943 on?
Will they invoke a Stalin like no retreat strategy and conduct suicidal counter attacks in 1941/42?
Will they limit the operational strength of their Air Force to sensible limits?
etc ect etc

If so, sure lets bring it on, be happy to take you on.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am curious as to what the pro-realism faction would like to suggest to make things more - "real"

Gee I would be happy to play a game without HQBU, No LB Air Supply and Random weather even.

But will the Soviets stop putting units on Refit just to get the morale increase?
Will they agree to massive blizzard restraints?
Will they agree to build a historical OOB?
Will they impose some drastic Logistical restraints from 1943 on?
Will they invoke a Stalin like no retreat strategy and conduct suicidal counter attacks in 1941/42?
Will they limit the operational strength of their Air Force to sensible limits?
etc ect etc

If so, sure lets bring it on, be happy to take you on.

I dont think this is the place to have that discussion but i would have no problem having that discussion some where else.
That said there was a discussion about the Lvov pocket / first turns in AGS. As u said ur self in another thread:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Flavius if you have issues with Rumania start another thread. Lets try and leave this one to the problem of Soviet morale in 1941. I am happy to discuss Rumanian treachery elsewhere. However things like Rumania can be fixed with a simple HR. But the morale issue is more problematic.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Michael T]

I am not the one with issues about what is going on here. I am merely providing a counter some of the remarks made by others. Having said that I agree the discussion should go elsewhere and leave this as an AAR. Not an axe grinding millstone.

[mktours]

ketza
The effect of the thrust to east from LUKI would be seen after several more turns.
I would explain the whole strategy and underlying reasoning at appropriate time.

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Interesting advances but to what end?

After turn 5 will be interesting to see the casualties.

[mktours]

Again, I agree that this opening gave me much advantage which I didn't deserve. In this game, Marquo was unfamiliar with and hence not preparing for this new opening and it is not his fault. The game is unbalance and greatly in favor of the GHC after T3. It is the generous mind of Marquo that allowing this game to continue. We could just view it as a process rather than a balance game after T3. Put it this way, there is one way of playing the game, and two people are playing out to see what happen, and certainly all the credit should go to Marquo as he is not preparing for it beforehand and is in unfavorable position.
This opening certainly could be handled by some SHC, if they know it beforehand and are willing to take challenge.
As I said, it could be fun for some, but would be unwelcome by many. To anyone who doesn't like this opening, here is my apology. For anyone who has a generous mind to accept or allow them to happen, here goes my thank.

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Sorry, but this game belongs in the theater of the absurd. If Axis players want to keep trying to outdo each other in seeing how far east they can get a panzer division before winter, knock yourselves out. But this is tantamount to a lab experiment and has nothing whatsoever to do with a competitive game.

[mktours]

Saper have made a very good remark earlier in the AAR:
"After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!"
unfortunately many people are not see things in this way, I believe they don't like Guderian as well.[:)]
Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making. Yet many people still insisted that the GHC must comply with this plan.
Thanks for the couters you made towards some of the remarks. I am afraid we could not convince them that there are other ways to do a game and these ways are nothing more than providing some new challenge,which could certainly be handle by many.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am not the one with issues about what is going on here. I am merely providing a counter some of the remarks made by others. Having said that I agree the discussion should go elsewhere and leave this as an AAR. Not an axe grinding millstone.

[Ketza]

I am always open to new strategies in a game. As things evolve on the forum the game changes for the better or worse. Soon what were the most optimal moves become obsolete and fall by the wayside to be replaced with "omg I thought that was impossible" moves.


My most favorite game on WITE was against 76mm back when the game first came out and I wrote my first AAR. Neither one of us were experts and many mistakes were made but the game was very fun and in the end almost historical until we quit due to major patch changes sometime in 1943.

I will never forget that first blizzard as the Axis. I almost lost the entire 17th army only to come storming back in the spring.

