Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Are BB undervalued by WITP

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Are BB undervalued by WITP Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 6:39:06 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		After playing 500 turns of PBEM games I think I can say now I think BB are undervalued.

Now I quite confidently use CL DD TF to tackle allied BB ( OK I know its at night usually ) .
They rarely get to use their guns at extreme range , the also seem to fire secondary guns much more than main guns , their own DD do not screen them from enemy DD or torp attacks, they suffer high ops points ( with the silly immediate reduction in speed) just as much as DD ( smaller ships should suffer more then big in attrition).In bombard actually they are not much use ( unless in massed groups for some reason ) as the ammo goes in one fire. For bombard now I mainly use DD if the recon level is high the effects can be similar and they can fire almost as much as you want.

You may say its the age of the CV but it was the allies that built most BB in WW2 and thought they were of good use.

M
Post #: 1
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 6:41:00 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Do you see the same with the British BB's as with the American ones? I'm wondering of it's a crew experience rating issue, especially with the very low night experience of the Amwerican BB's at first.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 2
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 6:42:56 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Thanks
My experience is with Japs and generally the exp level is quite high night and day

M

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 6:49:13 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Which they certainly were IRL. This will be highly dependent on the actions in the games you've played - but have you seen any difference in which of the allies' BB's gets beat up more (Brit vs US)? I'm curious because the British crews had some darn good experience and training at that point, so I expect them to do better overall than the US BB's at that point of the war (we're talking early on, right?).

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 4
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 7:31:23 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline 		I take it that your hypothesis is that BB are less useful in WitP than they were historically. 

Historically, they got the most use for shore bombardment, heavy AA platforms, and only incidentally as classical gun ships.  The other thing they did in WW2 was a "non-use" use as a potential opponent to impose caution on the opponent and restrict his freedom of action.  My own experience is still heavily weighted to WPO, but I'm not so sure I agree with the hypothesis.

For bombardment, I've found my destroyers so gutted by relatively modest shore defenses time and again that I don't even risk escorts in front of CD guns any more.  Destroyers are effective against non-CD LCU's, but my experience is that the weight of BB fire tells.  You can't linger and repeatedly bombard since the main gun ammo is largely expended in a single bombardment, but that is fairly historical.  Cruisers and destroyers and better for the sustained bombardments, but does that raise the question of whether the capacity of the 8" and smaller guns is too high?  The battle ships seem ok in this respect, subject to the caveat about "nuclear shore bombardments"  (In WPO I led a battleline of Tillman's into Tokyo Bay and inflicted 125,000 casualties one night during the conquest of Honshu), But I think this is folded into stacking. 

I have to admit that my WitP experience hasn't escaped 1942 yet so I really don't have a feel for how adding ships with 1000+ flak improve the odds of surviving air strikes.  I seen other comments in the Forum commend Allied battleships in that role.

The Pacific only saw a handful of battleship surface engagements (Guadalcanal and Surigao Strait come to mind)  However, the threat of Japanese sorties weighed heavily on the operations around Guadalcanal and contingency planning for the Allied counter-offensive in 1943-1945.  In WitP, I've only seen one, a night battle where PoW and Repulse met Kongo and Haruna off Kuantan in the opening weeks of the campaign scenario.  Kongo was mortally wounded and Repulse took a torpedo on the last round of combat.  She was out of action until July.  I think that's a reasonable result, if one that probably errs on the side of British good fortune since there were plenty of destroyers on both sides filling the ocean with torpedos that night.  A little more damage and Japanese air power would have finished off the British ships before they made it back to Singapore. 

However, this interplay of surface combat and air power is one of the big differences between WitP and WPO.  In the latter, the ocean is vast and battles erupt over the various islands that serve as bases for shorter ranged ships.  In WitP, airpower makes the ocean "sticky" since a spotting report can bring Betty's from a long way.  In looking at how the various naval commands responded to the environment, the US suspended the Montana's in the design stage and did not [edit] finish the last New Jersey's. The Shinano was completed as a carrier.  Ise and Hyuga got their conversions.  The British did finish Vanguard after the war, but ASW assets really became their priority early on. 

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you fight the war with the navy you have.  But by 1945, it was pretty clear that battleships had a poor cost/benefit ratio compared to an equivalent tonnage of carriers, subs, or cruisers.   



< Message edited by engineer -- 3/11/2008 9:09:38 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 7:31:39 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		In my PBEM game, Force Z out of Singapore met a 2 BB 4 CL 8 DD Jap Task force heading to Kuching.

