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  66 67 [68] 69 70   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 3:57:16 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. Arabian Sea. (Non-Phasing) IJN Attempt to Initiate Combat.

Searches fail to the immense relief of the allies.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2011
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 4:17:51 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR. Rail Blue Factory.

Another Soviet blue factory near the approaching front is railed away.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2012
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 4:51:26 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR Land Combat Attacks (Two). Axis Ground Support.

How do you wish to use your ground support? (The Ju 87D can only reach the north attack. The artillery could support either attack).

What attack CRT (assault or Blitz) do you wish to use for each attack?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/22/2017 4:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2013
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 6:03:41 PM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR Land Combat Attacks (Two). Axis Ground Support.

How do you wish to use your ground support? (The Ju 87D can only reach the north attack. The artillery could support either attack).

What attack CRT (assault or Blitz) do you wish to use for each attack?

This is a high risk move for you.

I believe you have no fighters in range. If correct, the Stuka flies to the northern attack and the ART supports the southern attacks. Make both assaults. If you have a fighter in range, I'll fly the fighter as an escort.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2014
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 7:41:28 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR, Land Combat, Pre-assault Odds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa
This is a high risk move for you.


High risk, yes. In retrospect, I probably should have played an O-chit to double attack factors. But I didn't and these are the final odds that I've got.

To build the drama a bit, I'm going back to watch the Packers and Falcons playoff game and will make the actual rolls, or rather let MWiF make the virtual rolls, at half-time.

This is combat Soviet style.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/22/2017 7:42:10 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2015
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 8:49:06 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR, Land Combat Resolution.

Poor rolling ... and even rolled the dreaded 14 on the second attack.

I did learn something. The assault attack penalty is also applicable when attacking a clear hex containing an armor or mech unit. I "overlooked" that in my pre-assault calculations.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/22/2017 8:50:55 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2016
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:11:17 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR. European Front.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2017
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:11:56 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. USSR. Asian Front.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2018
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:12:30 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. Western Allies. Western Front.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2019
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:13:01 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. CW. East Med.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2020
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:14:12 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #4. CW. HQ Reorg.

Three RAF fighters units are reorganized by the CW. Two in England and one in North Africa.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2021
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/22/2017 9:15:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Axis #5. Weather.

I was hoping for storms in the Arctic and North Temperate but that was not to be.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2022
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 12:09:22 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		That is certainly combat "in the Soviet style." The state of the war is rather frequently changed dramatically on the Ukrainian steppes.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2023
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 12:20:42 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ42 i5:
Germany takes a land while Japan and Italy take combined actions.
Italy drops the NAV in the E. Med to the 1-box and flies another fighter out to the 1-box. They also use the transport in Sardinia to move 2-divisions to Tunisia.
Japan flys a fighter to the Coral Sea 0-box. Moves a CA to the Arabian Sea and an Amph (loaded with a MAR) and CV to the 3-box of the Bismarck Sea.

Naval combats all resulted in no contact except for the Arabian Sea where I had you avoid combat (image below).
Here are all of the search rolls:
E. Med 8/9
Arabian sea 8/3
Coral Sea 4/8
Hawaiian Islands 9/3
Christmas Islands 7/10

Edit: I did have your fighter fly to the 0-box in the E. Med.

The allies had no option of initiating combat.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/23/2017 2:38:27 AM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2024
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 12:26:33 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Here are the Ground Strikes.
This impulse I am not rolling low in searches or GS. Hopefully that keeps up for any ground attacks.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2025
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 12:32:45 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		During land moves, the Italians overran and captured the FR BB Bretagne (disorganized and out of supply in Corsica).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/23/2017 12:33:04 AM >

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2026
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 2:37:35 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ42 i5 Land Attacks
Wish the first and third attacks rolls had been in opposite order. actually the first could have changed with either of the other two.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2027
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 4:32:18 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. Actions.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2028
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 4:33:41 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USN, Pacific. Contested Sea Areas.

The USN elects not to attempt to initiate combat in any of these areas. The IJN, as the non-phasing player, can't.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2029
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 4:34:53 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USN. North Sea.

