Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Turn 11

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 11 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turn 11 - 11/1/2012 6:02:34 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
If someone is bothered to check it here it is - http://www.2shared.com/file/s75mrl9Z/SvK_1-17_sov_turn.html


PM me for password

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 91
RE: Turn 11 - 11/1/2012 6:06:26 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 947
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 92
RE: Turn 11 - 11/1/2012 6:06:27 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1770
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 93
RE: Turn 11 - 11/1/2012 6:14:43 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4389
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 94
RE: Turn 11 - 11/1/2012 6:19:30 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1225
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 95
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 7:27:26 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
quote:

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".

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 96
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 7:39:55 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 97
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 7:41:08 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
***double post***

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 98
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 7:44:02 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
If he's willing to post in Russian, I should be able to translate, would be interested to know what he's up to...

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 99
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 10:06:19 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2384
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 100
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 10:28:10 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
I was under the impression on the server you can't save a turn in the middle and come back later. I can't often do that and need to do the turn over more than one sitting.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 101
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/1/2012 10:37:20 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2384
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
You can save at any point on the server, take a break and come back later. Just like a PBEM. The only disadvantage is that you cannot review your situation once you end the turn. But a few screenies solve the issue. Its very reliable now as well. Only way to go for me.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 102
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 1:09:52 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.


I have been more then open about stuff, I post just how to do x-y and z, Its gets nerfed I bitch, but the game gets better and better over time.

Why would any new guys play if there is an insane loop hole in the system?

Why would anyone in there right mind spend 5 cents on WitW if its going to be a filled with loop holes 2by3 doesn't seem to care at all about. Does 2by3 even test this stuff out at all?

I would think 2by3 would get to the bottom of stuff like this asap, because it just makes them look really silly as far as the game engine goes.

If the system can be gamed so easly what makes poeple think witw will be any different?

Stuff like this has more to do with 2by3's reaction more then anything.

Do they care at all that someone is going east faster then before 1.06.13? Basicly 1.06.13 is usless?

I would like to get to the bottom of it asap so the game is fair to both sides, but the real question is does 2by3 care at all?

If the game engine is fine then 2by3 needs to speak up and say this **** is not possible or we really screwed up and need to fix it asap.

In the end its 2by3's coin, if they don't care.

Then don't expect poeple to run out and by witw if this is how they are going to react to something that a clear cheat or a uber exploit.

In this case silence is not golden, its just plain

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/2/2012 1:13:18 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 103
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 1:18:20 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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...



Thanks bro for offering to translate.



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 104
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 2:51:37 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3206706



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 105
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 3:02:50 AM   
mrchuck


Posts: 110
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline
So...has anyone actually asked Saper what he did? And the reply was ... ?
Oops answered by previous post...don't mind me I'm mad...

< Message edited by mrchuck -- 11/2/2012 3:04:36 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 106
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 9:22:36 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline
glad the mystery is solved. Well done Michael. Now if only I was playing a game as german I too would rule the world. Mwahaha

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to mrchuck)
Post #: 107
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 10:40:40 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5929
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
I am not so sure this is what he was doing. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3206706

M60 can check himself as he has the flyte records and old turns at to where units were and airfields and to what hex drops were made at the end of turns.

M60 does it appear he was using the exploit of not?

No more need to blindly defend him.

Looking at what you have posted I am not so sure, just checking your location of enemys and air drops



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to sillyflower)
Post #: 108
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 11:18:10 AM   
Saper222


Posts: 140
Joined: 3/9/2011
From: Russia
Status: offline
I am not used a bugs, cheated and ect. Germany was nice air forces - recon too. I see befor my move all line of defence M60A3TTS. He had very many troops on Leningrad area, but little in other place. Why to break the closed door - I avoid this strongest position. Not problem to supply 1-2 motorised divizion. You can see, that I reach fast my infantry a Moscow without "epic" battles and deep pocket. If you move very fast you opponent can choice how use his rail - for re-groupping forces ore move industry. M60A3TTS take two and canot stoped my troops.
Sorry, if I do some grammatical mistakes - my English is not good

< Message edited by Saper222 -- 11/2/2012 11:26:01 AM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 109
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 1:36:31 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
I can understand your points. I did use much of my rail capacity to evacuate industry and place many troops at Leningrad. In another game in the future I may shift more troops and rail capacity to defend the Moscow area.