I put 5 14" into the Kongo.  It later sank.  I took no real damage in return (couple sys points to the POW and Repulse, couple shots against my cruisers and DD's, nothing major)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 8:01:02 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Had PoW and Repulse met the two Kongo's in 1941, the Japanese ships would have suffered badly IRL.  Repulse was their age but had better guns, while PoW was better in every category but speed.  It's fortunate for the Japanese that airpower dealt with them rather than a BB vs BB engagement.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 7
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 8:03:45 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		As I said I have played about 500 turns PBEM in two games
Actually I think I have had only one BB V BB contest though i have had other actions involving BB. In one action I had 5CA and about 10DD V 3 allied BB and about 8DD I lost 3CA all the allied BB were sunk by Torps

In all my games except one where an allied BB Washington was sunk at Darwin by Yamoto ( but after being hit by three torps from kates ) all the BB have been sunk by aerial torps . AA will not save you but the BB AA is much valued in the CVTF .

So in June 43 I think that the BB , certainly for Japan has become redundant mostly. As Japs the only chance you have of a good surface encounter is with fast surface TF only.OK so there is the Kongo class but they are rather fragile .

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree - maybe I should say thet Jap BB are too slow to be of much use !
Imagine a Yamoto at 34 kts

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 8
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 8:15:42 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Had PoW and Repulse met the two Kongo's in 1941, the Japanese ships would have suffered badly IRL.  Repulse was their age but had better guns, while PoW was better in every category but speed.  It's fortunate for the Japanese that airpower dealt with them rather than a BB vs BB engagement.


Yes by day but what about night ?
For certain I agree the POW was a great ship - in WITP how is its moderness modelled. I am not in the game right now but I assume ist inthe gun rating ?
The Kongos were british as well !

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 9
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 9:00:38 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Cavalry:
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree - maybe I should say thet Jap BB are too slow to be of much use !
Imagine a Yamoto at 34 kts


You are onto something there, but I think it's almost accidental.  A lot of the art in WitP ends up focusing on the ability to sprint in and attack a base.  If you're just raiding (like the Slot at Guadalcanal you need to get into no worse than extreme SBD range to avoid deck armor penetrating 1000 lb bombs.  If you go in to kill a base by sitting on it with overwhelming force, you can start 12 hexes out with 32 knot ships, but only 8 hexes out with 21 knot ships, and just 6 hexes out if you've got some system damage and can't make 20 knots.  At 12 hexes, you only have to worry about 4E bombers, but at the shorter ranges you'll get lots of land based air.  For the Allies those d*** Betty's have such long range that this isn't such problem.  You don't have anything big enough and fast enough to sprint in from outside LBA range so you have to bring your fighters with you with lots of carriers to provide CAP during the approach.   

Increasing ship's speed is a cube law sort of equation for the power plant so naval engineering hasn't really gotten very far in making lots faster warships (except for some hydrofoil and SWATH designs for smaller patrol boats and corvettes) even today.  However, aircraft were advancing very rapidly so longer ranged aircraft and improved sensors were quickly becoming available on the air side. 

I think you're right about many Jap battleships being too slow for the early 1940s.  The Jap battleships were fine for the 1920s, but technology was changing the battlespace and battleships were running out of room because they put too many resources too close to the enemy in order to engage.  By the mid to late 1940s everybody's battleships were too slow.   

< Message edited by engineer -- 3/11/2008 9:03:33 PM >

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 10
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 9:40:13 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
quote:

In looking at how the various naval commands responded to the environment, the US suspended the Montana's in the design stage and did not [edit] finish the last New Jersey's. The Shinano was completed as a carrier.  Ise and Hyuga got their conversions.  The British did finish Vanguard after the war, but ASW assets really became their priority early on. 


The Montanas were basically stoppped because even the US lacked the sort of armour producing capacity to equip these beasts together with a lot of rebuilds. Also gear cutting capacity was a problem and priorities had to be made: since a BB takes the longest to build therefore CVs and lesser gunships got the priority - hence the cancellation of the 5 big BBs in 1943 - it was clear by then they won't be ready for that war in time.
quote:


By the mid to late 1940s everybody's battleships were too slow.


Certainly true for the older gen BBs but I don't think it stands for the fast new gen ships, especially the Iowa class ones. On the other hand even the 27knot USN BBs were fast enough to keep up with CV TFs since these largely operated at 20-25 knots range in most of the time at sea.   




_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 11
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 10:05:10 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		IIRC Kongo was a British design and built in England, but the other three of that class were built in Japan.  Very good and useful ships in the 1910's and 20's, not good enough for the battleline in the 30's and 40's.  Hiei had her armor penetrated by a heavy cruiser (at point blank range but still), after all, something no capital ship worth its name should have happen.

