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  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/1/2016 3:22:16 PM   
cfinch

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/9/2016
Status: offline 		fwiw - i thought only bad roll was DX (or AX) in which case you just let other player choose effectively 'fixing' the roll.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 61
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/1/2016 4:16:14 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Japanese are doing several ground strikes. The Chinese fighter can fly over it's own hex, assuming it did not fly CAP (email question - assumption being no, if it did, then myhttp://www.matrixgames.com/forums/post.asp?do=reply&messageID=4109144&toStyle=tm# ground strike flights may change). Do you want it to fly defending Chiang?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to cfinch)
Post #: 62
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/1/2016 5:46:34 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Yes to Chinese fighter flying to defend Chaing against Ground Strikes. Rebase Chinese fighter in hex, China[87, 136].

Also, the Poles choose assault on all land combats this impulse. Any results calling for less losses than units attacked chose the least important ones first to destroy.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/1/2016 5:57:01 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 63
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:25:37 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Getting a bit done before my guest awake this morning.

Chinese AA combat.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 64
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:30:26 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Lodz Ground Strike




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 65
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:30:57 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Warsaw Ground Strike




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 66
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:31:04 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Getting a bit done before my guest awake this morning.
Looks like no rebasing necessary for the Chinese fighter.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 67
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:49:29 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Where would you like surviving Polish naval units to flee?

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 68
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 2:57:47 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Where would you like surviving Polish naval units to flee?

Scapa flow.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 69
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 3:31:16 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Polish CA escapes to Scapa Flow, however the convoy was sunk on way out of port.
German Attack on Krakow was a full success. And is to be followed up by two other attacks.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 70
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 3:34:26 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Poznan is another success.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 71
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 3:37:44 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		And the hat trick was completed north of Warsaw.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 72
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 3:46:42 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Below is not an issue at the moment. Is their an explanation on why the reorg cost for the Harbin Terr is 4? Japanese took a combined, so I was expecting to see it cost 2.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 73
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 4:12:27 PM   
Mayhemizer_slith


Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Did you choose land action, combined or naval?

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 74
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 5:51:43 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Below is not an issue at the moment. Is their an explanation on why the reorg cost for the Harbin Terr is 4? Japanese took a combined, so I was expecting to see it cost 2.



The Harbin TERR is not a Japanese unit, it is a Manchurian unit. For a Japanese HQ to reorganize it costs double. As the Japanese took a combined, this is doubled a second time to four.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 75
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 9:28:19 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2.

France & CW take navals. China takes a land. USSR & USA take combines.

The CW decides to use 2 of their 3 air missions for (surprise) port strikes. The first one is against Keil.

Keil (surprise) Port Strike.

I made the "minor" decision for you NOT to commit your subs at Keil. I hope this is ok and I hope we can make minor decisions such as these for the non-phasing player in order to speed up play.

Back to the Kiel port strike. The RAF bombers got through and did surprise the KM. However, their bombs were much less effective than I had hoped.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2016 9:31:43 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 76
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 9:30:37 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. Rostock (surprise) Port Strike.

Again, RAF bombers get through and surprise the KM at Rostock. And again, the bombers are less effective than hoped.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 77
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/2/2016 10:53:59 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		QUESTION: Does the Luftwaffe wish to intercept the Polish bomber flying a ground strike mission on the units in Krawkow, Poland? The Polish fighter is flying escort.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2016 11:43:09 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 78
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 1:17:21 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Fine with the minor decisions (or really obvious). Yes intercept the Polish bomber.

I'm ok with 2.2.5 I really don't expect the loss issues with invasions or paradrops to raise it's head early in this game.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 79
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 1:32:41 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. Polish Ground Strike.

I'm sorry, but a great result for the Poles.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 80
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 1:34:10 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. French Ground Strike.

Sorry again, a great result for the French.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 81
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 1:35:10 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. French Ground Strike #2.

The allied ground strikes were embarrassingly effective.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 82
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 1:36:34 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. Baltic. French Subs.

I doubt this makes up for the allies good luck with the ground strikes, but French subs were embarrassingly ineffective in the Baltic.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 83
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 2:25:11 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. ChiComm. China Sea.

Why is there a Japanese invasion force in the China Sea? The Philippines? Given that Japan can't DOW the Soviet Union for a year what else is there for the Japanese to invade? Unless Pat is just transporting these units to reinforce the Japanese in China.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 84
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 2:35:30 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. Nationalist Chinese.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 85
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 2:36:36 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. Poland. USSR.

The Soviets claim both Eastern Poland and the Baltic States. This actions empties the USA Germany/Italy entry pool. That is, two chits were pulled, one for each claim.

By the way, the Polish fighter flew into Eastern Poland and was interned (I hope) when the Soviets claimed Eastern Poland. The Polish bomber didn't have the legs to make it into Eastern Poland. I put in place that I hope inconveniences the Germans if they wish to overrun him. I pretty sure he would be a dead man if he went back to Warsaw. But, maybe this was a boneheaded rebasing decision on my part?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/3/2016 2:42:09 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 86
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 2:37:13 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. France. CW.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 87
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/3/2016 2:37:45 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 1. Sep/Oct 1939. Allied #2. USA HQ Reorg.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 88
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/7/2016 1:13:07 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		ND39 - Impulse 3 - Axis
Storms of the century approach and cover Europe and the globe. This puts a stop to many potential actions, but the push in Poland will continue.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 89
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 7/7/2016 1:18:07 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Here are the results of two attacks in Poland. Rousing successes, though the luck was not great it was good enough.

Pat




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.719