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: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/20/2010 10:30:10 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Excellent progress and a good recovery from the aborted invasion of SE Oz. Do you believe that the forces on hand are sufficient to take Perth?

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 541
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 12:23:26 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
I think Perth is untenable for Allies now; much like Rockhampton. If Andy reinforces heavily I can cut it of, bombard it from the sea and air...think he sees this. I do have sizeable number of troops available, 2 divisions worth in Geraldton - now resting to repair all their damage. Also got 3 divisions at Soerabaja resting, all planning for Perth.

I see New Caledonia is undeveldoped and most likely lightly defended.
Is it worth to grab it, place an Air HQ there together with a regiment and 30 Zero's and 30 Betties?
Could be useful as an emergency port.

Don't want to spread to thin, sending a convoy south now with 5 arty units and 4 base force units.
Base units go to the Solomons; this is our main objective - build a strong line of defense.
Also shipping out supplies, want as much as the bases can hold.

When Andy goes onto the offensive he will be channelled towards the weakest link in the chain.
If we deliberately allows one of our sectors to be weakly held we can anticipate his moves and prepare counter-measures accordingly.


_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 542
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 12:58:38 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
New Caledonia could be a useful outpost for two reasons - 1) It's got to be taken before Andy can move on the Solomons & NG, giving more time to develop the MLR further back; and 2) Allied players like to use carriers here. This could tempt him into a CV duel on favorable terms if played right.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 543
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 1:34:05 AM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
New Caledonia could indeed be a side show and a bait to get some attention.
After reading String's thread about his carrier battle with Andy I'm not sure Andy is keen on another carrier brawl with the KB in mid 42!-)

My best bet at winning time is to hack away at Andy's weak side, his not all to big enthusiasm for micro management.
This makes him vulnerable for actions like those in the last post. When it comes to long term planning and execution I've never been able to stop him, merely delay and divert.



_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 544
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 12:10:35 PM   
Honda


Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
Cheers!
I just got this overwelming urge to take part. :)
New Caledonia is, very much like OZ (except the North), too far away to serve a purpose in the defense of the Empire. But it is a hell of a position to hold throughout 1942 and early 1943, especially when you are conducting operations in Oz. The key is not to have it cut off, that is to time the withdrawal correctly. Strong Guadalcanal is a must. New Caledonia and surrounding islands can be useful as a nuisance to the Allied player who will have to take it back sooner or later which will tie down a portion of his troops and naval assets for at least a month.

Have a nice a war and may the sea run red with the blood of the enemy.

Honda

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 545
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 4:26:34 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Hi Honda, good to hear from you!
Yes, New Caledonia is a "nice to have" but not a must.
Will consider an operation as we regroup. Converting some AK's into AK-t's.

Been trying to get a structured convoy system in place - a constant struggle to toggle everything.
A few questions; How many resources do you leave in places like Port Arthur and Hong Kong?
Also; Is it important for the war industry to ship much raw oil to the home islands or does refined fuel do?


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 08, 42

Ground Combat

Ok Rockhampton is secured!

Ground combat at Rockhampton (95,152)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 528 troops, 0 guns, 94 vehicles, Assault Value = 361
Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 50
Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 50 to 1 (fort level 3)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Rockhampton !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker:

Assaulting units:
9th Tank Regiment
1st Infantry Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
22nd Recon Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
45th Field AA Battalion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to drive the Alice Springs defenders south!

Ground combat at 73,146
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1025 troops, 4 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 38
Defending force 687 troops, 21 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

Japanese adjusted assault: 15
Allied adjusted defense: 6

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
284 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
1st Recon Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Australian Brigade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Oodnadatta (74,149)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 403 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 19
Defending force 325 troops, 0 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 30

Japanese adjusted assault: 8
Allied adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(-), disruption(-), preparation(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
Yokosuka Assault SNLF /15

Defending units:
2nd Recce Battalion
2nd USMC Parachute Bn /60

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLAK PIT

Think we are ready to greet visitors with a little firework here!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 546
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/21/2010 10:48:03 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Been trying to get a structured convoy system in place - a constant struggle to toggle everything.
A few questions; How many resources do you leave in places like Port Arthur and Hong Kong?
Also; Is it important for the war industry to ship much raw oil to the home islands or does refined fuel do?


