RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!!

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: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!!

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: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!!

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 3:56:47 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

How's the game coming along? Haven't seen an update in a few days. Looking forward to the next one.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 121

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 4:46:20 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Unfortunately I haven't had a reply to any emails ( despite seeing my opponent on and post to the forums ) for the past week. I plan to email him tonight and ask if he is continuing or not. If not I will ask for the password and then offer to continue with anyone who is interested. If he chooses not to continue my terms would be simple:
1. The current HRs will continue to apply ( subject to minor re-negotiation if anyone thinks anything is particularly unfair obviously. I'm not trying to sandbag anyone... I'm happy to play mirrored games with these HRs so, obviously, I don't think they're unfair. I do think they are a bit biased in the US' favour though so if someone picked the Japanese I'd be happy to give way a little. My current opponent doesn't want to give way on the HRs which I think favour him at the moment though. I'd be happy to if I were the US though. )

2. Whoever picks up the game gets to choose to play as either Allies or Japanese. That should ensure they will pick a side they think is enjoyable to play and strong enough. I will then play whichever side they prefer not to play. Ideally I'd like them to play as the US since Japan is very weak and I happen to think I could crush Japanese resistance by the end of January in-game if I were to take the Allies - which wouldn't be very challenging or fun.

Bottom line though, they would get to choose whichever side they'd prefer to play. I'd play the other side. We would then both change our passwords ( so no-one could accuse me of any password shenanigans ) and then we'd continue playing. That is, of course, predicated on anyone being interested in continuing the game.

I, personally, think it is an interesting situation. To be honest I'm a bit mystified at the Allied response to the Japanese resistance at Miyako-jima. Losses were relatively light ( 1 DD and 1 BB definitely sunk with damage to 3 further BBs and 1 CA ) and if he perserveres he can take the island. If he doesn't he should be able to evacuate and try again in a week's time. The only explanation I can come to based on the emails I did get immediately afterward is that my opponent was expecting his campaign against Japan to be literally processional with nothing but token Japanese resistance, very light losses and no setbacks. Of course if I'd sat back that's what would have happened but surely ( and especially when playing me ) he should have expected my plan would be to derail his assumptions and make him pay for them.

Anyways, we'll see what happens. I hope he does continue but a week without any email contact at all does make me wonder if he is functionally withdrawing from the game.

If anyone is interested in continuing on as either Allies of Japanese please do let me know by PM. It is unfortunate but I think that's where we might be ending up.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 6/16/2011 5:00:57 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 122

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 4:58:12 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I've checked it again. I've sunk 2 BBs and damaged 3. In the scenario he receives 35 BB/BCs. So, even at a rate of 2 per month he'll still be able to easily see out the 15 months of the war. Japan gets 1 BB.

USN CVBs: 13
USN CVs: 27
USN CVLs: 17
USN CVEs: 97

IJN CVs: 5
IJN CVLs: 2
IJN CVEs: 3

USN BBs: 35
IJN BBs: 1

USN CAs: 30
USN CLs: 59
USN CLAAs: 15

IJN CAs: 2
IJN CLs: 3 ( incl. an 18 knot CL ;-) )

USN DDs: 463
USN DEs: 266

IJN DDs: 50

So, really, since the IJN CVs don't have trained airgroups I figure that the USN has about 20 times the combat power of the IJN combat fleet. That is one reason why the IJN is focusing so heavily on PTs and suicide motorboats in this scenario. Also, this huge preponderance of force is one reason I just don't understand why he'd be that bothered by losing 2 BBs and a CV. He has 40 CVs and 35 BBs, he can easily afford to lose 1 or 2 a month and still easily win.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 123

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 6:41:14 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Is he upset about Naha?

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 124

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 8:23:51 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

Well, if game did not continue, at least you can set Shinyos as MTBs again (as they are now producing under beta).
Actually, have you tried, to set their weapon range even closer? Obviously range should be 0, but I am not sure, TFs can even get this close to enemy.

Also, thinking about defensive fire of bombers. It is actually hard to guess, if fighter is scared, because it is hit by defensive fire, or because it is only TARGETED. If the sole fact of getting shot at discourages them, accuracy settings does not change anything, because MGs will be still shooting.

