The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Turn 11

Post by 76mm »

I too only play server games, but I think that some of the veiled accusations in this thread are a bit harsh--players have found many fuel exploits in this game, and it is possible that saper has found another which others have overlooked--let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is not allowed on this thread!

Pelton's stats are intereesting, but it is still difficult for me to believe that most people would bother to cheat in this game?

User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Turn 11

Post by Peltonx »

I track allot of stats and post them in threads.

You can check it out as I tread it. In Kamils thread for an example.

tm.asp?m=2851126&mpage=10&key=

Hoooper % was a little better as 1v1=2v1 and TDV % a little worse as he used allot of soaking off attacks.

But that thread is good example.

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: Turn 11

Post by Harrybanana »

I have to agree with 76mm that it is harsh to attack a player who can not defend himself. As I am just starting a new game with Saper now I certainly hope that the "veiled accusations" are wrong.

I have reviewed this AAR on a turn by turn basis and it is obvious that Saper was not able to keep all of his mechanized units fully fueled each turn by air. Indeed, as Janh pointed out this would not be possible. But I believe he was using air supply extensively to keep certain key units either fully fueled or close thereto; in particular his motorized units. For example, look at the Week 3 dispositions around Smolensk. His panzer units all show red for fuel, but his motorized units show either green or yellow. This pattern is repeated turn after turn. Is it possible that Saper was only air supplying his panzers with enough fuel to give them say 25 to 35 mps per turn, while air supplying enough to select motorized units (partcicularly the SS Motorized in the South) to keep them going at almost full speed? I believe I read on a previous thread somewhere that motorized units require a lot less fuel than panzer divisions. In other words, rather than Saper trying to supply an entire panzer group by air each turn , he is only air supplying a few panzer units in all of his panzer groups, while extensively air supplying all of his motorized units. Would this be possible?
Robert Harris
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: Turn 11

Post by M60A3TTS »

I opened the thread up to Saper so he can view and comment if he chooses.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Turn 11

Post by Peltonx »

My last 2 "draws" I know the guy was not playing fair was I had zero reserve mode reactions for 3 turns.

They were winning 95% of battles turn after turn after turn. Thats the red flag.

Now server based and PbeM games the average should be about 35% GHC and 28%ish SHC as far as reserve reactions go.

Personally even on the server I get a few turns out of 20 that I only get 15%ish but most times it 25% to 40%.

Now if your getting zero reactions for 3 or more turns you know for sure something is wrong and its not the game engine.

I am stupid but not that stupid.

95% or better win% and you get zero reserve mode reactions for 3,4,5,6,7,+ turns.

Hmmm what do you think?
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Turn 11

Post by Peltonx »

Until someone can do this ( a few hexes from Rostov turn 8) on the server, I don't think any thing is wrong with the logistics system.

Until someone can attack 20+ times for 3+ turns and the defender gets zero reserve mode reactions there is nothing wrong with the game engine.

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Turn 11

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have to agree with 76mm that it is harsh to attack a player who can not defend himself. As I am just starting a new game with Saper now I certainly hope that the "veiled accusations" are wrong.

I have reviewed this AAR on a turn by turn basis and it is obvious that Saper was not able to keep all of his mechanized units fully fueled each turn by air. Indeed, as Janh pointed out this would not be possible. But I believe he was using air supply extensively to keep certain key units either fully fueled or close thereto; in particular his motorized units. For example, look at the Week 3 dispositions around Smolensk. His panzer units all show red for fuel, but his motorized units show either green or yellow. This pattern is repeated turn after turn. Is it possible that Saper was only air supplying his panzers with enough fuel to give them say 25 to 35 mps per turn, while air supplying enough to select motorized units (partcicularly the SS Motorized in the South) to keep them going at almost full speed? I believe I read on a previous thread somewhere that motorized units require a lot less fuel than panzer divisions. In other words, rather than Saper trying to supply an entire panzer group by air each turn , he is only air supplying a few panzer units in all of his panzer groups, while extensively air supplying all of his motorized units. Would this be possible?

Yes that would be me saying mech requires less fuel and as far as I have seen I have the records for fastest advances in the south to T4 D-Town and Stalino T7 and T8 Rostov. Someone esle has the Stalingrad record T 10

I beleive MT has most of the Moscow area records, not sure on his best T?

A good number of people have gotten to Leningrad on turn 4 or 5. Again this area is still withen reach vs a weak SHC like myself hehehe

But again all before 1.06.11

I would think if M60 sent in saves to 2by3 they beable to figure out if the numbers add up.

I could be wrong and Sappers found some amazing loop hole ( which needs to be closed ) or *************.


Beta Tester WitW & WitE
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Turn 11

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
Is it possible that Saper was only air supplying his panzers with enough fuel to give them say 25 to 35 mps per turn, while air supplying enough to select motorized units (partcicularly the SS Motorized in the South) to keep them going at almost full speed? I believe I read on a previous thread somewhere that motorized units require a lot less fuel than panzer divisions. In other words, rather than Saper trying to supply an entire panzer group by air each turn , he is only air supplying a few panzer units in all of his panzer groups, while extensively air supplying all of his motorized units. Would this be possible?