You have a lot of excess refinery capacity in the home islands, so any oil you can ship there will be used. Don't ship more than what is excess in the SRA however.




_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 547
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/22/2010 11:14:13 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
I have no idea about surplus refinery capacity in Home Islands Mynok, but if we run low on fuel one day it can't hurt if we build up oil stocks!

Interesting turn...got some issues I've asked Andy about, a few are described below in the combat text!

The others;

1. In another game I got against Al I put lots of troops to follow my HQ marching into Singapore.
Twice the HQ has cancelled its movement whe 50-75% there. Annoying... Now I've put all units to march and they will cross helter skelter, forcing several shock attacks. Suggestions?

2. If you put 10k troops on an atoll with a limit of 6k troops, will this affect supply levels and supply usage in any extreme way?

Have unloaded 4k supplies at Palmyra and supply levels have been staying steady at 20!! continously despite all damage being fixed a long time ago. Trying to move out some troops but it's very frustrating...just like a black hole is eating up everything unloaded here.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 11, 42

Sub Attacks

The happy hunting grounds outside Colombo is still rich with targets!
Clan Macnaught - must be a scotsman!-)

Submarine attack near Colombo at 26,48

Japanese Ships
SS I-165

Allied Ships
xAK Clan Macnaughton, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

xAK Clan Macnaughton is sighted by SS I-165
SS I-165 attacking on the surface

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardments

Ok we gave Perth a severe pounding! 36 ac destroyed on the ground including 8 P-38's!
The Hyuga and Fuso concentrated on Perth while the not so lucky Yamashiro pulled the shortest straw and engaged
Freemantle fort! Hundreds of 9.2, 6 and 4" shells were hurled at her and she was duped in fire. Still, sys damage = only 2
and one secondary turret is destroyed....

Naval bombardment of Perth at 49,147 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
B-26 Marauder: 7 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed on ground
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed on ground
PBY-5A Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground
Beaufighter Ic: 2 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 3 destroyed on ground

102 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga
BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 31
BB Fuso
CL Tama

Allied ground losses:
181 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 12 (1 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 114

BB Hyuga firing at Perth
BB Yamashiro firing at Freemantle Fortress
BB Fuso firing at Perth
CL Tama firing at Perth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this

Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 34

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
34 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 29,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 36

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick sweeping at 25000 feet *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Calcutta , at 52,37

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 25000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Trying to take out another stack that was surrounded...Andy made no attempts at withdrawing or
preventing the encirclement. A bit strange, the combat text says "forts reduced" twice but they didn't go down at all???

Ground combat at Kukong (79,57)

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 43316 troops, 327 guns, 64 vehicles, Assault Value = 1590

Defending force 20827 troops, 180 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 731
Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 980
Allied adjusted defense: 393

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2469 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 161 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 95 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1497 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 119 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 100 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled

Assaulting units:
22nd Division
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment
17th/C Division
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade
116th/A Division
17th/B Division
116th/B Division

Defending units:
21st Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps
7th War Area
30th Group Army
12th Group Army
11th Chinese Base Force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perth receives a pounding!

36x14" guns can deliver a sizeable barrage




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 548
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/22/2010 11:44:12 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Progress Map




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 549
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 12:38:44 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

1. In another game I got against Al I put lots of troops to follow my HQ marching into Singapore.
Twice the HQ has cancelled its movement whe 50-75% there. Annoying... Now I've put all units to march and they will cross helter skelter, forcing several shock attacks. Suggestions?


I think the HQ can't be first in where enemy units are present. Try having them follow a combat unit.


quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion



They have Bogie! Ever seen Sahara?

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 550
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 2:23:01 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Do you not use WitpTracker PzB? That'll show you the excess refinery capacity quickly.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 551
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 9:20:26 AM   
castor troy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Air Combat

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this




Because that´s how it is designed now, it´s called "strike package". So while your sweep or other attacks go in piece meal (strike package) you can be very unlucky in attacking a base with enough radar coverage and face the full Cap and all your "strike packages" will be whiped out. Same goes when attacking TFs, KB for example (and Allied TFs of course), you will face quite a high Cap as many (if not all) fighters will scramble to meet your piece meal strikes. This then leads to the strike packages being hit hard, as can be seen in many AARs. It´s hard coded and you can´t do much (if anything) against it, the air coordination guide on the forum is nice but is 95% theory. Follow it and you won´t find much difference IMO. All the "you need this and that" just doesn´t work in my AE version and it doesn´t work in most versions, at least I have yet to see an AAR that proves it working.

