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 73 74 [75] 76 77 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 6:41:53 AM

ashkpa

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

The Solomons, 2nd image. The Idaho was damaged and the CP was aborted.

With fighters still in the 3-box, the allies stayed for round 2. This time with rolls of 8/9 the combat was broken off.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 2/19/2017 6:42:30 AM >

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2221

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 6:51:37 AM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i5 Naval Combats. The last searches are in Polynesia. First round rolls of 4/4 mean one of the subs find and engages in a submarine combat with 3 surprise points. Use two points to lower the ASW to ne. The CP is sunk with the D.

In round 2, search rolls of 10/5 break off the combat.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 2/19/2017 6:52:00 AM >

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2222

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 6:53:22 AM

ashkpa

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

Well, impulse 5 naval combats were much more interesting, and to the axis favor, than impulse 3 naval combats. Time for bed now and back to this tomorrow.

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2223

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 10:41:59 PM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i5: Axis Ground Strike.
Apparently the Japanese need to improve their carrier crews ability to find land targets.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 2/19/2017 10:42:17 PM >

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2224

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 10:43:41 PM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i5: Axis Land Attacks.
Only four land attacks declared, all in North Central Russia.
No axis planes flew support, nor was there any GE HQ support. There are two axis fighters that could intercept the 2 southern most attacks.
Do the Russians wish to fly support?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ashkpa -- 2/19/2017 10:44:49 PM >

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2225

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/19/2017 10:55:33 PM

rkr1958

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

No ground support.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2226

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 12:06:28 AM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i5 Land Attack Results
First of two images.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2227

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 12:06:58 AM

ashkpa

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

2nd image

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2228

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:08:10 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. Actions.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2229

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:09:22 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. Atlantic, Med. Contested Sea Areas.

Allies - no combat, axis - no opportunity to try.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2230

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:10:20 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. USN. Pacific. Contested Sea Areas.

USN - no combat, IJN - no opportunity to try.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2231

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:14:21 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. CW. Libya, Egypt and East Med.

Last impulse the Japanese were able to put all of the allies in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO) out of supply by sinking both allied convoys in the Arabian Sea. What has Hitler promised Tojo for such cooperation?! No matter, Churchill orders the RN to reestablish this vital supply line at any cost.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/20/2017 6:17:23 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2232

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:22:59 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. Azanian Sea. IJN Intercept Attempt.

In response to PM Churchill's orders the RN sends an unarmed, unescorted transport from its port at Majuaga, Madagascar into the Azanian Sea.

I made the assumption, or call, that the Japanese would wish to try to intercept the transport. The intercept attempt fails and the transport moves into the Arabian Sea and ...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2233

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:24:14 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. CW. East Med.

... momentarily at least, reestablishes supply to allied forces in the MTO.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2234

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:42:50 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. RN. Azanian Sea.

The allies choose not to try to initiate combat in the Azanian Sea. The Japanese should, if they wish, have the opportunity, however, MWiF doesn't give them the chance as I found out later.

1. Would you like to attempt to initiate? If so, I'll initiate with the allies and "reorganize" that unit

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/20/2017 6:52:32 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2235

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 6:46:35 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. RN. Arabian Sea.

The RN also sends a CP and heavy cruisers to join the RN transport in the Arabian Sea. The RN chooses not to try to initiate combat. 2. I assume you'd wish to try. If so, the Japanese have one plane that can react. Do you wish to react with the plane and, if so, where?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/20/2017 6:48:41 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2236

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 7:16:18 PM

ashkpa

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

quote:

The allies choose not to try to initiate combat in the Azanian Sea. The Japanese should, if they wish, have the opportunity, however, MWiF doesn't give them the chance as I found out later.