Actually a very good thought. Sounds even be force economic to do so. That way you can keep half of each Korps rolling fast, while the fuel-hungry Panzers would remain closer to the life lines. It is not like HQ-building Korps alternatingly, but might effect the same?

Whilst in the thickst of it (usually before the Smolensk and the lower Djenpr are passed and before the race through the vast open to Kharkov, Rostov or Tula starts), Sapper did the usual and cordoned of pockets tightly. Meaning pretty much every hex since M60's Soviets were still close in numbers until like turn 9. After that M60 seemed to have run short of units except in LG and Moscow area, and Sapper started his deep penetrations to the south of that without caring much about flank and rear security (or maybe the inf was already there, or lower MP Panzers?). Maybe he just took the risks and got lucky? Hard to say from the screens without further recon where Sapper's Panzers lagged behind the Mot., though you are right that Mots, esp. the high morale ones, are ones pushed furthest. Maybe he'll let us in on it.
KamilS
Posts: 1881
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Turn 11

Post by KamilS »

I see, that Saper is being accused of reloading saves. I think he isn't.


To prove it I can upload saved games from summer of '41 so You can check for Yourself.

Kamil
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: Turn 11

Post by M60A3TTS »

It wasn't my impression that he did anything other than put a stomping on me. I play for the challenge and prefer to play more skilled players, and don't have a grasp on the logistics capability of the Axis as others do. Quite likely I will do better next time.
KamilS
Posts: 1881
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Turn 11

Post by KamilS »

If someone is bothered to check it here it is - http://www.2shared.com/file/s75mrl9Z/Sv ... _turn.html


PM me for password
Kamil
timmyab
Posts: 2047
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Turn 11

Post by timmyab »

I think they're actually accusing him of playing turns under previous patches and then loading the latest patch before end turn.
As far as I can tell without playing him, I think he's just a very good player and as in chess small differences in player ability become exaggerated and escalate exponentially.He's not only tactically good but he's also got a strategic awareness which I don't often see in AARs on this forum.
User avatar
gingerbread
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Turn 11

Post by gingerbread »

What do you think about what I hinted at: Fighter-Bombers on Airbases attached to the BAK HQ's? The idea is that they will not commit to ground combats due to not being in the same/any front and would therefore be unused until the air supply missions are run.
Positioning will be tricky since you have to predict where the ground units will be, but you can use it to mitigate the worst case - if he breaks though there, the supply missions will be interfered with.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Turn 11

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

It wasn't my impression that he did anything other than put a stomping on me. I play for the challenge and prefer to play more skilled players, and don't have a grasp on the logistics capability of the Axis as others do. Quite likely I will do better next time.

Doing better won't make a big difference if this ludicrous, stratospheric rate of advance is *allowed by the game engine*

This game engine should make sure -and that's a line that should never be crossed- that what could not be done in real life cannot be done in the game. That should be the really first stone of the building.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Turn 11

Post by janh »

I agree, there is no evidence that Sapper would have cheated in any sense. But he might have found a new way to max the use of his Panzergroups, an unusual one or one that no one so far thought of. Maybe Harrybanana is on the mark that he focused on air drops to the Mots while squeezing the best from his rail supply for the Panzers. Or maybe he was just very lucky.

Still, Tullius has a point. This progress makes the real Wehrmacht ants look like utter fools to have lost Barbarossa. The pace is just to good to be true... Would be interesting to learn if Sapper did something special, something new.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: HITMAN202

Mud in the Central Region on turn #4 is just too much of a summer game-changer. It slows the German infantry march to the battle in nearly every army group sector and gives the Soviets another turn to strengthen forts. It's too great of a variable and, in this case, gives M60 a good chance to hold Moscow.

Flaviusx appropriately deems the '41 summer German O as a sexual arousal to the '42 summer climax, but if my personal experiences are a gage, less of the first hurts much the latter.

This game was also Random Weather which makes it even more "amazing".
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by M60A3TTS »

It should be mentioned for those of you not aware, that Saper 222 is Russian. His English is good enough to get the basic message across, but he may not be confident enough with it to give much of an explanation here of his success. Most of his forum posts tend to be in the section looking for opponents. He was brief but pleasant enough in the emails going back and forth. And I think we all understand by now what people are going to have to deal with when playing him.
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by M60A3TTS »

***double post***
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by 76mm »

If he's willing to post in Russian, I should be able to translate, would be interested to know what he's up to...
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Michael T »

Why doesn't he just play some server games? That would allay any concerns people have. Apart from protecting myself against being cheated, playing on the server protects you from suspicion when you are successful.

Also when players such as Pelton, myself and others have had such astonishing rates of advance we were quite open about how it was acheived, whether it be muling, chaining, mega air supply or what not. If you find a bug or loophole that grants super human powers to one side or the other (as I did with the mega air fuel exploit) you should disclose it. Otherwise its just like stealing candy from a baby. What glory is there in that? Not to mention simply making a better game for all to enjoy.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”