Dorsosh vs Elvis The never ending story

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
I thought it may be helpful to start an AAR thread for the illfated game Dorosh and I started. He quit the game about halfway through so there will be no end of game AAR screen.

It seems that the only files I still have begin at the 35 minute mark of what I believe was a 45 minute battle. I have files going down to minute 23. But that is plenty of time to show the condition he got himself into. You'll find it is a classic example of how sloppy tactics can get you slaughtered. Abuse and neglect of C2 is deadly in CMBN.

We pick up the battle with Dorosh leading his advance in the center with 2 StuGs. There was no recon done at all anywhere on the map. These 2 AFV also think it's a good idea to not only lead the advance into unknown territory but to do so as close together as they can.



On my left he is doing a fine job of using the map edge on his right to protect his advance.

 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I can't 'rep' you on this. But I give it a +11. That's 'Plus El-ef-VUN'.
 
Last edited:

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I think keeping your armour tight is called the POS Stack. Its a tactic that works quite well in game conditions, especially CM-1 games. Im not sure how historical it was though?
 

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
I have learned from various WWII games that you never lead with armour unless you have to. You obviously are posting in hindsight but I would like to note that seeing armour advance alone does not mean that it is alone depending on the game and FOW.

Carry on.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I think keeping your armour tight is called the POS Stack. Its a tactic that works quite well in game conditions, especially CM-1 games. Im not sure how historical it was though?
Armour deployed in platoons for a reason. In tight country such as above - anti tank fire aimed at one tank could be spotted, and a response given, by the other tanks. Radios were usually pretty good for inter-communication within a tank troop/platoon in open country. In dense terrain like the above, I don't know that it would be unusual for tanks to operate in pairs. In this particular scenario, I also didn't operate the AFVs together for the whole game, but you're going to see what Elvis wants you to see.

For example, the image showing the "edge-hugging" doesn't reveal that there is a deep water obstacle - a canal - that has been edited just off the edge of the image, that forces the German to operate within a few dozen metres of the map edge on that side. Rockin'Harry is a talented scenario designer and a pretty good historian, but methinks he's still getting his feet wet with the new game engine, like many of those that apparently skipped CM:SF. Also, for what it's worth, it seemed to me he has American paratroopers fighting for the northern channel ports, which historically they never did. It was imaginative if nothing else.

junk2drive said:
I have learned from various WWII games that you never lead with armour unless you have to. You obviously are posting in hindsight but I would like to note that seeing armour advance alone does not mean that it is alone depending on the game and FOW.
They're not. Incidentally, Elvis has no access to the German game files because I never told him my password, and I abandoned the game unfinished not because I thought I was losing, as he seems to imply, but because I got fed up with his childish conduct on this forum and his treatment of others. He's made it an actively unpleasant place to be, and this is further proof. The last straw was when he started raiding social media sites for out of context "quotes" to use against people in arguments. He's now reaching back months into the past to use prior game files as "ammunition" against people. I think it's a sickness, personally. I mean, I was the one that used to tell dalem to lay off because I thought Elvis was making an effort to fit in to this forum and make constructive contributions. I think you get a truer sense of his mindset when he takes you up on a "friendly game", then a few months down the road starts posting screenshots and commentary about that "friendly game" in this context. But I guess I struck a nerve when I suggested that he's really not that good a player.

I'll stipulate right now that I don't consider myself a good player, either, nor do I pin my sense of self worth on my ability to play a video game. In fact, I'll go on record as saying I'm abominable, if it saves Elvis some effort. I don't think you're going to find much evidence one way or another in the FOW-protected game files that cover 20 turns or so of an unfinished game, but seeing how much effort he's gone to in order to put the spin on the images and presentation so far, I'm sure it will be entertaining.
 
Last edited:

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
For example, the image showing the "edge-hugging" doesn't reveal that there is a deep water obstacle - a canal - that has been edited just off the edge of the image, that forces the German to operate within a few dozen metres of the map edge on that side.
Actually I took the screen shot of that angle because it showed a legitimate reason for you to be there. In the screen shot is a bridge to the right. That is the only way to cross the canal from that side of the map. I intentionally included it in my screen shot to give context. Context is something you ignored when you labeled me as a gamey map edge hugger. I did not ignore it and clearly displayed why you would be on that part of the map. My text may not have pointed that out but the image clearly shows it. In exactly the same way that you disparaged me. You used Cactarus' (Cac, thank you. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised at your good natured spirit in BGs thread) friendly ball breaking as a basis of how I played the game.

