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  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 5:18:45 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		I'm curious why the CW built TERR. This is something I never do; while some of them are very good, others are literally worthless, and I always know (Or at least I think I do. ) which I am going to pick, and there are always better ways to spend two build points for the CW.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1891
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:21:20 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I'm curious why the CW built TERR. This is something I never do; while some of them are very good, others are literally worthless, and I always know (Or at least I think I do. ) which I am going to pick, and there are always better ways to spend two build points for the CW.
It's those pesky Italians. They're moving all over Central Africa picking off countries at will.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 1892
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:22:19 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Deploy Units. CW.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1893
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:22:38 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Deploy Units. USA.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1894
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:23:00 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Deploy Units. USSR.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1895
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:24:48 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Trade Changes.

1. France changed the 1 non-oil and 1-oil RP to CW to 2 non-oil RPs.


2. The USA started 2 BPs to USSR.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1896
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:25:53 PM   
rkr1958


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

The axis win the first roll for the initiative, the allies are in no position to demand a re-roll and the axis elect to move first.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1897
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/11/2017 10:26:20 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 17. May/June 1942. Axis #1. Weather.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1898
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/13/2017 9:23:58 PM   
ashkpa


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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I'm curious why the CW built TERR. This is something I never do; while some of them are very good, others are literally worthless, and I always know (Or at least I think I do. ) which I am going to pick, and there are always better ways to spend two build points for the CW.
It's those pesky Italians. They're moving all over Central Africa picking off countries at will.

And you won't like this next move. I believe I'll get two more of those countries, including the Belgium Congo.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1899
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/13/2017 9:27:34 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ42 i1:
{Sorry for the delay. I have been sick the last couple of days and only now feeling well enough to continue}
All of the axis powers take land actions (This is taking a risk in the Pacific, but it was hard to ignore the clear weather in the N. Monsoon. I should be able to get a land path to the Burmese oil now).

The axis did fly two aircraft out to zones with allied units. The allies get to decide if they would like to initiate combat?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1900
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/13/2017 10:55:06 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I'm curious why the CW built TERR. This is something I never do; while some of them are very good, others are literally worthless, and I always know (Or at least I think I do. ) which I am going to pick, and there are always better ways to spend two build points for the CW.
It's those pesky Italians. They're moving all over Central Africa picking off countries at will.

And you won't like this next move. I believe I'll get two more of those countries, including the Belgium Congo.



quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

MJ42 i1:
The axis did fly two aircraft out to zones with allied units. The allies get to decide if they would like to initiate combat?
No thank you.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1901
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/13/2017 11:58:37 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ42 i1:
There are three ground strikes, all on the East Front. You have 3 planes that can intercept at two of the sites. I do have counter interceptions possibilities as well as an escort on the southern most strike. Any interceptions.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1902
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 12:07:05 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		The Red Air Force will sortie to intercept against two of the Luftwaffe ground strikes.

1. MiG-1 to [52,54].

2. LaCG-1 to [47,51].

Their targets are the German bombers and will stay until either shot down or the status of their opposing German bomber(s) decided.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/14/2017 12:08:58 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1903
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 12:40:26 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Any thoughts on where to send them if aborted or after the combat is done?

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1904
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 12:47:09 AM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

Any thoughts on where to send them if aborted or after the combat is done?

The farthest hex from the front line either in the woods or stacked with a unit, if possible. Otherwise, as far from the front lines as possible.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1905
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 1:00:41 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Here is the A-A results. I also inserted an image on where I sent your fighters. Both bombers were cleared.

Note, you have an AA gun near the middle ground strike (near Minsk). Do you wish to fire? The lowest of 6 would apply.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1906
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 1:10:01 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		No AA fire.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1907
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 1:16:07 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Ground strike results.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1908
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 2:39:04 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ42 i1: Land Attacks
Here are the land attacks.
Italy one in Tunisia versus the FR division
Attack both of the partisans (one Netherlands and one in France), both at high odds (>+21)
Three on the East Front (image below).
You can provide HQ support as shown by green outlined HQ's adjacent to two of the attacks. Any HQ support?

I will likely fly the fighters indicated over the hexes (might depend on your HQ support and my decision on HQ support - not currently planning any).
The list of all your aircraft that could fly to at least one of the hexes under attack are shown. Will you wish to fly any?

Note, the odds shown on the Riga attack do not include the rail Art that is bombarding for 6 pts.
Also, I am breaking for dinner, so take your time.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1909
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 3:30:03 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		1. No HQ support.

2. My decision on defensive ground support and interceptors will depend on the final odds after any HQ support from you or any ground support.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1910
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 4:02:45 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		No Offensive HQ support.
RR ART bombards. Two fighters fly over the middle and southern hexes (one each as shown in earlier image).
There is a fighter (6pt) that can react to Riga, and an Italian fighter (4pt) that can react to the southern hex.
What will you fly?

