RE: War in the Skies

RE: War in the Skies (Full Version)

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

Message

DOCUP -> RE: War in the Skies (2/25/2012 1:53:04 PM)
Any updates.

ny59giants -> RE: War in the Skies (2/25/2012 3:18:33 PM)
I worked with John last week on some fixes for the Air HQs have static devices when filled out, so some TO&E was done. There was another tweak, but I had little sleep last night due to work. He sent the updated files to FatR, but i don't known if the website has been updated.

Don Bowen -> RE: War in the Skies (3/9/2012 6:41:48 PM)
Of interest for this mod... http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/message/1284392288/The+January+1941+Plan

DOCUP -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 3:59:13 AM)
Updates?

John 3rd -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 1:40:52 PM)
I don't know. ANYONE? Stanislav has been busy with a new job. He Posted an errata correction to RA last week. Past that I am not sure...

oldman45 -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 2:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Of interest for this mod... http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/message/1284392288/The+January+1941+Plan That is an interesting thought. I wonder what the real impact would be having a CV in the Philipines. Also, any clue what the DL would be the passage refers to?

Don Bowen -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 5:44:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Of interest for this mod... http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/message/1284392288/The+January+1941+Plan That is an interesting thought. I wonder what the real impact would be having a CV in the Philipines. Also, any clue what the DL would be the passage refers to? At this time, Destroyer Flotilla leaders were Omaha Class CLs. That would be my guess. But, of course, one can not discount a simple typo.

oldman45 -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 6:56:50 PM)
I might have to set a mod up with those ships sent to the theater and see what happens.

John 3rd -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 10:55:48 PM)
That is...quite...interesting... Might think on it some as a possibility.

Terminus -> RE: War in the Skies (3/17/2012 11:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Of interest for this mod... http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/message/1284392288/The+January+1941+Plan That is an interesting thought. I wonder what the real impact would be having a CV in the Philipines. Also, any clue what the DL would be the passage refers to? At this time, Destroyer Flotilla leaders were Omaha Class CLs. That would be my guess. But, of course, one can not discount a simple typo. Not 100% correct. The Porter and Somers classes were built to fill out the Navy's destroyer leader quota under the London Treaty, even though the USN had no tradition of leader type destroyers.

Don Bowen -> RE: War in the Skies (3/18/2012 2:20:30 AM)
The Porters and Somers were designed as Squadron Flagships. Scout cruisers (i.e. Omaha class) were flotilla flagships.

Terminus -> RE: War in the Skies (3/18/2012 2:36:56 AM)
Ah. Different levels of the org chart.

Don Bowen -> RE: War in the Skies (3/18/2012 3:13:02 AM)
Yup. Flotilla is two or more Squadrons. Squadron is two or more Divisions. Division is 4-6 ships (on rare occassions more or less). In the early 20s, when the large 4-piper program was completed, a Division was 6 ships. Three divisions plus a leader made a squadron (19 ships). Usually three squadrons plus a cruiser/leader made a flotilla. By World War II, everything got smaller. Divisions were 4 ships, squadrons two divisions plus a leader (except Desron 29 in the Asiatic fleet, three divisions plus a leader). Still 2-3 squadrons per Flotilla.

Terminus -> RE: War in the Skies (3/18/2012 3:37:15 AM)
I was cognizant of that. Just not sure what level you were talking about at the time.

