Build Ahead...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Build Ahead...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Build Ahead...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 1:29:51 PM

Arron69

Posts: 115
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

What is the general opinien on build ahead, or to choose not to?

For example, the japanise carriers, the are nice to have early, but are they worth the extra cost...

The same goes for german panzers and planes. What is the max cost one should accept?

And what sould the AIO think here?

Andi.

_____________________________

The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.

Post #: 1

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 1:41:15 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

What is the general opinien on build ahead, or to choose not to?

For example, the japanise carriers, the are nice to have early, but are they worth the extra cost...

My opinion : Definitely not.
For Japan, expenses in carriers outside of those that already are in the Construction Pool are a pure waste of BP.
Those BP can (and should) be better expended in LBA (Land based aircrafts).
Carriers are for offensive operations in enemy waters controlled by his LBA.
For defensive operations (in which Japan is 3-6 turns after the USA are in the war) LBA are more than enough. They control the sea from their bases around the sea areas.
The Carriers that Japan have, plus those in the Construction Pool are enough for Japan's early need of offensive operations.

quote:

The same goes for german panzers and planes. What is the max cost one should accept?

I would avoid advance build if other interesting pieces are yet to be built. If there are no more ARM to build, build MECH.

quote:

And what sould the AIO think here?

The AIO should think of not wasting BP.
Should be easy for it, as it is not emotionaly linked to having the best FTR across the board, or all the next year panzers on the front.

(in reply to Arron69)

Post #: 2

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 2:07:35 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

I did a mathematical analysis on building ahead ages ago. It's buried somewhere in here. Steve's got it anyway. Mostly it doesn't look like it's worth it.

One exception I can think of is building a German armoured HQ in time for Barbarossa (a 1940 one IIRC). They are just so handy on the endless Russian steppe. I've done it but I remember it happened to fit in with how many build points I had left and the stuff I'd already produced.

Cheers, Neilster

< Message edited by Neilster -- 10/26/2007 2:12:22 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 3

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 5:44:15 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Manstein is the German 1941 HQ you have to build ahead to use for a '41 Barb. Given his stats (8 combat factors, 5 movement, and most of all 5 reorg), he's a pretty sweet piece of hardware to have. Him and the German 1941 (or is that 1942?)�engineer are the only units that I can conceive of building ahead at almost every opportunity.

The units I would definitely consider building ahead are HQs, engineers, and the CW/US armoured marine div (just did in the game I'm playing now, and it's been worth it in my estimation!). Depending on my overall strategic/tactical plans, I would also consider building ahead Marines & Paras.

However, the when and what to build ahead is largely contingent on the game's circumstances. If the USSR is trying a stuff and the Germans want to try to beat it, building Manstein ahead is probably not the way to do it.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 4

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 5:48:29 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Manstein is the German 1941 HQ you have to build ahead to use for a '41 Barb. Given his stats (8 combat factors, 5 movement, and most of all 5 reorg), he's a pretty sweet piece of hardware to have. Him and the German 1941 (or is that 1942?)�engineer are the only units that I can conceive of building ahead at almost every opportunity.

Right.
The 1940 HQ-A is also a good deal in 1939, but that's really expensive (12 BP for a country that produces 16 BP IIRC). don't complain thereafter if you have not enough Stukas.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 5

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 5:54:08 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Manstein is the German 1941 HQ you have to build ahead to use for a '41 Barb. Given his stats (8 combat factors, 5 movement, and most of all 5 reorg), he's a pretty sweet piece of hardware to have. Him and the German 1941 (or is that 1942?) engineer are the only units that I can conceive of building ahead at almost every opportunity.

The units I would definitely consider building ahead are HQs, engineers, and the CW/US armoured marine div (just did in the game I'm playing now, and it's been worth it in my estimation!). Depending on my overall strategic/tactical plans, I would also consider building ahead Marines & Paras.

However, the when and what to build ahead is largely contingent on the game's circumstances. If the USSR is trying a stuff and the Germans want to try to beat it, building Manstein ahead is probably not the way to do it.

Don't the German armoured HQs have awesome supply range too? (haven't played WiF in a while...real world and all that...waiting for MWiF). I seem to remember I was able to fan out in a deadly manner, crippling the Soviets by capturing many cities, using that built-ahead Armoured HQ for supply.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 6

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 6:42:15 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

HQs are secondary supply sources. As such, any unit that can trace a basic supply path (length determined by weather or desert terrain) to them is in supply as long as they can trace a basic/railroad supply path back to a primary source.

