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: September 1944

 
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: September 1944 Page: <<   < prev  153 154 [155] 156 157   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: September 1944 - 6/27/2017 9:28:15 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline 		To be honest, the house rules in China would not affect my decision to play aggressively in China or not. If no strat-bombing in China is a house rule, then I would not worry at all about the allies basing air assets in Chungking. If strat-bombing were allowed in China, I would strat bomb all the targets outside my occupation zone. The determining factor, really, for me is how well the allied player defends China in the first few months.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4621
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 6:00:12 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I guess that my point is this: the airwar in 1943 and 1944 is going to be fought mostly over Japanese air-space regardless of Japan`s approach in China. If the allies wish to concentrate their air assets in China using a dubious supply path and using supplies that would otherwise go to the Chinese army, this does not disuade me from pursuing a less aggressive path in China.
What would concern me more is that these same supplies would go the Chinese army instead.



Well, let's not go overboard on the points being made. I wouldn't ever concentrate my air effort in China. But if Chungking were handed to me I'd use it, sure. I would probably shuttle 4Es in from Ledo for hit-and-run strikes, but I'd put decent CAP at CK to deter fishing. B-29s from Ledo can reach HK, which makes Japan base significant fighter volume there, but they can't go to Shanghai, or any of the good Manchurian aircraft industry targets.

When looking at this game one also has to heavily factor in the HRs on strat bombing and especially night bombing. They have given John a safety blanket. A no-HR game with an Allied northern China would be a whole different proposition.

But overall this discussion shows once again how many ways there are to play the game. Weighing costs and benefits.


I don't agree about the night-bombing rules providing a safety net. That decision as a very two-edged one. How many times in 1943 and 1944 has Dan placed a gadzillion ships in a Port knowing I cannot hit it at night. Same for gadzillions of aircraft at an AF.

While I agree about the Strategic Bombing--to a point--the Night-Bombing is much more two-sided.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4622
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 12:46:14 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I don't agree about the night-bombing rules providing a safety net. That decision as a very two-edged one. How many times in 1943 and 1944 has Dan placed a gadzillion ships in a Port knowing I cannot hit it at night. Same for gadzillions of aircraft at an AF.

While I agree about the Strategic Bombing--to a point--the Night-Bombing is much more two-sided.



Personally, I think you have to play more as Allied to understand the moose. Maybe when this is over you ask Dan for a rematch. Same version of RA, just swapped sides.

I think there are two main reasons why Bullwinkle has it right:

1) Allied payload tends to be bigger.
2) It is difficult to create conditions to make full use of Allied medium bombers in daytime as long as there are few long range escorts/sweepers available. As a matter of fact, that is what makes Allied players resort to tactical use of heavy bombers. So if night bombing is allowed, Allied player can make much better use of his medium bombers.

Just my 2cts.


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4623
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 1:04:36 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I guess that my point is this: the airwar in 1943 and 1944 is going to be fought mostly over Japanese air-space regardless of Japan`s approach in China. If the allies wish to concentrate their air assets in China using a dubious supply path and using supplies that would otherwise go to the Chinese army, this does not disuade me from pursuing a less aggressive path in China.
What would concern me more is that these same supplies would go the Chinese army instead.



Well, let's not go overboard on the points being made. I wouldn't ever concentrate my air effort in China. But if Chungking were handed to me I'd use it, sure. I would probably shuttle 4Es in from Ledo for hit-and-run strikes, but I'd put decent CAP at CK to deter fishing. B-29s from Ledo can reach HK, which makes Japan base significant fighter volume there, but they can't go to Shanghai, or any of the good Manchurian aircraft industry targets.

When looking at this game one also has to heavily factor in the HRs on strat bombing and especially night bombing. They have given John a safety blanket. A no-HR game with an Allied northern China would be a whole different proposition.

But overall this discussion shows once again how many ways there are to play the game. Weighing costs and benefits.


