RE: CD fire issues

RE: CD fire issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

jomni -> RE: CD fire issues (4/12/2010 11:40:31 PM)
As a game it does put some balance. Gives the Japanese some way of earning points late in the war. But isn't there another way instead of this?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/12/2010 11:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni As a game it does put some balance. Gives the Japanese some way of earning points late in the war. But isn't there another way instead of this? The Japanese aren't supposed to earn points late in the war. They're supposed to die.[:)] Seriously, 1944-45 is pay-back for what we go through in 1942. Giving the Japanese wonder-weapons just to prolong the game shouldn't be a design objective. If a player wants uber-CD units, the editor works. CD code was a main area of "comment" in WITP. It's different now, but the design platform of AE wasn't to re-write WITP, it was to improve it. Other areas of the game got a lot more attention, but there was only so much frosting to go around. I don't like how CD works, so I'm going to edit it in my next game. Not a big deal. If the devs ever get through with everything else and feel charitable, maybe they could look at it. I doubt really changing it is possible without re-writing and probably adding combat phases, which could mess a lot of other things up, but they might be able to tone down the accuracy, or tube counts, or salvo counts per phase or something. Even just making it more vulnerable to ship-fire supression and CAS would help a lot. I don't mind having to fight it. The problem is there's no one type of attack you can order that really gets at it. Port attacks are the closest, and they mostly take out supplies and port facilities, not CD.

bklooste -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 12:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili It is the composition of task force. It makes the battleships close too much. Incorrect the PBs closed to 2K the AK landed , the BBs and CA stood at 10K yards and were creamed much more than the other ships .

bklooste -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 12:47:54 AM)
Those much more modern 8" guns could prob penetrate the Hiei due to the close ranged nature fo the fight , pull up the charts , second she wasnt sunk she withdrew. These ancient 7" guns couldnt even penetrate the CAs belt at 10K yards. quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: RHoenig While I agree that the greater accuracy of a fully integrated coastal defense fortress can be deadly, the Bluecher was a heavy cruiser with a max. armor of what 5 inch? and was hit by 11 inch guns. What has been reported here are two battleships with 10+ inches of armor, fired upon by max. 7 inch guns. If the result of 7 inch guns against 10 inches of armor is the same as 11 inch guns against 5 inches of armor, why bother with 16 inchers on the BBs at all, the 8 inch CA guns will be quite sufficient and imagine the broadside, a BB could mount if outfitted with 8-inchers. No, I´m not realy serious, but come on, 7-inch guns sinking BBs can´t possibly be right. Damaging them? Sure! Wreaking havoc with the superstructure? You bet! Sinking them? No way! Check out the Hiei. She faced nothing bigger than an 8' gun, and mostly 5" at First Guadalcanal..., an was left helpless and burning to be finished off by A/C the next morning. A 7" may or may not penetrate the main strake of the belt armor at close range..., but it will penetrate virtually everything else. And being on fire is the most dangerous thing that can happen to a ship. Hits are strange beasts. San Francisco was hit something like 80 times in the same battle as the Hiei, but in spite of a number of 14" hits was still sailing and fighting when it ended. Her luck had been extrordinary, as any of dozens of those hits could have been fatal in another location. It's not just what a ship is hit by.., it's also where it is hit, coupled with an element of luck. In the example above, the BB's were hit 100+ times at medium-short range. That's 100+ chances to get the one "lucky" hit that finds a weak spot and detonates the secondary ready use magazine or something else vital. Ants can and do eat elephants..., when there are enough of them.

seydlitz_slith -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:55:15 AM)
Well, it was my ships that were sunk in the PBEM by the Soviet batteries so I will weigh in.... The screen pic is one of the two batteries at Sovetskaya Gavan. The other fort unit was pretty much identical to this one. This was an open sea port. There is no way that any commander would keep his ships in range of the shore batteries and engaged until all were sunk. That would not have happened. Integrated and interlocking fields of fire still require the attacker to close. These were old guns (pre-WWI and many pre-Russo Japanese war) and they would not have had modern fire control devices. In fact, I sincerely doubt that these guns would have been able to hit a moving target over 3,000 yards away and certainly nothing at 10,000 yards. Also, the Nagato and Mutsu did have advanced fire control systems, weapons that could fire from well outside the range of the enemy guns, and would have been firing at fixed, non-moving targets. And at 10,000 yards these guns should not have been able to penetrate the armor of Japan's two most powerful prewar battleships. There is something bad wrong with the CD vs. ship routine. I would not ask my opponent for a do over, but there is just something wrong that cost me two of my best battleships and two of the best heavy cruisers not to mention the destroyers. Blucher was lost to torpedoes in a fjiord, not to shore batteries off an open coast at 10,000. Hiei was engaged at close range by modern cruisers with modern guns. Her battlecruiser armor was not designed to stop hits at that close a range and she was damaged severely and left vulnerable to aircraft the next day. Also not a good example for the case. [image]local://upfiles/6829/D47CD4E7C8D24217B1B72647C02D2DF9.jpg[/image]