It doesn´t and that´s because it was designed to work like this, it was even part of the "what´s new commercial". Design desicion, set three fighter squadrons to fly from the same base to a target 120 miles away and you will probably see all three squadrons going in piecemeal (with the squadrons themself split up too) most of the time. Instead of designing it that something can get screwed up SOMETIME it was designed that strikes get screwed up MOST of the time, which is just plain wrong and is not reflecting real life, at least not in the books we all read about it. Just not true that strikes of 50 aircraft got lost most of the time, yet in the game they do.

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 552
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:04:38 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
PzB re coordination:

Weather was not bad, it was horrible for coordination purposes. More so if you want to accomplish this with
100+ fighters. I would not have dared to launch this mission against expected heavy CAP.
Just imagine large formations with WWII nav equipment through something dubbed "severe storms". Close to impossible.
I´d say this was the number one killer for a coordinated sweep.

Additional impacts might have been the by different Airframes (Oscar, Zero, Nick).
Also check for other flights assigned to 25k in the area, another thing that prevents coordination.
I guess you set all squads to the HQ?

Usually I refrain from flying heavy strikes/sweeps in bad weather as this seldom works as intended.

CT its not 95% theory.
I´m living by these rules and my unexplainable issues with coordination are about 0.1%.
Also coordination only screws up MOST of the time if you try to accomplish something that can´t
work in RL, (like flying 80 bombers with escorts to a target and expect them all to arrive at the same time)
so why should it in-game? The guide is something that helps you get coordinated results within reasonable
limits.
But I think we have had discussions over this topic for a lifetime anyway...

In my current PBEM against Rob I deliberately waited for bad weather to launch an invasion because i knew this would
disrupt his attempts to counter with the overwhelming assets he has available.
I admit I was lucky until now too and this is far from done but in general most players tend to underestimate weather
as a deciding factor.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 553
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 1:40:56 PM   
Honda


Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi PzB,

You can't attack across river with HQ. Although you have combat units following the game mechanics keep them some 1 mile beihind or something. I think the game resets the movement when it comes to making the assult. try having them follow a unit with some assult value (even basic non-combat engineers will do). IIRC, that should do the trick.

Honda

P.S.
Oops, just noticed witpqs got there first.

< Message edited by Honda -- 3/23/2010 1:41:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 554
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 2:12:58 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

PzB re coordination:

Weather was not bad, it was horrible for coordination purposes. More so if you want to accomplish this with
100+ fighters. I would not have dared to launch this mission against expected heavy CAP.
Just imagine large formations with WWII nav equipment through something dubbed "severe storms". Close to impossible.
I´d say this was the number one killer for a coordinated sweep.

Additional impacts might have been the by different Airframes (Oscar, Zero, Nick).
Also check for other flights assigned to 25k in the area, another thing that prevents coordination.
I guess you set all squads to the HQ?

Usually I refrain from flying heavy strikes/sweeps in bad weather as this seldom works as intended.

CT its not 95% theory.
I´m living by these rules and my unexplainable issues with coordination are about 0.1%.
Also coordination only screws up MOST of the time if you try to accomplish something that can´t
work in RL, (like flying 80 bombers with escorts to a target and expect them all to arrive at the same time)
so why should it in-game? The guide is something that helps you get coordinated results within reasonable
limits.
But I think we have had discussions over this topic for a lifetime anyway...

In my current PBEM against Rob I deliberately waited for bad weather to launch an invasion because i knew this would
disrupt his attempts to counter with the overwhelming assets he has available.
I admit I was lucky until now too and this is far from done but in general most players tend to underestimate weather
as a deciding factor.



I don´t doubt your words, but what I see in all AARs I read and myself playing I can follow all the assumptions of what to do and what not and it still doesn´t help at all. The ONLY thing so far I can confirm is that it´s better to have your fighters at the same alt as your bombers but that´s it. No matter if bright sunshine or thunderstorms, I´ve got it happening all the time and seriously, if you want to wait for good weather in the game to launch a strike you will never launch one because even if the forecast says "clear" you most often still end up in thunderstorms. The weather model in the game is screwed and I guess most people agree on this, knowing that some would say it´s perfectly fine and realistic. I´ve got thunderstorms or severe storms in the desert so often that I wonder why it´s called desert.