I don't agree about the night-bombing rules providing a safety net. That decision as a very two-edged one. How many times in 1943 and 1944 has Dan placed a gadzillion ships in a Port knowing I cannot hit it at night. Same for gadzillions of aircraft at an AF.

While I agree about the Strategic Bombing--to a point--the Night-Bombing is much more two-sided.



A no HR game in China *would* be vastly different, because the Japanese player could immediately dump out every unit (in excess of the 8,000 AV garrison) out of Manchuko into an early game IJA tidal wave. Think 20 divisions (most of 'em pretty good ones), *all* the Manchuko artillery, base and other support forces might make a difference in liberating China in 1942? I do.

Dan is playing a slow, deliberate game. Critics could say 'plodding'. It's working largely through surfeit of arms and focal superiority. Like football announcer Pat Summerall used to say, "potential just means that he hasn't done anything yet". Yes, he has a potentially formidable base once Formosa is captured to start strat bombing. But he hasn't done it-or any other game-altering action yet. I think the score parity reflects that.

As for using China as a 4EB hub, it can be done in bursts but it's not tenable for long. Just like IRL. Until copious supply can be brought into the theater (right about now with the recent SE coastal conquests?), it's a pipe dream. Just like IRL.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4624
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 1:26:53 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline 		As you say. Bombing takes supply and that is tough in China. You can bring it or get it flowing once the Burma Road opens up. Problem is supply is gobbled up bringing the starved Chinese units up to strength. One can pick. Build up the hammer or use supply for strategic bombing. Problem is you need the hammer to get the bases and nothing moves fast in China. Dan could bring supply, but he already brought lots of mouths to feed. Going to interesting here me thinks

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 4625
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 2:04:07 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		One lesson an Allied player in '42 doesn't realize is the need to keep moving supplies away from USA. There shouldn't be too many idle xAKs because in 44/45, they need all the supplies they can get their hands on. Having over 20 million supply in USA doesn't help.

_____________________________


(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 4626
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 2:42:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I don't agree about the night-bombing rules providing a safety net. That decision as a very two-edged one. How many times in 1943 and 1944 has Dan placed a gadzillion ships in a Port knowing I cannot hit it at night. Same for gadzillions of aircraft at an AF.

While I agree about the Strategic Bombing--to a point--the Night-Bombing is much more two-sided.



Personally, I think you have to play more as Allied to understand the moose. Maybe when this is over you ask Dan for a rematch. Same version of RA, just swapped sides.

I think there are two main reasons why Bullwinkle has it right:

1) Allied payload tends to be bigger.
2) It is difficult to create conditions to make full use of Allied medium bombers in daytime as long as there are few long range escorts/sweepers available. As a matter of fact, that is what makes Allied players resort to tactical use of heavy bombers. So if night bombing is allowed, Allied player can make much better use of his medium bombers.

Just my 2cts.




I am done playing my friend when this match finishes. This man is already spoken for on the next game!

Really want to play the newest version of Between the Storms/Between the Storms--Lite. Think that Michael and I have created something pretty fun with that that has toys for everyone and is much more balanced than this very old version of RA.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 6/28/2017 2:43:23 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 4627
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 3:56:43 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Have you done any strat bombing of bases in the DEI that are now in allied hands? Might pick up some cheap VP by doing so.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4628
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 4:22:29 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Have you done any strat bombing of bases in the DEI that are now in allied hands? Might pick up some cheap VP by doing so.


Not possible to get strat bombing VPs in the DEI.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 4629
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 5:49:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		September 3, 1944


Formosa
With the fall of Taichu, suddenly 23 units appear at the base in course of one day's unloading. YIKES! Ah, well. STAND FAST YE BOYS OF FORMOSA!


TK-6
Task Force TK-6 runs into a speed bump during the night when three American Dds attack the conglomeration of TFs moving east. For once, everything works as the leading TF (#7) intercepts these ships and stops their advance. BC Haruna, 2 CA, and 3 DD smack the intrepid DDs away! Fanning and Tucker are severely damaged and retire towards Morotai.

