Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:45:44 AM   
Grunt


Posts: 111
Joined: 5/17/2004
From: Idaho, USA
Status: offline 		Please tell what happens the next day. Do the transports get spanked?

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 31
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:26:59 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline 		I am sure your fortunes in this endeavor will influence Japanese operations for many players in the future. Allied as well.

Sounds like he was so comfortable in the Islands he didnt have his search up to snuff.

(in reply to Grunt)
Post #: 32
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 2:57:30 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Heavily prepped and well planned as it may have been, you gotta question the model when less than 300 combat troops are casualties against a heavily fortified and well-defended position. Otherwise, you might as well add "invade PH' to the standard Japanese play-book. Not meaning to take anything away from the audacity of the Japanese player who has accomplished this. But saying that "well the German CD guns didn't stop the invasion on D-day either..." Germany didn't have any warning either, and they killed a lot more than 300 Allied soldiers, and they didn't have half (or the concentration), of what is defending PH.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/7/2010 2:58:58 AM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Grunt)
Post #: 33
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:15:51 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Lets keep in mind that it is a 40 mile hex and nobody said they landed in the face of the forts at Pearl Harbor. The question is what ships will be left the next day and how much supply with the invaders have to sustain an attack. This could turn into a disaster that will have some far reaching consequences.

_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 34
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:38:36 AM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Given the nature of the island of Oahu, as was pointed out earlier, there aren't all that many places to land that are really suitable. Plus, given the size and number of those big guns, even BB commanders should be wetting themselves just thinking about attacking Pearl. 350 transports sitting stationary, well within range, its called a shooting gallery! Hell, some of those big guns could damn near fire across the entire island if they're centrally located. 16in guns shelling the beach = death. No invasion could happen under those conditions, it would be a slaughter if it got to shore at all.

The landing on Iwo was considered costly because of some smaller caliber well placed guns on the heights and well worked defenses. Losses were heavy despite overwhelming numbers and complete air and sea superiority. Pearl/Oahu... you'd better believe the number of guns there would wreak havoc.

So, that leads to the question-- should this be happening in the game?

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 35
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 3:49:04 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline 		Just curious -

Is this a scenario 2 game?

Edit -

NM, I found the AAR; it is scenario 2.

< Message edited by ckammp -- 1/7/2010 5:12:54 AM >

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 36
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:03:41 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Before we crown anyone anything, praise audacity or cast aspersions on strategic foresight, I'd suggest we see how this turns out. We've seen exactly one turn-we don't know how this is going to end up.

If the IJ wins, kudos.

If it loses, the IJ is crippled for the rest of the game and, so sorry, sure hope that he sticks with the inevitable early spanking administered by the allies. No quitting because the dangerous gamble didn't pan out.

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.

_____________________________


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 37
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:23:16 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.


While I agree with you, losing PH should buy the JAPs another 6 months, maybe even a year. I'm assuming you lose all those air groups and most/all of those support ships besides all the capital ships. That is a big hit for the allies. AND JAP gets all those supplies and fuel. Recoverable? Sure. But it should carry JAP through '43. Much like if JAP wins at Midway. To me losing PH is equivalent to losing the allied CV's in '42. It really hurts if you do.

However, it is a big gamble. If it fails, its like Midway, a real momentum killer.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 38
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:28:01 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Before we crown anyone anything, praise audacity or cast aspersions on strategic foresight, I'd suggest we see how this turns out. We've seen exactly one turn-we don't know how this is going to end up.

If the IJ wins, kudos.

If it loses, the IJ is crippled for the rest of the game and, so sorry, sure hope that he sticks with the inevitable early spanking administered by the allies. No quitting because the dangerous gamble didn't pan out.

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.



I suspect the importance of Pearl Harbor in this particular game is not for strategic or tactical reasons, but rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. The Japanese player seems to be going for an early knock-out blow. If, as I further suspect, the Japanese player has already captured Singapore and Manila, then this game will be over on 1 Jan 43. Unless the Allied player somehow manages to sink the entire IJN before that date.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 39
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 4:53:17 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

...rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. ...


