Not many AARs in here are there?

[Doctor Sinister]

I mean to say, AARs don't seem to be posted very often - is that because of the W.A.R.S. thingy?

Dr. S.

 

[ER_Chaser]

nope, it is because except you, most people are as lazy as me ;D

 

[Doctor Sinister]

nope, it is because except you, most people are as lazy as me ;D

Ah! I see...

I feel like posting some of my older ones from the 5th ACG to give everyone a laugh...

Dr. S.

 

[The Purist]

Well,...I posted one for my first CMAK game and am now playong CMAK #2 and CMBB #1

 

[Palantir]

I would suspect the common CM AAR would be like this:

Well it was a QB-
1. I bought some units, and he bought some units.
2. The map was the usual random hodgepodge. :nuts:
3. I setup, he setup. :devil:
4. We both moved, going for for the usual randomly placed 2-3 VF's. :nuts:
5. I lost some units, he lost some units.
6. The guy who lost more units probably lost the game. :surprise:
7. The guy who controlled more VF's probably won the game. :devious:
8. End of AAR.

 

[Palantir]

In truth it's probably like this:

Well it was a QB:
Easiest to play, less work and it's random. Probably because there are not a lot of well "designed" maps out there. Also it looks like players tend to shy away from playing "designed" scenarios for ladder points. Don't know why but it looks that way, maybe fear of getting a lopsided scenario.

1. I bought some units, and he bought some units:
Probably because everyone purchases the "usual" units. How many players have actually bought unique units like a Hummel / Brumbar / KingTiger / etc.? Why make a big deal about common units PzIV, T-34's etc.

2. The map was the usual random hodgepodge:
Not enough designed maps out there, but has anyone bothered to delete the designed units from scenarios and just use the map (good ones) for their QB's?

3. I setup, he setup:
Unless the objectives & terrain are "special" it's a normal setup.

4. We both moved...
Again unless something about the game is interesting not much here to talk about, "I tried to flank him / I rushed the VF's..."

5. I lost some units, he lost some units:
My PzV got him in one shot, another dead T-34, ho'hum.
However- "My fanatical flamethrower dude ran out 40m into the open to torch a KingTiger," now that is news.

6. The guy who lost more units probably lost the game:
Now- My sole Hertzer took out 10 SU-122's- lets hear about that!

7. The guy who controlled more VF's probably won the game:
Enough said. Not too many other variables here.

8. End of AAR:
Unless the game is a designed scenario a players objectives / motivations in QB's are pretty common.

And of course: when you are playing several of those ho-hum QB's at a time and they are just a few in a long line of similar games played & to be played it's just not worth the effort to write up something special for another "common" game. (Note your opponent however may make the game not common at all!)

I believe it takes a good scenario background story and a real "in game" reason to be engaged personally in "this" tactical battle to warrent the energy to write up an AAR.

Notice the remarks in the "Report an Endgame" section, few QB's even warrent a "Good/Bad" comment & if they do it's usually about their opponents good play. Why go on at length about something no one else will ever be able to play themselves. (Too Random).

However, designed scenarios can justify comments and AAR's as you are reporting on a singular game situation everyone can play. Plus your comments can have an effect on if someone else plays it and how well they can do.

AAR's do take time and energy, most players I suspect, like me, are doing good just to have decent time to study & play a turn much less find the time to write about what we're doing in a entertaining & readable manner.

That's why those players that do find that time are greatly appreciated.

 

[Full Monty]

2. The map was the usual random hodgepodge:
Not enough designed maps out there, but has anyone bothered to delete the designed units from scenarios and just use the map (good ones) for their QB's?

I never knew you could do that although now you've said it it does seem obvious.

AAR's, especially lengthy ones, are very difficult to write. Quite often the first few turns are decisive, or are a complete bloodbath, leaving the rest of the game as a struggle to find enough quality units to do anything.

I have written a couple of lengthy AAR's for Highway to the Reich and even there the most interesting part was the planning and the opening manoeuvres - once combat was joined there was little to actually say.

 

[KG_Norad]

Here is an AAR I wrote for a Smolensk 41 scenario. It was short but it did indeed take a while to write and format the screenshots. The longest time I think is fiddling around with he screenshots in photoshop making them smaller etc.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=after_action_reports/pzc_mod_campaigns/yelnya_aar.shtml

 

[Doctor Sinister]

Here is an AAR I wrote for a Smolensk 41 scenario. It was short but it did indeed take a while to write and format the screenshots. The longest time I think is fiddling around with he screenshots in photoshop making them smaller etc.

http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=after_action_reports/pzc_mod_campaigns/yelnya_aar.shtml

That's a good 'un.

Yes, it can take a while to get good screenies and format them, but I think the AARs are one of the fun parts - especially drawing arrows on your map to try and explain how devilishly clever you are. But thenm being an Evil Supervillain, I always get a kick out of giving away my plans to the enemy - so maybe that's just me.

Dr. S.

 

[Fionn]

I must say I disagree.

IMO ( and I may be in a minority here) the essence of any good AAR lies in explaining the tactics used and how the technical-tactical characteristics of the weapons systems employed either drives or allows certain tactical approaches.

Obviously, a game which is "unusual" e.g. a very quick over-run and total annihilation of the enemy or someone trying an unusual tactical gambit, helps but even a "humdrum" game can hold many tactical lessons and insights if it is AARed properly.

Sure maybe you're flanking the opponent BUT why did your flanking manoeuvre work or fail? Did you launch a flanking counter-attack too early so that it hit his leading panzers instead of smashing into the soft-skinned APCs following behind?

Are you using yuor artillery to kill forward enemy troops OR are you using it to harras and delay follow-on waves? Why would that be important? Simple, the former seeks to achieve maximum kills but allows the enemy forward detachment and main force to hit you en masse ( achieving major numerical superiority) while the latter kills fewer enemies BUT allows you to defeat the unsupported forward detachment before the enemy main body enters the fray. Sure, you have to physically fight more enemies eye to eye but you fight them in two discrete bunches. Each approach has advantages in different situations.

So, I would suggest there's a lot to write about if you go into tactical details u know ( the important thing being the need to go into details because on the surface, as was said, most tactics appear pretty similar but when the detail is exposed a lot of intricacy is also exposed). I don't know how interesting people find such types of AARs though but they're certainly the sort I enjoy reading.

 

[KG_Norad]

I have to agree with fionn. Good AAR's are much more then just I killed the enemy on a hum drum map. It is about the process and being there. Like your're getting and inside look into the tactical commanders HQ.

Granted there are poorly done AAR's out there but hell I say go for it. It is a good way for members to participate and I enjoy them.