Hard to test it actually, because planes tend to get damaged during landing, and quickly repaired from small damages in bases.

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 125

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/16/2011 9:02:39 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

If the game is end, could I see the save ?

Thank you !!!

( It would be interesting see the american side, too )

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 126

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/17/2011 12:29:03 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Jeffk,

Well he has emailed me saying he would prefer to focus on his other two games to get them past 1943. I will respect that and throw the floor open to challenges if anyone is interested.

Inqistor,
Well, I believe the accuracy changes are the way to go, for now, based on the reasons I gave previously. If they aren't enough I can look at range.

Traskott,
Shoot me an email... I can reply with the turn and passwords.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 127

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/17/2011 12:38:41 AM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

traskott(g)gmail.com

thank you !!!

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 128

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/17/2011 1:10:07 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I sent that ( and the passwords ). Let me know if you have trouble with it. You may need the 1108m7 ( or later ) executable to see it.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 129

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/19/2011 11:15:41 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well, it appears we have a taker. I was actually quite surprised. I got over a half-dozen people interested in taking up the scenario - which was a lot more than I had expected.

I've picked the person to replace my previous opponent on the basis of time zones, availability to continue the match without a long pause ( rjopel who offered wouldn't have been able to start the game until after Origins while others were able to start straight away ). I've offered to roll things back a week or so to give the new player the opportunity to change plans if he wished and he has chosen to start again from the end of September.

So, we'll replay those days and then see how things go. My opponent is OK with the AAR continuing so I'll AAR as we play.

In other news.... It looks like I may be starting an Armaggedon game as the Americans in the next week. I'm very much looking forward to, for once, having the superior force and really using numbers to grind someone down quickly. I think my opponent in that game and I might both AAR that 2nd game. So, the question is whether I land at Tokyo directly on the 8th September or go the roundabout route and land at Nagasaki instead on the 8th. Hmmm

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 130

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/19/2011 11:55:46 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

You MUST made an AAR of the Armaggedon Scen with u as american, right??

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 131

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/20/2011 12:15:25 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I've already started writing it.

I waxed philosophical a bit at the beginning but with recent events on the forum I've been doing a lot of thinking back to my grandfather and the young men who went to war to save people like him... Hell, at one stage he went to war to save people like himself too. By the end he was the one who definitely needed saving.

I'll be posting the beginning of that AAR today... It won't properly start for a week as we will just be doing logistics for the first week but some planning can go on first.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 132

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/20/2011 12:29:43 AM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

Glad to hear the game continues!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 133

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/22/2011 12:47:15 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well, we've rolled back to 1st October, at my opponent's request, and we're starting from there.

We've completed the first turn ( which featured my old orders and my opponent's new orders for the Allies ). There were more suppressing raids along the Formosa/Okinawa axis and some movement of shipping around the Aleutians but not much too different.

Too early to tell what his plans are. He is unhappy with the logistical preparations carried out prior to his taking over the game. It seems he can't quite figure out what my opponent's plans were based on his dispositions. I'm going to wait a little while before deciding whether this is real information or deception and, if real, whether it represents my new opponent failing to discern some plan of my old opponent or whether the old opponent let his rear areas get SNAFU'ed.

Ah well, having 3,000 heavy bombers means not having to worry too much about the details. When you have 3,000 sledge hammers pretty much any problem can be hammered flat.

I won't post reports for the next couple of days until something happens and/or some pattern is discernible.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 134

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/25/2011 10:35:25 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well, this game is back on at a rate of a turn per day. I've made the ASW changes to the database which should make it less lethal whilst not penalising less well armed ships too much... I'm not sure if they'll take hold in-game though when the database updates in a pre-existing PBEM. Guess we'll find out over the next day or two.

Today was a disaster. The worst day for Japan of the war so far. I had sent shipping from Tokkara Retto to Amami Oshima ( APDs, xAKLs and LSTs ) to deliver two infantry divisions and a division's worth of tank regiments to Okinawa. I had 600 of my best fighters covering Tokkara and Amami Oshima. In total less than 60 took to the air to defend my shipping and SBDs and TBMs from Okinawa massacred my shipping. I lost about 20 ships and at least a half a division worth of troops to drowning.