MateDow -> RE: War in the Skies (4/4/2012 5:46:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kfsgo Ok, so with China done I started looking at merging UK/Can/Aus/NZ aircraft production. That was the initial intention, about 11am yesterday morning...things have gotten a little unhinged since then. I'm not sure that's a good thing or a bad thing. Anyway: I have pretty much consolidated aircraft types; there are some duplicates to allow production rate changes over time, but by and large things were fairly orderly and linear and aircraft numbers pretty much what they originally were...before I started messing with things. Here's how things have worked out so far: * Conceptual background: With a relatively open Mediterranean, UK production is less stressed; there is less of a need to hold masses of aircraft in reserve, and more of an ability to plan ahead & tool new aircraft lines up. Meanwhile, Russia is under even more pressure than historical and pretty much needs anything that can fly - but preference here is for US equip as maintenance & ancilliaries are far more suitable given circumstances. So, PTO gets scraps, then actually sees some modernish UK aircraft - to a certain extent this is a case of "wouldn't it be funny if...", but I figure there's no harm in that, and it keeps things interesting... ...Taken as a whole, I guess that makes CW air forces more 'tactical' and less 'strategic', and although available aircraft numbers will be higher it's something of a downgrade in effective capability in game terms (loss of Thunderbolt and most Liberator is a big kick), but it's one way you might weight things given a different overall war situation. Now, this stuff is all a bit back-of-the-envelope, and everything's still in .csv format from my moving slots around - so comments & corrections are downright demanded. Nothing like waiting 3 months to reply to something. Sorry about the delay. I was wondering why the UK would switch their focus from the strategic to tactical. My read of the RAF (not as good as one I would have on the RN) is that they were dedicated to the concept of strategic air support. I would think that would spend the "less stressed" time to build the longer range strategic aircraft that are necessary in the PTO rather than focus on a more tactical approach. What lessons would they have learned in our alternative history that would significantly change their outlook on the prosecution of an air war? With less combat in the Middle East and Mediterranean theaters, there would have been more focus on the strategic campaign against Germany. Even post-war USAAF and RAF studies took the supremacy of the strategic bomber as a given, of which only part of that was the added capability of nuclear weapons. Just curious. And once again, sorry for the delay in replying.

MateDow -> RE: War in the Skies (4/4/2012 6:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 That is an interesting thought. I wonder what the real impact would be having a CV in the Philipines. Also, any clue what the DL would be the passage refers to? Based on the number of destroyers mentioned, it would have been a Somers or Porter class for flagship for the DD division. As to your first question, I think that it would have forced the diversion of resources from KB to deal with the threat weakening the Pearl Harbor attack, but not fatally. Maybe two additional carriers (Shokaku and Zuikaku) to support the Shoho and Zuiho. It would also dilute the air threat to the land-based infrastructure as more of the Betty squadrons would have to be detailed to anti-shipping duties. It would have changed the US picture in that they would have fewer decks available for the Pacific Fleet. This would effect the moving of aircraft and refit schedules. Saratoga would have either been present in the central Pacific, or aircraft wouldn't have been moved to Wake. I can't remember what moves of aircraft using carriers were done earlier. I don't know about the logistics of moving a carrier to the Asiatic Fleet. Were there naval air stations available for shoreside support in the Philippines during this time period? I know that there were some built post-war to support carrier operations from Subic Bay, but I do not know about pre-war. This is addition to docking and maintenance support for this. It be interesting to know whether this was a serious plan, or just a pipe dream. It is one thing to order an AV and seaplane squadron to make the move, but entirely another to move a carrier TF. Even in our alternative timeline, that would be a lot of infrastructure to build following the expiration of the "no fortifications" provisions of the WNT, which also meant naval infrastructure in the Philippines. The floating drydock Dewey was there because the US could not build a drydock there under the treaty, and IIRC, the Japanese might have complained about that. It is an interesting question though about how it would influence the first days of the war.

