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: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining?

 
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: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:48:48 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

eyes in the skys


Hmm, The Chinese do have air units. Would they be best used doing recon in threatened areas?

Higher detection levels help the attacker. Do they help the defender too?

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 211
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:51:46 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Non-recon aircraft don't work near as well as recon aircraft, large bonus difference. China just doesn't have the boys like Japan that can keep China under sight pretty much constantly. I'm sure you've noticed just how quickly everything fades away if you stop the recon flights.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 212
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:54:53 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I admit I am confused.

Increase the loss to the attacker but the method used is to not attack with the units but use the engineers and arty instead.

The reason Chinese defense fails to inflict damage to Japanese is because the Chinese units are being rooted out by engineers.
In reality (The actual war) Japanese loss were sustained after 1941 by Chinese counter attacks.
Increase Chinese AV will result in Chinese units ATTACKING Japanese units. The Chinese will also get the bennies from the attack. But they don't have the engineer units to root Japanese defenders out with. However Chinese attacks can keep the Japanese disrupted and kill enough that the Japanese player will have to question whether or not he want to sit in the same hex as 200,000 Chinese when another 200,000 Chinese are in the next hex. The hex the 200,000 Chinese he is presently fighting are going to retreat into (of their own free will) Then the Japanese player will have to move into the new hex and fight fresh Chinese. And the battle will still not be located in a Chinese supply city. (where another 100,000 Chinese are waiting. The 200,000 Chinese that just left the fisrt hex will join the defenders and rest before going back to battle or moving to a new location.

However the CHinese can't move too far from their supply (supply gets wasted moving across country. Less down roads and RR but it is still wasted. The Chinese can't afford to waste supply. By sitting in the hexes next to their supply they don't waste any and they protect it.
Chinese supply cities are gardens and the Japanese are hungry rabbits. The Chinese need to stay close to them or they will go hungry. If they lose them they will starve.

One thing that always amuses me in this game is the lack of allowing time to have any effect.
Why rush to Chungking after you take the forward supply cities? Wait a year.
If the Allied player moves heavy bombers laugh. The supply of your he might disrupt but the supply he uses to bomb you or build the airfields will mean his combat units go hungry. If you move into their hex early when they have supply they bite you. Let them run out before you mve in.

The reason I am going on at length here is it seems to me people forget why the Pacific War began.

Japan decided to cut the supply lines. Then the Chinese would have to come to terms because they would not be able to fight any longer.

But then as a result of Indo China the USA invoked the embargo (along with the Netherlands)
Now it was Japan that was going to run out of supply.

Rather then give up in China the Japanese decided to take the supply they needed by force.

In WITP however the Japanese have no need to start the Pacific War.

Simply put. If Japan can gain a military victory against China in 1942 there is no reason for the Pacific War.
They defeat China and then Withdraw. (After installing a new leader of the Chinese who will sign the paper.)
Then they withdraw from Indo China.

The Japanese didn't give a hoot about anything but China. (Before they paid for it)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/24/2005 1:59:44 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 213
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 9:41:58 PM   
sveint


Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline 		Ok serious comments:

-Higher forts in Chinese cities at start
-More partisans (in some format)
-Chinese communists were better led and had much better troops (if not equipment) than in the game
-Railroad to Sian? I'd remove it

And to everyone: don't be so negative, criticism should be constructive.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 214
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 10:17:59 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

-Higher forts in Chinese cities at start


If the goal is to make China harder to overrun without letting China take the offensive too easily that would help and be simple to implement.

quote:

Chinese communists were better led and had much better troops


Don't like it. You will have Mao rolling up the Chinese or (worse) actually helping Chiang.

quote:

Railroad to Sian? I'd remove it


Seems a good idea. You want really lousy point to point communications. You will still be able to advance troops (see Mogami's "Just wait a year" comment) but the rate at which supply oozes forward will slow.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 215
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 11:06:03 PM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Ok serious comments:

-Higher forts in Chinese cities at start
-More partisans (in some format)
-Chinese communists were better led and had much better troops (if not equipment) than in the game
-Railroad to Sian? I'd remove it

And to everyone: don't be so negative, criticism should be constructive.


I agree forts should be increased and more partisan effects added. Disagree about the railroad to Sian, however. It did exist. It's the railroad to Yenan that needs to be removed, like I wrote about six months ago.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 216
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 11:23:36 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, I admit I am confused.

Increase the loss to the attacker but the method used is to not attack with the units but use the engineers and arty instead.