The other end of that is how I prepared for the crossing by setting up a MG in a foxhole that was blocked by the bocage and waiting for you to cross the bridge.




The last straw was when he started raiding social media sites for out of context "quotes" to use against people in arguments.
What social media site are you referring to?

He's now reaching back months into the past to use prior game files as "ammunition" against people. I think it's a sickness, personally. I mean, I was the one that used to tell dalem to lay off because I thought Elvis was making an effort to fit in to this forum and make constructive contributions. I think you get a truer sense of his mindset when he takes you up on a "friendly game", then a few months down the road starts posting screenshots and commentary about that "friendly game" in this context. But I guess I struck a nerve when I suggested that he's really not that good a player.
There have no doubt been clashes and I would never try to deny that. But I am very rarely the one that draws "first blood". You started a thread and made 3 very long posts that spent a lot of time calling me a bad player and "not worthy" of playing certain people because of that ability but now that I say the same in response and you say I have a sickness? Plus, you are the one that brought up our game that you quit. That is what made me think... "I thought I was kicking his butt in that game. I know the files are still around...let me look at them again....". Your bottom was getting handed to you. And although you now say

I don't think you're going to find much evidence one way or another in the FOW-protected game files that cover 20 turns or so of an unfinished game
Yesterday you were saying

A quick scan of the threads show references to things like jeep recons, edge hugging, flag rushes - sorry, but he's obviously not any great shakes at playing the game, either - your list of his deficiencies shows you agree - and I discovered that in the few turns I played him as well - again - what is anyone going to learn from reading anything he has to say? And you want to play him again? Live?

What is it? Is someone able to tell without seeing both sides or not? Yesterday you stated you could tell without seeing both sides and now you're saying there isn't a way I would be able to tell.

I consider myself a decent player. Not as good as some but better than others.

Rather than carry on with a time consuming and ugly series of screen shots depicting what I saw, I will end with one quick series that goes to your premise of not being able to tell good or bad tactics because of FOW.

Protection of C2 is vital in CMx2. The life of all HQ units is important and needs to be in the forefront of the players mind. This pile of bodies includes dead from 3 seperate HQ units units, including the Company CO.





 

WBRP

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
690
Reaction score
40
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Armour deployed in platoons for a reason. In tight country such as above - anti tank fire aimed at one tank could be spotted, and a response given, by the other tanks. Radios were usually pretty good for inter-communication within a tank troop/platoon in open country. In dense terrain like the above, I don't know that it would be unusual for tanks to operate in pairs. In this particular scenario, I also didn't operate the AFVs together for the whole game, but you're going to see what Elvis wants you to see.[snipped by WBRP]
I can't recall which book I read discussing German tank deployment (dim memory is whispering Death of the Leaping Horseman) that mentioned that the unit considered the minimum mandatory deployment to be a pair of tanks (the smallest size for a zug). I've taken to thinking of it as Leader/Wingman pairing.
 

Chelco

Should be working ...
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Germantown, MD, USA
Country
ll

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I think keeping your armour tight is called the POS Stack. Its a tactic that works quite well in game conditions, especially CM-1 games. Im not sure how historical it was though?
Armor, just like infantry, has a standing SOP to 'keep your interval'. In the case of the stacked-stugs in the screenshot, they could not cover each other well at all. In fact, since the StuGs used muzzle-brakes, one of them firing would not only blind the other when it fired but could quite easily damage the exposed optics of the other!

StuGs would not lead an attack in terrain like that for well documented reasons. The lack of a turret is probably known by any wargamer. They would be easily forced to button-up and blinded by small arms fire. The need to fire to a target to the side would expose a flank.

It would probably be fair if we knew what other armor is in the game as far as the Germans. If this is the only armor the Germans have, it is not being used historically and it should also be penalized as far as LOS since they are blocking each others sight! Amazingly, the German player is claiming just the opposite!

I have references but I think this one just goes down to common sense and is perhaps just more of the same behaviour that is seen in the past.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
365
Reaction score
34
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Country
llSpain
The other end of that is how I prepared for the crossing by setting up a MG in a foxhole that was blocked by the bocage and waiting for you to cross the bridge.

I'm a bit surprised about the placement of the MG. Could you explain your reasons for it? From what I gather, there's no LOS nor LOF on the bridge. If it was an ambush, I see a problem with that. Imagine some lucky German bursting from the opening isn't killed outright and manages to lob a couple grenades at the MG... that can happen. I'd have set the MG directly on the bocage, with circular target arc of about 100 m or so (whatever needed to have just the bridge within).

