L22 Pejon_88 (X) vs. Gamerman01 (A+15), BM4, game #2

[gamerman01]

OK, edit was in file but not in that summary, I now see.
So, I’ve got the file I need.

I’ll use the edit mode to figure out what your transports at the Philippines are carrying. I don’t mind it, but it would be a good practice to declare in the game notes or on the forum.

[gamerman01]

Looks like 3 different transports with 1 infantry, OK. :+1:

[gamerman01]

Hmmm… this is getting good :crossed_swords:

Now… what to do… :books: :bomb:

:flag-us:
:flag-cn:
:flag-gb:

[Pejon_88]

@gamerman01 yeah intention was one each

[gamerman01]

Should be a quick turnaround on another challenging US/UK move! Wrapping up USA now

[gamerman01]

Through China so far, in case you’d like it

C9.tsvg

[gamerman01]

UK9.tsvg

Your turn for brain pain :confounded:

Makin’ me WORK!

[gamerman01]

You’re making me play almost conventionally, like a mature player. It’s kind of nice, every 5 years or so.

[gamerman01]

Just realized I forgot to load UK artillery on US transport at EUS -

UK9 edit EUS.tsvg

[Pejon_88]

@gamerman01 How do you mean? :)

[Pejon_88]

Round: 9

    Purchase Units - Italians
        Italians buy 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Italians
        1 armour moved from Egypt to Trans-Jordan
              Italians take Trans-Jordan from British
        1 armour moved from Trans-Jordan to Egypt

    Combat - Italians

    Non Combat Move - Italians
        1 infantry moved from Anglo Egyptian Sudan to Egypt
        1 fighter moved from Ukraine to Rostov
        1 aaGun, 2 armour, 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from Caucasus to Rostov
        1 artillery moved from Southern Italy to Northern Italy
        2 infantry moved from Northern Italy to Southern Italy
        2 infantry moved from France to Northern Italy
        1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Western Germany to Northern Italy
        1 fighter moved from Southern Italy to Rostov

    Place Units - Italians
        3 infantry placed in Egypt
        1 fighter placed in Southern Italy
        1 artillery placed in Northern Italy

    Turn Complete - Italians
        Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 0
            Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 93 Sea Zone. Rolls: 5,4
        Italians collect 23 PUs; end with 23 PUs
        Objective Italians 2 Roman Empire: Italians met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 28 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

I9.tsvg

[gamerman01]

Oh. Um… I’ll try to answer in private message

[gamerman01]

These are angry dice.

French fighter against what should be about 3 individuals left standing in Archangel.

[dice 1d6<4]

Grey dude
[dice 1d6<3]

[dicebot]

1d6<4: 1; Hits: 1
1d6<3: 2; Hits: 1

[gamerman01]

Well, it COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

:imp:

The 3 individuals left had heavy weapons on them.

3 hits in a row by infantry, that is hard to swallow

[gamerman01]

Not in a row, but it’s a 2.5% regardless. ANZAC failed against Italian tanks, and fails hard again. Good riddance.

I think US airstrikes on this front went pretty well, will have to check

[gamerman01]

It’s your turn to get bad dice!

F9.tsvg

[Pejon_88]

@gamerman01 Damn! I haven’t seen anyone airstrike versus Germany before. I’ve heard that air striking in China is not even cost effective. What happened to your conventional plays?

[gamerman01]

I can’t do it. I just can’t play like those guys for long.

I can’t comment on the airstrikes at this time other than to say with US bombers, especially when the one let me land planes in Nenetsia, was definitely “cost effective”. Also, taking out the tank in Caucasus was the right thing to do, though I got hit there.

Same with China - it’s not about the IPC replacement cost, it’s situational. Don’t tell me you look at IPC costs like most do… :hushed:

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01 said in L22 Pejon_88 (X) vs. Gamerman01 (A+15), BM4, game #2:

I can’t comment on the airstrikes at this time other than to say with US bombers, especially when the one let me land planes in Nenetsia, was definitely “cost effective”.

Better word than cost effective would be strategic… Bomber vs infantry by expected TUV change is of course not “cost effective”