But as you say I shouldn´t expect to see 80 aircraft flying at the same time to the same target we´re both fine already as this is what doesn´t work. But I´m glad the "we send all fighters on Cap" still works.

Coordination works just fine then and you don´t have to follow ANY assumptions then, because sending one squadron works. NO, sorry, doesn´t work either, as usually 23 fighter arrive with the last 4 separated.

We can go even further, even if we´re going off topic even more (sry PzB hope you don´t mind). We have realistic or historical numbers coming in but we have ahistorical numbers of Cap in the air and now the most unrealistical thing then: the damage done is repaired in no time. In real life it took one or two succesful mission to wreck an airbase for a long time, yet in the game I can still repair it in no time, if there are enough eng on hand. Just because you have 5000 engineers at a base doesn´t mean you would have all your hangers, concrete runways, storage buildings, etc up running within one or two days again - everything brand new. In the game, no problem, put 300 eng squads at a base and have a level 9 airfield repaired from 100% in just a couple of days. Wonder how long it took to repair the damage done at Pearl Harbour in real life. And there it probably would not be more than 10-20% (if it even was that high).

Again, if you´re saying 80 aircraft are too many to have them coming in coordinated when flying out of an airfield complex level 7-9 then I´m out of the discussion anyway an won´t complain again. Those 80 aircraft being split up in 4, 5 or 6 single strikes meet a hell a lot of Cap though. Wonder how those fighters can take off and intercept then when the same number can´t fly to a target together. And yes, it is full theory because for a strike of two squadrons of 12 aircraft each I just don´t care about any setting as those work just fine.

I was told by a dev it´s NOT necessary to have all squadrons command being set to the HQ at the base.

One last thing, can you explain me in a realistic way what has to go wrong in real life to have 50 B-17 not being able to coordinate when they launch from a level 8 airfield, attacking a target 4 hexes away? The bombers could circle for hours over their base to form up. The only thing then would be to get lost during their way onto the target and that´s fine with me. That´s what should sometimes screw up, but not 95% of the time.

In my version of WITP AE and the version being sold to most of the rest of the players doing an AAR it´s all just plain theory. HQ, alt, weather, av support, same aircraft type, position of the moon, birthday of Adolf Hitler... it all just doesn´t matter because most of the time strikes bigger than 40 ac don´t work. Heck, strikes of single squadrons usually don´t work. So what setting is wrong if a 27 fighter squadron comes in as 23 + 4 strike? The only thing that convinced me so far is experience of the crews. With 70 it seems you get just nicely combined strikes. Haven´t done extensive testing on this in my AI game but it seems to work as I used the editor to have halve a dozen squadrons with 70 exp. But try to get 70 exp in the game. I have bomber crews with 100+ missions flown and they still are only in the high 50s or low 60s. It takes until the end of the war to reach 70 exp in the game. Skill is no problem, takes only 2 months training to reach 70 skill as a newb out of flight school.

Big strikes work from carriers though, this again can be related to high experienced crews or the coordination from 7 carriers is being seen easier than from an airfield complex level 9. IMO, it´s the other way around. A huge airfield should be better than 7 carriers where you can´t even park all the aircraft on deck. "My theory" is that exp is what counts, but as you will never reach high enough exp you will never see something that you wouldn´t call "screwed up". Of course you can happily go on sending 20 bombers escorted by 20 fighters against targets with 100 fighters in the air and if you´re lucky to do 10% of af damage it will be 0% the next day.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 2:26:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 555
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 2:33:00 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
CT I´ll leave it with a short answer theres no need to hijack a great AAR for this but I think
you sometimes deliberately try to misunderstand what I´m saying.

No prob with 50 bombers running a coordinated mission.
I said theres  no way - in RL and in-game - they will arrive in one single "bomber box" over target at the same time all ready to
protect the other bombers and form an impenetrable target wall against fighters like you want to have it.
On the other hand scambling interceptors are given vectors and altitude of enemy formations so whats unrealistic about
them being able to concentrate forces and single out stragglers or seperated formations? 
If you don´t understand what this implies, what disadvantages the attacking formations had to face in WWII against a prepared defender
that benefits from early warning - and how you have to translate this into combat replay - I can´t help you.