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1911
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 5:07:52 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		I will be out early Saturday through mid to late afternoon.

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1912
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/14/2017 2:24:46 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

No Offensive HQ support.
RR ART bombards. Two fighters fly over the middle and southern hexes (one each as shown in earlier image).
There is a fighter (6pt) that can react to Riga, and an Italian fighter (4pt) that can react to the southern hex.
What will you fly?

1. 41:10 (raw) attack. Pe-2, SB-2 bombers escorted by LaCG-3, Pe-2 fighters.

2. 36:7 (raw) attack. TB-7, Ye-2, SB-29k bombers escorted by I-16(17), MiG-1 fighters.

My fighter escort to each hex assumes the axis either having flying or can react with a fighter to each of the hexes. If that's incorrect for a given hex then cancel the Soviet fighter escort to that hex, but I do not believe that's the case?

Let MWiF decide the order of bombers and fighters in the air to air.

The Soviets will target German fighters, their objective is to get as many bombers through as possible.

The Soviets will fight the air-to-air until the status of all bombers is determined OR their fighter cover is gone.

Bombers will return to base to cities behind the front in order of Bryansk, Smolensk, Gomel, Dnepropetovsk, with the objective of 1 bomber per city. Fighters will return to base as far behind the lines as possible. My objective is to get both the returning bombers and fighters as much out of harm's way as possible for the reminder of the turn.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/14/2017 2:28:54 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1913
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 12:09:43 AM   
ashkpa


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

1. 41:10 (raw) attack. Pe-2, SB-2 bombers escorted by LaCG-3, Pe-2 fighters.

2. 36:7 (raw) attack. TB-7, Ye-2, SB-29k bombers escorted by I-16(17), MiG-1 fighters.

My fighter escort to each hex assumes the axis either having flying or can react with a fighter to each of the hexes. If that's incorrect for a given hex then cancel the Soviet fighter escort to that hex, but I do not believe that's the case?
Your assumption is correct. In the two hexes you are flying to, I already have fighters flying.
In 1 above, I found no Pe-2 fighter, so I assume you meant the Pe-3 night fighter (black A-A dot). No other fighter could reach the hex.
In 2 above I believe the SB-29k bomber is actually the SB-2RK bomber.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1914
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 12:18:48 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Ran the first A-A through rnd 2.
In round 1 the allied roll resulted in ne versus the axis and the axis rolled a DX result. I assumed you'd take the front fighter as a loss instead of the front bomber. The loss of the one fighter did not change the A-A delta for round 2 (stayed at +/- 2).
In round 2 the allied roll resulted in a cleared axis bomber, of which there are none. The Axis result again resulted in a DX. I'm not 90%+ certain of what you would like to lose the fighter or the bomber. Per your instructions if you lost the fighter the bombers would abort, so I'm leaning that you would lose the front bomber, but that starts to get expensive. What would you like to do?

{edit: added the 2 shown in bold above}



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/15/2017 2:22:45 PM >

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1915
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 12:43:29 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Lose the front fighter, abort the bombers.

I guess I'm confused. I thought there were two fighters that could escort these bombers. Was there only one?

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 1/15/2017 12:47:48 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1916
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 2:19:39 PM   
ashkpa


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

I guess I'm confused. I thought there were two fighters that could escort these bombers. Was there only one?
There were two. The first one was shot down in round 1. It was also a DX result, but there I was very sure you would take the fighter as the loss. It was the second DX where I was not so sure. (look at the rolls in the lower right of the image above).

{added new image after implementing your choice for the 2nd round DX}




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/15/2017 2:26:25 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1917
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 2:30:59 PM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: ashkpa
There were two. The first one was shot down in round 1. It was also a DX result, but there I was very sure you would take the fighter as the loss. It was the second DX where I was not so sure. (look at the rolls in the lower right of the image above).
So much for Soviet fighter pilots.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1918
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 2:39:47 PM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Missed the image from the second A-A combat. I'll write what happened.
First round (axis +1/allies -1), Allies aborted lead German fighter (still an Italian present), Axis clear RU bomber (RU chooses the Pe-2)
Second round (axis -1, allies +2), Allies have no effect (rolled a 10), Axis achieve DA and RU aborted it's lead fighter (back to Kiev).
Third round (axis -1, allies +1 - twin engine fighter), Allies rolled a 10 again for ne, Axis achieve an AA result (16) and abort the last bomber.
Net 3 gs added to the defenders.
{I have to leave for several hours now}

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 1919
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 1/15/2017 2:40:19 PM   
ashkpa


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

So much for Soviet fighter pilots
actually the pilots survived, but the planes are gone. Perhaps they'll get more training now

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 1/15/2017 2:41:03 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 1920
Page:   <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   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

0.893