What you are thinking of is the HQ's reorganization range, which is a number equal to its reorg points and is the number of hexes around the HQ (in motorized movement points, so it's shorter going through terrain other than clear or desert) that the HQ can reorganize units in or provide offensive chit benefits in.

So, yes, Manstein is awesome in that regard. He can supercharge up to 10 land units & reorg as many during a land action if an offensive chit is thrown on him, all up to five hexes away from him in any direction (modified by terrain). That's easily good for 2-3 attacks in an impulse.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 7

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 6:56:43 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

There are just a few things here and there I like to build ahead. HQs being the main one; Yamashita for the Japanese in J/F 40, arriving in Sep/Oct, is very handy. The Germans are so busy building up that I don't tend to build Manstein ahead; Rommel & Guderian plus the starting three get the job done OK. But I definitely advance build Model in 42. For the CW, I like to build one of the Australian INF and their GARRison a year early by building ahead. If you have those and spring "CW Reinforces Pacific" on the Japanese before War Appropriations you can really throw up some roadblocks. But these are the only things I can think of; the force pools are already so full of stuff that you can't have all of that I don't tend to splurge on advance building.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 8

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:01:57 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

The 1943 SS engineer is very much worth building ahead. I pair that engineer with another one constantly and use it for city attacks. When attacking always select to lose the other engineer and keep the glorious 3 pt engineer around.

Building ahead the next year's German Infantry is also valuable, because they are 8 and 9 factor infantry units. They cost 5 which is equivalent to a mech, however no reorganization costs, and even better, rebuilding them only costs 3. Having an extra kill stack in Russia is great. Why not mech? Because you will need stong troops for assaults, and using an armored type unit on an attack on a city is a misallocation of resources generally.

Building ahead Ftr's for Germany, CW, & USA is also a great way to get new types of air units early and potentially take control of the air in a theatre. This is very important, because once one side has clear air superiority, changing that can be extremely difficult and requires you to usually turtle up until you can contest the air properly again. Fighting air combat at -2 regularly is a surefire recipe to have your airforce whittled down to nothing.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 9

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:24:36 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
For the CW, I like to build one of the Australian INF and their GARRison a year early by building ahead. If you have those and spring "CW Reinforces Pacific" on the Japanese before War Appropriations you can really throw up some roadblocks. But these are the only things I can think of; the force pools are already so full of stuff that you can't have all of that I don't tend to splurge on advance building.

How do you advance build an Aus INF or GAR ? You can't choose.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 10

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:32:41 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

If you look at how the force pool additions come in - British GARR in 41; Australian in 42; Australian INF comes in by itself one year as well; you can do it easily by having the matching force pool empty. And at that point in the game I like to have the cheap infantry force pools, except for the TERRs, as empty as possible to keep as many cheap road blocks in front of the Axis advance as I can.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 11

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:38:17 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
supercharge up to 10 land units & reorg as many during a land action if an offensive chit is thrown on him, all up to five hexes away from him in any direction (modified by terrain).

[tangential question here - I thought there were no terrain limits on using an O-Chit, just the quantity of hexes equal to the re-org value of the HQ using the chit???]

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 12

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:52:25 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
supercharge up to 10 land units & reorg as many during a land action if an offensive chit is thrown on him, all up to five hexes away from him in any direction (modified by terrain).

[tangential question here - I thought there were no terrain limits on using an O-Chit, just the quantity of hexes equal to the re-org value of the HQ using the chit???]

You're right, terrain is not relevant. Number of hexes is.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 13

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:54:48 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

If you look at how the force pool additions come in - British GARR in 41; Australian in 42; Australian INF comes in by itself one year as well; you can do it easily by having the matching force pool empty. And at that point in the game I like to have the cheap infantry force pools, except for the TERRs, as empty as possible to keep as many cheap road blocks in front of the Axis advance as I can.

You're right indeed. I never noticed that !

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 14

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 7:57:41 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

What is the general opinien on build ahead, or to choose not to?

For example, the japanise carriers, the are nice to have early, but are they worth the extra cost...

The same goes for german panzers and planes. What is the max cost one should accept?

And what sould the AIO think here?

Andi.