Elvis said:
Protection of C2 is vital in CMx2. The life of all HQ units is important and needs to be in the forefront of the players mind. This pile of bodies includes dead from 3 seperate HQ units units, including the Company CO.
Quoted for stressing the point. Perhaps one of the most obscure things in CMx2 are the exact mechanics of C2, the manual is vague to point of wanting me to pull my hairs out :) What I know for sure is that HQ elements destroyed like that are TERRIBLE news for the German force morale. I wouldn't be surprised that German squads and teams started to fail "morale rolls" when coming under fire and just breaking away in Panic. That's an ominous sign, it wouldn't be the first time that I have surrendered a game when I lost control of most my force.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I'm a bit surprised about the placement of the MG. Could you explain your reasons for it? From what I gather, there's no LOS nor LOF on the bridge. If it was an ambush, I see a problem with that. Imagine some lucky German bursting from the opening isn't killed outright and manages to lob a couple grenades at the MG... that can happen. I'd have set the MG directly on the bocage, with circular target arc of about 100 m or so (whatever needed to have just the bridge within).



Quoted for stressing the point. Perhaps one of the most obscure things in CMx2 are the exact mechanics of C2, the manual is vague to point of wanting me to pull my hairs out :) What I know for sure is that HQ elements destroyed like that are TERRIBLE news for the German force morale. I wouldn't be surprised that German squads and teams started to fail "morale rolls" when coming under fire and just breaking away in Panic. That's an ominous sign, it wouldn't be the first time that I have surrendered a game when I lost control of most my force.
The MG is in the default position - he didn't do it, so he's simply lying about using any kind of thought process of how that MG got there. The scenario designer put it there, not him.

This is the default position:

View attachment 34838

The scenario is Fredrocker's "Hold Until Relieved".

I believe it features elements of three (count 'em) German companies both holding a bridgehead and attacking attacking elements of five or six American companies. Over two bisecting canals. With two assault guns for support. In two different directions.

I don't generally complain about playing unbalanced scenarios, because I play for fun. Beating long odds is part of the challenge. Even if one accepts this as balanced (manpower ratios were close - 403 vs 423), I think it is beside the main point.

When I accept games for fun, I don't expect them to be subjected to public AARs after the fact. This one was to see what some of the units could do and make some noise. Wasn't intended to be a tactics clinic.

You see now why dalem, myself and others treat Elvis with hostility. He makes forums he belongs to unpleasant places to be.

The spin on the "pile of bodies" is also amusing, but again, as I stated earlier in the thread, you're going to see things that Elvis wants you to see - not necessarily what happened in the game.
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
People often remark about how 'scary' my memory is. I can recall, with detail, the most silly things and when there is actual proof, I am frequently proved correct.

I recall now that Dorosh has actually done what he is now condemning Elvis for! Except, it gets worse because he also committed the same funky-tactics also!

I recall a case where Dorosh had one of his periodic melt-downs and decided to make a public spectacle in regards to a game where an opponent had quit on him. Yes, this is exactly the same thing we see here! I believe the gamer was a foriegner named Lee or MisterLee or something like that. Anyway, Mr. Dorosh went into quite extensive lengths in this thread and posted screen shots, etc. Exactly like he is vilifying Elvis for!

If I recall, Dorosh had not only decided to use a board edge but also had purchased gamey weapons like 95mm CS tanks and had bunched up his armor and sent them down the board edge! It was actually a POS attack along a board edge. At that time, I was calling for changes in the game as far as the ease at which it modeled attacking. Seeing that thread, it just stuck in my mind just how much worse the advantage an attacker has given a gamey player.

The antics of Dorosh to whine and publically make a spectacle of the whole hobby is quite interesting to say the least. He was blaming the player for ruining his weekend or some such.

Here, in this thread, we see Dorosh as the poor 'victim' on the other end of the stick. It doesn't matter that he publically attacked Elvis first in regards to his game abilities, of course. He has rights, Elvis is crazy, the world is against him, etc. etc. etc.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
365
Reaction score
34
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Country
llSpain
The MG is in the default position - he didn't do it, so he's simply lying about using any kind of thought process of how that MG got there. The scenario designer put it there, not him.
You're right, the LMG is placed there by the scenario designer.

Michael Dorosh said:
The scenario is Fredrocker's "Hold Until Relieved".

I believe it features elements of three (count 'em) German companies both holding a bridgehead and attacking attacking elements of five or six American companies. Over two bisecting canals. With two assault guns for support. In two different directions.

I don't generally complain about playing unbalanced scenarios, because I play for fun. Beating long odds is part of the challenge. Even if one accepts this as balanced (manpower ratios were close - 403 vs 423), I think it is beside the main point.

