AOK. 11 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Some of you may have read the thread on my previous QB battle. In this battle I won easily, however, I was convinced to give a re-match. In this QB I would command Red Army formations. The conditions were similar, 3000 QB, August 1943. We were to put together realistic forces with a strong infantry component. I did so. I thought that my opponent would do so as well. My opponent's idea of a realistic force with a strong infantry component was the following: 10x Green Sturmgeschütz IIIG (early mid) Platoon 2x Regular Sharpshooter 1x Regular Rifle Platoon 1x Regular MG34 LMG Apperently, he just wanted revenge and I do not feel that this force complies with the conditions. 30 Green Sturmgeschütz IIIG is a bit much. In light of the situation, I have composed a bit of prose: "Thirty Sturmgeschütz IIIG and ME" by XI Thirty Sturmgeschütz IIIG and ME They came to TEA They came to STAY They stayed all DAY They approached in mass, a FLOOD To bring death, a river of BLOOD T34's opened point-blank, everything BOUNCED The StuGs were invulnerable, my T34s were TROUNCED My armor disintegrated in a fury of FLAME A horrible slaughter, without aim or NAME The StuGs turned, still hungry for MURDER Infantry was massacred, utill I had nothing FURTHER Somebody must do something about these BEASTS! Overmoddled, eating flesh and bone at their FEASTS! Oh my!, Oh ME! Thirty Sturmgeschütz IIIG and ME! ..I know this has been talked over hundreds of times, but this incident was a culmination of frustration. It is a horrible, and completely inaccurate part of an otherwise beautiful game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Apperently, he just wanted revenge and I do not feel that this force complies with the conditions.Do you think? What a petty little man (your opponent). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
37mm Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 What the hell was his/her (could be a her) name... I don't want to play any one like that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 The masked avenger? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 What did the map look like? How many flags? It could have been a feasible solution to retreat your tanks and just leave some tank hunters on board.... if the Soviets had decent ones, that is. You kill a few tanks... he gets some flags. Draw. Breaking an agreement is cheating. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-42 Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Well my friend this is a prime example of someone who wants to win no matter what. </font>I HATE losers who stock up on uber tanks.</font>I HATE losers who put winning before any sense of realism.</font>I HATE losers whose idea of a good battle consists only of using whatever means they can to get one over on their opponent</font>I HATE losers whose sole aim is to win win win and only enjoy the battle if they win......</font> I've been beaten more times then I can count but that means absolutely zip to me....I'd much sooner have the experience of a great battle then a few brownie points on a ladder or competition. Thankfully, through pain and anguish, I now have a strong base of regular opponents who feel the same way I do. I suggest you build up the same kind of opponent pool XI Oh!! and don't give up the day job buddy....how can I put it nicely...emmm...errr....well your poetry SUCKS!!! MG P.S. The STuG IIIG is and always will be my most favourite tank in the history of the universe.....I love 'em (but I certainly wouldn't field that many in a battle) P.P.S. I have a self imposed QB "house rule" now (regardless of whether my opponent wishes to follow the same rule or not). This House rule was actually devised by my dear opponent kenfederoff and consists of taking no more than 2 units (not platoons) of an armoured piece that that is greater then 30% rarity. This works very well for me and, in my expereince, keeps things a little more authentic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 " The conditions were similar, 3000 QB, August 1943. We were to put together realistic forces with a strong infantry component. I did so. I thought that my opponent would do so as well." I can understand your ire but surely warfare is not about doing the expected - having said that if it is your intention to know what each other sides composition is going to be I am surprised you did not agree a percentage figure to spent or rely on the limiter built into the troop selection screen. I suppose you had ruled out airplanes, and agreed the weather but surely you had some ATG's ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddington Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Originally posted by dieseltaylor: [qb] " The conditions were similar, 3000 QB, August 1943. We were to put together realistic forces with a strong infantry component. I did so. I thought that my opponent would do so as well." I can understand your ire but surely warfare is not about doing the expected - having said that if it is your intention to know what each other sides composition is going to be I am surprised you did not agree a percentage figure to spent or rely on the limiter built into the troop selection screen. I suppose you had ruled out airplanes, and agreed the weather but surely you had some ATG's ?. That wont help against 30 stugs, trust me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 It may be warfare, but it's historical warfare. Taking enough stugs to support a division and putting them in with a platoon is quite horribly gamey. If you agree to something, stick to it and leave the somewhat ahistorical 'surprises' for the no-holds barred matches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I would fancy my chances with the Russians in August 1943 against 30 Stugs - especially if I knew that was the force : ) We do not know if this was a random battlefield, woods, steppe or whatever, or the weather but I normally try and field a balanced force for ME's given I know roughly what the terrain is. The agreeing of all the parameters always seems very artificial to me and I would rather take my chances on not tying down the opposing side to what forces they can have. But 90% of my games are 2000 + pointers so I expect diversity in forces. Anyone who arrives on a battlefield with just one weapon type is a lousy player anyway : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beta1 Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 It does seem rather petty. I'm all for fielding AFVs in large numbers of one type rather than a tiger here and a panther there but this is daft. I think the largest number of any AFv I have fielded in a 2000 pointer was probably 10 panzer IVs (or whatever 2-3 platoons is) and they had at least 4 platoons of infantry backing them up. Either way its a good reason to avoid "unrestricted" force types! Like the earlier poster said I would love to see that coming towards me if i knew it was coming. I think theres plenty of things that I could take to ruin a stugs day, esp if I know theres only 1 infantry platoon out there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFE Posted August 14, 2004 Share Posted August 14, 2004 *clap* *clap* *clap* Thanks for the poem XI! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 14, 2004 Share Posted August 14, 2004 Originally posted by Beta1: Either way its a good reason to avoid "unrestricted" force types!I would wager that they were using Armor force type. But they had agreed to have a 'strong' infantry component. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 my brother having read the thread decided for laughs to see how well a towed 57mm would do. Getting it swuiftly into position it took 7 in the flank, then reduced to HE it was taking some out from the rear. Obviously hidden in a woood the AI was never able to place it . The Valentine can penetrate the frontal armour but did not have the survivabilty for massed Sturms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.