PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11)

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

39928-AetV-US28.tsvg

Scramble to SZ6?

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Full scranble to sz6, Kamikazees: all three on three different DD’s.
Looks like i missclicked one TacB to Novogorod.
Should have been landing on N.Bela.
Would be nice if you don’t mind to edit them there. You would have attacked Novgorod anyway, right?.
But it was not my intension to leave him there.
If you insist of leaving the TacB there where he is, it will be not a Problem , bc the fault of not double check it is on me.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

I’ll restore the tac to N. Bela.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Thank you, I appreciate it.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

To take into account the extra German Tac, I need to need to revise the US CM.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

39928-AetV-US28.tsvg

Scramble to Denmark?

AA will not allow to edit the tac now. Will have to do this after the NCM.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@ArtofWar1947 No scramble to Denmark.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

AA will not allow US to move 8 tanks and 4 MIs to Timguska. Will fight this battle on the Forum.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Timguska battle

8 US tanks [dice 8d6<=3]

4 US MI [dice 4d6<=2]

2 German inf [dice 2d6<=2]

[dicebot]

8d6<=3: 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 6, 3, 6; Hits: 3
4d6<=2: 6, 3, 6, 2; Hits: 1
2d6<=2: 1, 5; Hits: 1

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Apparently, there was only 1 kami.

Rolling for the other two kamis to see if there should have been an additional hits.

[dice 2d6<=2]

[dicebot]

2d6<=2: 6, 1; Hits: 1

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Let me know how you want to handle this. I can completely redo the battle or make an adjustment you feel would be fair.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Here’s the US 28 turn as it stands now.

39928-AetV-US28.tsvg

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas said in PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11):

Two Kamikazees on your DD, please.

In 5 hours from this post, I will go ahead and redo the battle in SZ 6, unless you can see a fairer way to correct my mistake.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@ArtofWar1947 what exactly went wrong in your opinion??

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

The program asked on what ship to attack with a kami. I choose DD. In the past, the same question was asked for each kami. This did not happen, and I assumed that the 3 available kamis would each attack a DD. Without Marti emails, I could understand was that the kami assault resulted in no hits. So, I preceded. I did not realize that 2 available kamis were not used until I read the attack summary in History and the Turn Summary.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

An additional hit by the Kamis would have cost the additional loss of one to four US subs. With no more Axis surface ships, the remaining US subs are essentially useless any way. If you wish to accept the outcome of the original battle, Japan will have 2 kamis to defend against the attack of its DD in SZ 7 by ANZAC. If you prefer, I will refight the sea battle this afternoon.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Please redo the Battle. Also redo the battle of Timguska.
It was not shown in the history tab and you accidently edited more units there then there could possibly move there.

[ArtofWar1947]

@aequitas-et-veritas

Will redo SZ 6 battle.

There were 9 tanks and 5 MI in Yenisey. 8 tanks and 4 MI attacked Timguska. This battle had to be rolled on the Forum, because the AA program would not allow these units to advance (see screen shot of our games’ thread). TheUS inflicted 4 hits and only 2 were needed; the Germans scored 1 hit. I decided to reinforce with the remaining tank and MI. You are correct, though,there should be 4, not 5 MI. I will edit in theis corrtection.