At this point so am I. You're confusing threads. The Changsa thread discusses what now appears to be a bug involving small forces (engineers and armor) being able to attack with great success against large forces. This is a seperate issue that is probably best left to the other thread.

I was refering in this thread to the ability of the superior force to launch long drawn out offensives essentially without loss and without burning great amounts of supply.

So for example in China after months of fighting I had all of my units still fighting at near 100% capability while the Chinese forces had been decimated by retreats. Similarly in Burma it is difficult to fight any kind of delaying action since the defending units will take large numbers of kills in each battle and while retreating. Japan on the other hand only gets a handful of disrupted units which soon recover.

The Japanese therefore never have to rest to recover, they can just attack relentlessly for months on end.

Anyway its been discussed to death in this thread.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 217
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 11:59:26 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline 		I would like to repeat a suggestion I made previously. While I agree that the Chinese should be provided with extra forces if they are under-represented currently, it might be a good idea to make some of their ground forces static. This would enable them to defend more effectively, but prevent the Chinese turning into an unrealistic "Yellow Steamroller" later in the war.

Making some of their forces static would be a good way of representing the disorganisation, factionalism and outright civil war that existed in China at the time.

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 218
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 12:07:24 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I would like to repeat a suggestion I made previously. While I agree that the Chinese should be provided with extra forces if they are under-represented currently, it might be a good idea to make some of their ground forces static. This would enable them to defend more effectively, but prevent the Chinese turning into an unrealistic "Yellow Steamroller" later in the war.

Making some of their forces static would be a good way of representing the disorganisation, factionalism and outright civil war that existed in China at the time.


Seems like the best way to do this is little bits of supply at each base Andrew ... it gives them enough to defend (which is less supply intensive) but not enough to go on rampage. Anytime you make something static, you doom it to being cut off and killed.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 219
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 12:07:54 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		You can do anything you want in a mod but I have to wonder.

If you make China so strong that Japan cannot accomplish anything and then you make a bunch of the Chinese units static why not just make everything static and leave it at that. Units can leave China if they pay the PP cost and other then that they just sit.

Doesn't seem like its worth the effort to have to pay attention to the theater if nothing can happen except perhaps by gross oversite.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 220
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 12:15:11 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I would like to repeat a suggestion I made previously. While I agree that the Chinese should be provided with extra forces if they are under-represented currently, it might be a good idea to make some of their ground forces static. This would enable them to defend more effectively, but prevent the Chinese turning into an unrealistic "Yellow Steamroller" later in the war.

Making some of their forces static would be a good way of representing the disorganisation, factionalism and outright civil war that existed in China at the time.


Seems like the best way to do this is little bits of supply at each base Andrew ... it gives them enough to defend (which is less supply intensive) but not enough to go on rampage. Anytime you make something static, you doom it to being cut off and killed.


I would do both. Have additional forces, some of them static, and a small amount of intrinsic supply in the same locations. Remember that the static forces would be additional forces on top of what China already has. China won't be weaker as a result. So this is an attempt to make China harder to overrun, which I think is making the game more realistic, without handing them too much offensive power.

As others have mentioned, if you give the Allied player a powerful China most will use it to the maximum extent possible, no matter how unrealistic that would be.

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 221
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 12:32:28 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		I also agree that some of this new beefed-up Chinese OB should be static. Or at least limited in some way from taking offensive action until late in the war.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 222
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 12:48:57 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		In any Chinese offensive a bunch of the divisions will always remain static anyway. If china decides on an offensive in the North you still leave all your southern cities garrisoned for example. So unless you make a very significant proportion of the Chinese divisions static this will not slow the Chinese onslaught.

Supply restrictions have a better chance of slowing China down but I am skeptical. Unless you have China running a supply deficit from the start, China will be able to build a stockpile.

< Message edited by moses -- 1/24/2005 4:45:44 PM >

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 223
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 12:52:09 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		Enh.

Using this system if you have 1 million troops who fight 2 million troops, all other things being equal, the 2 million troops will kick out the 1 million in a single day, when in reality such an encounter would take weeks if not months and lead to a lot of dead people. The model might be fine for a few thousand scrapping on an atoll, but is woefully inadequate at simulating battles of attrition because, well, there is no attrition pretty much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think thats the issue that people have from what I read.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 224
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:38:54 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

1 million troops who fight 2 million troops


In a game started under 1.40, Allies vs AI hard I have bombarded and deliberate attacked Canton for about a year now. I am attacking with about 300,000 Chinese vs about 100,000 Japanese. When I get a lot of disrupted troops, I go to bombardment for maybe 3-7 days. Then back to deliberate attack.