derp -> RE: War in the Skies (4/4/2012 10:21:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MateDow Nothing like waiting 3 months to reply to something. Sorry about the delay. I was wondering why the UK would switch their focus from the strategic to tactical. My read of the RAF (not as good as one I would have on the RN) is that they were dedicated to the concept of strategic air support. I think it's important as a first point not to get too hung up on what the RAF as a whole entity is doing; yes, in a European context they're a very 'strategic and direct support' force, with less of an emphasis on the 'medium' layer, if you like, but they can get away with that in Europe - distances are a lot shorter, so your Typhoons etc can do jobs that they can't necessarily do in Asia until Japan is being stared in the face. East of Suez they're very much a tactical force already - until you get to Taiwan or the Phillipines there's not really much for a conceptually 'strategic' force to do except go a step down the ladder and take over some big tactical jobs. quote: I would think that would spend the "less stressed" time to build the longer range strategic aircraft that are necessary in the PTO rather than focus on a more tactical approach. Well, it's an interesting point, and I did imagine you might go the other way when I first started thinking about this stuff. The trouble is, a 'special' aircraft for the PTO would probably be this thing, and I imagine it'd take about 15 seconds between them rolling out of the factory and some bright spark saying 'you know, we have some things to do here at home before we let these go anywhere...' - so by the time you'd see any of the damn things you'd be getting Lancaster and Lincoln etc anyway. I mean, I guess you could throw a few in at the end - but it seems like more of a niche project as compared to getting a decent Hurricane replacement out, and time and effort are still not unlimited... quote: What lessons would they have learned in our alternative history that would significantly change their outlook on the prosecution of an air war? With less combat in the Middle East and Mediterranean theaters, there would have been more focus on the strategic campaign against Germany. Even post-war USAAF and RAF studies took the supremacy of the strategic bomber as a given, of which only part of that was the added capability of nuclear weapons. That's easy - there isn't any particular change in anyone's attitude involved - they just have a different toolbox. Notice how the 'headline' change is swapping out of Liberator for Baltimore? The former aircraft is more in demand in Europe, precisely because they're still a strategic force there and Wellington is, fundamentally, adequate (if not fantastic) for India until daylight operations start; the other big need is for something more competent as a daylight bomber than Blenheim, which by this point is probably more danger to its crews than to the enemy, and the RAF operated several hundred Baltimore in the Mediterranean - given a narrower war these can be displaced by better aircraft (mix B-26/Beaufighter, I'd imagine) in that theatre and bump off Blenheim in India. Also - at the moment I am kinda busy with uni stuff and probably will be until June, so...if you or anyone else wants to just go ahead and do stuff, don't worry about me in that respect until then. e: one other thing is that I thought of a way you can work actual gradual production rampups without making all the aircraft lists a mile long (use the 'float fighter' category, which no Allied air groups use, to create various dummy aircraft sequences that upgrade to normal types at the desired times), so that's an option now.

oldman45 -> RE: War in the Skies (4/5/2012 12:46:13 PM)
As part of the link that Don posted, this one is an interesting read also. http://www.network54.com/Forum/594514/message/1284486404/on+splitting+hairs+AND+the+Asiatic+Fleet%27s+assets

John 3rd -> RE: War in the Skies (4/5/2012 4:49:23 PM)
We are off and rolling again. This is a good thing.

