@max334 Lone AA guns satisfy the land unit requirement for that NO, however Germany also needs to control Normandy and Holland at the beginning on their turn, I didn’t attack Normandy G1 so won’t be able to get it until next round.
PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11)
-
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 -
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]
-
2d6<=2: 6, 1; Hits: 1
-
Let me know how you want to handle this. I can completely redo the battle or make an adjustment you feel would be fair.
-
-
@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.
-
@ArtofWar1947 what exactly went wrong in your opinion??
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
Kamis got 2 hots of 3. US lost all ships and 2 fighters.
-
-
There were 9 tanks and 5 MI in Yenisey. 8 tanks and 4 MI attacked Timguska.
No, there were only 1x US Mech and 2x US Armor in Yenisey.
The others, 4x US Mech and 7x US Armor where in Buryatia unable to reach Evinkinsksy or Timguska at all.
If you look at the Game History wich you can find in the Top Tab or you Press Ctrl+H you can look it all up. This Turn and also the Previous Turns.If you look up Round 27 end of US Turn, you will see that exact these Units located as and in Numbers as described by me here (see above) have been there to the Start of Round 28 US. Therefore they can not participate in the battle in Timguska.
Only 1x US Mech along with 2x US Armor.Please redo this battle only if you still desire to attack Timguska, but with these units only. Thank you.
As for your scramble and intercept request.
No and No -
@aequitas-et-veritas said in PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11):
Please redo this battle only if you still desire to attack Timguska, but with these units only. Thank you.`
It is unnecessary to redo the Timguska battle. If you would look back on our game thread, you can see, 8 (of 9) US tanks and 4 (of 5) US MI moved from Yenisey during the US28 CM to attack 2 German infantry:
Timguska battle
8 US tanks [dice 8d6<=3]
4 US MI [dice 4d6<=2]
2 German inf [dice 2d6<=2]The US scored 4 hits, and the Germans scored 1 hit.
This left 8 US tanks and 3 US MI in Timguska after the battle. During the US28 NCM, the 1 US tank and 1 US MI held back Yenisey advanced to reinforce Timguska for a total of 9 US tanks and 4 US MI (as the map now shows).
-
8d6<=3: 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3; Hits: 5
4d6<=2: 4, 6, 3, 1; Hits: 1
2d6<=2: 2, 1; Hits: 2 -
The last dicebot roll occurred because I copied the original dicebot instructions. It is irrelevant.
-
-
@ArtofWar1947 said in PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11):
@aequitas-et-veritas said in PtV 23 ArtofWar1947 vs AetV (X+11):
Please redo this battle only if you still desire to attack Timguska, but with these units only. Thank you.`
It is unnecessary to redo the Timguska battle. If you would look back on our game thread, you can see, 8 (of 9) US tanks and 4 (of 5) US MI moved from Yenisey during the US28 CM to attack 2 German infantry:
Timguska battle
8 US tanks [dice 8d6<=3]
4 US MI [dice 4d6<=2]
2 German inf [dice 2d6<=2]The US scored 4 hits, and the Germans scored 1 hit.
This left 8 US tanks and 3 US MI in Timguska after the battle. During the US28 NCM, the 1 US tank and 1 US MI held back Yenisey advanced to reinforce Timguska for a total of 9 US tanks and 4 US MI (as the map now shows).
I am politely ask you again to please redo the battle om Timguska.
You have only 2x US Armor and 1x US Mech available.
On US Round 26 the forces of 7xUS Armors and 4x US Mech where involved in the battle of So Manchuria. You won this battle and the remain in So. Manchu to the end of US26.On US Round 27 you moved them up to Buryatia.
Therefor they can’t possibly be involved in the battle three spaces away in Timguska.
For some reason there is an Edit wich relocated the Units to Timguska:
So Iam asking you again, please redo the battle if you still desire of Timguska with
2x US Armor and 1x US Mech if you want.
Thank you -
Yes, you are correct. Sorry, did not get much sleep the two weeks prior and forgot how to count. This explains why the program would only let me move two tanks and a MI ti Timguska. Program was correct; human was vey confused. Edited US28 so that US stops at Yenisey with 9tanks and 5 MIs, restored ownership of Timguska to Germany, added back the two German infantry, and reduce US ipcs from 115 to 114.
Suggested Topics