When I accept games for fun, I don't expect them to be subjected to public AARs after the fact. This one was to see what some of the units could do and make some noise. Wasn't intended to be a tactics clinic.
An excellent scenario I must say. On a headcount basis, however, the force ratio looks to me more like 1:1 (6 Parachute Platoons + 1 Eng Platoons, at start, 4 Parachute Platoons and 1 Eng Platoon as reinforcement vs. 1 full Grenadier Battalion, with 9 Rifle Platoons).

Besides that I see the Germans have much more quality, many of their platoons are Crack with Extreme motivation. Those are truly oberste pixeltruppen, to say the least, Mike. The paras would have a very tough time to overcome those die hard bastards.

Regarding the initial dispositions for both sides, hahaha, Fred is a devious and evil scenario designer. The word that best describes the situation is "utter chaos". I also see both sides to have substantial fortifications (the Germans have three MG bunkers, 2 TRP's, wire and fox holes). No idea what was your plan like, but having your forces to regroup - and baiting the US troops to attack - probably would have meant a good victory to you. Last, but not least, I see the VL to have been carefully designed so that if neither side decided to go on a full out assault on the other side, it would end as a draw.

A extremely interesting scenario, which can certainly be played out in many different ways.

Michael Dorosh said:
You see now why dalem, myself and others treat Elvis with hostility. He makes forums he belongs to unpleasant places to be.
I think Elvis has answered to your Black Friday thread in kind :( You accused him of being a "poor player" and he now shoots back at you. You're right there's here some degree of manipulation or astroturfing - by both sides. I didn't like you used my observations on Elvis strategy on our DAR'ed game as proof to back your argument. I didn't like it because it was misconstruing - or could be perceived so - the reasons that lead me to make those observations. I had promised to Nutter that I'd take a critical look at Elvis' DAR. That certainly enriched the experience, as I pointed in my answer to your thread.

However I doubt this was part of some deliberate scheme to make you look bad, I don't think of Elvis as some sort of "evil mastermind" in the same league as Ming or Dr. Fu Manchu. If anything this is a bit of your own doing, by putting on the table player abilities as a valid topic for discussion in a most ungentlemanly way (in my opinion).

If this is going to become a weird session of live action tactical meta-wargaming, I can offer to you some advice. Muster your reserves and counterattack! If anything, we'll get to some discussion about what works and what doesn't on CM:BN, won't we? I'll turn a blind eye to the personal attacks ;)

Michael Dorosh said:
The spin on the "pile of bodies" is also amusing, but again, as I stated earlier in the thread, you're going to see things that Elvis wants you to see - not necessarily what happened in the game.
Now, what's your side in this story? I'm sincerely interested in hearing about that. I'm not asking for a professional write-up, more about a quick sketch of how the action developed and which were your perceptions. I would be thankful for that. Really.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
You're right, the LMG is placed there by the scenario designer.
That sums up Elvis' credibility as a CM player as far as I'm concerned. Posting images of default set-ups and then writing theses about them - even poor set-ups, as you note - doesn't do anything to convince me of any great mastery of the game; worse, it tells you what you need to know about his need for acceptance.

What you need to know about his validity as a critic of game technique can be judged by this image:



View attachment 34836

From my copy of Panzer Tactics by Wolfgang Schneider. Note the tanks supporting each other in an advance through cover. Looks pretty similar to the screenshot he posted of my StuGs advancing side-by-side. Which he thought out of sorts enough to post as a "how not to". *shrug*


An excellent scenario I must say. On a headcount basis, however, the force ratio looks to me more like 1:1
Yes, as I noted.

Regarding the initial dispositions for both sides, hahaha, Fred is a devious and evil scenario designer. The word that best describes the situation is "utter chaos".
A extremely interesting scenario, which can certainly be played out in many different ways.
Would have been, had we played it through to the end. Which we didn't.

Which is the point. Don't get me wrong, I doubt I would have won, in fact, I'll stipulate right now that I would have lost in brutal fashion, but that isn't the point I'm making here.

I think Elvis has answered to your Black Friday thread in kind :( You accused him of being a "poor player" and he now shoots back at you.
Elvis put up a public AAR with the full knowledge of his opponent and invited public comment. Which I certainly did. I, on the other hand, engaged in a friendly game with him months ago, in all honesty because I thought it would cool some of the friction on the forum. Hard to be mad at people if you're playing games with them. Numberz...one of the former moderators here...used that technique. He had once banned me for calling him an "empty shirt." He was, as a moderator, but we settled into a more or less truce after playing a game and engaging in some idle chit-chat. Couldn't tell you who won or who was the better player. Probably him in both cases because I honestly couldn't have cared, then or now. I do know that the forum became more pleasant, which was my objective, and he seemed more inclined to hear me out on things after that. Couldn't tell you if the game changed that or not, but it didn't hurt.