Good point. And what would USA have done if PH is lost? That is a good question and not an easy answer....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 40
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 5:11:25 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

...rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. ...


Good point. And what would USA have done if PH is lost? That is a good question and not an easy answer....


I'm not sure that Japan historically had the lift capacity to invade PI, Java and Hawaii at the same time. 3 divisions and 9 regiments, plus supporting troops to Hawaii???? I could see that if he decided to not invade PI.

I thought I read in this thread that PI were already taken, and the invasion of Java was underway. Seems like an awful lot of amphibious operations in less than 2 months.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 41
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 7:37:31 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		It seems to be the norm that in AE the transports aren´t target for CD anymore and only the escorts fight it out with the CD guns. As soon as a player has figured this out he puts enough garbage escorts in the TF and lands masses of troops where they would have never had a chance to land in real life. Something has changed from WITP and I can´t say it´s better now. Not saying in WITP it was good either, but landing in Pearl would have resulted in better results than in AE for sure, the invasion would have been whiped out in probably 9 out of 10 times if the CD units weren´t knocked out (or at least heavily disrupted) earlier.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 42
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 7:39:53 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

All I can say that German coastal guns could not stop the D-Day. You need planes, you need ships if you can destroy this big invasion fleet you are pretty much crippled Japan for some time.




you´re not seriously comparing German coast defense in Normandy to the CD at Pearl Harbour?

_____________________________


(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 43
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:01:37 AM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

Given the nature of the island of Oahu, as was pointed out earlier, there aren't all that many places to land that are really suitable. Plus, given the size and number of those big guns, even BB commanders should be wetting themselves just thinking about attacking Pearl. 350 transports sitting stationary, well within range, its called a shooting gallery! Hell, some of those big guns could damn near fire across the entire island if they're centrally located. 16in guns shelling the beach = death. No invasion could happen under those conditions, it would be a slaughter if it got to shore at all.

The landing on Iwo was considered costly because of some smaller caliber well placed guns on the heights and well worked defenses. Losses were heavy despite overwhelming numbers and complete air and sea superiority. Pearl/Oahu... you'd better believe the number of guns there would wreak havoc.

So, that leads to the question-- should this be happening in the game?


Anything is possible. Lets not forget Iwo had the ENTIRE war to prepare it's defenses. In this scenario, Pearl Harbor had 6 weeks. I'm not saying an invasion is entirely feasible but it isn't impossible.

His invasion fleet was completely undetected. How much notice would Pearl have had to organize it's defenses before troops were overrunning the fixed positions?

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 44
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:07:17 AM   
Drambuie

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It seems to be the norm that in AE the transports aren´t target for CD anymore and only the escorts fight it out with the CD guns. As soon as a player has figured this out he puts enough garbage escorts in the TF and lands masses of troops


This seems to be the real issue to me - undetected or not (and given that the islands around Oahu had been attacked then surely people would be on the lookout - coastwatchers or similar - with hundreds of ships???) the combat reports suggest just about everything opened up at v. short ranges against the PBs and ignored everything else which must have been well within sight.

Questions - is suppression fire from offshore too effective at limiting CD response - I mean this only 'appears' to have had a few CLs and a few DDs suppressing?

Should the ability of escort vessels to 'shield' transports be massively toned down/restricted - even saying each escort can only screen a couple ships and then you get leakers that do get targeted?

Why does the CD fire at the screen almost exclusively?


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 45
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:12:10 AM   
Drambuie

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline
His invasion fleet was completely undetected. How much notice would Pearl have had to organize it's defenses before troops were overrunning the fixed positions?



Notice? The fact that the islands around it had been overrun in the few days before it may have given clues to the population in the area that a vast armada they see off the coasts is probably not friendly ... unfortunately I suppose the game mechanics don't allow for a general level of readiness other than by deploying search aircraft.

This I suppose also reflects the issues of the hex size ... players can argue in its favour when it suits or not - 'Oahu is big and there were some spots where they could land' - but the engine does not reflect these options and the defenses don't either. Pearl's CD guns protected the harbour' - well in this they seem to protect the general whole hex or am I mistaken?