Misconduct -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 5:00:28 AM)
Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships BB Haruna BB Kongo CA Myoko CL Jintsu Allied Ships AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire Allied ground losses: 256 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled) Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 25 Airbase supply hits 6 Runway hits 132 BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a screenshot of the unit in question - [image]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7232/shorebat.jpg[/image]

bklooste -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 6:13:17 AM)
Out of supply , Surprised and a lot exp crew / bad commander ? Was it night ? I note the CDs are far worse against ships making a landing then a bombardment. Cant see screenshot quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships BB Haruna BB Kongo CA Myoko CL Jintsu Allied Ships AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire Allied ground losses: 256 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled) Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 25 Airbase supply hits 6 Runway hits 132 BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a screenshot of the unit in question - [image]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7232/shorebat.jpg[/image]

bklooste -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 6:56:54 AM)
Agreed. The 152s are from 1892 design the 130mm are from a 1913 design. They may not even have powered mounts or star shells yet alone FC. Range is 20K for the 130 and 152mm , 16K for the 180mm Pen is 125, 99 and 140 EFf 90,91 and 105 Accuracy is 70,70 and 50 So penentration and effect is less than half a US 8" Mk9 , accuracy is about double . A US 5" CD gun has 20K range , 51 effect ( 1/2) , 50 Pen amd 80 accuracy. Prob about right , the 6" Japanese gun has a pen of 200. quote: ORIGINAL: seydlitz Well, it was my ships that were sunk in the PBEM by the Soviet batteries so I will weigh in.... The screen pic is one of the two batteries at Sovetskaya Gavan. The other fort unit was pretty much identical to this one. This was an open sea port. There is no way that any commander would keep his ships in range of the shore batteries and engaged until all were sunk. That would not have happened. Integrated and interlocking fields of fire still require the attacker to close. These were old guns (pre-WWI and many pre-Russo Japanese war) and they would not have had modern fire control devices. In fact, I sincerely doubt that these guns would have been able to hit a moving target over 3,000 yards away and certainly nothing at 10,000 yards. Also, the Nagato and Mutsu did have advanced fire control systems, weapons that could fire from well outside the range of the enemy guns, and would have been firing at fixed, non-moving targets. And at 10,000 yards these guns should not have been able to penetrate the armor of Japan's two most powerful prewar battleships.

castor troy -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 7:43:16 AM)
CD routine is working worse than in WITP IMO. Look at those PH invasion examples, Singapore etc. The big guns sink some PBs that act as shell sponges and that´s it. Then we get those crap guns at other places sinking BBs that can´t move out of effective range and get sunk. Come on. It´s just like Axis and Allies, take a die and roll it, if you get a 5 you sink a BB.

eloso -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 1:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: ORIGINAL: Dili It is the composition of task force. It makes the battleships close too much. Incorrect the PBs closed to 2K the AK landed , the BBs and CA stood at 10K yards and were creamed much more than the other ships . Sorry, but I have to agree with TF composition. Placing the BB in an amphibious TF makes them behave differently than if they were in a Bombardment TF. I have a hunch that they'll stick around until the troops unload which might not be what one desires. I also did a google map search on Sovetskaya Gavan and it does not face the open sea. I couldn't tell if there were any suitable beaches nearby or not.

Misconduct -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 1:58:48 PM)
Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99 I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain. However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate? quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste Out of supply , Surprised and a lot exp crew / bad commander ? Was it night ? I note the CDs are far worse against ships making a landing then a bombardment. Cant see screenshot quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships BB Haruna BB Kongo CA Myoko CL Jintsu Allied Ships AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire Allied ground losses: 256 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled) Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 25 Airbase supply hits 6 Runway hits 132 BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a screenshot of the unit in question - [image]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7232/shorebat.jpg[/image]

Nikademus -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:18:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Check out the Hiei. She faced nothing bigger than an 8' gun, and mostly 5" at First Guadalcanal..., an was left helpless and burning to be finished off by A/C the next morning. Her armor was not penetrated to my knowledge. Being an old battlecruiser design however, her steering gear was vulnerable (and outside her primary protection) and did flood as a result of damage. Her uncontrolled fires had been extinquished by the next morning and she would have escaped after jury rigged repairs to her flooded steering room. However the subsequent torpedo bomber attacks undid the repairs and reflooded the steering gear preventing her timely escape. Arguments continued on whether or not to continue efforts to save the ship. IIRC, Yamamotto made the decision via long distance to scuttle the vessel due to her proximity to the enemy. The multitude of small caliber hits (+ a few mediums) peppered and damaged her upperworks fairly well, impeding her nighttime efficiency but never threatened the integrity of the ship.