Awesome game back when we were noobies [:D]

[mktours]

open-minded person like you certainly deserve to have more fun, [:)]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I am always open to new strategies in a game. As things evolve on the forum the game changes for the better or worse. Soon what were the most optimal moves become obsolete and fall by the wayside to be replaced with "omg I thought that was impossible" moves.


My most favorite game on WITE was against 76mm back when the game first came out and I wrote my first AAR. Neither one of us were experts and many mistakes were made but the game was very fun and in the end almost historical until we quit due to major patch changes sometime in 1943.

I will never forget that first blizzard as the Axis. I almost lost the entire 17th army only to come storming back in the spring.

Awesome game back when we were noobies [:D]

[Saper2229]

"The game is unbalance and greatly in favor of the GHC after T3"
I not consent. The Soviet can make a good defence, I can play with you and see this.

[mktours]

Saper, when I said "the game", what I meant is this game( my game with Marquo).I agree that even after T3 in this game, the SHC still have chance to defend, but the SHC would have to do everything right, and must be better than the GHC. That is what I meant by "unbalance", the two player are not on a level field. But the game is certainly not over yet.
I have no doubt that you can defend this opening very well, I myself could also defend it very well. many others should be able to defend it as well.
I currently have 2 game on hand, it has reached my limit, I would be eager to take you on later if I got time. indeed it would be an honor for me to play with you as you are certainly way better than me.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Saper222

"The game is unbalance and greatly in favor of the GHC after T3"
I not consent. The Soviet can make a good defence, I can play with you and see this.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: mktours

Saper have made a very good remark earlier in the AAR:
"After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!"
unfortunately many people are not see things in this way, I believe they don't like Guderian as well.[:)]
Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making. Yet many people still insisted that the GHC must comply with this plan.
Thanks for the couters you made towards some of the remarks. I am afraid we could not convince them that there are other ways to do a game and these ways are nothing more than providing some new challenge,which could certainly be handle by many.

ORIGINAL: mktours

open-minded person like you certainly deserve to have more fun, [:)]

Lets look at some examples and general conception on these forums and rather typical when it comes to looking at the WWII.

Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making

So the asssumption is that and the this is usually the case when it comes to view on the german side of things.
Germans underpreformed and could have done much better.
Never they overpreformed and this could actually have gone worse and they never should have been as succesfull as they were. It isnt a concievble option.
Same applies oppositely to the russian side. What if the russian stopped them long before historical is never the discussion. They could have had others in charge and be more prepared. Instead the instict is they actually overpreformed and if just little more of X would it have taken before the the russians would have surrendered.


Typically said things on the forum or conceptions.

I have np with thing in 41 going much better than historically for the axis side. Its just the players making better plans. Ppl need to play the game and from turn 1 on its up to the players.

Russian run strategies need to be nerfed, Stalin was a fool and in charge. So apparently russian side cant choose their own strategies, but need to be under some degree of limits based on their political leadership.

Hitler in 1941 interfered on 17 seperate occation as far i as know with the operational conduct of the german forces. Most famously in the Supplement to Directive No. 34 concerning the cancellation of the drive towards Moscow to make what evetually becomes the Kiev pocket
Never ever have i heard this raised as a possibilty nor is it apparently some thing that should influence the german side/ability to unhindered choose their own paths of the game, from the same ppl saying that the russian sides should be limited in their ability to choose where and how to defend, directly or indirectly via tying forces down to defend to VPs.

The russian side from 43 is a bulldozer and their offensives never stop, this need to be reined in. This might very well be true. Just as german side in 41 is able to use the same lack of logistical constraints to make it far beyond historical gains at times in 41. Where are the complaint from these ppl that this is just as unhistorical for the german in 41 as for russains in 43 44. Apparently its np as the russians gets their blizzard and again the conception is that germans doing better than historical is the expected thing. The explation the german can be stopped in 41 is often used. Apparently discounting the examples where they arent, and its never that for example as in the case of Pelton defences worth a mention that the russian bulldozer was be stopped.
Not saying that the logistics shouldnt be looked at, they should, but the standart applies to the two sides isnt the same.

