PBEM: Eastern Front 1941-1945 or EA 2012?

[sealclubber]

Opponent found. This thread will self-destruct in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
------------------

I'm looking for an experienced opponent with a reasonable turn rate. I will see the game through to the end unless we mutually agree otherwise.

Eastern Front:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3238859

EA2012:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?105538-Ea-2012

I'll take any side. I'm open to other scenarios where both sides get to attack/defend, but I don't like scenarios where turns take hours to complete or pure grinders (WW1). Europe Aflame, as I remember it, is getting close to my limit in terms of time spent per turn.

 

[Secadegas]

I'm looking for an experienced opponent with a reasonable turn rate. I will see the game through to the end unless we mutually agree otherwise.

Eastern Front:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3238859

EA2012:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?105538-Ea-2012

I'll take any side. I'm open to other scenarios where both sides get to attack/defend, but I don't like scenarios where turns take hours to complete or pure grinders (WW1). Europe Aflame, as I remember it, is getting close to my limit in terms of time spent per turn.

I would love to play any one of these scenarios. I'm experieced, reliable and like to play fast.
The question is that i have 2 EA's under my belt at the moment and my playing time is really short.

Would you wait for a week or so as i'm about to enter Berlin in one of my EA games?

You can contact on jrrusso (at) mail (dot) telepac (dot) pt

 

[Ruppich]

if you want to have jagtiger in 1943 and other historical nonsense as axis then go for ea2012

 

[Secadegas]

if you want to have jagtiger in 1943 and other historical nonsense as axis then go for ea2012

Did you ever tried playing EA? Reading your post i suspect you didn't...

 

[Ruppich]

bla?

and so on

 

[Secadegas]

Ruppich, i'm afraid i didn't make myself clear...

I'm not doubting your "jagtiger in 1943" type of claim. It's an EA old discussion (very old...)

EA always had a sound abstractionism on each side equipment which is very important on play balance and simulation terms.

Some equipment is not supposed to represent its historical counterpart but the need of making certain units perform as they should, when they should. And more important is the great playability feeling you get from this scenario. No chrome, that's right. But the wounderfull felling of units (or formations) acting as we historically expected them to do during the various moments of the war. It's not only the shock bonus/penalties which are determinant. The unit's available equipment at a given time is also very important.
Adding to this the complex but incredibly sucessful forces' inventory and replacements timetable which gives the player the true feeling of an accurate resources situation of the different powers through out the war. A true gem in strategical simulation terms.

When you speak of "historical nonsense" refering to EA i can only guess you're not familiar with this scenario.

 

[Ruppich]

When you speak of "historical nonsense" refering to EA i can only guess you're not familiar with this scenario.

Or mabybe its my personel opinion?

The threadstarter wanted a suggestion which scenario to start/play. i gave him a hint. if he wants the total historical correctnes maybe EA is not the wright for him.
Why u hijack this thread with bashing my scenario knowledge?? Trolling?

 

[Secadegas]

Trolling?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[sealclubber]

Opponent found. This thread will self-destruct in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
------------------

I'm looking for an experienced opponent with a reasonable turn rate. I will see the game through to the end unless we mutually agree otherwise.

Eastern Front:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3238859

EA2012:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?105538-Ea-2012

I'll take any side. I'm open to other scenarios where both sides get to attack/defend, but I don't like scenarios where turns take hours to complete or pure grinders (WW1). Europe Aflame, as I remember it, is getting close to my limit in terms of time spent per turn.

Well that was a total bust.

So I'm now looking for a game of EA 1942 or Eastern Front 1941-1945. I'll play either side. Sames conditions as the quote except one new condition:

Anybody except Secadegas.

 

[Secadegas]

Anybody except Secadegas.

Damn!!

I could really use a new EF 41-45 game... well, win some, lose some...

 

[sealclubber]

Damn!!

I could really use a new EF 41-45 game... well, win some, lose some...

So.... you flake out of a game without saying anything, don't reply to my e-mail trying to figure out what's going on (while posting on this forum about how you've played this scenario, evidently with someone else, 1.5 times since agreeing to a game but then flaking out) and don't seem to think the courtesy of a "hey I decided to play someone else" is worth the 10 seconds it takes to send... but when I post your name on the forum you respond immediately.

Speaks for itself, really.