However I doubt this was part of some deliberate scheme to make you look bad,
There's no way he could.

If anything this is a bit of your own doing, by putting on the table player abilities as a valid topic for discussion in a most ungentlemanly way (in my opinion).
I could have interrupted the DAR at any point. Didn't. I started a new topic after the conclusion and simply pointed out that DARs are largely wastes of time for the reasons indicated there and that a person of your skill should not be wasting that valuable hobby time on a player of Elvis' limited ability. What this has to do with me is unknown. I've already stipulated I don't consider myself part of that equation. I never stated myself to be equal in quality to you, or even to Elvis, and will go on record as confirming that opinion. So what, then, is this thread in aid of? It's grandstanding. And you have not known Elvis nearly as long as the rest of us who have seen him troll and dismantle multiple forums with his childish conduct. It's attention-seeking.

I'll turn a blind eye to the personal attacks ;)
And you'll likely wonder why this forum is so poorly attended.

Now, what's your side in this story? I'm sincerely interested in hearing about that. I'm not asking for a professional write-up, more about a quick sketch of how the action developed and which were your perceptions. I would be thankful for that. Really.
This was a time-waster I picked up for kicks months back in which I mostly just group-moved, hit GO and watched the explosions each turn, trying to set a friendlier tone for the forum. As I said, this wasn't intended to be dissected. It's being done now against my will. I really have nothing substantive to tell you that you could learn from. I'm here to tell you - neither does Elvis.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
365
Reaction score
34
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Country
llSpain
And you'll likely wonder why this forum is so poorly attended.
I'll turn a blind eye to it, if as a side effect something interesting comes up (such as the diagram you just brought on the table). On the other hand, discussing moderation in the way you do, is something I won't never do.

You've got a lot good stuff to contribute, Mike. If you don't find this thread to be the right place, so be it. I'll look forward to that good stuff I think - I hope - you'll share with us all. Even if you dislike some of the people here.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
So did Elvis leave out the overwatching StuG? That diagram from Panzer tactics clearly shows one StuG, in a hull-down position on a hill, being used as overwatch as two StuGs manuver on the flank. The manuvering StuGs interval from each other can not be taken from that drawing.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
From: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand!

You must continually keep a broad interval between vehicles. This splits the enemy's defensive fire and complicates his fire control. Narrow intervals must be avoided at all costs, especially in critical situations, or it will cost you losses.
This is just common sense. It is even modeled in the game since an antitank or other weapon would not have to rotate much to nail another AFV once it has ranged in on one (if they are so close together).

I have been around armored vehicles and SOP was at least 25 meters or more. This is with modern vehicles with superior turning radii. In WWII, vehicles as close as Dorosh has positioned could easily collide in a withdrawl situation.
 
Last edited:

Chelco

Should be working ...
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
209
Reaction score
3
Location
Germantown, MD, USA
Country
ll
Spot on, Nuttername.

Although one must not get carried away with keeping kosher geometric intervals in all situations (METTC anybody?). The happy middle would be to avoid lead and wingman advancing and opening too different battlespaces. I learnt that the hard way in a real armor simulation (Steel Beasts ProPE). Your mileage in the ridiculously tiny battlefields of CMBN may vary. :p

Cheers,
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
61
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
In my opinion, it's undeniable that traffic on this board has plummetted since it was made clear that Elvis and NUTTERNAME were going to be allowed to stay and perform. There's almost never a point anymore except for thewood's efforts. Again, all in my stupid opinion.

-dale
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I have been seeing browser traffic, PMs and emails saying that, of late, this Forum has been not only informative and on topic (discussing CM instead of rehashing the same old whine) but also entertaining and revealing. Face it, there is nothing like a train wreck.

Of course, your entertainment may vary dale. Undeniably.

Myself? I have been hanging xmas lights, light shopping, doody diapering, getting cars ready for old man winter, running a business, seeing people for the holidays (real people), cleaning the house for guests, etc.

I have some great stuff in the hopper as far as reading and I am looking forward to when the other people that actually own the game can share DAR's like Elvis and Geek did.

This forum, unless it gets into playing the game under discussion, lacks much in the way of 'real trafficking value'. That is in my humble undeniable opinion. dale.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top