RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 2:14:49 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Pat - it's back to you for Nov/Dec 1941 axis reinforcements. When I get the turn back for allied reinforcements and complete that phase what are your instructions for:

1. Axis trade changes?

2. The Initiative?

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1471

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 2:51:11 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41: Axis Reinforcements

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1472

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 5:08:21 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Factory Destruction (CORRECTION).

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Turn 13. Sep/Oct 1941. End of Turn. Factory Destruction.

Pat, I took two actions using my best judgement for you during the factory destruction phase.

1. The Burmese partisan destroyed the Burma oil resource point adjacent to Mandalay. (Lesson learned for me as the allies was that I should have had the Burma MIL unit guarding that oil point and Rangoon.)

2. The Germans did NOT destroy a blue factory in Rouen, France. My rationale for that was that all German factories were producing which includes this one in Rouen so I though it best not to destroy it.

I did the exact opposite of what Pat wished.

So we redid the factory destruction phase. Pat choose to destroy the blue factory in Rouen, France and chose NOT to destroy the oil point in Burma.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Pat - it's back to you for Nov/Dec 1941 axis reinforcements. When I get the turn back for allied reinforcements and complete that phase what are your instructions for:

1. Axis trade changes? Note, the axis will make no changes to lend lease.

2. The Initiative? I will not demand a re-roll and if I win the initiative, I'll have the allies move first.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/19/2016 5:12:25 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1473

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 6:07:16 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Place Units. Allies.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1474

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 6:09:15 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Trade.

Changes from last turn:

1. France modified its agreement with the CW to send 1 non-oil and 1 oil RP (instead of 2 non-oil RPs).

2. The USA modified its agreement with the CW to send 4 oil RPs (down from 5 last turn).

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1475

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 6:09:50 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Initiative.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/19/2016 6:10:46 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1476

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/19/2016 6:10:32 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #1. Weather.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1477

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/20/2016 5:35:20 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #1. Actions.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1478

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/20/2016 5:42:53 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #1. Post Naval Moves. Contested Sea Areas.

1. The allies elect not to try to initiate naval combat in any of the three contested sea areas.

2. Pat, I'm sending you a (FYI) copy of the game file at this point during my impulse to help you answer the following questions.

3. Do you wish to try to initiate a naval combat in any of these three sea areas? If so, which ones?

4. (If applicable) For each sea area do you do wish to try, which unit do you want to use for the attempt? Do you wish to fly any additional air into the sea area? If so, which units and to which sea box(es)?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1479

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/21/2016 3:44:05 AM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

The axis will not initiate combat in any of these zones.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1480

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/21/2016 6:07:05 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Conquered blue factories don't produce, so it's no surprise the Germans would destroy the factory in Rouen.

Also, I daresay the Japanese might be hoping to get their hands on the Burmese oil, so they may not want the partisan to destroy it.

Things look pretty bad for the Allies right now.

Might I make some suggestions with respect to the tactics of naval positioning? (It looks like both sides could do with it based on the screenshots I've seen.)

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1481

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/21/2016 6:17:20 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

I am open to it. Ronnie?

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1482

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/21/2016 11:44:13 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

I am open to it. Ronnie?

Sure.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1483

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 3:11:28 AM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41 i2:
Axis actions: Japan and Germany combined, Italy a land.
Japan moves a transport and Amph and picks is transporting units around the China Seas.
Germany moves sub to Faeroes gap (from Kiel) and will not initiate combat.
Italy moves fighter to 2-box of CSV and German moves some Stukas and fighters to CSV and W. Med.
Below is the current situation for possible combats.
Sub will not initiate combat in Faeroes Gap and I assume you will not either (especially, since I can dive and prevent combat)
Germans will initiate in W. Med and CSV.
You potentially could react a bomber to the CSV, but I suspect you will not. You could also react the fighters in Malta to W. Med. Will you?
I will be reacting out several NAV to W. Med and another fighter to CSV.

Edit additions: The second image is CSV, the third is the W. Med. I will react out the Ju88C fighter to the 2-box of the CSV. I will react out the Condor, He115c, and the Gabbiano to the 2-box of the W. Med. I will also react out the 5pt Macchina and 2 3-range Stukas to the 1-box in the W. Med.

2nd edit. I could only react out 1 3-range stuka (the other had no naval factor).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 11/22/2016 3:41:01 AM >

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1484

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 3:32:37 AM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

In the CSV, the search rolls were 4/6 (I did not react out any of the 3 eligible CW bombers).
At first I thought I found with the 2-box, plus one for CP, and naval air - but I forgot, it needed to be a NAV to get that last bonus and the Stukas don't provide it. So there was no contact.

How will you react the Malta fighters?

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1485

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 11:32:33 AM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

From Malta, both fighters fly to the 0-box in the Western Med.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1486

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 3:36:46 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

The axis find on search rolls of 4/5. Engage the 0-box only with 4 surprise points.
Make it a naval air and use SP to lower and rise the A-A columns one each.
First round of A-A has the Hurricane shot down and nothing else.
I need to leave for a few hours now, if I've not heard when I next get to this, I'll assume the allies will stay for round 2 of the A-A, if you want different leave a note (or we can change later).