Nothing occurs during the morning but two strikes fly off the CVs during the afternoon. A strike of 42 Sam, 10 Judy, and 17 Jill fight their way through 40 Corsairs and sink Dds Fanning and Sampson. A second strike of 98 Sam and 7 Jill finish off DD Tucker. The Corsairs chew up 20 Sams and a few strike planes but that is about all. SCRATCH three more American DDs!

Pull one of the three CV TF to cover the lifting of an isolated Brigade off of Jolo while the STF, 2 CV TF and all of TK-6 move on towards Babeldoap. As long as the Allies don't get frisky, we might just be home free. Should know the answer to this within the next turn or two.

China
As my troops advance, Dan is pulling his units back in China towards the coastal cities. This poses a serious quandary. WANT to deal with those troops but the moment I move into one of the coastal cities I open the troops up for 4EB attack and shore bombardment. Any suggestions here? Could simply plug and pin his troops tot he towns by surrounding them or move in and take the gamble. Thoughts?





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4630
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 5:59:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sinking those three DDs, added to the seven from the previous week, made me wonder just how many Allied DDs has Japan sunk? Due to the length of this match I doubt if anyone truly remembers how crazy a bunch of the fighting has been. The good battles--with relatively few losses--in 1942, the drama--with high losses--of the Sumatra Campaign, and then recent action around Formosa makes one want to get a bit of clarity.

Well...here is some clarity. The Allies have lost a total of 130 DDs during the war. DAMN! That is a lot of greyhounds sunk. To further detail, 33 of those Dds have been Fletcher-Class. NICE!

I fully expect to lose every ship I have at some point but these are crazy losses for the Allies. Heck. It doesn't even touch the massive numbers of Allied cruisers sunk...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 6/28/2017 6:01:01 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4631
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 6:33:19 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Have you done any strat bombing of bases in the DEI that are now in allied hands? Might pick up some cheap VP by doing so.


Not possible to get strat bombing VPs in the DEI.


Why not? I never got that far in a PBEM. Do you only get VP for bombing Japan proper?

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4632
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 6:45:41 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Looking at this from the macro view - Here’s a thought – if you knock out the supply and oil and refinery centers, even if they don’t give you VP, they won’t produce fuel/supply ‘on site’ – forcing the allies to ship all that stuff from far away. Maybe this would slow down the pace of operations and gain you that most precious commodity… time  From that point of you, while you don’t gain VP to your totals by bombing these places, maybe it will reduce the rate of the increase of Allied VP.

_____________________________


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 4633
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 6:48:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Good point!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 4634
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 7:08:00 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: AcePylut


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Have you done any strat bombing of bases in the DEI that are now in allied hands? Might pick up some cheap VP by doing so.


Not possible to get strat bombing VPs in the DEI.


Why not? I never got that far in a PBEM. Do you only get VP for bombing Japan proper?


Industry damage – Two VPs per point damaged, 20 VPs per point destroyed (an item destroyed
when damaged will yield 18 more VPs). Industry can only be destroyed by firestorms and
A-bombs, but can be damaged by any type of attack (including firestorms and A-bombs). VPs
scored by damaging industry is cumulative; if an industry hex is bombed, damaged, repaired,
then bombed again, the player keeps earning VPs as long as the industry hex keeps generating
value by repairing itself.
This is true for all industry types including manpower.
Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan, and by the
Japanese for bombing industry in North America, Australia, and/or Hawaii.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 4635
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 9:58:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Ahhhhhh....makes sense to me.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4636
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 10:35:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Decided to continue on with the loss totals on the Allied Side:

As stated earlier---130 sunk Allied DDs.

