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  96 97 [98] 99 100   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/28/2017 7:35:49 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Both Red fighters intercept.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2911
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/29/2017 12:42:21 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Ground results. Air-Air cleared the Tank Buster and shot down the RU fighter (pilot survived).
Art missed both of its targets and the Tank Buster hit both of its targets.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2912
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/29/2017 4:47:17 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		There were no axis land attacks. A rare occurrence in a clear MJ impulse.

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2913
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/30/2017 11:52:32 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Actions.

Note that the USA played an o-chit and reorganized all their HQ units.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2914
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 12:10:27 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. USN, Pacific. Contested Sea Areas (The Solomons, Central Pacific, The Marianas). No Combat.

The USA added no additional units to these sea areas and will not attempt to initiate combat.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2915
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 12:15:53 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. USN & RN. The Atlantic. Contested Sea Areas (Cape St. Vincent & Faeroes Gap). No Combat.

The USN and RN added no additional units to these sea areas and will not attempt to initiate combat.

This leaves two sea areas in which the USN will attempt to initiate naval combat. One in the Pacific (Bismarck Sea) and one in the Atlantic (Bay of Biscay).





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 10/31/2017 12:16:16 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2916
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 12:27:47 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Attempted Naval Combat. Bay of Biscay.

The USN is attempting to initiate a naval combat in the Bay of Biscay. The allies will react out one fighter to the 2-box.

Do the axis wish to react out any additional air units?

Instructions for the battle?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2917
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 12:34:37 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Attempted Naval Combat. Bismarck Sea.

The allies choose not to react out any additional air units. The Japanese have no in position that can. So, search proceeds with the allies missing badly (10) and the Japanese finding.

Instructions?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2918
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 2:24:20 AM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Attempted Naval Combat. Bay of Biscay.

The USN is attempting to initiate a naval combat in the Bay of Biscay. The allies will react out one fighter to the 2-box.

Do the axis wish to react out any additional air units?

Instructions for the battle?
I will not react any units out. I will avoid if possible.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2919
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 2:39:56 AM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Attempted Naval Combat. Bismarck Sea.

The allies choose not to react out any additional air units. The Japanese have no in position that can. So, search proceeds with the allies missing badly (10) and the Japanese finding.

Instructions?
The JP aircraft spot multiple ships, but decide to concentrate on the CVs (engage 3-box only). If I will spend up to 8 SP to alter the air-air combat in the following order +1 for me, -1 to you, another +1 for me, and last another -2 for you. I believe I have 8 SP, but not quite sure.

Make put the Seiku in front for the bombers. If I lose (abort or shot down) both fighters and you have both fighters or my lead bomber is not the Seiku, then the bombers abort.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2920
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 2:43:49 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. Allied #4. USN. Bismarck Sea. Naval Battle. Round 1.

It's a disaster for the USN ... the second one this turn. With nothing really left to lose the USN and RN forces stay.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 10/31/2017 2:46:09 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2921
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 10/31/2017 2:52:58 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Bismarck Sea. Round 2. Searches.

Round 2 searches in the Bismarck Sea also go the Japanese way.

Instructions?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2922
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/1/2017 3:43:40 AM   
ashkpa


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

Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Bismarck Sea. Round 2. Searches.

Round 2 searches in the Bismarck Sea also go the Japanese way.

Instructions?
Debated avoiding, but in the end the transport is too tempting.
Engage the 1-box only. Use 2 SP to reduce AA to ne.
Use remaining SP to increase damage and target the transport.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2923
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/2/2017 2:51:43 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Bismarck Sea. Round 2.

Brutal for the USN, but could have been a lot worse. The USN TRS and BB both survived their damage rolls.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/2/2017 2:53:47 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2924
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/2/2017 2:54:22 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Bismarck Sea. Round 3.

The USN stays for another potential round; however, both search rolls fail (allies 9, axis 8).


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2925
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/2/2017 3:00:57 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. IJN Intercept Attempt. The Solomons.

An IJN sub unit attempts, but fails, to intercept the unescorted Yorktown on it's way back to Pearl Harbor.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2926
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/2/2017 3:04:50 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. USN/RN. Attempted Naval Combat. Bay of Biscay.

Search rolls, allies 8, axis 5. Neither side finds.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2927
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/3/2017 2:51:33 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. USMC. Amphibious Invasion of Eniwetok.

Folks this is the USMC 1st marine division! The same division that was featured in the HBO mini-series, "The Pacific".




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2928
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/3/2017 2:52:11 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. USSR. Main Front.

Not good.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2929
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/3/2017 2:53:18 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. USSR. The Caucuses.

I don't know the exact rule but my guess is is that Turkey is REAL close to coming in on the side of the axis.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2930
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/3/2017 2:54:13 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Axis #5. Weather.

Well, I must say that weather roll was a bit of a break for the allies.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2931
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/3/2017 11:13:14 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Germany needs to get 4 German corps units on the USSR-Turkey border. That means the 4-3 Rumanian MTN won't count.

There are 4 German corps that could do that fairly easily, ... if the Russian units would just get out of the way,

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2932
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/4/2017 12:52:09 AM   
rkr1958


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Germany needs to get 4 German corps units on the USSR-Turkey border. That means the 4-3 Rumanian MTN won't count.

There are 4 German corps that could do that fairly easily, ... if the Russian units would just get out of the way,
I have a feeling that Pat will force the issue even if they don't "voluntary" move aside.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2933
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/5/2017 12:14:49 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Commentary: Yes, I plan on forcing the issue. It would have been easier if the weather had not turned.

MJ 43 i5
Options: Germany and Italy take combined actions. Japan takes a land action.

Italy moves a transport out to the E. Med and picks up the 4-1 GAR (stops in the 2-box). The Germans moved the Romanian CP to the Black Sea.

Italy searched in the E. Med and the rolls were 7/9 so no contact.

Two ground strikes, one in Siberia with the lowest strength JP bomber and one on your southernmost stack on the Iberian Peninsula (image below). Do you wish to intercept?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2934
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/5/2017 3:57:04 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Intercept with the USAF P-38F Lightening and the CVP with the highest air-to-air. Put theP-38F in the lead and stay until the status of the bomber is determined.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2935
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/6/2017 12:26:10 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		MJ43 i5 Ground Strikes.
The air combat was bloody. The US lost two plans, but no pilots. The Italians lost a fighter and the pilot. The bomber made it through and hit one target.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2936
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/6/2017 12:35:11 AM   
ashkpa


Posts: 1507
Joined: 1/16/2014
Status: offline 		Note, during the movement phase the German XX Corp moved into Batum and then back to the swamp, forcing the RU fleet to rebase. I made the decision for you that the best of the two options for rebasing was Odessa (the other port will likely be overrun in my next impulse.
The corp was disorganized and I had hoped to reorg it with air transport, but I had forgotten that it cost two reorg points during a combined. So, it remains flipped at this moment.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2937
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/7/2017 2:37:36 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #7. Actions.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ashkpa)
Post #: 2938
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/7/2017 2:39:05 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #7. End of Turn Check.

Well, nothing from the allies to report this impulse. About all they did was to push a few units around on the map.

The turn continues.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2939
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR - 11/7/2017 2:40:05 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 23. May/June 1943. Axis #9. Weather.

Fighting weather returns ... which isn't good news for the allies, especially the Soviets.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2940
Page:   <<   < prev  96 97 [98] 99 100   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR Page: <<   < prev  96 97 [98] 99 100   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

0.734