Also, If I get through, the CPs will be sunk. Are you going to stay in the zone or abort before the next search rolls?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1487

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 4:43:00 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Might I make some suggestions with respect to the tactics of naval positioning? (It looks like both sides could do with it based on the screenshots I've seen.)

I am open to it. Ronnie?

Sure.

Okay.

Both the Axis and Allies could do with consolidating their fleets when they're at sea in contested sea areas. I've noticed many screenshots where both sides have strings of ships and planes scattered over three or four boxes.

This can be tactically unsound, since it lets opponents who surprise your forces destroy them in detail.

You usually want your forces to be in as few sea boxes as possible in a sea area - a single box if you can manage - so your enemy has to fight them all. Usually, this will be a sea box that your planes can react to.

The exceptions are:

(1) convoy defences in sea areas reachable only by subs or raiders - it's best to have SCS in the 0, 1, and 4 box of convoy pipelines; you don't want to do this in areas in which enemy NAV can get up into high boxes

(2) when you have to be in a higher box than some of your air can reach (for shore bombardment or invasions) - in this case you have your fleet as high as you can get it, hopefully with at least some air cover, and then maybe some ships and your airpower in the highest box it can reach

(3) when you have to carry supply through the 0 box (with a convoy) - in that case you send out a picket to the 4 box and defend with everything else in the 0 box, including FTR

(If both (2) and (3) are true in the same sea area, then your two boxes will be your invasion/support box and the 0 box.)

The side that has air superiority in theatre is less concerned with consolidating, but it's still worthwhile.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1488

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 5:07:25 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Pat,

W. Med - the allies will stay to the bitter end in both the air-to-air combat and additional combat rounds. If given a choice, the RAF will destroy or abort axis bombers.

Well, in the rare case where all axis bombers have either been shot down, aborted or cleared and the RAF fighter is still alive, it would then abort the air-to-air. That is, the RAF fighter will always aborted when there are no axis bombers left to be cleared.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/22/2016 5:14:11 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1489

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 5:28:11 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

I would like to add a number 4 to mr. composers list:

If you move (loaded) TRS in a sea area: always put them all in the same sea box section and always defend them with everything else in that sea area. And again: put a picket in the 4 box.

Concentrate you fleet in one sea box section, to make as good a defense as possible. Don't divide your ships...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1490

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 6:51:01 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41 i2: W Med 1st rnd results
2nd round of A-A also went against the CW, with the second fighter shot down.
AA reduce NAV by 1, with a result of D 2A. Luckily for the axis the damage control rolls did not matter, since there were 3 10's rolled.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 1491

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 7:03:11 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41 i2: W Med rnd 2
Search rolls of 3/2 - both sides find and the Allies have 2 SP. How do you wish to spend them?
-Modify one of your air-air values (currently at +5/-5) [here it only makes since to up yours to -4 - no difference between +4 and +5]
-Modify the AA, currently 8 AA vs 4 planes is -1/4, moving up a column would change to -1/3.
-Modify the A-S column by 1 down, post AA impact. (likely down to X D)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 11/22/2016 7:04:08 PM >

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1492

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 7:16:49 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

1. Use surprise points to modify your attack column post AA down by 1.

2. The CVP will stay until the status of all bombers are resolved.. If given the chance to abort or shot down an axis plane always choose a bomber.

3. Where possible the allies will take aborts and losses to the French ships starting with their heavy cruisers first.

4. All aborted French ships go to Syria. All aborted CW ships to Malta.

5. The allies will stay after this round.

PS, I'll be out for the next three or four hours and won't be back until ~ 5:30 - 6:30 PM (CST).

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/22/2016 8:00:01 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1493

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 8:26:12 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

Rnd 2 results:
Nimrod was aborted and did no damage to the axis.
AA was actually -1/3. Lowest roll was a 5, which I used to abort the GE fighter bomber (landed back in N. Italy).
7 AS was reduced one column for a X D result.
X sunk the Hermes, D damaged a FR CA

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1494

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/22/2016 8:28:29 PM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

3rd round searches of 7/7 resulted in no contact.

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1495

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/23/2016 3:00:10 AM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41 i3: Weather
The fairest weather in over two years (excepting July/August).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1496

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/23/2016 4:29:06 AM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #3. Actions.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 1497

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/23/2016 4:31:27 AM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #3. Land Combat. Kenya.

I'm afraid I let the Italians slip right past me and take Kenya. A Kenyan Terr launches a desperate attack to retake their capital. Though the Italian unit is destroyed the attack fails.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1498

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/23/2016 4:31:49 AM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Turn 14. Nov/Dec 1941. Allied #3. Kenya.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 1499

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/24/2016 5:52:14 AM

ashkpa

Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline

ND41 i4:
GE and IT DOW Portugal. One of the two US entry rolls produced a chit for the US entry pool.

I assumed you'd align to CW. And you have 4 units to set up. At least two must set up in Portugal proper. The others can be set up in other parts of the world - such as the Azores or East Timor.

Where would you like them?