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: Quick update on development progress.

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Quick update on development progress. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:05:38 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

...UV. The enemy carriers ALWAYS show up with a CV, CV, CVL configuration in roughly the same place at the same time every time. So once you figure that out, you sit a 4 CV "death star" in that spot and wait.


Zoomie, you do know that super CV fleets are penalized in WitP? A good thing, of course.



Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....

(in reply to Toro)
Post #: 211
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:16:10 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....


The size of the map is preventing it. CV will spend weeks to sail from one side to the other of the map.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 212
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:18:26 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....


The rules vary.

The coordination of airstrikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

- Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
- Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
- Allied TF in 1944 or later and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

- Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Just to be clear here ... even when not exceeding these numbers, there is *always* some chance of uncoordination.

People in the UV world call this a *bug* because they don't understand it, but it exists there to a lesser extent already.

< Message edited by Mr.Frag -- 6/15/2004 1:19:05 PM >

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 213
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:25:26 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
I for one would love for the Japanese player to put all of his carriers in one TF. This way I'll know where they all are and then my 1 and 2 Carrier TFs will rule the seas in their areas.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 214
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:29:36 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Yes that is a good thing and realistic. Air Trafic control gets complicated, exponentially, with each added carrier. It's a wonder there weren't more planes lost at Midway from mid-air collisions over recovering carriers than in actual combat. If we start getting penalized in "efficency" with Air Combat TF that contain more than two CV's, then that is probably a realistic thing. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing a "gamey" Japanese player from running around the map with every CV and CVL jammed into a gigantic "death star" to almost invicible in the first two years of the main campaign game....


The rules vary.

The coordination of airstrikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

- Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
- Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
- Allied TF in 1944 or later and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

- Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

Just to be clear here ... even when not exceeding these numbers, there is *always* some chance of uncoordination.

People in the UV world call this a *bug* because they don't understand it, but it exists there to a lesser extent already.


Is that why the initial historical PH attack can vary so much in its results? 6CV's wasn't it? That would stand a good chance for the Japanese player to incur an uncoordination penalty right from the get-go.

Well, anything to prevent players from using roaming "death star" TF's is a GOOD thing. That was a VERY unrealistic tactic, in most cases, even in WWII. Hell, today, you never see more than one CV in a combat TF.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 215
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:37:09 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

I for one would love for the Japanese player to put all of his carriers in one TF. This way I'll know where they all are and then my 1 and 2 Carrier TFs will rule the seas in their areas.


Maybe so, maybe not. Depends on what the Japanese player is trying to do and whether or not you are playing against the AI.

If he's got his major contested bases adequately covered with land-based air and large land force garrisons some time after the initial conquest phase, and has the American player down to 3 usable CV's or so, there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc and blasting a major home base Allied base to pieces to include 100% damage of everything, airbase, port, etc....

While many players will get attempt to do extrememly silly things like that, especially against the always stupid AI, the programmed rules, like uncoordination penalties should deter players from getting too ridiculous, mainly when playing the AI.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 216
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:37:53 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Is that why the initial historical PH attack can vary so much in its results? 6CV's wasn't it? That would stand a good chance for the Japanese player to incur an uncoordination penalty right from the get-go.


Land attacks do not generally get subject to this in a noticable way, but naval attacks are a real mess.

Japan comes into PH with 432 aircraft. It leaves in the < 400 range which makes it possible to roll within the 200+RND(200) catagory.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 217
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:43:56 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc


Fuel

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story!

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 218
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:47:32 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc


Fuel

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story!


Well all good and well, then! I see now where the "size of the map" is a major deterrent to even attempting such nonsense....

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 219
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 8:54:40 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

there's not much preventing a rogue player from putting together a completely unrealistic 8CV TF "death star" and taking it to San Francisco, Brisbane, Pearl Harbor, etc


Fuel

You have no idea just how much fuel a death star eats, but you will learn! Plan on loading up about 4 separate tanker fleets to get KB back into the SRA area and still have her fly aircraft.

It would take most of the tankers that Japan has to harrass any of these places. The special first turn rule makes them only use 3 hexes worth of fuel to get there. Coming back is a whole different story!

Waaahhhh! Waaahhhh! No fair! I demand a cheat code for "Unlimited Free Fuel" This is unwarranted meddling with my long-cherished dream to invade Hobart....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 220
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 9:16:11 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Ok mod your own version.. do early ak conversion to tankers and invade.. only whatch out for the supply line

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 221
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 10:10:24 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
The plane limit per task force doesn't really matter because you can put 3 task forces of 2 CVs each into the same hex and when they launch their strikes they will still arrive as one big strike. At least, that is the way it works in UV. If they are going to all of this trouble I hope they at least make strikes from seperate task forces also have a chance of miscoordination. Otherwise the 3 tf of 2 CVs will completely subvert their attempt and the Death Star will live again (not withstanding fuel and map size issues).

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 222
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 10:34:42 PM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline
quote:

Do the real math. 1667 turns x 2 (you want to play both sides once of the grand campaign).


