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  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 2:39:02 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: Next up is the North Atlantic. The German sub in the 3-box did find and engage the 0-box only on rolls of 4/5.

Based on your decision on the E. Coast, I'm assuming the convoys will stay for rnd 2.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 811
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 2:46:49 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Yes. Same basing priority for aborting CPs.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 8/25/2016 2:48:16 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 812
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 2:51:04 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: N. Atln rnd 2. Searches of 4/10 resulted in the axis 3-box engaging the 0-box and clearing the convoys (X 2A). The axis subs will not be committed in rnd 3 ending the combat.
Aborted CPs will again go to Gibraltar so as to avoid potential combat in the Bay of Biscay.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 813
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 2:53:06 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Sorry, the CPs made it to Plymouth by going around the isles and approaching Liverpool from the North Sea.
edit - initially indicated Liverpool, corrected to Plymouth.

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 8/25/2016 2:55:03 AM >

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 814
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:06:16 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: BoB rnd 1, search numbers of 2/9 results in IT sub engaging the 0-box with 9 surprise points.
Use 4 sp to choose submarine combat
use 2 sp to reduce ASW by 1 column
use 2 sp to increase sub damage by 1 column





Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 815
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:10:50 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		The RN stays the course in the Bay of Biscay. Ready for round 2.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 816
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:10:55 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: Bob rnd 2. Searches were 3/3 resulted in a surface combat. No effect on the alles. The sub took a damage.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 817
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:14:18 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: Round 3, both searches found on 2's. Net is the sub takes another damage and is destroyed.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 818
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:16:48 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		By the way, is it too late for me to change my mind about letting you go first this turn?

7 CW CPs sunk and 8 aborted.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 8/25/2016 3:18:20 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 819
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:34:01 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: GS
France, the FR can respond to the GS on Rouen or Paris with the fighter. Also ground striking Chungking with ART and two bombers.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 820
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:36:29 AM   
ashkpa


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

By the way, is it too late for me to change my mind about letting you go first this turn?

7 CW CPs sunk and 8 aborted.


No way!!!. I have been very lucky recently in the sea zones (starting last impulse in the W. Med).

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 821
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:46:20 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Potez stays on the ground.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 822
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 3:52:30 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: Ground strike results (I'm happy, but I doubt you are )





Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 823
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 4:01:32 AM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa
ND40 i1: Ground strike results (I'm happy, but I doubt you are )






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 824
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:14:08 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Attack Results: Chungking fall, Paris repulses another attack.

{I did check over the weekend, my rolls are approximately statistically correct overall, it just seems that the poor rolls are consistently happening in France.}
I think I would have preferred missing all of the sub battles for one higher die roll on the Paris attack.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 825
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:15:17 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Now Jean Luc can put on his happy face.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 826
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:16:02 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Oh, yes, which unit do you want to survive in Paris?

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 827
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:17:19 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		5-3 infantry.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 828
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:21:28 AM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Now Jean Luc can put on his happy face.

I'm not sure he's ready for his happy face. There's a lot to mull over.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 829
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:22:36 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		By the way, could the USA be any less interested in what's going on in China?!

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 830
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:31:56 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: Two GE HQ's reorganized the main portions of the Paris assault forces.

Europe situation




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 8/25/2016 2:44:40 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 831
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 5:33:05 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND40 i1: China Situation.
Chungking is down. Now how long will it take to move those forces north. A long time in the winter, I suspect.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 832
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 9:31:02 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		I believe that it was a mistake not to groundstrike the stack adjacent to Paris with the Luftwaffe.

Consider this: if the stack adjacent to Paris gets disorganised, no reinforcements can reach the city anymore. Also, that stack in itself can be attacked out of three hexes (not adjacent to Paris). So if that ground strike is good enough, Germany could have blitzed that stack in the open and get rid of any possible reinforcements for Paris, too.