Heavy Cruisers Lost: 18
Light Cruisers Lost: 29

Here is the screenshot showing all the CAs sunk:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 4637
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 10:38:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		...and the Capital Ship losses:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4638
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 10:41:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Forgot to cover the Submarine Losses. We have a total of 58 presently. Odds are this number is somewhat fluid due to all the recent ASW activity.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4639
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 11:37:40 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Decided to continue on with the loss totals on the Allied Side:

As stated earlier---130 sunk Allied DDs.



In stock Scen 1 the Allies get about 900 DD/DE/APD.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4640
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 11:39:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks Bullwinkle. You REALLY help the morale of ALL Japanese players...NOT!



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4641
RE: September 1944 - 6/28/2017 11:45:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FINE. Now I include 9 DEs and 12 APDs. TOTAL now: 149.

HAH! Take that Moosey One...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 4642
RE: September 1944 - 6/29/2017 12:11:09 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I always try to sink LeTriomphant and never have. Well done. Plus you got the lousy Sullivans too!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4643
RE: September 1944 - 6/29/2017 12:26:31 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		She was fun to tour in Boston!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 4644
RE: September 1944 - 6/29/2017 8:32:50 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


As my troops advance, Dan is pulling his units back in China towards the coastal cities. This poses a serious quandary. WANT to deal with those troops but the moment I move into one of the coastal cities I open the troops up for 4EB attack and shore bombardment. Any suggestions here? Could simply plug and pin his troops tot he towns by surrounding them or move in and take the gamble. Thoughts?





I think you too much time to gather an army and descent on Foochow.

Keeping and holding idle a big army at the outskirs of Foochow is a bit of a big waste.

Concerning air war over southern China, in support of your land ops:

1) how many bombers groups do you have in the area?
2) how many fighters group?
3) how many good sized airports do you have in the area, and which/where? How many support units? How many AA guns?

Do ypu have any plan /thought to contrast allied air support and power over southern China?


< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 6/29/2017 2:20:02 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4645
RE: September 1944 - 6/29/2017 12:39:14 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline 		In other words, direct land attack on Foochow could be a good occasion to force allied air power to be engaged, if you have the means, planning and ways to match that.

If you could effectively erode there his fighter escorts; if you could start as soon as possible so that to capitalize of the fighting on Formosa as long as it protacts;

so than Dan may be drawn into hard times; affecting his strat bombing of the industries and cities in Japan; forcing further supply trains to support his air fleets and land contingents, through contested waters; thus forcing his main combat fleet to come down to escort, possibly; this creating opportunities for you to interfere/support/attack around Formosa by sea, possibly;

aiding Formosa's defensive stance, dragging part of his air support over Foochow, hopefully;

and other favorable consequences, if possible;

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 6/29/2017 2:18:15 PM >

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 4646
RE: September 1944 - 6/30/2017 3:15:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		September 4, 1944

We clear the hex north of Foochow. Tank unit crushed...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 4647
RE: September 1944 - 6/30/2017 6:31:45 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		I would hope the equivalent of a heavily reinforced infantry division could push back a tank battalion.

Mike

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4648
RE: September 1944 - 7/1/2017 5:12:28 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Looking at this from the macro view - Here’s a thought – if you knock out the supply and oil and refinery centers, even if they don’t give you VP, they won’t produce fuel/supply ‘on site’ – forcing the allies to ship all that stuff from far away. Maybe this would slow down the pace of operations and gain you that most precious commodity… time  From that point of you, while you don’t gain VP to your totals by bombing these places, maybe it will reduce the rate of the increase of Allied VP.


The Allies never need any oil that they capture.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 4649
RE: September 1944 - 7/1/2017 5:47:40 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I would hope the equivalent of a heavily reinforced infantry division could push back a tank battalion.

Mike


The screenshot is shown to demonstrate that Dan is pulling back into the cities on the coast. The 'token' units left are just there to occupy my troops into revealing what is approaching his position.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 4650
Page:   <<   < prev  153 154 [155] 156 157   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: September 1944 Page: <<   < prev  153 154 [155] 156 157   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

0.750