The USN elects not to attempt to initiate combat in the North Sea. The Germans, as the non-phasing player, can't.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2030
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 4:36:59 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USSR. Ground Strike. Question.

The Soviets are flying their I-153 as a night bomber in an attempted in ground strike. The Luftwaffe has one fighter unit in place that could intercept. Do you wish to intercept? If so, I assume it must fly as a night fighter?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2031
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 6:57:53 AM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USSR. Ground Strike. Question.

The Soviets are flying their I-153 as a night bomber in an attempted in ground strike. The Luftwaffe has one fighter unit in place that could intercept. Do you wish to intercept? If so, I assume it must fly as a night fighter?
I will not fly here.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2032
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 10:51:16 PM   
cfinch

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/9/2016
Status: offline 		Just to check my understanding please, from this post:
1/21/2017 1:02:13 AM

Odds of 12:13 are 5/6 of the way from 12:18 (2:3 = +1) and 12:12 (1:1 = +2), so the modifier is 1 + 5/6 = +1.8333
Then +5 for disorganized defenders
and +0.5 for ARM div in a blitz
Total is +7.333
=============================
you checked how far 12 was from 12:12 but not how far odds were from 1:1 which is 13:13!

Also, I think you need to check to what % you have progressed from the lower to higher odds ratios (using half ratios = +1 e.g. 3:1 = +6 and 3.5:1 = +7)

For Odds < 1:1 (over 1:1 you can double attack factors and divide by defense factors to get base +DRM) I believe it is correct to calculate as follows:
multiply both attack and defense factors to make calc easier - 12:13 = 36:39

What odds are we "above" 2:3 = 26:39
need 13 to get from 2:3 to 1:1.
We have 10 more than 26, so 10 / 13 = 0.769
So DRM = +1 for 3:2 and 0.769 for fractional (shown normally as 1.769) - correct?

If this is correct then some other calcs until we get <3:2 are
12:13 36:39 (36-26 = 10 of 13 steps to 39 , 10/13 = 0.769
11:13 33:39 (33-26 = 7 of 13 steps to 39 , 7/13 = 0.538
10:13 30:39 (30-26 = 4 of 13 steps to 39 , 4/13 = 0.307
9:13 27:39 (27-26 = 1 of 13 steps to 39 , 1/13 = 0.077
all are +1 with fractional as above

until we reach
8:13 48:78 < 2:3 (52:78) - recalc what are we higher than, 1:2 = 39:78

distance from 1:2 (39) to 2:3 (52) is 13
we have 48 so we are 9 over 39
9/13 = 0.692
So DRM = +0 for 1:2 and 0.692 for fractional

8:13 48:78 (48-39 = 9 of 13 steps to 39 , 9/13 = 0.692
7:13 42:78 (42-39 = 3 of 13 steps to 39 , 3/13 = 0.231

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2033
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:00:49 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: cfinch

Just to check my understanding please, from this post:
1/21/2017 1:02:13 AM

Odds of 12:13 are 5/6 of the way from 12:18 (2:3 = +1) and 12:12 (1:1 = +2), so the modifier is 1 + 5/6 = +1.8333
Then +5 for disorganized defenders
and +0.5 for ARM div in a blitz
Total is +7.333
=============================
you checked how far 12 was from 12:12 but not how far odds were from 1:1 which is 13:13!

Also, I think you need to check to what % you have progressed from the lower to higher odds ratios (using half ratios = +1 e.g. 3:1 = +6 and 3.5:1 = +7)

For Odds < 1:1 (over 1:1 you can double attack factors and divide by defense factors to get base +DRM) I believe it is correct to calculate as follows:
multiply both attack and defense factors to make calc easier - 12:13 = 36:39

What odds are we "above" 2:3 = 26:39
need 13 to get from 2:3 to 1:1.
We have 10 more than 26, so 10 / 13 = 0.769
So DRM = +1 for 3:2 and 0.769 for fractional (shown normally as 1.769) - correct?