One should always consider the possibility of failure and act accordingly in MWIF. Yes, I know: +15 is a good attack on Paris and chances that things will go wrong are not high. But the possibility of failure is there and one should try to minimize the consequences of valiant French defenders, who decide to fight to the last bullet...

Now, Germany is again faced with a fully stacked Paris and has to start over again.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 833
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/25/2016 2:52:40 PM   
ashkpa


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

I believe that it was a mistake not to groundstrike the stack adjacent to Paris with the Luftwaffe.

Consider this: if the stack adjacent to Paris gets disorganised, no reinforcements can reach the city anymore. Also, that stack in itself can be attacked out of three hexes (not adjacent to Paris). So if that ground strike is good enough, Germany could have blitzed that stack in the open and get rid of any possible reinforcements for Paris, too.

One should always consider the possibility of failure and act accordingly in MWIF. Yes, I know: +15 is a good attack on Paris and chances that things will go wrong are not high. But the possibility of failure is there and one should try to minimize the consequences of valiant French defenders, who decide to fight to the last bullet...

Now, Germany is again faced with a fully stacked Paris and has to start over again.

Certainly a mistake in hindsight. At the time I was wanting to keep some FR forces alive so that they could convert to Vichy. Maybe silly, but that was my line of thought. I prioritized the Rouen (wanted to disorganize the plane) and Paris GS (that worked). Also, I was not expecting to roll a 4 after rolling a 5 in the previous attack on Paris. With the fractional, the chance of missing taking Paris was only 4.5% (less than 1 in 20).

I have been kicking my self for not adding another fighter-bomber to the attack. 2 more points of GS would have made the fractional, which would have given me Paris. There are so many what-ifs.

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 8/25/2016 11:17:15 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 834
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 3:03:46 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #2. Actions.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 835
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 3:08:13 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #2. RN. West Med & North Atlantic.

The RN declines to attempt to initiate combat in two sea areas that the axis (specifically the Italians) can.

1. Do the Italians wish to try to initiate a naval combat in the Western Med? If so, do they wish to add the German NAV, which can be added to sea box 2 and below? The RAF has three planes that they can add. The max sea boxes to which they could be added is shown.

2. Do the Italians wish to try to initiate a naval combat in the North Atlantic?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 8/26/2016 3:10:26 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 836
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 3:24:25 AM   
ashkpa


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

1. Do the Italians wish to try to initiate a naval combat in the Western Med? If so, do they wish to add the German NAV, which can be added to sea box 2 and below? The RAF has three planes that they can add. The max sea boxes to which they could be added is shown.

2. Do the Italians wish to try to initiate a naval combat in the North Atlantic?

Yes.
1) I will initiate in the W. Med. The GE NAV and the IT fighter under it will both react out to the 1-box, joining their comrades.

2) I will initiate in the N. Atlantic as well (both should now be disorganized). If I get the chance with enough surprise points, I may go after the carrier Illustrious since it is alone in the 3-box (it would be surface).

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 8/26/2016 3:25:23 AM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 837
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 3:52:41 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 8. Nov-Dec 1940. Allied #2. Axis, West Med.

Both searches fail, no combat.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 838
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 3:55:20 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 8. Nov-Dec 1940. Allied #2. Axis, North Atlantic.

In the North Atlantic, the Italians subs continue to find and surprise the RN! However, they are 1 surprise point short of being able to isolate and force a surface combat against the RN aircraft carrier Illustrious in the 3-box.

How would you like to use your surprise points? Avoid combat or isolate sea box 0, use 4 surprise points to force a submarine combat and then what?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 839
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 8/26/2016 4:09:55 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		I believe I believe I would have 6 surprise points versus just the 0-box.
If so spend 4 to select submarine combat and the last 2sp to reduce the ASW (which should be 10 factors I believe).
If I have 8 surprise points or more let me know.

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 8/26/2016 4:11:01 AM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   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

1.016