(in reply to Saper222)
Post #: 110
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 2:07:49 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1770
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Thanks for your comment, Saper.

You played very well and introduced (to me at least) a further refinement of the spearhead doctrine: The Honed Tip (fuel by air 1-2 Mot per Pz Group); you can of course re-name it, should you so want. No doubt attempts to develop countermeasures will be made.

(in reply to Saper222)
Post #: 111
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 7:19:59 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well about the airsupply. It was since the change to HQBU limited to 20 MP always struck me that there is a disconnect in game. Currently pz/mot getting far rom RR heads are limited in MP by having only so much fuel/supply being able to get to them per the supply system.

U can have an airbase just as far from RR heads. Still its has unlimited supply of fuel/supply to be delivered. Eh, why isnt there a limited on how much "fuel/supply" an airbase can have accumulate/distribuate. Under same or similar limitations as a pz/mot unit in exactly the same conditions. How come a unit can only get delivered X fuel/supply of amount but for an airbase its unlimited. Doesnt make much sense or seem consistant to me.
U theoritically(have tested it) can have an airbase at Ural, with railheads ar Moscow being able to deliver endless(the limitation is on the planes not the base per say) amount of supply and fuel. Its distance to railhead, tho manual states it has an impact and it has on fuel deliver by the plane. It doesnt depend on amount of the airbase actually have, or i've never seen it nor when testing it. Thats sorta funny in the not so funny category.

Possibly limiting airbased only being able to deliver supply/fuel if within 20 MPs of a railhead, would sound more like consistancy within the supply system. Not thats its going to happen and not saying it would necesarrily in this case have any impact.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 11/3/2012 2:09:33 AM >

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 112
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 8:06:57 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 1257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saper222

.
Sorry, if I do some grammatical mistakes - my English is not good


A lot better than my Russian and (dare I say it) as good as some Americans or better as your meaning is clear

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Saper222)
Post #: 113
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 8:46:32 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3163
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Possibly limiting airbased only being able to deliver supply/fuel if within 20 MPs of a railhead, would sound more like consistancy within the supply system. Not thats its going to happen and not saying it would necesarrily in this case have any impact.


A better solution might be only allowing airbases to deliver fuel and supply they already have on hand, and then require them to draw/build up supplies like any other unit but give them a slight ability to stockpile more than they need.


_____________________________



(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 114
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 10:16:46 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1770
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
One complication is that air bases can move 50 MP with whatever fuel it has, so they can be used as the HQ's were used in muling.

The air drop is just the trick to get the fuel out of the air base.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 115
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/2/2012 11:02:26 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 947
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread
The Honed Tip (fuel by air 1-2 Mot per Pz Group); you can of course re-name it, should you so want.

Or perhaps the Saper saber.

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 116
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/3/2012 1:09:28 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2219
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I would like to mention that I have hit the "Airbase has no fuel to fly mission" message several times as the Axis in late August - October of 41. So it is possible to run out of fuel to deliver from the airbase. I was flying supply drops in every case and I was able to bomb enemy units from the airbase later in the turn.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 117
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/5/2012 3:21:08 AM   
mrchuck


Posts: 110
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline
However the airsupply bug is real. Tried it myself with an airbase shuttling between several stacks of panzer troops. It becomes the staging base and air miles effectively = 0.

Got 3 or 4 stacks all up to 80% or so with just this one air base before I ran out of patience and shut down the game. Futile really and I can't stand house rules -- the ACTUAL rules should work properly, or at least not be this grossly broken.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 118
RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper) - 11/6/2012 10:35:06 PM   
bednarre

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 2/23/2011
Status: offline
Airplanes don't run on diesel or car gasoline, but rather on aviation gasoline or jet fuel. What kind of an airbase would stockpile large quantities of diesel fuel to refuel tanks? The airfield has to stock and maintain its own needed fuel, and putting a fuel depot inside the airbase would not be conductive to protecting the valuable combat aircraft. I think the best approach is to have to truck diesel fuel from the Army HG/cities to the airbase during the turn that base is refueling, and not using the bases aviation gasoline. Thus even if a Panzer Division camps on the airbase, it will not help.

(in reply to mrchuck)
Post #: 119
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 11 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.100