Oh my god, to think I'll finish TWO games? I can't think that far ahead!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 223
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/15/2004 10:57:26 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

"Unlimited Free Fuel"


Hex offset ... nevermind!

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 224
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/16/2004 11:09:14 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

The plane limit per task force doesn't really matter because you can put 3 task forces of 2 CVs each into the same hex and when they launch their strikes they will still arrive as one big strike. At least, that is the way it works in UV. If they are going to all of this trouble I hope they at least make strikes from seperate task forces also have a chance of miscoordination. Otherwise the 3 tf of 2 CVs will completely subvert their attempt and the Death Star will live again (not withstanding fuel and map size issues).


The worst problem with the death satr tactic is the CAP put by all these CV, that made it almost impossible to hit. And CAP coordination was not so good before 1944 and widespread use of radar controled CAp from special teams aboard US ships. I hope there is some malus applied to super CAP. If 3 TF of 4 CV (each with a CAP of 60 fighters) are in the same hex, a raid on one of the 3 TF should only face the 60 of this TF + some tens of the others, and not 180.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 225
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/16/2004 4:07:54 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

The plane limit per task force doesn't really matter because you can put 3 task forces of 2 CVs each into the same hex and when they launch their strikes they will still arrive as one big strike. At least, that is the way it works in UV. If they are going to all of this trouble I hope they at least make strikes from seperate task forces also have a chance of miscoordination. Otherwise the 3 tf of 2 CVs will completely subvert their attempt and the Death Star will live again (not withstanding fuel and map size issues).


The worst problem with the death satr tactic is the CAP put by all these CV, that made it almost impossible to hit. And CAP coordination was not so good before 1944 and widespread use of radar controled CAp from special teams aboard US ships. I hope there is some malus applied to super CAP. If 3 TF of 4 CV (each with a CAP of 60 fighters) are in the same hex, a raid on one of the 3 TF should only face the 60 of this TF + some tens of the others, and not 180.


I remember way back in North Atlantic '86, Gary Grigsby had a really nifty formula for calculating just how many of what long range CAP A/C got involed in defense of bases/TF's, especially bases/TF's that were NOT the home base/TF of the CAP A/C. I still have those formula laying around. Wonder if they are still using something like that still?

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 226
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/16/2004 11:22:31 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
My last Carrier battle saw 4 USN CV in 2 TF engage 6 IJN CV and 4 IJN CVL in 1 TF. Result was 2 USN CV sunk with 4 IJN CV and 2 CVL badly damaged. (FOW was on)
CAP setting was 50 percent.
I'm almost certain Akagi, Hiryu and Junyo sunk or were in sinking condition. The 2 CVL were hit many times as well.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/16/2004 4:24:24 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 227
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 12:46:21 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Damien Thorn, I asked whether it was a limit of planes per TF or planes per hex, and someone said it was planes per hex. So death star tactics really will backfire in WiTP, if that's accurate.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 228
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 12:52:09 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Yeah, I found the exchange. I asked whether the death star limit was a per-TF limit or a per-hex limit, and DoomedMantis seemed to reply that it's a per-hex limit. It's in the thread "But yea how is the AI," second page.

Maybe someone can clarify here once and for all, though. Can I circumvent the anti-death star rules by piling 6 CVs into 6 TFs all in one hex? If I do that, can I still get a hornet's next of 200 fighters circling all 6 CVs, or does the anti-Death Star code impede this tactic? I hope it does.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 229
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 12:57:02 AM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
So will DD be available by the 29th? (St. Peter's day)

< Message edited by kaleun -- 6/16/2004 5:02:25 PM >


_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 230
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 3:20:49 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Yeah, I found the exchange. I asked whether the death star limit was a per-TF limit or a per-hex limit, and DoomedMantis seemed to reply that it's a per-hex limit. It's in the thread "But yea how is the AI," second page.

Maybe someone can clarify here once and for all, though. Can I circumvent the anti-death star rules by piling 6 CVs into 6 TFs all in one hex? If I do that, can I still get a hornet's next of 200 fighters circling all 6 CVs, or does the anti-Death Star code impede this tactic? I hope it does.


I would LOVE for someone to explain to me the justification for the "anti-deathstar" rule?
If the Japanese can START the war with a 6-carrier TF attacking PH and keep 4-5 of
them together up through the Indian Ocean raid and Midway---then WHAT can possibly
be the justification for thei garbage?

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 231
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 3:31:12 AM   
GameTester


Posts: 156
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would LOVE for someone to explain to me the justification for the "anti-deathstar" rule?
If the Japanese can START the war with a 6-carrier TF attacking PH and keep 4-5 of
them together up through the Indian Ocean raid and Midway---then WHAT can possibly
be the justification for thei garbage?


