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  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:51:54 AM   
ashkpa


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1741
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:52:43 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		7th attack (total of 8 including the one not imaged)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1742
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:57:27 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Here is the destroyed pool after this impulse. One RU garrison was shattered. Both Russian pilots survived only one of the GE pilots made it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1743
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 4:58:24 AM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa



Wow ... I didn't see that one coming. Those Finns just materialized out of thin air. I take it Germany aligned Finland this impulse.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1744
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 2:03:38 PM   
ashkpa


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

I take it Germany aligned Finland this impulse.


Yes they did. I have found myself surprised by the hidden Finn's in the past as well. In my worst case I lost Leningrad to a setup that did not foresee their entry well enough.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1745
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:28:44 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. USA Aligns Panama.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1746
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:34:44 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. Actions.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1747
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:39:05 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. Intelligence Assessment of Japanese Naval Strength. Units in Port.

Before making allied naval moves I decided it was a good time to take a look at the axis naval strength. I must admit that the Japanese have caught the Americans and British napping. Since the surrender of China I really haven't paid that close attention to the Japanese naval buildup. Now looking at, I definitely should have. Look at the number of Japanese carriers! And subs!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 12/31/2016 3:41:04 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1748
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:40:33 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. Intelligence Assessment of Japanese Naval Strength. Units at Sea.

And two more Japanese subs at sea ... as the allies I really hate subs!




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 12/31/2016 3:41:28 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1749
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:42:03 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. Intelligence Assessment of Euro-Axis Naval Strength. Units in Port.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1750
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:43:43 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. Intelligence Assessment of Euro-Axis Naval Strength. Units at Sea.

Good grief ... look at the Euro-axis air strength in the Bay of Biscay. That has to be addressed. Maybe not this turn but fairly soon!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1751
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 3:47:39 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. North Atlantic. Two Axis Intercept Opportunities.

1. (Top) A RN task force consisting of two battleships, one heavy cruiser and two empty transports move into the North Atlantic, do you wish to attempt to intercept?

2. (Bottom) A USN task force consisting of one aircraft carriers, one battleship, one heavy cruiser and three loaded transports move into the North Atlantic, do you wish to attempt to intercept?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 12/31/2016 4:51:15 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1752
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 4:29:27 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. USN, Pacific. (Two) IJN Intercept Opportunities.

3. (Top) The USN moves the BB Wyoming and a loaded transport from Port Vila, New Hebrides into the Coral Sea, do the Japanese wish to attempt to intercept?

4. (Bottom) The USN moves the BB Tennessee and a loaded transport from Pago Pago, American Samoa into Polynesia, do the Japanese wish to attempt to intercept?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 12/31/2016 4:51:37 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1753
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 6:18:43 PM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 16. May/Apr 1942. Allied #2. North Atlantic. Two Axis Intercept Opportunities.

1. (Top) A RN task force consisting of two battleships, one heavy cruiser and two empty transports move into the North Atlantic, do you wish to attempt to intercept?

2. (Bottom) A USN task force consisting of one aircraft carriers, one battleship, one heavy cruiser and three loaded transports move into the North Atlantic, do you wish to attempt to intercept?

No to both. Though those loaded transports are tempting.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1754
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 12/31/2016 6:20:59 PM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. USN, Pacific. (Two) IJN Intercept Opportunities.

3. (Top) The USN moves the BB Wyoming and a loaded transport from Port Vila, New Hebrides into the Coral Sea, do the Japanese wish to attempt to intercept?

4. (Bottom) The USN moves the BB Tennessee and a loaded transport from Pago Pago, American Samoa into Polynesia, do the Japanese wish to attempt to intercept?

Yes to 3 and no to 4.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1755
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:08:16 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied 2. USN Task Force, Polynesia to New Zealand Coast.


The IJN chooses NOT to attempt to intercept the USN task force consisting of the BB Tennessee and the loaded transport moving from Pago Pago, American Samoa into Polynesia. This task force continues on to the 2-box of the New Zealand Coast.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/1/2017 4:29:51 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1756
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:12:06 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied 2. IJN Intercept Attempt, Coral Sea.

The IJN's intercept attempt fails against the USN naval task force moving from Port Vila, New Hebrides and into the Coral Sea. This USN task force continues on and makes port in Rabul, New Guinea.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1757
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:15:03 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied 2. USN, The Marianas and Solomons.

The USN moves two strong naval task forces into the Marianas and Solomons. These two task forces take up station in their respective sea areas but at this time elect to NOT attempt combat against the IJN forces operating there.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1758
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:16:33 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied 2. USN, Coral Sea and Polynesia.