So far not much has happened. In a year. (We both seem to have plenty of supply).

In Malaysia I have managed to finally corner and eliminate all the Japanese. A large group (a full strength division) cut off with no supply and no retreat still takes weeks to a month or more to eliminate. If there was a retreat path they would retreat, but cornered large glops of troops do take a long time to eliminate.

Seems pretty good to me.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 225
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:40:55 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		Games against the AI should be discounted when discussing PBEM concerns.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 226
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:42:17 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, you are correct to a certain extent. The losing side of any large battle is in big trouble of ever correcting the situation.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 227
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:42:34 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Games against the AI should be discounted when discussing PBEM concerns.


Why? The point is that 300,000 (supplied) vs 100,000 (supplied) lead to endless combat but no decision. That will happen if a human, or if a player, puts the troops in the same hex, won't it?

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 228
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:49:38 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		The AI has various cheats built in to help it. Not to mention the fact that it isn't the most brillant strategist around. So games against the AI are very different than those against another person. The China theater will run very different against a person. If you are interested, I am looking for a player to play as the Chinese in a China-only game.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 229
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 2:55:44 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I am looking for a player to play as the Chinese in a China-only game.


Thanks but I just don't have the time for a PBEM. The reason I play against the AI is that, last Saturday, I had a couple of hours free and got maybe 10 turns in. Sunday I was busy and so I didn't play any turns.

Playing against a person that sort of erratic availability would drive them nuts

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 230
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 3:22:14 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		So how is your AI games going? What is your current situation?

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 231
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 3:29:12 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		I am up to Feb 1943.

As ground rules I do not do anything "bizzare" (ie I don't attack from the Aleutians to the Kuriles.) I have SEAC attack into Singapore, SOPAC to Guad and then Buin then Green Island, and SWPAC Port Moresby to Lae (ie the historic axes for those commands). But I am way ahead of schedule.

In the SEAC area:
The Japanese were too aggressive advancing. I managed to hold Akyab, then using air cover and BBs to bombard and soften things up worked my way along the coast to Rangoon. That cut of a wad of IJ inland. With all those IJ starving around Mandalay I could role SE into the Malay peninsula. The Japanese are basically wiped out in the SEAC area (by 1/43) due to losing too many troops inland.

China: I moved troops to cities, held the line then made a 300,000 man army and marched on Canton. I have been hammering Canton to no effect for maybe a year.

CentPac: Have Tarawa as a major base. Don't see much point in advancing further in the mid pacific. (Why bother to take the large group in Kwajelein).

SWPAC/SOPAC: Rabaul is cut off (I have a base at Green Island and Lae now). Any shipping trying to resupply Rabaul is just experience for the bombers.

I will next move to Wewak/Hollandia and then to Phillipines and Okinawa. I am thinking of skipping Saipan entirely as Okinawa is closer.

< Message edited by Beezle -- 1/25/2005 1:30:11 AM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 232
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/25/2005 4:05:57 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: moses

In any Chinese offensive a bunch of the divisions will always remain static anyway. If china decides on an offensive in the North you still leave all your southern cities garrisoned for example. So unless you make a very significant proportion of the Chinese divisions static this will not slow the Chinese onslaught.

Supply restrictions have a better chance of slowing China down but I am skeptical. Unless you have China running a supply deficit from the start, China will be able to build a stockpile.


I would still maintain that the best and quickest overall "fix" for China would be to take
the strength of Chinese Units, reduce it by 25% on the offense, but double that number
on defense.....So a unit that is now "rated" as a "100" by the game would become a "75"
for attacks, but a "150" for defense. ....That would make offensive action by either side
much more difficult without making it impossible, and tend to keep the theatre more
static as it was historically.

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 233
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 4:08:43 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

1 million troops who fight 2 million troops


In a game started under 1.40, Allies vs AI hard I have bombarded and deliberate attacked Canton for about a year now. I am attacking with about 300,000 Chinese vs about 100,000 Japanese. When I get a lot of disrupted troops, I go to bombardment for maybe 3-7 days. Then back to deliberate attack.

So far not much has happened. In a year. (We both seem to have plenty of supply).