1. Would you like to attempt to initiate? If so, I'll initiate with the allies and "reorganize" that unit

I don't think I have the option. You moved a unit through the area, but at this point no new units are in the zone (based on your report), so I would not get the chance. If you did leave a new unit in the zone, yes I would initiate and it should be reported as a bug.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2237

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 7:17:40 PM

rkr1958

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

quote:

The allies choose not to try to initiate combat in the Azanian Sea. The Japanese should, if they wish, have the opportunity, however, MWiF doesn't give them the chance as I found out later.

1. Would you like to attempt to initiate? If so, I'll initiate with the allies and "reorganize" that unit

I don't think I have the option. You moved a unit through the area, but at this point no new units are in the zone (based on your report), so I would not get the chance. If you did leave a new unit in the zone, yes I would initiate and it should be reported as a bug.

OK, not a bug then. Just my misunderstanding.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2238

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 7:22:36 PM

ashkpa

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

quote:

The RN also sends a CP and heavy cruisers to join the RN transport in the Arabian Sea. The RN chooses not to try to initiate combat. 2. I assume you'd wish to try. If so, the Japanese have one plane that can react. Do you wish to react with the plane and, if so, where?

No reaction with the fighter.
Use the Nachi (sp? last 4 point CA) to initiate. I will be targeting the transport and then the CP with the goal to destroy/clear them from the zone. If possible it may be best to make it a surface battle and not an air battle.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2239

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 7:40:27 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. IJN, Arabian Sea.

Neither side finds ... phew ...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2240

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 8:27:02 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. USSR, Europe.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2241

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 8:27:41 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. USSR, Asia.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2242

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 8:28:13 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Allied #6. CW. Naval Reorg. Arabian Sea.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2243

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/20/2017 8:28:48 PM

rkr1958

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

Turn 18. Jul/Aug 1942. Axis #7. Weather.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 2244

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/21/2017 2:46:08 AM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i7 Axis:
Germany takes a land. Japan and Italy take combined actions.
First up, a CVP in the Coral Sea port strikes Port Villa and the US BB there.
Search rolls of 5/7 result in the Japanese having 2 surprise points. They are used to move the attack up a column to D 2A.
I missed imaging the damage roll, but it was a 3, and the battleship was damaged.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2245

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/21/2017 3:21:00 AM

ashkpa

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

JA42 i7 Naval Combat.
The Japanese moved a CA to the Tasman Sea and the New Zealand Coast.
The Italians move the Gibraltar fleet (2 BB and a CA) to the E. Med 3-box.
The Axis will not initiate in the W. Med, S. China Sea, The Solomons, and the Mendocino sea zones.
In the Arabian Sea the search rolls of 10/4 result in no contact.
In the Tasman Sea the poor convoys had no chance on rolls of 1/10.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2246

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/21/2017 3:24:56 AM

ashkpa

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

In the New Zealand coast, search rolls of 1/3 result in the Japanese having 6 SP.
They choose a surface battle and use 2 SP to move up a column and 3 SP to choose the first target.
The JP CA takes two A results (passes the first damage roll for a 1/2 A and I decide to have it leave the zone and leave the subs).
The first allied target is the CP (chosen by the Japanese). The US CA makes it's damage control roll and needs to abort.
For sake of timeliness, I'll abort it to Pearl. You can move it later if you wish.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2247

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/21/2017 3:33:02 AM

ashkpa

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

In the East Med rolls of 4/2 result in both sides finding. The CW has 2 surprise points.
It is a surface battle and you could use the 2 SP to move up the axis damage to 2D 1A or move down the allied damage to 2D 1A.
Which would you prefer?
I also assume you will stay for a round 2.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2248

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/21/2017 11:01:24 PM

rkr1958

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

I'll use the 2 SP's to move up damage to axis to 2D and 1A.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)

Post #: 2249

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 2/22/2017 1:59:44 AM

ashkpa

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

Ok, I assumed you apply your results to the weakest (Naval factor units first).
1 CW CA sunk, 2 IT vessels damaged. See image below

Round 2 searches were 4/8 (only axis found) in following posts