If this is correct then some other calcs until we get <3:2 are
12:13 36:39 (36-26 = 10 of 13 steps to 39 , 10/13 = 0.769
11:13 33:39 (33-26 = 7 of 13 steps to 39 , 7/13 = 0.538
10:13 30:39 (30-26 = 4 of 13 steps to 39 , 4/13 = 0.307
9:13 27:39 (27-26 = 1 of 13 steps to 39 , 1/13 = 0.077
all are +1 with fractional as above

until we reach
8:13 48:78 < 2:3 (52:78) - recalc what are we higher than, 1:2 = 39:78

distance from 1:2 (39) to 2:3 (52) is 13
we have 48 so we are 9 over 39
9/13 = 0.692
So DRM = +0 for 1:2 and 0.692 for fractional

8:13 48:78 (48-39 = 9 of 13 steps to 39 , 9/13 = 0.692
7:13 42:78 (42-39 = 3 of 13 steps to 39 , 3/13 = 0.231




_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to cfinch)
Post #: 2034
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:26:28 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		That particular Me-110 model does not receive the Night-Fighter bonus. The orange color of the Air-to-Air combat value indicates it is a Twin-Engine FTR, but the Air-to-Air value would have to be on a black background to be a Night Fighter.

Also the defending player does not make any decision about fighting a night air combat. If the phasing player announces a Night Mission, any interception attempt is automatically a night combat.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2035
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:27:14 PM   
ashkpa


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

What odds are we "above" 2:3 = 26:39
need 13 to get from 2:3 to 1:1.
We have 10 more than 26, so 10 / 13 = 0.769
So DRM = +1 for 3:2 and 0.769 for fractional (shown normally as 1.769) - correct?

Cfinch, you are correct. My error. In the end it made no difference in the result. Once the 0.5 for the ARM-div was added I needed to roll <0.269 and I rolled above that and my previously incorrect calculation as well. This just means I missed by a bit more.

For Ronnie:
You had 13 defense factors. I had 12 attack factors. The two odds ratios that are critical are 1:1 +2 and 2:3 +1.
With 13 defensive factors, it takes 8.667 (8 & 2/3) attack factors to make 2:3 odds. I was 12-8.667 = 3.333 of the way there and needed to be 4.333 of the way there to get to 1:1. So the ratio for the fractional should have been 3.333/4.333 = 0.769
I had kept the wrong thing constant (the attack factors of 12 and not the defense factors of 13).

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/23/2017 11:28:46 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2036
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:31:49 PM   
cfinch

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/9/2016
Status: offline 		original post had calcs for getting to 2:3 at 12:18 but you need to calc what is needed based defenders value of 13, 2:3 on this would be 8.667:13

so basically i found common denominators (e.g. 3x13 so could do the calcs for 2:3 without fractions)
26:39 = 2:3 exact, so then calculated how much of that number the attacker has
in this case 12x3 = 36, so he has 10 "increments" to the next odds level (2:3 or 26:39 until get to 39:39 or 1:1)

The "interval" from 26 to 39 has 13 steps we get a % for each 'step' we can cover, 10 in this case (we had 36 or 39 remember and 10 over 26 - we used 26 to get to base 2:3 odds)
so fractional = steps / interval = 10/13


another example 11:12 also below 1:1 causing manual calculation
2:3 = 8:12 in this case, and our calcs are much simpler
base is 8 we have 11 so 3 over to put towards fractional
interval is 12 - 8 = 4
remainder 3 / interval 4 = 0.750 fractional to get to 1:1 from 2:3 because we are 3/4 they distance from 2:3 (8:12) to 1:1 (12:12)

i was wondering if the rules intended to use the actual % distance from x to y odds or if some other simplification was used...


(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2037
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:34:39 PM   
cfinch

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/9/2016
Status: offline 		cross posted and thanks for confirming (before my second post!) and yes i knew it made no difference i just wasn't sure it was as per rules (see second post)
love the AAR
thanks for that as well

charles

(in reply to cfinch)
Post #: 2038
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:55:56 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USSR. Ground Strike Execution.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2039
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/23/2017 11:56:22 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Allied #6. USSR. Rail Blue Factory.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2040
Page:   <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   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

1.422