But how many have died? If its been going for a year we're talking a battle of Verdun-like magnitude (with kinda obsolete gear too, if its IJA vs Chinese, so not too far away from Verdun maybe). Nothing is happening? Shouldn't Japan be being bled white by Chinese manpower Douamont style?

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 234
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 4:30:06 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
quote:

I would still maintain that the best and quickest overall "fix" for China would be to take
the strength of Chinese Units, reduce it by 25% on the offense, but double that number
on defense.....So a unit that is now "rated" as a "100" by the game would become a "75"
for attacks, but a "150" for defense. ....That would make offensive action by either side
much more difficult without making it impossible, and tend to keep the theatre more
static as it was historically.


I like this idea. It would seem to create the right kind of incentives for both sides.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 235
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 5:23:37 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, But it misses the point. The Chinese did not kill Japanese defending against Japanese attacks. The Chinese killed Japanese by attacjking them when they came forward to attack Chinese positions. The Chinese did not have engineers. They could not reduce Japanese fortified positions. So when the Japanese left these areas and came forward to Chinese areas the Chinese said "Dog pile of the Japs" and 300k Chinese attacked.
When the Japanese went back to their forts the Chiinese went back to theirs. The CHinese did not try to take Japanese Cities. The Japanese tried to take Chinese cities were counter attacked and retreated.

For this we need

Strong enough Chinese
enough supply for defense

A proper state of mind.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 236
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 4:17:17 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		It's like I said before Mogami, we've had under-strength Chinese for so long, that people who enjoyed steamrollering them are unwilling to let that go. They're less interested in history and simply want the thrill of decimating China in 9 months to remain in the game. You'll never convince these guys, they don't WANT a tough fight in China.

They’ll simply keep making alarmist statements in hopes you decide not to modify things based purely on their speculative statements. I say go ahead and add the troops, I doubt China will be able to do squat against the Japanese due to their complete lack of sufficient engineers or modern artillery, but lets at least find out.

Then let some of these alarmists play test it as the Chinese and show us how the yellow steamroller can decimate the Japanese. They’ll soon start complaining about their inability to reduce Japanese forts and want more engineers. Not to mention the fact that all of China only starts with about 70k-80k of supply stockpiled and if they try to build forts and airfields in every base the supply begins to dwindle. So now they’ll want enough supply to build their B-17 bases and be able to launch massive offensives all at the same time. Sigh…

Sorry for the tongue in cheek sarcasm guys but common, China gets squashed flat in most any game where Japan is played competently. Adding the HISTORICAL troops won’t prevent successful Japanese moves, it’ll only make them harder and actually give the Chinese the possibility of a response which they utterly lack now.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/25/2005 2:21:03 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 237
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 4:24:09 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

Sorry for the tongue in cheek sarcasm guys but common, China gets squashed flat in most any game where Japan is played competently. Adding the HISTORICAL troops won’t prevent successful Japanese moves, it’ll only making them harder and actually give the Chinese the possibility of a response which they utterly lack now.


No worries Jim, one gets used to people defending something they like ... Half of the new features wouldn't be here if people didn't do it so it certainly has a time and a place. Griping has it's use

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 238
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 5:30:13 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		As I've consistantly said that things should be made more difficult for Japan I don't think your comments apply to me.

I'll be happy to test the mod in a China only mode against anybody and within reason pretty much whatever rules they want. If my units have 4 divsions instead of two, ( or any change that increases Chinese strength by more that about 25% above 1.4), I will stop you cold. Me and WITP_Dude are already in May in our game so we'll get results quickly.

My only concern is supply. I assume if China has significantly greater troops that some extra supply in needed or China is already running a deficit from the start. They are fairly close to break even at the start. I may be off in my math but someone will have to check this.

I really don't see Japan making progress other than perhaps taking Yenan. Success is only possible there because China cannot get force there before Japan. Once Yenan falls I'm back to the supply question. With an expanded force does the Chinese army slowly eat all its supply and drop to zero supply theater wide?


edit: I would insist on one day turns however as the chinese defence depends in my opinion having the ability to react quickly.

< Message edited by moses -- 1/25/2005 9:43:58 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 239
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/25/2005 6:50:25 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
I will stop you cold.


Um isn't that the point of an historical Chinese force? My point was an increased strength China can't steamroller the Japanese as some people were saying, not that China could stop Japan, that's the whole point of making the Chinese forces historical instead of 50% under-strength as they are now. Japan should NOT be able to have success in China without major effort and some tactical luck.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

0.906