Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

Sorry, forgot. In the air-to-air target the bombers if possible. So, abort the bomber.

US CVP units will stay until the status of all bombers are resolved.
Ronnie
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

Here is the result of the A-A combat, it went 5 rounds. First two rounds were exactly symmetric rolls. You took my lead bomber out and I took your lead fighter out. Both cleared the best bomber. After that it got more ugly for the US, though another Japanese bomber was aborted.

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3NC..results.jpg
MJ43i3NC..results.jpg (828.44 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

AA results favored the US, when a JP bomber was destroyed (the lowest A-S factor)

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3NC..results.jpg
MJ43i3NC..results.jpg (1.29 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

Finally apply the damage. First up comes the Japanese who do X 2D 2A. First X on the Essex, which makes it's saving throw.
US get to decide on the first D and the first A.

On the other side, I believe the Axis will get a D A result against their ships. The US gets to place the first A. I don't have a good image (need to go back to earlier posts), since I cannot save at this point.

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3NC..lication.jpg
MJ43i3NC..lication.jpg (773.03 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

USN will apply D to CA Chicago. Then A to any damaged CV first, damaged CA next and CA Houston after that.

Apply A to 3 or 4 capacity carrier with highest air to sea factors on board.

The USN will NOT stay for a round 2. Abort/damaged ships all go back to Pearl.
Ronnie
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

USN will apply D to CA Chicago. Then A to any damaged CV first, damaged CA next and CA Houston after that.

Apply A to 3 or 4 capacity carrier with highest air to sea factors on board.

The USN will NOT stay for a round 2. Abort/damaged ships all go back to Pearl.
Assume you meant to apply the D against Japan with the same directions. In Naval-Air combat the "attacker" chooses the first result.
Pat
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: ashkpa
USN will apply D to CA Chicago. Then A to any damaged CV first, damaged CA next and CA Houston after that.

Apply A to 3 or 4 capacity carrier with highest air to sea factors on board.

The USN will NOT stay for a round 2. Abort/damaged ships all go back to Pearl.
Assume you meant to apply the D against Japan with the same directions. In Naval-Air combat the "attacker" chooses the first result.
Yes, that. [:)]
Ronnie
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

So, the rest of the damage. Good early rolls for the US limited the damage, but in the end the Essex was sunk. The Japanese carrier targeted was aborted (passed it's damage roll).


Image
Attachments
MJ43i3NC..bombing.jpg
MJ43i3NC..bombing.jpg (1.57 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

{edit - forgot to mention the air planes aborted to Kwajalein}

On the abort back to Pearl, the US ships had to make it through sub infested waters. The first group (the ships that took aborts during the combat) were not sighted on a roll of 3. Needed at 2 to find them in rain. The second group of ships were found on a roll of 1. The allies then rolled a 7 (it may have been a 6) resulting in 8 SP for the Japanese, with only the aborting ships fighting through from the 0-box involved. Japan used 4 SP to choose a surface battle. The JP used 3 of the last 4 surprise points to select the ship to take the D and choose the Bunker Hill. It was surprised and damaged in the attack. The allies then inflicted severe damage on the subs (damage) and aborted them from the zone.

Note, I was surprised when the program then asked me to land the carrier planes, though it did not let me change which carriers they were on (I think). I did not know that carrier planes were flown during a surface battle and always have played in f-t-f games that they stayed on the same carriers they started on.

In the end, I believe the JP lost 1 CVP to AA. The allies lost the Essex with 1 CVP, 1 CVP shot down during air-air combat, and another CV damaged. Net gain for the axis, but I spent more oil that I really need to save.

This finished the naval combat phase and the allies had no options of initiating any further combat.

{Second edit. Note, I never committed your subs or my subs to the combat, yours are still in the Mariannas}

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3NC..tcombat.jpg
MJ43i3NC..tcombat.jpg (2.33 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

MA43 Ground Strikes: Two, Stalingrad with ART and SE of Moscow with a tank buster. You have two planes (circled) that can intercept and I have 3 that can counter intercept (all visible in the image).

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3GSreactions.jpg
MJ43i3GSreactions.jpg (1.22 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

Both Red fighters intercept.
Ronnie
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

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.

Image
Attachments
MJ43i3GSresults.jpg
MJ43i3GSresults.jpg (1.72 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

There were no axis land attacks. A rare occurrence in a clear MJ impulse.
Pat
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #4. Actions.

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

Image
Attachments
04ALActions.jpg
04ALActions.jpg (428.34 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

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.

Image
Attachments
04ALUSN..oCombat.jpg
04ALUSN..oCombat.jpg (1.01 MiB) Viewed 168 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

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).


Image
Attachments
04ALAtla..oCombat.jpg
04ALAtla..oCombat.jpg (708 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

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?

Image
Attachments
04ALBay..Reaction.jpg
04ALBay..Reaction.jpg (411.27 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 30951
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by rkr1958 »

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?

Image
Attachments
04ALUSN..arckSea.jpg
04ALUSN..arckSea.jpg (764.87 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Ronnie
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

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.
Pat
User avatar
ashkpa
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:11 am

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR

Post by ashkpa »

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.
Pat
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”