Had the two British ships met Kongo and Haruna at night, everything would have come down to the accuracy of the Japanese torpedoes.  The Japanese emphasis on night fighting tactics was mostly for their destroyers and cruisers, not the battleships;  the big ships still expected to meet the US in a Jutland-like battle during the daytime where speed and long range gunnery would prevail.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 12
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 10:28:50 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I don't think it stands for the fast new gen ships, especially the Iowa class ones.


My initial argument is narrowly within the WitP engine with respect to base killing.  Later in the game longer ranged planes will be available and once you have lots of maritime patrol that can spot you at 12 hexes out and long range bombers with 700 nm combat radius (Wikipedia gives the B-26G a 900+ nm combat radius), then indepedent BB operations are out.  The individual battleship has a lot of flak, but four Des Moines cruisers gives you more flak than a single New Jersey and a lot more resiliency since killing or disabling four good ships will be harder than killing or disabling one very much better ship. 

Moving into the real world, if I'm a naval planner building a navy with the best bang for the buck, battleships don't figure in the force mix because the factors above narrowly modeled in WitP do translate into the real world. Stalin wanted some battleships for prestige, so Britain sold or gave him some Royal Sovereigns.  France kept a few around for prestige as well.  The Royal Navy and USN recognized the shift and combat effectiveness and demobilized most of their battleships and shortly after Korea they were all decommissioned.  Certainly the proliferation of nukes also played a role in developing tactics that maximized dispersion in the late 1940s and 1950s.         

The chief constiuency for the battleships became the USMC because there was nothing in the world to match battleships as an off-shore artillery park in support of a landing.  It's arguable there's still nothing in the world to match it. 

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 13
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 10:53:52 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		I don´t think BBs are underrated in WITP. IMO they are way OVERRATED in WITP! No way would it have been possible to do in real life what I do with my BBs in WITP...

_____________________________


(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 14
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 11:25:52 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

After playing 500 turns of PBEM games I think I can say now I think BB are undervalued.

Now I quite confidently use CL DD TF to tackle allied BB ( OK I know its at night usually ) .
They rarely get to use their guns at extreme range , the also seem to fire secondary guns much more than main guns , their own DD do not screen them from enemy DD or torp attacks, they suffer high ops points ( with the silly immediate reduction in speed) just as much as DD ( smaller ships should suffer more then big in attrition).In bombard actually they are not much use ( unless in massed groups for some reason ) as the ammo goes in one fire. For bombard now I mainly use DD if the recon level is high the effects can be similar and they can fire almost as much as you want.

You may say its the age of the CV but it was the allies that built most BB in WW2 and thought they were of good use.

M

No, they are over valued. In real life BBs had didn't have much of a real role in the war. Floating artillery platform was about it, and then only if you could control the air space.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 15
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 11:54:58 PM   
heenanc

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline 		If you go by the points you for lose for a BB compaired to a CA the average is about 1 BB for 5 CA's would you do the swap. I might :-)

I know alot of people don't respect the points system but it there in the game.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 16
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/11/2008 11:59:55 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		IRL the crews need to be considered too, so the cost comparison is not all one-sided. 4 or 5 heavy cruisers far out-crew a BB.

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 17
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 12:12:11 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heenanc

If you go by the points you for lose for a BB compaired to a CA the average is about 1 BB for 5 CA's would you do the swap. I might :-)

I know alot of people don't respect the points system but it there in the game.

It looked to me like the point of Castors post was to suggest that BBs are not respected for their accomplishments in witp. My suggestion is that BBs as implemented in witp have greater capability than they did IRL.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 18
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 12:12:46 AM   
heenanc

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline 		I'm talking about the game though

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 1:09:19 AM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline 		Probably a better ratio for tonnage is 3:1.  You get about 50% more flak for 3x more crew.   

New Jersey:  45,000 tons, 20 5" DP, 80 40 mm, ~2000 crew

Baltimore:  13,600 tons, 12 5" DP, 48 40mm, ~2000 crew

I was surprised that the crews were virtually the same size. 

A 5:1 victory point ratio just comes from the formula that Matrix uses. 

One further comment on using the battleships, is that I think there is a bias for risk in playing the game that is absent in real life since the consequences for adverse outcomes are much less.  Increased risk lets you do more in the game while IRL remember that virtually all of the Japanese battle line was lost in Leyte and subsequent actions in 1944/45.  Unless you were a British or US admiral whose nations were floating new fleets, battleships literally were irreplaceable assets.  But by discounting risk and using your battleships aggressively, you get more use out of them in WitP than admirals did historically.       