 

[Secadegas]

No, sorry. It doesn't speak for myself...

I never received your e-mail (or PM). However i checked adress and jrrusso at mail dot telepac dot pt is ok.
I understand you think is unpolite not replying you but i couldn't since i was unaware of your message.

I always reply fast (well, so far...) and i don't remember which was the game i flaked. What I remember is considering EF a very sound design effort. Still do.

As i told earlier i have some ongoing EA's. Meanwhile i tested EF (twice - 20ish turns both sides) with same opponent i was already playing one of EA games.

I hope you accept explanation and i believe you agree there is no point in continuing this "personal issue" in the forum.

 

[sealclubber]

No, sorry. It doesn't speak for myself...

I never received your e-mail (or PM). However i checked adress and jrrusso at mail dot telepac dot pt is ok.
I understand you think is unpolite not replying you but i couldn't since i was unaware of your message.

I always reply fast (well, so far...) and i don't remember which was the game i flaked. What I remember is considering EF a very sound design effort. Still do.

As i told earlier i have some ongoing EA's. Meanwhile i tested EF (twice - 20ish turns both sides) with same opponent i was already playing one of EA games.

I hope you accept explanation and i believe you agree there is no point in continuing this "personal issue" in the forum.

Fair enough - if you just didn't get my e-mails then I apologize for my last post. I have a few e-mails sent to that e-mail address with no bounce backs and I guess I'm just assuming the worst. I recently had someone just bail on a PBEM for another wargame 13-months in as soon as the tide turned against him without the courtesy of at least an e-mail to say he lost interest in the game, which is disappointing but understandable. Meanwhile he's continuing to post on the public forum for that game but totally ignoring my communications.

 

[Secadegas]

as soon as the tide turned against him without the courtesy of at least an e-mail to say he lost interest in the game

Unfortunately at some time most of us had similar experiences.

I invite you to continue contacts "under the sheets" :devious:

 

[sealclubber]

Alright, I have games of Eastern Front as Axis and Allies and a game of Europe Aflame as Axis. Looking to round that out with a game of Europe Aflame as the Allies for any takers... experienced players with reasonable turn rates please.

Secadegas restriction removed .

Alternately, I'm willing to play smaller/shorter scenarios with anyone of any experience level or turn rate. Open to suggestions.

 

[sealclubber]

Still looking for a game of Europe Aflame 2012 on v3.4 as Allies with an experienced player. Experienced does not mean the best player ever. All I'm looking for is a committed player who isn't new to the scenario or the game since this is such an involved scenario.

I understand the attack is a lot more difficult in this version. I'm willing to implement an honour rule where Ignore Losses is not permitted on any unit in Fortified status (or not, up to you), with the exception of any nation capital or other highly strategic hexes (we can define that before our game). Is TOAW 3 really dead??? It should not be this hard to find an opponent for this scenario!

 

[Mark Stevens]

Sealcubber I've not played this for a while, do you fancy a crack at it? Either side, I can promise an average of a turn a day, might miss a weekday but will make it up at the weekends. Willing to play on until the end, you choose to stop, or I die.

Can you contact me directly on markterencedotstevensatntlworlddotcom so we can decide about any restrictions etc?

Cheers

 

[Mark Stevens]

Should have specified EA!

 

[Mark Stevens]

Just like to add my pitiful whine to all the rest moaning about the effects of 3.4 on defense. I've been tending to play pre-WWI and other funny scenarios for quite a while now. I've seen the debate here and on Matrix, but didn't really take it in. Now admittedly I've never been a master player, but in this EA game against Mr Clubber it's turn 16 and I've taken Poland: taken Denmark: failed in an assault on Norway, failed to take Holland or Belgium (which mobilised when the Western Allies declared war) and have just about driven the French back across their border. The Finns are crumbling and I've lost Persia. I've taken 30+k HRS losses and am not especially confident of taking Paris, let alone attacking the Balkans or the USSR. The patch really has swung things in WWII games in favour of the defense, hasn't it?

Even Mr C reckons that a decent Axis player might do best just to advance to a defensible river line in Russia and dig in, hoping that the Red Army will bleed itself to death in fruitless assaults.

This certainly isn't the scenario that Ulver and I, with help from countless others, designed over the years.

 

[Mark Stevens]

So upset I accidentally posted this twice!