Blizzard offensives. They need to be nerfed historiclly the germans didnt lose any formations the same should be true in game. Right again the conception that in this when and i use when not if on purpose the russian side does better than historical this needs to be reined in. The possibilty that the russian actually making it better than historic as in german formation could be lost is shouldnt be a possibilty. Which isnt the same as saying things shouldnt be changed but again the standart isnt the same.

In the few cases where u actually have seen but its spoken of as it happens quite frequently that the russian make it to Berlin in 43(some one point me to the AARs) or in 44. This is unrealistic and a stop need to be put in place. Again Russian side doing better than historical, it needs to be reined in.
We have seen a few number of AARs with axis side Auto Victories. In these cases things have clearly gone alot better for ther axis side in order to achieve that. No issues with that. Again we're back. Germans underpreformed historicly so when they overpreform its as it should be. Where as russian side overpreforms its "profe" the game is unbalanced.

Its clear that the two sides isnt even remotely treated by the same standarts. Ppl inherit bias affects the way the view on discussions of game issues when things go better or worse for the 2 sides. The natural instinct is the germans underpreformed so when they do better its a question of ppl just playing the game and using better plans. Ppl should be allowed to do as they wish. Not that this is a conception that is in any way limited to this forums as said. This means discussions on gaming issues arent equal. The preconceived notions make it so it starts slanted toward one of particular sides.
When objections are made vs german doing better they are "automaticly" countered by, yes but other side has X Y and Z so this is fine. One makes up for the other. Usually followed by a when discussing these on the russian side. We need to limit the discussion to this issue aka u cant look at the whole.

So in short when ever the russian side overpreforms it just shows the game is unbalanced. If they underpreform it is as it should be or to be expected.
Where as when ever the german side overpreforms, this is to be expected. If they underpreformed not that its really an option and again if so its just the sign of the game being unbalanced

It couldnt be much clearer.


These are the "open minded" persons?
Not that ppl doesnt deserve fun nor that the game doesnt have issues for both sides.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[mktours]

Hi Rasmus
I am not a native english speaker, and I feel difficult to understand your comment, so I can't reply.
sorry. [:)]
Best regards
Tours

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: mktours

Saper have made a very good remark earlier in the AAR:
"After clik start button players create other history - difference for each game - that is the best fun!"
unfortunately many people are not see things in this way, I believe they don't like Guderian as well.[:)]
Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making. Yet many people still insisted that the GHC must comply with this plan.
Thanks for the couters you made towards some of the remarks. I am afraid we could not convince them that there are other ways to do a game and these ways are nothing more than providing some new challenge,which could certainly be handle by many.

ORIGINAL: mktours

open-minded person like you certainly deserve to have more fun, [:)]

Lets look at some examples and general conception on these forums and rather typical when it comes to looking at the WWII.

Barbarossa is an very bad plan which was made by very poor leaders like Paulus, and did not involve Manstein or Guderian in the making

So the asssumption is that and the this is usually the case when it comes to view on the german side of things.
Germans underpreformed and could have done much better.
Never they overpreformed and this could actually have gone worse and they never should have been as succesfull as they were. It isnt a concievble option.
Same applies oppositely to the russian side. What if the russian stopped them long before historical is never the discussion. They could have had others in charge and be more prepared. Instead the instict is they actually overpreformed and if just little more of X would it have taken before the the russians would have surrendered.


Typically said things on the forum or conceptions.

I have np with thing in 41 going much better than historically for the axis side. Its just the players making better plans. Ppl need to play the game and from turn 1 on its up to the players.

Russian run strategies need to be nerfed, Stalin was a fool and in charge. So apparently russian side cant choose their own strategies, but need to be under some degree of limits based on their political leadership.