John Lansford -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:23:33 PM)
Nikademus, What source did you get that information on Hiei from? Everything I've ever read of that battle indicated Portland firing pointblank into Hiei's stern is what disabled her steering and kept her from escaping. Was the BC's stern completely unarmored?

witpqs -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:35:17 PM)
Don't recall about what exactly damage the steering gear. But, Yamamoto ordered (too late) that she not be scuttled in the hopes that she would absorb US air attacks to aid IJN efforts. I don't recall if he had reversed himself or earlier had simply assented to reports, but (too late as mentioned above) he did order her to remain afloat as a target for the enemy! My information is from Frank's Guadalcanal.

Nikademus -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Nikademus, What source did you get that information on Hiei from? Everything I've ever read of that battle indicated Portland firing pointblank into Hiei's stern is what disabled her steering and kept her from escaping. Was the BC's stern completely unarmored? IIRC, her gear had only a thin covering of deck armor. An extensive discourse on Hiei's plight can be gleaned from Lundstrom (believe it or not), Frank, and a couple other "Battleship devoted" sources I own. quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Don't recall about what exactly damage the steering gear. But, Yamamoto ordered (too late) that she not be scuttled in the hopes that she would absorb US air attacks to aid IJN efforts. I don't recall if he had reversed himself or earlier had simply assented to reports, but (too late as mentioned above) he did order her to remain afloat as a target for the enemy! My information is from Frank's Guadalcanal. Your memory may be better than mine this morning [:)]. I recall that there was some decision, reverse decision, and serious arguing over her fate, with the ship's captain of course being vehemently opposed to sacrificing the ship. I'm pretty sure Yamamotto made the final decision in the end after further consultation. Ultimate point though was that she was not in any danger of sinking nor were her primary systems wrecked (with the notable exception of her exposed steering gear). It was her close proximity to the enemy complicating salvage efforts that was the issue, along with concerns over other ongoing efforts in the vacinity of Henderson field's airpower.

witpqs -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I'm pretty sure Yamamotto made the final decision in the end after further consultation. IIRC he was said to be ticked off when he learned of her scuttling, but he had earlier either assented or given the order, so it was his decision. He just reversed it too late.

Oldguard1970 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 4:52:24 PM)
As with many things about AE (or WITP), the games simulates, but does not reproduce, the effects of combat during WWII. I get it that many players are convinced the CD guns are too hard to supress/destroy, or they do too much damage to certain ship types, or that TF commanders would withdraw in the face of withering fire, etc. I also get it that using large hexes means TFs in our game might have to confront CD weapons they would be able to avoid in real life. But, shucks, sending ships against shore batteries has always been understood to be seriously "going into harm's way". The trade offs in our game mean we might have to do it sometimes, but we should all try hard to avoid it. Perhaps the design can be tweaked, but maybe we should also seek tactical alternatives to sending ships against major nests of CD guns.

freeboy -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 6:33:47 PM)
WHY AVOID IT!!! thats the ppoint of bomnbardment missions, or perhaps you are saying we are not to use BB CA in their historicaly correct roles in shore batary supression? What is up with your comments?

Kereguelen -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 6:53:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99 I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain. However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate? Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.

Dili -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 7:13:03 PM)
quote: Sorry, but I have to agree with TF composition. Placing the BB in an amphibious TF makes them behave differently than if they were in a Bombardment TF. I have a hunch that they'll stick around until the troops unload which might not be what one desires. Precisely. Most battleships doesn't have armor all along the hull. Sizeable parts at bow and rear can be easily penetrated and flooded.