derp -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/9/2012 5:25:10 PM)
Well, I dunno about rolling. Maybe whatever a car with square wheels does? Anyway; because I'm an enormous nerd I was loitering in the university library (read: trying to avoid doing any actual work) a few weeks back and found they have a set of the MOD 'War with Japan' histories. Mainly these are nothing new - they're about 15 years old and a fair proportion of them is taken up by stuff that is interesting but not really relevant to the sort of broad-level stuff we're limited to in-game. What did jump out at me was that there were all these ships kicking about the Indian Ocean that I didn't recognise the names of...so that got me looking at other things and, hey, never seen that one before & etc ad nauseam. The trouble with the area is that half of it's off-map; so you have all these escort ships that spent most of their time taking convoys in and out and through the IO, and they spent some of their time in the area that we can play with and some further west, or up into the Red Sea, or down to South Africa etc., and at the moment a lot of them never show up. I don't know if that's a conscious thing or not; I can see the sense in keeping some of them out, since there was the whole thing with Madagascar and then later German submarines off East Africa, and there are always convoys from Aden to Cape Town etc and they could conceptually be involved in that, but Madagascar is a friendly area in this alternative reality and I assume/hope we'll be having at least some of the Germans on-map, so...ships we're 'missing' include but probably aren't limited to (name/type/class): HMS Gambia (CL, Crown Colony) - currently arrives 3/44, was in IO with fleet from 5/42 to 4/43; we can have it out then back. HMS Raider (DD, R) - all the other R-class destroyers are in, but this one isn't. No idea why; they were all in the area. HMS Carthage and HMS Ranchi (AMC, Chitral) - in and out of the Indian Ocean until Nov. 43 and March 43 respectively. To prevent overegging amphibious capabilities it might be worth creating separate classes for any new AMCs, with no cargo capacity... HMS Canton (AMC, new) - Eastern Fleet from 9/42-3/44; would need a new class as is a little faster and carries a seaplane. HMS Scorpion, HMS Dragonfly & HMS Grasshopper (PG, Yangtze) - at Singapore until fall and sunk locally. HMS Aphis, HMS Cockchafer and HMS Scarab (PG, Insect) - to Pacific Fleet from 7/45 HMS Cicala (PG, Insect) - at Hong Kong until fall. HNLMS Soemba (PG, new) - Dutch 6in gunboat in NEI at outbreak of war, to Med early 1943 HMS Landguard (PC, Banff) - Eastern Fleet from 10/43 HMIS Lilavati (PC, Med MC) - around Persian Gulf from outbreak, gravitated towards India through 1942 "a couple of" Rivers... HMS Derg, Tay, Kale (PF, River) - Eastern Fleet from 9/43; employed on Aden-Bombay convoys HMS Teviot (PF, River) - Eastern Fleet from 12/44 HMS Aire (PF, River) - Eastern Fleet from 7/45 HMS Avon (PF, River) - from 3/44 (at this point I started to get a little bewildered by how many of the things were in the area, not to mention a little miffed that I'm never going to see any of them in my ongoing game...) HMS Barle from 1/45 HMS Lossie from 5/44 HMS Tweed from 8/43 HMS Waveny from 12/44 HMS Helford from ? but not later than 1/44 HMS Bann from ? but after invasion of Italy HMS Lochy from ? but after Normandy invasion HMS Plym from early 1944 onwards HMS Trent from 11/43 HMS Spey from 12/44 HMS Swale from ? but between 6/44 and 12/44 HMS Jed from 1/45 HMS Halladale from 8/44 HMS Parret from 3/44 HMS Awe from ? but no later than 1/45 HMS Deveron from 10/44 There were actually more, I think, but it's hard to pin down what was where as the only official records are probably in some dusty room in Kew or wherever they're keeping them these days. HMS Tulip (KV, Flower) - in area from at least 4/42 onwards HMS Marguerite (KV, Flower) - in area from ?; present during raid on Ceylon and still in area through 1943 HMS Verbena (KV, Flower) - Eastern Fleet from March 42 to end of war HMIS Assam (KV, Flower) - transferred to Indian Navy on commissioning, 2/45 HMS Monkshood (KV, Flower) - from ?, but no later than 1/45, maybe. HMS Smilax (KV, Flower) - from ?, but no later than 1/45 First three should go to South Atlantic for a few months from mid-43 to meet U-boat surge. HMAS Gawler (AM, Bathurst) - missing; arrival Whyalla 8/42 HMS Rover (SS, R) - submarine was having its engines replaced at Singapore on outbreak of war; ended up being used for training in India through to the end of the war, but you could make it available for service if need be...one might swap it out for Dutch K-7 (I think; one of the old ones, anyway) which was never put into service due to lack of crew. HMS Magnolia, Balta, Sambhur, Simla, Okapi, Rosalind (AMc, Castle) - minesweeping trawlers on Ceylon. These in addition to the ones already there; there were more but looking up every single dinky little boat that gets mentioned anywhere is just tiresome. Classes are always a guesstimate with these things... HMS Hildasay (AMc, Isles) - minesweeping trawler in IO from mid-42. HMS Springtide (AMc, Isles) - likewise from 1941 HMS Alsey (AMc, Isles) - in area to around end 1943 HMS Teviotbank (CM, Yarrow Aux) - Eastern Fleet minelayer 1942-1944. At Colombo during IO raid. HMS / HMAS Atreus (CM, Yarrow Aux) - not exactly sure, but was at Mombasa 12/41 and laid mines off Australia and New Zealand through 1942-1943 HMS Manchester City (CM, Yarrow Aux) - I'm not sure this was actually a minelayer per se; rather a 'minelaying base ship', apparently. Might be better represented as an ACM. Anyway, yet another of the IO patrol throughout. RFA Pearleaf (AO, Attendant) - in area throughout except May 43-Jan 44 RFA Eaglesdale (AO, Dale) - in area from June 43 RFA Easedale (AO, Dale) - in area from Feb 43 RFA Arndale (AO, Dale) - in area from Sept 43 RFA Echodale (AO, Dale) - in area from April 1944 I'm not sure to what extent these did much actual refuelling at sea vs just hauling fuel to ships in port etc until quite late, but they were around... SS British Sergeant (TK, BTC Type L) - in area, sunk at Colombo during IO raid Various (YP/PB, ASW whaler) - there were a number of these operating off India, Ceylon, Africa etc; sort of a CW equivalent to the tiny Japanese To'su PB type ships. It seems at least Sobkra, Simbra, Sigfra, Sondra, Flicker, Fullmoon in IO, but undoubtedly more... Various (AMc, Straits Small) - at Penang on outbreak of war; Jeram, Hua Tong, Malacca, Sin Aik Lee, Trang Various (AKL, Straits/Island) - at Penang; Mata Hari, Kampar, Tung Wo (Kuala and Ban Hong Liong are listed but already in game; Tung Wo is actually listed as an 'examination vessel' but who knows what that means in practical terms. The others are actually down as Aux Patrol Vessels - so use of AKLs as picket ships isn't necessarily too far off...); at Singapore, Shu Kwang, Kelana and Shun An SS Kudat (AG, Straits Small) - depot vessel for motor launches, Singapore late December 41 And probably more. I wouldn't know...