Hitler in 1941 interfered on 17 seperate occation as far i as know with the operational conduct of the german forces. Most famously in the Supplement to Directive No. 34 concerning the cancellation of the drive towards Moscow to make what evetually becomes the Kiev pocket
Never ever have i heard this raised as a possibilty nor is it apparently some thing that should influence the german side/ability to unhindered choose their own paths of the game, from the same ppl saying that the russian sides should be limited in their ability to choose where and how to defend, directly or indirectly via tying forces down to defend to VPs.

The russian side from 43 is a bulldozer and their offensives never stop, this need to be reined in. This might very well be true. Just as german side in 41 is able to use the same lack of logistical constraints to make it far beyond historical gains at times in 41. Where are the complaint from these ppl that this is just as unhistorical for the german in 41 as for russains in 43 44. Apparently its np as the russians gets their blizzard and again the conception is that germans doing better than historical is the expected thing. Where as if the same happens to the russian side it needs to be reined in. Not saying it necesarriy shouldnt be but the standarts isnt the same.

Blizzard offensives. They need to be nerfed historiclly the germans didnt lose any formations the same should be true in game. Right again the conception that in this when and i use when not if on purpose the russian side does better than historical this needs to be reined in. The possibilty that the russian actually making it better than historic as in german formation could be lost is shouldnt be a possibilty. Which isnt the same as saying things shouldnt be changed but again the standart isnt the same.

In the few cases where u actually have seen but its spoken of as it happens quite frequently that the russian make it to Berlin in 43(some one point me to the AARs) or in 44. This is unrealistic and a stop need to be put in place. Again Russian side doing better than historical, it needs to be reined in.
We have seen a few number of AARs with axis side Auto Victories. In these cases things have clearly gone alot better for ther axis side in order to achieve that. No issues with that. Again we're back. Germans underpreformed so when they overpreform its as it should be. where as russian side overpreforms its "profe" the game is unbalanced.

Its clear that the two sides isnt even remotely treated by the same standarts. Ppl inherit bias affects the way the view on discussions of game issues when things go better or worse for the 2 sides. The natural instinct is the germans underpreformed so when they do better its a question of ppl just playing the game and using better plans. Ppl should be allowed to do as they wish. Not that this is a conception that is in any way limited to this forums as said. This means discussions on gaming issues are equal. The preconceived notions make it so it starts slanted toward one of the sides.
When objections are made vs german doing better they are "automaticly" countered by, yes but other side has X Y and Z so this is fine. One makes up for the other. Usually followed by a when discussing these on the russian side. We need to limit the discussion to this issue aka u cant look at the whole.

So when ever the russian side overpreforms it just shows the game is unbalanced. If they underpreform it is as it should be or to be expected.
Where as when ever the german side overpreforms, this is to be expected. If they underpreformed not that its really an option and again if so its just the sign of the game being unbalanced

It couldnt be much clearer.


These are the "open minded" persons?
Not that ppl doesnt deserve fun nor that the game doesnt have issues for both sides.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[mktours]

T5 Luki-after recon
Marquo had done a good job in his T4, a division which didn’t be discovered by my recon last turn emerged from the north area and occupied the retreat hex for the 36 motorize division, before another 6 divisions launched a successful counterattack and cut the bridgehead.
As we can see from the picture, the two successive being cut off has cause much damage to the supply. 14th motorize division was completely out of fuel. The 7th panzer division only got 33MP, despite having more fuel in the tank.
The spearhead division had been surrounded by a handful of units and there were several road blocks on the road. Fortunately the distance wasn’t very long and the units in the bridgehead are all very good units and they were commanded by the best commander.

[mktours]

T5north- after recon
The successful counterattack is a double edge sword for the SHC, all the troops in the Poskov region remain unmoved. However successful the counter-attack would be, they would not hold off the massive assault of literally two entire army group which would be massed to there soon.

[mktours]

T5south-after recon
The big pocket has been broken again. The north one held.