Last nights battle replay

ZZR1100

this is last night replay. we lost all our IS7s (not good, locked)
We did as we were told and pushed the center and were caught in a crossfire. this tactic always fails unless the enemy camps. we always beat the enemy when they do this by pushing north and spotting from Daves rock.

we were then more or less giving out to for playing badly and losing so many tanks after the battle by a DC who wasnt even in the battle. the same DC who called the tactic after it was decided Paddy would lead.
leave the tactics to guy who is field commander imo and informed constructive criticism is fine, but accusing people of just playing badly is not helpfull.

https://rapidshare.com/files/817366853/20120323_2102_ussr-IS-7_el_hallouf.wotreplay

Nody

If you don't have enough guts to name people then don't mention it Fragit.

What I said last night was that losing 6 IS-7s is never acceptable and I stand by that. It does not matter if it is Dublin, myself, Bruffio or God himself leading but we simply can not afford to lose 17% of all our IS-7s for 8 days as it currently stands. That does not mean we're not going to lose as many or more again but finding it acceptable losses? Nope, sorry I can't say that it is.

If you want me to pick on how the battle was executed (as I did not comment on how the tactic was executed during the game) I'm more then happy to do so. I'll also happily take the blame for the tactic as I also called out that they may rush (they did) due to failing to defend on El Haluf twice. If you want to blame someone go right ahead; I'm used to it but that will not change the fact that I'll never accept 6 IS-7 loss as acceptable (short of playing the likes of Pirates fielding a T10 team) with the numbers we currently field.

ZZR1100

Nody wrote: »

If you don't have enough guts to name people then don't mention it Fragit.

What I said last night was that losing 6 IS-7s is never acceptable and I stand by that. It does not matter if it is Dublin, myself, Bruffio or God himself leading but we simply can not afford to lose 17% of all our IS-7s for 8 days as it currently stands. That does not mean we're not going to lose as many or more again but finding it acceptable losses? Nope, sorry I can't say that it is.

If you want me to pick on how the battle was executed (as I did not comment on how the tactic was executed during the game) I'm more then happy to do so. I'll also happily take the blame for the tactic as I also called out that they may rush (they did) due to failing to defend on El Haluf twice. If you want to blame someone go right ahead; I'm used to it but that will not change the fact that I'll never accept 6 IS-7 loss as acceptable (short of playing the likes of Pirates fielding a T10 team) with the numbers we currently field.

I didnt name anybody, because i didnt want to personalise the point i was trying to make.
you more or less blamed the players for losing their tanks after the battle when in fact it was the tactic cost us the tanks and not "bad" play or lack of skill or not going where we were supposed to.
Tactics work and fail all the time and nobody was going to give you **** about it failing.
But blaming the players because it didnt work is a differant matter and that is out of order under any circumstances

phil3995

Although I wasn't there guys I have watched the replay and honestly we rushed middle they rushed middle there is no way on earth the tanks would have survived once they were committed to the tactic. This kind of **** happens we just have to deal with it. We have seen other clans becoming increasingly cagy lately and we've rolled over them because we just run our tactics the way there supposed to be run.

Losing 6 IS-7s is bad but there's no way on earth you'll ever guarantee minimal losses unless you know what the enemy are planning. In that battle no tank was lost by a single person! In most battles this is always the case. There's no point playing the blame game. I completely agree with this:

But blaming the players because it didn't work is a different matter and that is out of order under any circumstances

It's not going to help anyone and will put players off. They followed the tactic and did there best. We are a clan, we play as a clan win or lose no matter what happens no one person should be blamed.

Live with it, Learn from it and move forward.

mercenary2

If i was told i played bad i know the answer i would give ,its going to happen and not just this time ,do we not learn what happens with the blame game ,,,,havn;t we seen ppl leave in rage over it already

ZZR1100

to be fair Dan never blamed any one person.
but a more appropriate response if he felt that way would be that we need to think about about attacking new provinces when there is a possibility of losing 6 or 7 tier 10s, which of course makes sense. we cant sustain those loses.
on a side note I agree with dan 99% of the time when it comes to tactics and running the clan in general. I just got a little upset at being accused along with everyone else that we lost that many tanks because we must have done something wrong.