If you still think I´m wrong lets leave it as it is and conclude that we just seem to have different opinions on this topic.






_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 556
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 2:44:55 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

CT I´ll leave it with a short answer theres no need to hijack a great AAR for this but I think
you sometimes deliberately try to misunderstand what I´m saying.

No prob with 50 bombers running a coordinated mission.
I said theres  no way - in RL and in-game - they will arrive in one single "bomber box" over target at the same time all ready to
protect the other bombers and form an impenetrable target wall against fighters like you want to have it.
On the other hand scambling interceptors are given vectors and altitude of enemy formations so whats unrealistic about
them being able to concentrate forces and single out stragglers or seperated formations? 
If you don´t understand what this implies, what disadvantages the attacking formations had to face in WWII against a prepared defender
that benefits from early warning - and how you have to translate this into combat replay - I can´t help you.

If you still think I´m wrong lets leave it as it is and conclude that we just seem to have different opinions on this topic.






lol, have you ever had 50 medium bombers being attacked by 50 Zeroes? Or worse, 50 IJAAF medium bombers by 50 Warhawks? I had 50+ obsolete Dutch bombers being shot down by not even two dozen Zeroes and Marauders or Mitchells aren´t expected to form this wall you´re talking about either. One such attack and you lose two months replacements of US medium bombers.

We do have two different opinions on this topic for sure. I really appreciate all the work you´ve put into the guide as much I appreciate all the testing some people are doing to solve issues. Problem is, it either is not working or only works for you, because like I´ve stated before, all the AARs I´m reading are showing different outcomes and the same goes for my game. I can follow it perfectly and still will have those piece meal strikes. And why shouldn´t I? It´s working as designed and it´s been designed to have "strike packs".

It sure can be the case that all those experienced players (like beta testers or members of the dev team) are just not able to figure out how their "own" desing works. Andy vs String is just one of dozens instances I can remember, he was not happy to have hundreds of aircraft go in piece meal against KB. Just one of many examples. Being a member of the dev team you could think he would know what to do. Or he´s just a bad player, sorry Andy.



< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/23/2010 2:47:13 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 557
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 2:57:03 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've asked Andy about this one; 6 guns an no men defending against 120 tanks and 1000 troops.
3 times in a row I've shock attacked with 15-21 to 1 in odds. No results, no casualties and no retreat
A coastal arty unit should be dead and buried a long time ago - shouldn't even be able to move with guns!!
Annoying....

Ground combat at 50,144

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1071 troops, 4 guns, 119 vehicles, Assault Value = 71

Defending force 0 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 15

Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Assaulting units:
16th Recon Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
276th Coastal Artillery Battalion




Very strange PzB. This reminds me about the severe problems seidlitz had when he launched his attack against the SU.

I really thought there was a solution for the static unit defend-to-the-last-man syndrome long ago.
Thats your own fault for extending the Japanese sphere of influence way beyond historical limitations...
Somehow 6 Paul Hogans armed to the teeth behind barbed wire spring to mind...

_____________________________


(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 558
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 6:33:23 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this


What was the exp of the pilots? I find in my games that this is the most important factor for flying coordinated strikes. I rarely have this problem when exp is over 60.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 559
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 7:27:45 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

Tried to organize a massive sweep over Calcutta...found no one home - but what upset me
was that all air units went in one by one despite my preparations!

1. Plenty supplies in base
2. Air HQ in base
3. All fighters given the same target and altitude

I see that weather was poor, but still - the sweeping ac launched unit by unit, no
attempts at coordination!

Why is this


What was the exp of the pilots? I find in my games that this is the most important factor for flying coordinated strikes. I rarely have this problem when exp is over 60.


Sorry Pzb .. Hijacker alert ! ..

I'm actually quite taken with your and CT's idea that exp might indeed have a much larger impact than a/c type/range etc. Would actually make pilot exp very very valuable instead as its now treated as a secondary commodity over individual skills. Interesting thoughts.

I'll discuss my co-ordination 'efforts' with LoBaron over e-mail so as not to turn this AAR into a forum thread.

Good luck as ever PzB ! Long live the Empire of scandanavia !



_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 560
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 9:39:47 PM   
Milman

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Serbia
Status: offline
Hi PzB

Reading from the beginig and like this match very much. It is going to be very interestring like it was "India Gambit" plaied by you in original WITP.

