Page 142 of 155
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:12 pm
by ashkpa
MJ43 i1 N searches
started with E Med, but rolls of 8/7 resulted in nc.
In the SW Indian Ocean rolls of 3/6 resulted in the axis finding and destroying the CP.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:13 pm
by ashkpa
In the SE Indian Ocean rolls of 1/8 resulted in the destruction of another CP.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:16 pm
by ashkpa
No searches in the BoBengal (allies will not have an option). In the last 6 areas the allies have reaction possibilities.
For the Faroes Gap, BoB, and CSV I suggest you pull up the game file and look at your myriad of possible reactions. I have shown the current situation and indicated what I will be reacting out to each zone.
In the S. Asian area, I believe only the Buffalo can react and it has three choices.
Let me know what you would like to do in these areas.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:34 pm
by rkr1958
US & CW Reactions.
1. Bay of Biscay. Portsmouth. RN Sunderland to 3-box. RAF Mosquito & Beau fighters to 2-box. Liverpool. RAF spitfire to 0-box. UK[51,24]. USAAF Lightening fighter to 0-box.
2. Faeores Gap. Scapa Flow. RN Swordfish to 0-box.
3. Cape St. Vincent. Cisneros. USAAF Tomahawk FTR and RN Albacore NAV to 1-box. Morocco[84,12]. RN Skua NAV to 0-box.
4. USAAF Buffalo fighter, Victoria, Seychelles. 0-box of West Indian Ocean.
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:47 pm
by ashkpa
W. Indian Ocean search rolls of 5/10 result in nc
In the Arabian Sea search rolls of 2/7 result in the sinking of the CW CA (missed the damage control roll image - it was a 2 on the X, never got to the D).

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:49 pm
by ashkpa
In the Azanian Sea the search rolls of 1/3 resulted in the sinking of the CP

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:52 pm
by ashkpa
In CSV rolls of 10/6 resulted in nc
In the Faeroes Gap rolls of 2/10 resulted in 1 CP sunk and 3 aborted in a surface naval action (not shown, I used 4 SP to select the combat type). I took the surface to avoid the 13 ASW factors. For the CW I decided to apply the D to the US CP and the 3 A to the CW CP. I assumed it would be easier to get the CW CP's back into the main theater from Liverpool.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:55 pm
by ashkpa
In the BoB search rolls of 2/5 resulted in the axis finding in round 1. I let it roll to Naval Air and used 2 SP to decrease the allied AA combat. But they rolled well and I applied the DX to the Italian NAV. At this point the Germans abort the A-A combat (not the zone).

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:56 pm
by ashkpa
Rnd 2 in the BoB rolls of 8/3, allowed the allies to find and sink the submarine. I choose sub combat, but Naval Air would have given me the same result.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:58 pm
by ashkpa
Round 3 search rolls of 2/4, both finding, made me concerned you may have been upset that I did not have you avoid combat in round 2, but the A-A rolls resulted in effectively ne, since the abort of the Nimrod (CW choice) still left it in the zone. After one round of air combat the allies aborted the A-A combat.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:02 pm
by ashkpa
BoB round 4 rolls of 3/6 resulted in nc.
So, my count for the all naval combats is CW: 4xCP and CA sunk, 3xCP aborted. Italians: NAV shot down (pilot survived I believe), and submarine sunk. That is 7 BP lost for allies and 4 BP lost for the axis. Some disruption to supply lines in Asia (CW stuff in Calcutta is out of supply) and resource transportation in the FG.
I'll get back to this later tonight hopefully. Need to get dinner now.
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:14 pm
by rkr1958
No rush. Out of the night.
RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:19 am
by ashkpa
Took me longer than expected to get back to this.
4 Ground strikes (2 by artillery and interception was not possible on the two by planes). One was a complete bust, the others were very successful.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:22 am
by ashkpa
MJ43 i1 Land Attacks
Three land attacks. All went well. No air support was possible for the allies.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:45 am
by Grotius
Very entertaining AAR, guys! Please keep the posts coming.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:49 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: Grotius
Very entertaining AAR, guys! Please keep the posts coming.
Thanks! I agree it's entertaining. Entertaining like watching a Muhammad Ali fight against an unranked contender and wondering which round this contender was going down. I'm the contender and we're almost 2 minutes into the 10th round. While it's not very pretty I vow to continue "fighting" until I'm KO'ed or until the referee calls it (TKO).
Does anybody know a good cut man? [:D]

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:17 pm
by rkr1958
Turn 23. May/June 1943. Allied #2. Actions. Weather.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:47 pm
by rkr1958
Turn 23. Allied #2. IJN Wish to Intercept? West Indian Ocean.
A lone CW CP moves from Victoria into the West Indian Ocean.
Do the Japanese wish to attempt an intercept?

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:03 pm
by rkr1958
Turn 23. Allied #2. Germany wish to Intercept? Bay of Biscay.
RN Amph carrying 6-5 mot and escorted by the Queen Elizabeth moves into the Bay of Biscay.
Does the Luftwaffe wish to attempt an intercept?
I'm not sure that it matters if they are successful but thought I'd better ask to be safe.

RE: Pat vs Ronnie GW AAR
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:08 pm
by rkr1958
Turn 23. Allied #2. Germany wish to Intercept(2)? Bay of Biscay(2).
Again, I'm not sure it matters but does Germany wish to attempt an intercept?