I figure on the AIO not building ahead with perhaps a very few (1 or 2 units) exceptions.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Arron69)

Post #: 15

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 8:28:02 PM

haromar

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/22/2007
Status: offline

Here some typical build aheads. This assumes a normal game. Obvioulsy if you are winning and have loads of BP left over, than build ahead anything

China: none.
France: Maybe the 41 Garr at 1 BP if you survive the summer of 40.
Germany: Maybe Mannstein in 40 for 41 barb. Definetely Kesselring in 41 if you did a 41 med and are going to Russia in 42. From 43 on FTR if BP allowed you to already churn out all 3 turn FTR. In 44 definetely 2 turn FTR, ideally also 3 turn.
CW: Alexander in S/O 39, the extra 3 BP only buys 1 turn, but it allows 4 units in France in M/J 40 instead of J/A40 (so this assumes no succesfull france first in S/O). Blamey in 43. FTR as Germany.
Italy: 44 FTR in 43.
US: Sometimes 1 or 2 43 essex in 42. Patton in 43. FTR as Germany. 44 CVP(2) in 43 if BP allow.
JP: Maybe the odd Garr at +1 BP if you run out of land units. FTR as Germany.
USSR: The 42 Gar in 41 (its WP and only runs +1 BP, cheap

) If you're doing swell, then maybe Chepayev in 42.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 16

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 8:41:35 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

US: Sometimes 1 or 2 43 essex in 42.

You'd need to have built all 1941 Essexes (5) and Independences (5), and all 1942 Essexes (4) and Independences (4) to advance build a single 1943 Essex.
That's 18 CVs & CVLs. If you have build all the CVLs, you need no extra Essex, believe me.

(in reply to haromar)

Post #: 17

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 9:51:01 PM

Horaf

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

I will sometimes build ahead German Subs, especially to keep gearing up. And even doubling the cost of a SUB, its just an extra point.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 18

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/26/2007 11:01:10 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Horaf

I will sometimes build ahead German Subs, especially to keep gearing up.� And even doubling the cost of a SUB, its just an extra point.

When building ahead ships you count the total price to calculate the overhead. For SUBs costing 1/1, they only cost 1 more, but for SUBs costing 1/2, that makes 2 BP.
Do you really manage at depletting the SUBs force pool ? Oh, I realize that our games have the PatiF & AiF ships (not all, there are rules) & air counters added, so that's why we in my garage's game never build the SUB or FTR force pool completely.

(in reply to Horaf)

Post #: 19

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 1:20:13 AM

Chaylaton

Posts: 26
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline

I tried building ahead fighters with Germany one game, I wanted to get to the Jets, before the end of the war. The one cool effect was with so many fighters on the map England's bombing campaign came to an end.

Chaylaton

_____________________________

2112 greatest rock song ever?

I say "Rush Rules"

There are only four Gods from Canada: Alex, Geddy, Neil and Wayne:)

(in reply to Arron69)

Post #: 20

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 4:48:24 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

so how does this rule work "plus 50% of the unit's cost (minimum of 2)" ?

we play it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost - so GARR and FTR2 cost 4 each, and cv planes 3 each.

you could alternatively read that to mean you can't build 1 point units (carrier planes) ahead at all.

(in reply to Chaylaton)

Post #: 21

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 9:09:06 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

so how does this rule work "plus 50% of the unit's cost (minimum of 2)" ?

we play it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost - so GARR and FTR2 cost 4 each, and cv planes 3 each.

you could alternatively read that to mean you can't build 1 point units (carrier planes) ahead at all.

In our list of questions to Harry, there is this one.
******************************************
Q347
13.6.5
When advance building units, the phrase "minimum of 2" is written with respect to the additional amount to advance build from next year's units. But below that when the rules talk about advance building two and three years ahead, the minimums are written with respect to the total cost. Which is it?
Example : Does a GARR cost 3 or 4 to advance build one year?
******************************************

No answer from Harry yet, but out of 4 rule gurus that answered, 3 said "cost 4", and the 4th said the rule should be rewritten.

So I guess that playing it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost is a good guess.

And this one too :
******************************************
Q348
13.6.5, 14.6
When advance building planes (playing with PiF and pilots), do you :
a) calculate the cost to advance build the unit with a pilot, then subtract 2 for the pilot, or
b) advance build the plane without the cost of the pilot considered (thus having an advance built plane cheaper than with a)?
Example : Does a 5 cost FTR cost 6 (5 times 1.5 = 8 minus 2) or 5 (3 times 1.5 = 5) when advanced built.
******************************************

No answer from Harry yet, but out of 4 rule gurus that answered, 2 said one way and 2 the other way.

There is also this one about advance building :
******************************************
Q009
13.6.5, 28.
You build ahead (advance building) by TYPE (as opposed to gearing CLASS), for example both a FTR and a NAV are of the CLASS plane but they are each a different TYPE and hence can be advance built separately.
Question : Is an INF DIV a different TYPE than an INF Corps / Army? That is, do you need to build all available DIV before you can advance build like corps and vice versa?