With that said I have gathered the second wave of the Okinawa invasion force - 5,000 AV of infantry and tank regiments - and am ready to commit them. The problem is if I cannot rely on my land-based air then I'm going to need to provide cover some other way.... that's where my CVs come in. I've shifted focus to building airfields ASAP and am gathering my CVs ( which can carry some 400 fighters ). With a little luck in a fortnight I could commit 1,000 fighters between CVs and airfields and cover a landing force for the 3 or 4 days it would take to unload ( due to the small port size I'd have to unload most of the force amphibiously, which would result in losses to unloading but is the simplest way to get 5,000 AV ashore in 4 days in a level 3 port.

Since we went back in time and I'd fixed the Ohka upgrade issue my Ohka squadrons have now tripled their size and are repairing nicely. That will allow me to launch massed Ohka strikes at USN amphibious forces as they bear.

In other news... In this part of the multiverse ( bonus points to anyone who catches the reference... answers on a postcard, or just in the thread if you do ;-) ) the J7W1's successor the J7W2 has jumped forward in development and is now available for production. I wasn't expecting it for at least a month, possibly two and wasn't checking on its progress. This has caused me problems as the J7W1 factories have auto-upgraded. So, I have 300+ factories producing the J7W2 which I didn't intend to be producing it and I have NO jet engine production at all - since I was, at best, thinking of a small production run of Ki-201s for one or two elite fighter units.

Well, life is all about adapting. I've ordered a crash programme to begin producing jet engines - it'll cost an ungodly amount of supply but I have no real choice, I can't afford to lose 300+ fighters a month from my production runs. I am now also over-producing the engines of the J7W1. I'm making about 500 of these engines and only need about 150 for other production. Thankfully the A7M2 (120 being produced ) require this engine so I'm taking up some of that slack by doubling A7M2 production to 240. That leaves me with another 200+ engines to use. I wasn't making any Ki-74s but I'm thinking some long-range harrassing strikes might be useful to spread enemy CAP and with the huge surplus in these engines now available I am commencing a moderate production run of Ki-74s for long-range kamikaze use ( >25 hex range with 500 Kg bombs ).

In other news I HAD planned to burn 500,000 tons of supplies in building more G9Ms. I am currently building 40 per month but planned to triple production to 120 per month. This requires an investment of 88,000 tons of supply for the airframe factories and 352,000 tons of supplies for the engine factories. I'm going to stop Ki-264 Tracy ( the transport version ) production entirely and reduce Ki-264 A ( the ground bomber version ) production to increase G9M production.

I am considering commiting the Ki-264s to special attack duties vs isolated enemy carrier formations. I'm not sure how I can engineer this but their durability means most will make it to their targets and high pilot experience means most would hit their targets if they can make an attack run. 20 x 250Kg bombs means a single hit should sink any CV it hits. So a group of 32 Ki-264s could, potentially, assuming half make it through CAP and half hit their targets take out 8 CVs. That's an awesome exchange rate and would be well worth expending 32 bombers and top-notch pilots for. The problem is how to get the Ki-264 unit to take on the kamikaze role as you cannot turn a group with more than 50 Exp into kamikazes.... Theoretically that would require transferring the pilots out, changing the group to kamikazes and then transferring the pilots back in. There MUST be a better way though.... I'm going to keep looking till I find it as I really hate the huge bomber losses which come when sending medium bombers against the US fleet. The more I think about it the more I think I may just use my P1Y2s and Netties purely at night. They would be a lot less effective but they would also be a lot more survivable and might draw daytime fighters to night-time CAP, making the G9Ms' job easier whenever I do commit them.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 135

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/25/2011 11:43:08 PM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

Multiverse a reference to D&D Planescape perhaps? There are other genres that use the term (sci fi), but I've heard it most there.

It's also used in describing nth dimension physics a/k/a branes, string theory, M theory, etc.

Yes, I'm a dork.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 6/25/2011 11:44:04 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 136

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/25/2011 11:47:47 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

You are

. Sadly I was thinking of more of a sci-fi reference. Something popular culture, albeit a bit cultish.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 137

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/25/2011 11:57:38 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Did you double check the leaders of your fighter groups?? Some of the air groups seem to have some of the worse leaders one could have. Since you went back some time it have been to leaders that were there before.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 138

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 12:09:30 AM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

One more guess and I'll stop - Firefly?

