stack and I think I can destroy it next turn; that wlll facilitate more attacks.


I really like the way Ian and I are sharing this AAR with both our points of view. It's a much better AAR than it would have been I think. And I'm not playing to "win"...I'm helping Ian get used to the way TOAW IV works and how to play this game. I think Ian is doing a really good job staying in my path and holding me back. This scenario isn't "fair" but it is one of the better scenarios. This is my first time through this version of the scenario so I'm trying to learn how to play it too. Also, the readers have expressed to me that they really like the "over my shoulder" style of writing it up and I like it too because I can tell which ideas are bad ones if I just type out the plan first. I get to view it as the readers would and if it doesn't pass the smell test i start over with my plan. Some of our readers are experts at warfare and just need to adjust to the game mechanics to really shine. I love reading the AAR's of players who know what they are doing. They make it look so easy to do what they are doing that it's inspiring....the readers want to try it too. I usually learn something from reading AAR's. I hope Ian is still having fun because this scenario isn't designed for the Axis player to have much fun as it's his stuff that's getting destroyed and his units that are getting pushed backward. His air force has largely disappeared by this time in the game. Which reminds me...I need to do some airfield strikes to whittle down the competition.ORIGINAL: devoncopThanks MikeORIGINAL: MikeJ19
Guys,
This is so much fun. I know that I have said it before, but I am really enjoying the discussion on this thread.
Well done!
Its a very different way to do an AAR with both players contributing simultaneously but I think it really works as both of us are similar in being open about all the choices the scenario offers.
It has about 75% of the fog of war that would usually apply but is none the worse to play from my point of view. I learn so much more than I would otherwise have done as Larry is such a font of knowledge.
ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I really like the way Ian and I are sharing this AAR with both our points of view. It's a much better AAR than it would have been I think. And I'm not playing to "win"...I'm helping Ian get used to the way TOAW IV works and how to play this game. I think Ian is doing a really good job staying in my path and holding me back. This scenario isn't "fair" but it is one of the better scenarios. This is my first time through this version of the scenario so I'm trying to learn how to play it too. Also, the readers have expressed to me that they really like the "over my shoulder" style of writing it up and I like it too because I can tell which ideas are bad ones if I just type out the plan first. I get to view it as the readers would and if it doesn't pass the smell test i start over with my plan. Some of our readers are experts at warfare and just need to adjust to the game mechanics to really shine. I love reading the AAR's of players who know what they are doing. They make it look so easy to do what they are doing that it's inspiring....the readers want to try it too. I usually learn something from reading AAR's. I hope Ian is still having fun because this scenario isn't designed for the Axis player to have much fun as it's his stuff that's getting destroyed and his units that are getting pushed backward. His air force has largely disappeared by this time in the game. Which reminds me...I need to do some airfield strikes to whittle down the competition.ORIGINAL: devoncopThanks MikeORIGINAL: MikeJ19
Guys,
This is so much fun. I know that I have said it before, but I am really enjoying the discussion on this thread.
Well done!
Its a very different way to do an AAR with both players contributing simultaneously but I think it really works as both of us are similar in being open about all the choices the scenario offers.
It has about 75% of the fog of war that would usually apply but is none the worse to play from my point of view. I learn so much more than I would otherwise have done as Larry is such a font of knowledge.
I can start doing that if you really want to. Right now I'mPosting a couple of turns off would solve that.





I fully understand the need for OPSEC and in almost all games it's prefered because it's a must have for a good game but as you have observed Ian and I are in "teaching mode" and we're playing a friendly game, a beer and pretzels game, definately not a tournament game.ORIGINAL: MikeJ19
Larry and Ian,
As for posting, this is obviously working for both of you. So, stick with it. My thoughts were more about future games if I ever play multi player and a way to have both of us posting without giving away too much.
In this case, you are both having fun and learning. As am I.
Have a good day



Mike, my friend, that's a great idea. I'm going to promote you to be my operations officer congratulations and welcome aboard. Too many different problems coming up. I think I can do that. Lots of divisions going in different directions from Rome spreading out converting roads and rails. That's going to be the problem you know: supply. There's no way to repair all those rails at anywhere near the speed needed to keep up with the various front line groups that there's going to be. I'll have to mostly concentrate on one main one heading north and make do for the others I'm guessing. Depends on the speed of the advance and where the rails go on the map, etc. Thanks for posting. I appreiate it.ORIGINAL: MikeJ19
Larry,
The ground North of Rome is a little more open with lots of towns and East-West roads. Hopefully, you can keep Ian off balance with too many different problems.