and lastly DCs calling tactics and leaving some1 else to run the battle is -EV

phil3995

ZZR1100 wrote: »

to be fair Dan never blamed any one person.
but a more appropriate response if he felt that way would be that we need to think about about attacking new provinces when there is a possibility of losing 6 or 7 tier 10s, which of course makes sense. we cant sustain those loses.
on a side note I agree with dan 99% of the time when it comes to tactics and running the clan in general. I just got a little upset at being accused along with everyone else that we lost that many tanks because we must have done something wrong.

and lastly DCs calling tactics and leaving some1 else to run the battle is -EV

I'm not saying anything about tactics and running of the clan our commanders all do a very good job. But we need to stop blaming people whether it be a single person or a small group it's not going to get us anywhere. As I said learn from it and move forward don't argue or blame anyone there's no point.

Dublin_Gunner

ZZR1100 wrote: »

to be fair Dan never blamed any one person.
but a more appropriate response if he felt that way would be that we need to think about about attacking new provinces when there is a possibility of losing 6 or 7 tier 10s, which of course makes sense. we cant sustain those loses.
on a side note I agree with dan 99% of the time when it comes to tactics and running the clan in general. I just got a little upset at being accused along with everyone else that we lost that many tanks because we must have done something wrong.

and lastly DCs calling tactics and leaving some1 else to run the battle is -EV

Unfortunately Frag - sometimes when a DC or myself can't make the battle, but noone is willing to step up, the only thing to do is devise a tactic and get someone else to run it.

If more people were willing to step up to the plate this wouldn't be an issue (and in fairness it happens fairly rarely).

I wouldn't be so concerned with the loss of the 7 IS7's. Sure, its annoying, but its bound to happen. We won that battle, gained the land, and we have plenty of tanks in reserve, and we aren't involved in many battles as I think we've created a bit of a fear factor for ourselves now.

Losing tanks is inevitable, but we should always try and keep the losses to a minimum. Sometimes this just isn't possible, and **** happens during a game.

Maybe something's weren't called correctly, maybe there was indecision, or maybe the other team were just good

Either way what happens, happens, and all we can do is move on, learn from it if possible, but live to fight another day.

Fionn Mc Coule

Nody wrote: »

If you don't have enough guts to name people then don't mention it Fragit.

What I said last night was that losing 6 IS-7s is never acceptable and I stand by that. It does not matter if it is Dublin, myself, Bruffio or God himself leading but we simply can not afford to lose 17% of all our IS-7s for 8 days as it currently stands. That does not mean we're not going to lose as many or more again but finding it acceptable losses? Nope, sorry I can't say that it is.

If you want me to pick on how the battle was executed (as I did not comment on how the tactic was executed during the game) I'm more then happy to do so. I'll also happily take the blame for the tactic as I also called out that they may rush (they did) due to failing to defend on El Haluf twice. If you want to blame someone go right ahead; I'm used to it but that will not change the fact that I'll never accept 6 IS-7 loss as acceptable (short of playing the likes of Pirates fielding a T10 team) with the numbers we currently field.

ZZR1100 wrote: »

I didnt name anybody, because i didnt want to personalise the point i was trying to make.
you more or less blamed the players for losing their tanks after the battle when in fact it was the tactic cost us the tanks and not "bad" play or lack of skill or not going where we were supposed to.
Tactics work and fail all the time and nobody was going to give you **** about it failing.
But blaming the players because it didnt work is a differant matter and that is out of order under any circumstances

mercenary2 wrote: »

If i was told i played bad i know the answer i would give ,its going to happen and not just this time ,do we not learn what happens with the blame game ,,,,havn;t we seen ppl leave in rage over it already

I will say this, having an opinion is everyone's right, how the opinion is delivered is something that needs to be thought about. DCs are in the positions they are in because they care about the clan and what happens in the clan, as far as having something to say at the end of a battle it should be remembered that everyone in the clan are human and don't take criticism well, its human nature. But arguing over things in the forum is too negative imo. If you have a problem say it to the person in question privately please and don't make a big deal of a small thing in public. Its bad for moral to see clan mates arguing in public.

BIE.Ryaner

I made my comments on this before, but sure, one more time.

Any points on the battle that just happened needs to be noted and delivered at some stage later on, with a bit of reflection, and something constructive in the comments if at all possible.

Having a go at someone who's taking on the responsibility for the match straight after a defeat shouldn't be happening.