Bradley7735 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 7:15:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99 I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain. However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate? Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range. Seems logical. But, the results of the 20k yard bombardment sure seems a bit high. I wonder if range is considered during bombardment routines. It would be nice if the accuracy of bombardment TF's was real low when escorts set to not bombard, and much higher when escorts set to bombard. Maybe this is already in place, though. It would also be nice to see two bombardment task force types. 1: shoot and scoot, 2: shoot and stay, conserve ammo, make shots count

Oldguard1970 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 8:29:03 PM)
Hi Freeboy, I am making the distinction between using ships to take on fortresses and using ships to support a landing. Relative to a CD gun, ships are really big targets, ...and they sink. A zone with lots of CD weapons would be an ugly nut for a TF to challenge. Yes, I intend to use ships to support my landings, but I hope to pick landing zones that are not covered by massive batteries. If we really must send our ships against substantial shore batteries, then it would be best to use air to try to suppress the batteries first. (I think Port Attacks are what we use in AE for that effect.)

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 8:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No searchlights in the LCU?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 9:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 Hi Freeboy, I am making the distinction between using ships to take on fortresses and using ships to support a landing. Relative to a CD gun, ships are really big targets, ...and they sink. A zone with lots of CD weapons would be an ugly nut for a TF to challenge. Yes, I intend to use ships to support my landings, but I hope to pick landing zones that are not covered by massive batteries. If we really must send our ships against substantial shore batteries, then it would be best to use air to try to suppress the batteries first. (I think Port Attacks are what we use in AE for that effect.) I don't know where you are in your game, but I used eight (8) 1944 CV airwings to "suppress" Saipan. Then the CDs took out two of my battleships. If you're invading many late-war historical islands--Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa--you can't avoid the guns. The islands are one hex in size.

Misconduct -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 9:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99 I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain. However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate? Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range. Thank you Kereguelen I didn't realize that, I am glad you were able to least pick that up

khyberbill -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 10:18:49 PM)
I would like to see if that turn can be re-run, this time with the BB's in a bombardment TF to see if makes a difference.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: CD fire issues (4/13/2010 10:52:20 PM)
How do you expect to BB overcome well prepared land defences? Blücher is actually an excellent example - not because lack of possibility of maneuver, but because of harm done to shore batteries. Which was none. Despite heavy fire. All German fire was basically blind, and Blücher had enough before even they localized exact positions of CD guns. Ships are always exposed and clearly visible in sea level. But how the hell ships can fire (from 17 000 yards as someone proposed - LOOOL) to the flashlights or smoke? And on land you could put a much better rangefinder and fire control system. Example: In September '39 on Hela Pennisula (Poland) main rangefinding system consisted of two theodolite towers placed 1km from each other. Thats 1000m rangefinder - and on ships you have what? 10m? The only problem with such result is that WitP is lacking proper routines of disengagement. Ships should retreat under heavy and well placed fire, because they have no chance to win such duel. Again as example I'll give you 3 duels of Hela battery with Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien. Every time Germans retreated, because they were started to being hit even before they localize Polish battery. Thats despite heavier and more numerous guns on German side.

seydlitz_slith -> RE: CD fire issues (4/14/2010 1:29:03 AM)
I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok. There is a problem with the routine and the combat results are ridiculous. I am not one to normally complain but I really have to raise my hand and protest in this case.

John Lansford -> RE: CD fire issues (4/14/2010 2:04:33 AM)
If we're talking about the dug in, casemated and sophisticated coastal defense systems that major ports (Singapore, Osaka, the WC ports, Pearl Harbor, Corregidor, etc) had, I agree that ships should take a beating going up against those. However, the guns such as what were on Wake Island or Saipan were not heavily dug in and were vulnerable to heavy, sustained bombardment from large warships. Time and time again, during landings in the Pacific, bombarding ships were taken under fire by coastal batteries and returned fire, usually either suppressing or destroying those guns. Wake Island was a very unusual situation, since the Marines held their fire until the destroyers were very close, insuring they could not withdraw quickly out of range. Note that the second bombardment force stayed out of range and disabled the defense guns in short order. The CD guns most often faced in the Pacific were anti-landing guns, not the fearsome weapons designed to keep enemy warships from shelling a port.

CarnageINC -> RE: CD fire issues (4/14/2010 2:14:01 AM)
I'm just adding a spam comment to throw my 2 cents in about CD's and to add another body to the pile so maybe it can be tweaked. I don't have a problem so much with CD firepower as I do these dumb ship captains who allow 100+ hits to occur to there ships. Invaders should pay a heavy price for invading a heavily defended hex, this fix should go in hand with a fix for fortifications to make it balanced. However there is to much of a beating to make it seem lop-sided, much like the uber CAP in vanilla. Tone it down so you at least have floating wreaks, not a new sea reefs.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875