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 46
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:13:23 AM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Before we crown anyone anything, praise audacity or cast aspersions on strategic foresight, I'd suggest we see how this turns out. We've seen exactly one turn-we don't know how this is going to end up.

If the IJ wins, kudos.

If it loses, the IJ is crippled for the rest of the game and, so sorry, sure hope that he sticks with the inevitable early spanking administered by the allies. No quitting because the dangerous gamble didn't pan out.

With the Southern transport routes available to the Allies, quite frankly, I'm underwhelmed about the primacy of Pearl Harbor in AE. I think the Allies can carry on effectively without. Oh sure, it'll be a bit of a pain rerouting everything to Tahiti and points South, but it can be done.



I suspect the importance of Pearl Harbor in this particular game is not for strategic or tactical reasons, but rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. The Japanese player seems to be going for an early knock-out blow. If, as I further suspect, the Japanese player has already captured Singapore and Manila, then this game will be over on 1 Jan 43. Unless the Allied player somehow manages to sink the entire IJN before that date.


Sing has fallen on 1st of January. Malaya taken. PI: Lots of troops advancing Manila from South. North Luzon under control.
Center and South Sumatra Taken. Palembang on 27th of Dec. North Borneo under control. Central Java taken. This was a very sucessful landing too.

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 47
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:23:54 AM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

...rather operational reasons. In other words - it's worth a LOT of points. The base itself is worth 3000 VP to Japan. Add in all the BBs and other ships, plus the LCUs, and you've got quite a haul for Japan. ...


Good point. And what would USA have done if PH is lost? That is a good question and not an easy answer....


I'm not sure that Japan historically had the lift capacity to invade PI, Java and Hawaii at the same time. 3 divisions and 9 regiments, plus supporting troops to Hawaii???? I could see that if he decided to not invade PI.

I thought I read in this thread that PI were already taken, and the invasion of Java was underway. Seems like an awful lot of amphibious operations in less than 2 months.


Can not agree here. I have not extended invasion operations. Not at all. Troops went to Pacific instead of PI and Malaya.
I had 1, correct, ONE and only Infantry Regiment in PI for the whole month of December. Malaya was taken with 3 Division etc. To the troops planned for Malaya and PI I have added just 1 unit. 21st Division from China. It is hard to say that they were not able to lift one more Division.

PLUS: Java operation was possible only because Sing has fallen on 1st of Jan (Mersing Landing).




< Message edited by WITPPL -- 1/7/2010 8:26:46 AM >

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 48
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:35:22 AM   
Marty A

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball
Anything is possible. Lets not forget Iwo had the ENTIRE war to prepare it's defenses. In this scenario, Pearl Harbor had 6 weeks. I'm not saying an invasion is entirely feasible but it isn't impossible.

His invasion fleet was completely undetected. How much notice would Pearl have had to organize it's defenses before troops were overrunning the fixed positions?


Iwo did not begin to defend until july 1944 when the new commander took over and sent all civil people off island. defense guns on oahu begin install 1914.

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 49
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 8:41:51 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Looks to me like it was just a matter of numbers, with the numerous PB's screening the relatively few AK's.  I also think there is something fishy in the reported 2500 AV number.  I count only 3 xAK's and 3 xAKL's in the 3 invasion TFs you have posted.  Unless there were many other TFs that also unloaded, you will likely face much, much less AV from any attack tomorrow.  



350 ships in total and you say relatively few, what would be many then? The only reason there are only 3 AKs each is that the rest wasn´t fired at. Doubtfully someone would invade Pearl with 6 AKs no?

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 50
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 10:35:05 AM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline 		Do You want me to post exact composition of all invading TFs?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 51
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 10:39:37 AM   
WITPPL


Posts: 290
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline 		Gents,

Everybody is missing one thing. Mines.
Not only this invasion went without severe hits from CDs but also I was able to clear minefield in one go. Not a single transport was hit by a mine...

I dont know the size of a mine field though.