ANS> No. INF Divs are a different type to INF. Date: 28/01/1998
******************************************

And this one :
******************************************
Q281
13.6.5, 28.
I wish to build an AA piece. There are none in my force pool. Question:
a) I have to build all guns before I can advance build. i) and even then I�d have to draw randomly from all 4-build-point guns from the next year.
b) I need only build all AA units before I can advance build (with the extra cost, of course).

ANS> (b), see 28. for the different unit types (or classes). Date: 20/01/1998
******************************************

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 22

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 1:06:23 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I did a mathematical analysis on building ahead ages ago. It's buried somewhere in here. Steve's got it anyway. Mostly it doesn't look like it's worth it.

One exception I can think of is building a German armoured HQ in time for Barbarossa (a 1940 one IIRC). They are just so handy on the endless Russian steppe. I've done it but I remember it happened to fit in with how many build points I had left and the stuff I'd already produced.

Cheers, Neilster

IMO a pure BP mathematical comparison is unlikely to show the benefits of building ahead. Not every BP spent is 100% useful. Something you build ahead with a specific mission or role in mind usually is.

Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 23

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 1:29:27 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I did a mathematical analysis on building ahead ages ago. It's buried somewhere in here. Steve's got it anyway. Mostly it doesn't look like it's worth it.

One exception I can think of is building a German armoured HQ in time for Barbarossa (a 1940 one IIRC). They are just so handy on the endless Russian steppe. I've done it but I remember it happened to fit in with how many build points I had left and the stuff I'd already produced.

Cheers, Neilster

IMO a pure BP mathematical comparison is unlikely to show the benefits of building ahead. Not every BP spent is 100% useful. Something you build ahead with a specific mission or role in mind usually is.

Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

The analysis was carried out with respect to assigning mathematical weights to units according to their suitability for planned operations.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 24

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/27/2007 2:00:22 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 25

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/28/2007 12:58:17 AM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

apologies, I assumed they were more historically accurate replacements.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 26

RE: Build Ahead... - 10/28/2007 3:00:28 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

apologies, I assumed they were more historically accurate replacements.

Yes, they are, but they just do not replace the fantasy replacements. They are in addition.

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 27

RE: Build Ahead... - 11/27/2007 8:38:34 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

As Japan I would consider advance building the late 6-moving, 3 capacity CVs. They only cost 2 additional. Mind you, you need to wait until you can scrap the horrible 4-moving CVs rather than building them to clear out the force pool.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 28

RE: Build Ahead... - 11/27/2007 5:04:20 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

the horrible 4-moving CVs move well with the 4-moving BBs...

Japanese carrier construction policy is a fascinating part of WiF.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 29

RE: Build Ahead... - 11/30/2007 1:00:51 AM

alexvand

Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Building ahead? Let's see....fighters, fighters, and did I mention fighters?

Seriously though in our group once we had the minimum land and naval units to accomplish your goals, with maybe a little extra, you built nothing but fighters. In fact we rarely built any Tac, or Nav. A few Str would get built but not many. If you didn't have air superiority then there was no point bulding anything but fighters. Plus lots of those fighters have Tac factors to use once the enemy planes are gone. And you can't argue with getting the Black Widow a year ahead, or the Me-262s. Those planes can change the course of the war if used in the right spot and time.

Now mind you, I wonder if our perspective was influenced by the fact that we were playing Wif 5 when PiF first came out. We all wanted to play with the new toys and our playing style was influences by our early experiences. Like this one:

Having survived the German onslaught I was slowly building up to go on the offensive. Building fighters like mad in order to gain air superiority. Finally win a few key air battles shooting down some front-line german planes and the Russion Juggernaut starts to roll, taking hexes left and right thanks to air superiority. At this point I make a crucial mistake and the German makes some good decisions. I decide that it's high time to build my first Tac of the game and actually stop building fighters. In the meantime the German has been building so many fighters that he is an entire year ahead, then he rebases every single plane from the west front to the east front and the Russian steamroller slams to a halt. Took almost a year to recover from that fiasco, and the lesson I learned is to always build fighters.

In fact in our games You will see the German and British building out their entire fighter pools and building one year ahead. Typically you'll see all the '43 planes on the map by J/A of '42. Italy and Russia follow suit if they can. The US will do so as well, but usually later since they have to build a navy first. Japan typicaly just doesn't have the BP to keep up with this arms race.

That's may experience. Your Mileage May Vary.

Alex

(in reply to Arron69)

Post #: 30