The USN naval forces patrolling the Coral Sea and Polynesia elect NOT to attempt combat against IJN force operating there.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1759
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:18:27 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied # 2. RN and French, East Indian Ocean.

The RN and French navies reinforce the East Indian Ocean and elects NOT to attempt to engage the lone Siam heavy cruiser operating there.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1760
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:24:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied # 2. RN. North Atlantic, Bay of Biscay and East Med.

There are three sea areas in which the RN could attempt to initiate combat against the Italians and Germans. The RN elects NOT to attempt combat in all three.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1761
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:29:45 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. USN. China Sea. Sea of Japan.

USN subs in both the China Sea and Sea of Japan will attempt to initiate combat. The Japanese have three air units which can fly out to the China Sea. One of those three air units can also fly out into the Sea of Japan.

1. How do you wish to allocate these three air units?

2. Standing orders for how the Japanese wish to fight in battle occurs in these two sea areas?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1762
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:31:52 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. (Non-Phasing) IJN. Polynesia

3. Do the Japanese wish to attempt to initiate combat in Polynesia?

4. If so, standing orders for how they wish to fight?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1763
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:36:02 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. (Non-Phasing) IJN. The Marianas, Solomons, East Indian Ocean.

5. Which or these three sea area would the Japanese wish to attempt to initiate combat?

6. (If applicable) How do they wish to allocate the indicated air units to the battle?

7. (If applicable) What are your standing orders for how they wish to fight in each area?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1764
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 3:41:45 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. (Non-Phasing) Italian RM. East Med.

8. Do the Italians wish to attempt to initiate combat in the East Med?

9. (If applicable) how do they wish to allocate the additional air units that could join the battle?

10. (If applicable) What are the standing orders for how the Italians wish to fight?

POTENTIAL BUG: I just noticed that the game didn't give the Italians the chance as the non-phasing player to initiate a naval combat in the North Atlantic. I know the CW added a NAV to the 3-box and, I pretty such the RN/USN added more SCS to the sea area. The Italians do have on organized sub so this may be a bug. I'll do some investigation and post both here and in the tech forum if applicable. If it is a bug, and you would have wanted to initiate combat, which I'm not sure you would, then I can go back and have the allies try to initiate combat.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1765
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 4:11:28 PM   
ashkpa


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

The IJN's intercept attempt succeeds against the USN naval task force moving from Pago Pago, American Soma into Polynesia. This USN task force decides NOT to risk trying to fight through the sea area, is ordered to stop and takes up station in the 3-box along with the USN BB Oklahoma.

Error here. I had said no to intercepting in Polynesia only wanted to try in the Coral Sea.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1766
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 4:14:40 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:

The IJN's intercept attempt succeeds against the USN naval task force moving from Pago Pago, American Soma into Polynesia. This USN task force decides NOT to risk trying to fight through the sea area, is ordered to stop and takes up station in the 3-box along with the USN BB Oklahoma.

Error here. I had said no to intercepting in Polynesia only wanted to try in the Coral Sea.
Sorry, I'll fix.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1767
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 4:18:21 PM   
ashkpa


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


quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:

The IJN's intercept attempt succeeds against the USN naval task force moving from Pago Pago, American Soma into Polynesia. This USN task force decides NOT to risk trying to fight through the sea area, is ordered to stop and takes up station in the 3-box along with the USN BB Oklahoma.

Error here. I had said no to intercepting in Polynesia only wanted to try in the Coral Sea.
Sorry, I'll fix.

You should also be able to continue moving the units if you want. Though if they moved into the Coral Sea with the possibility of continuing, I'd would have intercepted there.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1768
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 4:25:10 PM   
ashkpa


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

USN subs in both the China Sea and Sea of Japan will attempt to initiate combat. The Japanese have three air units which can fly out to the China Sea. One of those three air units can also fly out into the Sea of Japan.

1. How do you wish to allocate these three air units?

2. Standing orders for how the Japanese wish to fight in battle occurs in these two sea areas?

The NAV will fly to the 2-box of the Sea of Japan

The LND will fly to the 0-box of the China Sea.

In both places, if I get surprise and can guarantee aborting or damaging all the subs in that zone I will do so, otherwise avoid combat.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1769
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/1/2017 4:25:49 PM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 16. Mar/Apr 1942. Allied #2. (Non-Phasing) IJN. Polynesia

3. Do the Japanese wish to attempt to initiate combat in Polynesia?

4. If so, standing orders for how they wish to fight?

No, I will not initiate in Polylnesia

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1770
Page:   <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641