(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 52
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 10:59:36 AM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I do not think, that PH will fall after the first shock attack. If you have enough supplys you can hold the base a long time. I defended noumea against 2500 av with 700 av and lvl 3 forts 3 months long. And as long as I have supply he will never get the Base. Terrain and fortlvl help the defender bigtime.

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 53
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:13:31 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Gents,

Everybody is missing one thing. Mines.
Not only this invasion went without severe hits from CDs but also I was able to clear minefield in one go. Not a single transport was hit by a mine...

I dont know the size of a mine field though.



WITPPL. Game-wise your accomplishment is admirable. I think the point being made is that if the game allows it to occur successfully any time after the morning of the 8th of December, 1941, then the game itself (specifically the CD vs. Invasion portion) is badly flawed.

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 54
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:39:15 AM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

When is this in game time?


Late Jan 1942.

quote:


I suspect that the PBs are getting the worst of it because they screen the ships unloading and 'trade' fire with shore batteries while unloading takes place.

The fact that many of his units have a "/1" after their name indicates that they're incompletely unloaded. Once his PBs sink (as pretty much all of them do next turn), I'd expect your CDs to mince the actual AKs , APs, DDs and supporting CLs in turn.

Interesting to follow-thanks for bringing us along.


Yeah, but....the sharp end of the stick is already ashore. Im looking at 2500 AV right now, and unless they are insanely disorganized, Pearl will fall to a shock attack tomorrow.


HISTORY

Oahu was garrisoned by the two best divisions in the Regular Army and was the strongest fortified fleet base in the world. It should be able to hold out against 2500 AV for a month or more. The fact that it can't (and the similar experience at Darwin reported in Andy Mac's AAR) simply means that the land combat model needs serious redesign (not just tweaking).

_____________________________

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 Bluebook)
Post #: 55
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 11:42:59 AM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline 		edit: nm

< Message edited by Bluebook -- 1/7/2010 1:17:35 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 12:12:32 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Lets keep in mind that it is a 40 mile hex and nobody said they landed in the face of the forts at Pearl Harbor. The question is what ships will be left the next day and how much supply with the invaders have to sustain an attack. This could turn into a disaster that will have some far reaching consequences.


There are no accessible beaches on Oahu that weren't covered by coast defense artillery. An invader had very limited options; the Honolulu/Waikiki area, Kanoehe, or the SW coastline. All three areas were heavily defended and had multiple guns defending them, from 3" all the way up to 16". Any invading fleet would have had 12", 14" and 16" shells raining down on it from all directions; no amount of escorts would have been able to prevent the transports from coming under fire. Pearl Harbor was probably the most heavily defended port in the world in 1/42.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 57
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:15:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Sing has fallen on 1st of January. Malaya taken. PI: Lots of troops advancing Manila from South. North Luzon under control.
Center and South Sumatra Taken. Palembang on 27th of Dec. North Borneo under control. Central Java taken. This was a very sucessful landing too.


With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 58
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:17:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marty A


quote:

ORIGINAL: skrewball
Anything is possible. Lets not forget Iwo had the ENTIRE war to prepare it's defenses. In this scenario, Pearl Harbor had 6 weeks. I'm not saying an invasion is entirely feasible but it isn't impossible.

His invasion fleet was completely undetected. How much notice would Pearl have had to organize it's defenses before troops were overrunning the fixed positions?


Iwo did not begin to defend until july 1944 when the new commander took over and sent all civil people off island. defense guns on oahu begin install 1914.


Yeah, but OTOH, the citizens of Oahu didn't live underground in caves. Comparing Iwo to just about anything else in the PTO is fruitless, but it's the go-to comparison for any argument, from artillery (in)effectivness to stacking rules to fortification speed.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Marty A)
Post #: 59
RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results - 1/7/2010 1:23:06 PM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

With all necessary gentleness to your opponent, but maybe you should advertise for one who matches your game-playing abilities?

The butcher's bill you describe by the end of Jan 1942 would seem to come at the expense of an opponent who has not mastered the basics of the game.

I'm just sayin' . . .


Yeah, that must be it...

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbor - results Page: <<   < prev  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

1.203