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 139

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 1:20:35 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I wopuld have guessed Firefly as well if TV or maybe David Weber if literary...

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 140

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 1:23:10 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Firefly it is. Mal Reynolds - an interesting abbreviation of his first name and also a nice literary sigil and ironic counterpoint.

So Cribby, whatever you want. Name it and you'll have it. turn file, specific answers as to what I'm really up to ( above and beyond what I see here for OPSEC reasons ). Your choice.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 141

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 3:51:57 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well 619 B-29s hit aircraft engine factories some 46 miles south of Tokyo. One factory is utterly obliterated in return for 12 B-29s downed.

Elsewhere I've found some bugs in m9 - the IJAAF can no longer pull pilots into some of its squadrons, there seems to be an issue with low-level raids being intercepted again. Planes which were flying at 40,000 feet appear able to dive to 100 feet in 5 minutes and then engage - something which was not really quite so possible. Lastly, kamikaze units training are increasing their strafing skill and not their low naval attack skill.

Ah, the pains of being at the bleeding edge of the beta. I'm going to check if we can pull back to m6 or m7 which didn't have these issues.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 142

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 5:28:58 PM

witpqs

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

Diving at 8,000 ft per minute sounds quite possible (40,000 in 5 minutes), I presume fighters could so even faster.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 143

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 6:19:44 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

This thread is of cource worth its weight in gold for me right now

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 144

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 6:46:09 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Diving at 8,000 ft per minute sounds quite possible (40,000 in 5 minutes), I presume fighters could so even faster.

I fired up IL-2 to see how long it'd take an e-Corsair to do it 12km-0m - about three and a half minutes, keeping it under 3g at all times. Obviously I'm not a fighter pilot, that's just a now slightly elderly flightsim and there are probably dozens of good reasons why you wouldn't just do a circling turn downwards to sea level, but you can be at whatever speed you choose once you get down there so 5 minutes seems reasonable enough on the face of it.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 145

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 6:54:04 PM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Firefly it is. Mal Reynolds - an interesting abbreviation of his first name and also a nice literary sigil and ironic counterpoint.

So Cribby, whatever you want. Name it and you'll have it. turn file, specific answers as to what I'm really up to ( above and beyond what I see here for OPSEC reasons ). Your choice.

Cool, I win! I'll PM you my question. I'll try to make it a good one. Loved Firefly and Serenity BTW, although they overdid the low tech cowboys in space thing a tad much in a few episodes IMHO.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 146

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 8:38:12 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Aye but there's a difference between going straight down and going down 40,000 feet AND laterally about 20 miles... AND doing so within 5 minutes so you have enough time to intercept a plane flying at 100 feet which is going to hit its target in 300 seconds.

Maybe it would be possible BUT what I'm seeing in-game is 100% intercept and kill rates which strains my credulity.

Cribtop - Sure thing, please do.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 147

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 9:09:26 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

This thread is of cource worth its weight in gold for me right now

Indeed. Whether it is fool's gold or not will be discovered in coming weeks.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 148

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 10:31:50 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye but there's a difference between going straight down and going down 40,000 feet AND laterally about 20 miles... AND doing so within 5 minutes so you have enough time to intercept a plane flying at 100 feet which is going to hit its target in 300 seconds.

Maybe it would be possible BUT what I'm seeing in-game is 100% intercept and kill rates which strains my credulity.

Well, your guys at 40k are going to be covering 6-7 miles per minute up there either way - might as well be towards whatever they're going to be shooting at, and it's not like they're all starting from some sort of duralumin singularity directly above their carrier. I mean, obviously you're never going to get 100% kill rates - there'll always be someone hiding in a cloud - but any aircraft that do get into position on your hovercraft would have the time of their lives, I'd imagine. Can you post an example combat report or something? I have a bunch of people I play IL-2 with and it'd be a fun thing to make a mission based off, heh.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 149

RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 6/26/2011 10:41:36 PM

witpqs

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

Yeah, even just 300mph is 5 miles per minute (straight line), so 20 miles at whatever is the diving speed of those fighters sounds like little of a problem at all. Doesn't really sound like it's off kilter on that one.

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!!