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 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:12:41 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

2nd round in the N. Atlantic ends on a 8, and 9.

Aborted CPs in the North Atlantic go to Plymouth.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 331

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:13:48 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

aborting the 3 CP to Liverpool. If you have an issue let me know.

Liverpool fine too.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 332

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:23:04 AM

ashkpa

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

Onto CSV, contact made. CW has 3 surprise points. They can be applied to lower the impact on the CW to ne, or raised to give the Italians 2A (along with the A on the CW CA). Choice?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 333

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:34:12 AM

rkr1958

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

Raise it to 2A's against the Italian subs. No matter the result the CW will stay.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/19/2016 3:37:22 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 334

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:51:02 AM

ashkpa

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

Here are the results of rnd 1. Round 2 nearly occurred. Axis rolled a 3 to the allies 10. So close to glory, but they sailed right passed it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 335

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:51:42 AM

ashkpa

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

You can initiate in the Italian Coast against the 1 CP. I'm assuming you will.

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 336

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:54:37 AM

ashkpa

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

Both rolled 5's. No contact - barely.

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 337

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 3:57:22 AM

ashkpa

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

Strat Bombing Lyon was again successful, though just short of last turns result. They must be keeping the lights on for us :-)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 338

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 4:00:39 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Strat Bombing Lyon was again successful, though just short of last turns result. They must be keeping the lights on for us :-)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 339

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 4:10:12 AM

ashkpa

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

Here are the results of the 5 ground strikes (3 in France/Belgium and 2 in China).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 340

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 4:54:50 AM

ashkpa

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

FR can support the defense versus the Ardennes attack (adds 0.75 if it gets through).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 341

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 4:59:54 AM

rkr1958

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

No on the French flying defensive ground support.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 342

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 5:02:53 AM

ashkpa

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

Here are the US entry results for JP entry into Chinese cities. For a while I thought the die roller was broken.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 343

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 5:05:48 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Here are the US entry results for JP entry into Chinese cities. For a while I thought the die roller was broken.

China lost 4 cities this impulse. That's a bit depressing.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 344

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 5:05:55 AM

ashkpa

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

You get a choice on the attack on Chiang. Also on the attack on the corp nearby and in Belgium.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 345

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 5:07:41 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

You get a choice on the attack on Chiang. Also on the attack on the corp nearby and in Belgium.

(1) Chiang, Blitz.

(2) Adjacent Chinese Army, Assault.

(3) Belgium, Blitz.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 346

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/19/2016 5:24:45 AM

ashkpa

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

I think there is a problem here. I got a net 18 versus Chiang on the Blitz results in a retreat. I set the order so Chiang would retreat last, thinking he would be left alone two hexes away from the battle, but instead he program states he is eliminated? Is this correct (experts please weigh in). In the retreat we get to point 4, it should go to that hex, then the last paragraph should have it continue retreating I thought.

From RAW 7
If a unit could retreat into several hexes, you must retreat it according to these priorities:
1. a hex not in an enemy ZOC and not causing over-stacking.
2. a hex not in enemy ZOC and causing over-stacking.
3. a hex in an enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and not causing over stacking.
4. a hex in enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and causing over stacking.
Destroy a unit if it can�t retreat under any of these priorities.
If the unit ends in a hex which is still to be attacked, or where it is overstacked, continue retreating the unit according to the same priorities (or destroy it if this is not possible).

I am going to give this discussion some time to resolve. So, I probably will not complete this turn till my Tuesday evening (busy all day Tuesday).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 7/19/2016 5:28:02 AM >

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 347

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 6:12:15 AM

ashkpa

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

After listening to the responses on the Tech Forum, it was not completely clear what is correct. Ronnie and I decided to keep Chiang alive. I ran though the attacks in the order I originally planned, so that we get get the result on the single corp to the SE of Chiang. I then redid the attacks in the opposite order, with the same net impact has if I had the first time through. The results below are the first time through results and the next post is the second time through, where we believe Chiang will have a retreat path.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 348

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 6:13:15 AM

ashkpa

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

Here are the results the second time through (had to modify the attack role on the first attack to get the same result as the post above).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 349

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 6:22:06 AM

ashkpa

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

And here is the Belgium attack. (All three attacks, rolled 8's)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 350

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 6:25:55 AM

ashkpa

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

Turn does not end.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 351

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 6:28:14 AM

ashkpa

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

And the weather roll for impulse 11 (rolled 1, modified to a 2).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 352

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 1:08:23 PM

rkr1958

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

Pat,

I got your turn and will play my impulse this evening. I can't remember with units should or shouldn't be disorganized.

(1) Should the Italian sub left off Cape St. Vincent be disorganized?

(2) What about the Italian sub left in the North Atlantic?

I believe both these units should be disorganized and I wanted confirm with you before using the debug tool to do so.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/20/2016 1:17:02 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 353

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/20/2016 4:59:47 PM

ashkpa

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

All of my subs have been used.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 354

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/21/2016 1:10:07 AM

rkr1958

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

JF40. Allied #11. Actions.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 355

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/21/2016 1:15:51 AM

rkr1958

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

JF40. Allied #11. RAF/RN Port Strike Keil.

QUESTIONS: The CW is attempting a port strike against the German fleet at Keil. The strike is being conducted by a carrier based Swordfish and an RAF Harrow (0.5(1) Air to sea). The CW has a Gladiator fighter in reserve. The Germans could intercept with their He 112.

1. Do you wish to intercept?

2. How would you like to use surprise points if the searches go your way?

3. If the strike proceeds, would you wish to commit your subs? I assume no, thought I'd ask.

4. What would be your preferred order for damage including air to air and any damage inflicted by the Germans in that phase?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 356

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/21/2016 2:05:31 AM

ashkpa

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

With the most recent post on the Tech Forum, Ronnie and I decided to go back and correct the game so that Chiang is destroyed. Here is the Chinese situation.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 357

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/21/2016 2:07:53 AM

ashkpa

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

quote:

QUESTIONS: The CW is attempting a port strike against the German fleet at Keil. The strike is being conducted by a carrier based Swordfish and an RAF Harrow (0.5(1) Air to sea). The CW has a Gladiator fighter in reserve. The Germans could intercept with their He 112.

1. Do you wish to intercept?

2. How would you like to use surprise points if the searches go your way?

3. If the strike proceeds, would you wish to commit your subs? I assume no, thought I'd ask.

4. What would be your preferred order for damage including air to air and any damage inflicted by the Germans in that phase?

1. no intercept.
2. avoid combat, reduce damage
3. do not commit the subs
4. Sch-Hos first, Admirmal Hipper second. Everything possible on Sch-Hos even if already damaged.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 358

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/21/2016 2:13:38 AM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:

QUESTIONS: The CW is attempting a port strike against the German fleet at Keil. The strike is being conducted by a carrier based Swordfish and an RAF Harrow (0.5(1) Air to sea). The CW has a Gladiator fighter in reserve. The Germans could intercept with their He 112.

1. Do you wish to intercept?

2. How would you like to use surprise points if the searches go your way?

3. If the strike proceeds, would you wish to commit your subs? I assume no, thought I'd ask.

4. What would be your preferred order for damage including air to air and any damage inflicted by the Germans in that phase?

1. no intercept.
2. avoid combat, reduce damage
3. do not commit the subs
4. Sch-Hos first, Admirmal Hipper second. Everything possible on Sch-Hos even if already damaged.