I would like to know few things becouse i prepare my self for first pbem in AE.

1. I don't remember that your carriers were in port on repairs since begining. If that is true what dmg they have now ? I have problem that afther one month my cv's are over 5 sys and few engine and flood dmg. How are those things in your match ?

2. Those divisions which are retreating from S. Australia. Would you check their fatigue and moral when you unload them in friendly port. It will be nice to know how much were they on sea and how much penalty they took.

thx in advance.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 561
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:02:44 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Intersting discussion and very valuable info guys!
- Andy confirmed that an HQ can't march into a target hex first...had no idea about this!

I use WitP tracker, but not every turn - especially not after I started a second game.
Pretty low on time to get them around before night creeps up.

The air units I swept Calcutta with were quite experienced and all "packets" arrived with their full individual strenght.
The air units does not belong specifically to the Air HQ in the base hex.
Can someone tell me if it's worth paying the PP's to change them and what exactly the effect will be?

Also; when having an Air HQ prepare for a target - will this effect strike coordination?
E.g. if my Air HQ had 100 prep points for Calcutta, how much will this increase strike effectiveness and coordination?
- Since it take months to get a 100 prep value for a single base it is almost impossible to prepare for more than a single enemy base in the general target area at the time unless multiple Air HQ's are brought in.

Weather in Burma - India is highly unpredicatble, impossible to know what it will be like next turn.
Still, if I can never sweep an enemy base with more than a single air unit at a time there could be trouble.
If 100 fighters are ordered to sweep I'd expect 60-95 of them to arrive over the target somewhat coherently unless something went totally awry. By taking of, circling, joining formation and heading towards target it should be possible to achieve more than individualism!?

Andy had no explanation about the coastal gun unit that withstood 2 armored units LeBaron...most likely a routine that needs tweaking!

Hi Milman, welcome aboard!

Yep, carriers accumulate system damage. I just sailed the KB into Truk after prolonged operations around Oztralia.
Damage varied from 0 to 5 sys and a the occasional major engine damage point. Nothing that the repair ship, port facilities and Naval HQ's at Truk can't repair in a week's time.

The divisions had fatigue from 20 to 80 when unloaded at Soerabaja.
I found that units loaded on AP's (troop transports) suffered a lot less fatigue than those loaded on AK's (cargo ships).
This is most likely a trade of cause AP's unload horribly slow during an amph landing.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jun 12, 42

Bombardments

Our big guns visits Bundaberg today to complain about the beer!
Donkey pi$$

Naval bombardment of Bundaberg at 96,155

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato
BB Kirishima
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
CA Maya
CL Tenryu

Allied ground losses:
166 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 6 (0 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 16 (2 destroyed, 14 disabled)

Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 18
Port hits 15
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 6

BB Mutsu firing at Americal Infantry Division
BB Nagato firing at Americal Infantry Division
BB Kirishima firing at Bundaberg
BB Kongo firing at Americal Infantry Division
CA Myoko firing at Americal Infantry Division
CA Maya firing at Americal Infantry Division
CL Tenryu firing at Americal Infantry Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASW Attacks

Noticing a major enemy naval presence at Brisbane the I-154 is sent to investigate and is
given quite a welcome...she's now limping back to port with leaks everywhere.

ASW attack near Brisbane at 96,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-154, hits 8

Allied Ships
CA Northampton
DD Dale
DD Paladin
DD Norman
DD Express
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Brisbane at 96,160

Japanese Ships
SS I-154, hits 7, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Canberra
CL Nashville
DD Hull
DD Gridley
DD Craven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Rockhampton at 95,152

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
A-24 Banshee x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
A-24 Banshee: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku S-1 Det with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Kawai Det with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

Ground combat at 73,147

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 984 troops, 4 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 35

Defending force 501 troops, 20 guns, 10 vehicles, Assault Value = 15
Japanese adjusted assault: 17

Allied adjusted defense: 3
Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker: leaders(+), leaders(-)

Allied ground losses:
85 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
1st Recon Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Australian Brigade

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argh, Andy simply railed a division into Cunderdin; probably got them waiting in the backyard already
loaded on trains :-\ No surprise a full division was a bit much....