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 20
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 2:17:54 AM   
Long Lance


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline 		Little off-topic, but which game is WPO?

(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 21
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 2:18:59 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

You may say its the age of the CV but it was the allies that built most BB in WW2 and thought they were of good use.


This is what I was addressing. Of course we mostly understand that the allies liked BBs as floaring artillery and floating AA platforms. As for as controlling the seas it was the era of the CV.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 22
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 2:24:01 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I don't know that they're "undervalued", but I do think they're "under-represented".

1.  They rarely engage targets with their main guns.
2.  They rerely engage anyting at long range anyway.
3.  Even as bombardment platforms they play 12th fiddle to cruisers because BBs only have 9 salvos of main ammo (and only 6 available to shoot).

Increase their ammo and help them to actually shoot their main guns, and you'd see a more historical relevance.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 23
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 4:38:21 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Good use of AEs will increase the effectiveness of BBs by quite a bit.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 6:56:18 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Little off-topic, but which game is WPO?


War Plan Orange. It's an offshoot of WITP, set in the 1920's and based upon the premise that the Washington Treaty was not accepted. It adapts WITP to the earlier period, and aircraft are only a minor player.

It's the brainchild of Tankerace, and a nice little addition to your collection if you're a nut about WITP. A significant number of forum members are in that game as ship commanders (a nice marketing move by Justin, and saved him the time of having to research the actual officers!).



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 25
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 6:59:35 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Long Lance,

WPO is War Plan Orange.  The game is set in the 1920s ie WITP without the aircraft carriers and 4E.

Alfred

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 26
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 7:44:09 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Play WPO for a few months of time, and you'll learn all you ever wanted to know about surface actions (given the lack of carrier airpower in the game).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 27
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 12:32:57 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

After playing 500 turns of PBEM games I think I can say now I think BB are undervalued.

Now I quite confidently use CL DD TF to tackle allied BB ( OK I know its at night usually ) .
They rarely get to use their guns at extreme range , the also seem to fire secondary guns much more than main guns , their own DD do not screen them from enemy DD or torp attacks, they suffer high ops points ( with the silly immediate reduction in speed) just as much as DD ( smaller ships should suffer more then big in attrition).In bombard actually they are not much use ( unless in massed groups for some reason ) as the ammo goes in one fire. For bombard now I mainly use DD if the recon level is high the effects can be similar and they can fire almost as much as you want.

You may say its the age of the CV but it was the allies that built most BB in WW2 and thought they were of good use.

M


That's accurate. The firepower of a BB was about twice the firepower of a cruiser--the real difference was armour penetration--and the survivability of a BB was also about twice that of a cruiser--now the difference was armour protection--so you wanted to ensure your battleships had a good escort.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 28
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 6:10:35 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
That's accurate. The firepower of a BB was about twice the firepower of a cruiser--the real difference was armour penetration--and the survivability of a BB was also about twice that of a cruiser--now the difference was armour protection--so you wanted to ensure your battleships had a good escort.



Not quite Herwin. BB's really get hurt by not being able to fire all their armament at appropriate targets. Much more than smaller craft, they had the directors and capacity to engage multiple targets at varying ranges at the same time..

< Message edited by Mike Scholl -- 3/12/2008 6:11:42 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 29
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP - 3/12/2008 6:59:55 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Little off-topic, but which game is WPO?


WPO is War Plan Orange.  It's the "little brother" of WitP that uses the same engine but different device, plane, and ship lists for a hypothetical naval conflict in the Pacific during the 1920s.  The premise for the game includes a collapse of the Washington Naval talks so the OOB for each side is enriched with lots of dreadnought and even pre-dreadnought capital ships.  Given that aircraft are far more primitive that WW2, a large force of battleships can bull through an aerial attack to the target, and carrier aviation is still in its infancy. 

Feinder's right about surface actions and you may also learn about creating and running blockade operations with surface ships, something that I can't imagine in WitP. 

The other item is that playing the same map with and without long-range airpower makes it a whole new game and helps give you a better appreciation for what air power can do when properly employed.  Plans that would have worked fine in a WPO period are often suicide in WitP. 

A bit off-topic, but the historical CO of Force Z actually wasn't a boneheaded admiral stuck in the past.  He did buy into a theory that AA was more effective than it proved to be in the field.  In fact I think he was one of the architects of that theory.  So he had unwarranted confidence to operate his capital ships in daylight within range of Japanese bombers.  Still, his work helped create the KGV class with 1000+ flak coming right out of the yards. 
    

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Are BB undervalued by WITP Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.938