I agree, they did use "deathstars". Anyway the Japs will probably be stretched too thin to use "deathstars" very much.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 232
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 8:22:34 AM   
ATCSMike


Posts: 142
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: North Pole, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We'll be ready as soon as David is. The manual is off for layout and David is just finishing up some music/sound items. We keep making small changes while we wait, but we don't expect anything major to change between now and going gold. I'd expect the actual gold will happen late next week if things go well. We still expect the game to be on sale at Origins on the 24th and digital download (with option to get CD) shortly after that. It won't be any sooner than that, and it shouldn't be later unless something major comes up.


Woo Hoo!!! Can't wait..

Mike

_____________________________

'Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati'
("When all else fails, play DEAD")

United States Navy 1979-1982
Retired Aviation Machinists Mate 2nd Class
VT-23, HS-1, USS Carl Vinson CVN70 (Plank Owner)
Retired Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 233
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 8:27:47 AM   
ATCSMike


Posts: 142
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: North Pole, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:


As Super Chicken said to Fred - "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."



It has been quite a long time since I have heard a call for Super Chicken, Caaall for Super Chicken


Can somebody explain "super chicken" to me? I had a girlfriend in high school who called me that, but I apparently have never seen the show (comic book?).


Maybe you girlfriend was calling you a chicken in the extreme!

Super Chicken was one of three cartoons in a cartoon show of long ago. There was George of the Jungle, Super Chicken and Tom Slick (and his Thunderbolt Grease Slapper).


I used to watch it, way back when.

Man, I'm getting old.

Mike

_____________________________

'Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati'
("When all else fails, play DEAD")

United States Navy 1979-1982
Retired Aviation Machinists Mate 2nd Class
VT-23, HS-1, USS Carl Vinson CVN70 (Plank Owner)
Retired Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS)

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 234
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 3:32:59 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would LOVE for someone to explain to me the justification for the "anti-deathstar" rule?
If the Japanese can START the war with a 6-carrier TF attacking PH and keep 4-5 of
them together up through the Indian Ocean raid and Midway---then WHAT can possibly
be the justification for thei garbage?


Well I wouldnt say they exactly kept 4-5 together up through the Indian Ocean Raid. Hiryu & Soryu split off immediately after PH. First to Wake then to DEIs. The 4 other CVs went back to Japan. Then Kaga Akagi and Zuikaku went to Truk and Rabual. Then Zuikaku went back to Japan to rejoin Shokaku there. The Kaga & Akagi went to DEIs and eventually Joined up with Hiryu & Soryu for Darwin and Tjlaptap. Then Kaga went back to Japan for refit. While the Shokaku and Zuikaku rejoined the other 3 CVs for Indian ocean raid. So as you can see the IJN found it difficult to keep all there CVs together historicallyas well.

I agree though, that there isnt a need for an anti-CV death star rule. As tester have pointed out the size of the map and logistics suffices to limit the tactic, but if someone wishes to do it and can pull it off logistically I see no reason he shouldnt be allowed. I do think there should be an anti mega CAP rule however.

< Message edited by TIMJOT -- 6/17/2004 1:33:29 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 235
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 4:57:49 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
Well you do start getting coordination penalties when the number aircraft exceeds about 200 or so, mostly, I assume in CV vs CV combat as attacking a land target absent enemy CV's was a lot easier to coordinate large number of AC. I imagine a Japanese Midway size force is about as large a force as one may be willing to muster in this game. We'll see.

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 6/17/2004 2:58:27 PM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 236
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 5:16:20 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Well you do start getting coordination penalties when the number aircraft exceeds about 200 or so, mostly, I assume in CV vs CV combat as attacking a land target absent enemy CV's was a lot easier to coordinate large number of AC. I imagine a Japanese Midway size force is about as large a force as one may be willing to muster in this game. We'll see.


Land attacks being a fixed point in space that is not moving are much easier to coordinate. Fencing with moving targets is a lot tougher, hence the penalties.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 237
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 7:14:23 PM   
bradfordkay

 

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

I used to watch it, way back when.

Man, I'm getting old.

Mike


That makes me feel older. I was no longer watching Saturday morning cartoons by then...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ATCSMike)
Post #: 238
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 7:26:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
The Japanese planned to have all six carriers at Midway but that got spoiled by Coral Sea. The whole forming of the 1st Air Fleet was to combine all the fleet carriers and was well practiced by the Japanese.

The "con" to this "Pro" is that as mentioned......its a big map so while having all that awesome strike power in one place has it's uses, it also means that there are a whole hell of a lot of other areas left uncovered. Its a big map and it takes a long time to redeploy. If your opponent decides to 'strike where you aints", you wont be able to respond in time

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 6/17/2004 5:27:49 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 239
RE: Quick update on development progress. - 6/17/2004 7:30:31 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
I've got no problem with 6 CV's by Midway's time, but 6 CV's with aircraft on Dec 7th, 1941? Thats a little bit extreme.

They better have Buffalos on them and not F4F-3's.

If not, I expect Japan's CV's to have Zekes and Judys

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Quick update on development progress. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   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

1.016