Ground combat at Cunderdin (51,147)

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 1046 troops, 8 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 53

Defending force 11226 troops, 199 guns, 287 vehicles, Assault Value = 360
Japanese adjusted assault: 23

Allied adjusted defense: 121
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), op mode(-), leaders(-), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
149 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
2nd Recon Regiment
Yokosuka Assault SNLF /111

Defending units:
41st Infantry Division
3rd RAN Base Force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of activity on the west coast of Oz...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 562
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:07:42 PM   
PzB74


Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
CAG - R&R Status




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 563
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:17:09 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Also; when having an Air HQ prepare for a target - will this effect strike coordination?


Yes....within its command structure and range.

Lots of reserve aircraft in those groups. Curious.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 564
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:41:17 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Per Mike Solli, the Ehime Class is the most cost effective of xAKs to increase cargo space to troop space via temporary conversion. The Aden Class is good second choice, but is also heavily used for carrying Resources.

Air coordination - I don't know if anybody has done so, but I wonder if you need the same Air HQ and the various Chutai, Sentai, and Daitai to all be the same command. You get good results initially when you attack into Malaya as they all come from 3rd Air HQ. As the game progresses, we all tend to mix and match too much.

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 565
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 10:45:18 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Air coordination - I don't know if anybody has done so, but I wonder if you need the same Air HQ and the various Chutai, Sentai, and Daitai to all be the same command. You get good results initially when you attack into Malaya as they all come from 3rd Air HQ. As the game progresses, we all tend to mix and match too much.


Thats a must have for coordination improvement.

I wonder how the exp discussion works out though. I know it has an influence (both, assigning squadrons to HQ´s and squad exp are part of my coordinaiton guide already) but I don´t know to which
extent and if theres a braking point - e.g. severe penalty with average exp. lower than 60.


_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 566
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/23/2010 11:18:18 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Air coordination - I don't know if anybody has done so, but I wonder if you need the same Air HQ and the various Chutai, Sentai, and Daitai to all be the same command. You get good results initially when you attack into Malaya as they all come from 3rd Air HQ. As the game progresses, we all tend to mix and match too much.


Thats a must have for coordination improvement.

I wonder how the exp discussion works out though. I know it has an influence (both, assigning squadrons to HQ´s and squad exp are part of my coordinaiton guide already) but I don´t know to which
extent and if theres a braking point - e.g. severe penalty with average exp. lower than 60.




I was told this by a member of the dev team due to my complaining in my AAR, then tried it in my AI test game and had no effect at all, so I refrained from changing all my squadrons and spending hundreds of pps to do so in my PBEM. I then discussed this with AndyMac (as we know another dev team member) and he didn´t confirm that it´s a must or that it helps at all, which confirms my "tests". To point it out, I´m not doing test in a dozen with a dedicated test scenario, I´m playing the AI parallel to my PBEM when I´ve got time and there I use some empty bases as targets for example. Not taking notes, not doing statistics. I never saw a difference though in strike coordination, no matter what command the HQ is and what command the air unit is. Again something that sounds nice (the pps available have to be doubled at least then) but is IMO not true.

PzB, I was talking to Andy about this, I´m sure he will give you answer on it. DON´T spend any pps on changing around unrestricted daitais to different commands before Andy has answered you.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 567
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/24/2010 12:06:40 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Our big guns visits Bundaberg today to complain about the beer!
Donkey pi$$



I'll take your word on that - interested on how you managed to find out how the former tastes...

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 568
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/24/2010 1:13:57 AM   
bbbf

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Bundaberg would probably be XXXX beer - although I don't know for sure in the 40's, may have had a local brew.

But if it was XXXX then your description is pretty close.

Bundaberg Rum (the distllery would be running in 42) on the other hand is a worthy acquisition for the Empire, although I imagine the Officers would prefer a decent Scotch, I'm sure the enlisted men would be quite happy with Bundy.

As the Yanks are about, you could probably make it a Bundy & Coke! Which is the most popular drink among young country males in Australia, if you gauge by bumper stickers.

< Message edited by bbbf -- 3/24/2010 1:14:16 AM >


_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to aprezto)
Post #: 569
RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac - 3/24/2010 1:30:46 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline
I was more worried about his knowledge of Donkey Pi$$ - bah - but I note I said 'former' sheesh.

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to bbbf)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: BACK IN BUSINESS - PzB goes East again(st) Andy Mac Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

1.906