Don Bowen -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/9/2012 6:49:47 PM)
Not sure if it applies to any of the above, but the Eastern Fleet was based on the coast of Africa for the last half of 42 and well into 43. This is outside of the map area of AE and ships assigned to the Eastern fleet need to be carefully screened to be sure they came "on map". Best source is: http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3900Intro.htm

derp -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/10/2012 3:10:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Not sure if it applies to any of the above, but the Eastern Fleet was based on the coast of Africa for the last half of 42 and well into 43. This is outside of the map area of AE and ships assigned to the Eastern fleet need to be carefully screened to be sure they came "on map". Best source is: http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3900Intro.htm Yeah, I looked through that whole thing over the weekend. All of them did (I didn't list the ships that didn't) - the problem as I mentioned is that all of them also spent plenty of time off with convoys elsewhere, to Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Durban. So the problem I guess has three corners: - You should have at least some of them available, since they were around and if the Japanese had made more than a token effort in the IO they'd have been used to meet that; - You can't have them all available, since there are still ultimately things that need doing offmap; - You can't have none of them available, since that creates a situation where if any 'original' ships get sunk they can't be replaced, when they manifestly could. What I'd be inclined to do is make an appropriate proportion of them available from their actual arrival, and then withdraw them until, say, early-mid 1945 as replacements come in; so there'd be a gradual buildup, but I'm not really going to have time to work out what goes where in-game until later...

Don Bowen -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/10/2012 4:29:08 AM)
Understand. Some of these are in Da Babes.

JWE -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/10/2012 2:41:53 PM)
Like Don said, there�s some of them in Da Babes. This was a problem for Da Babes as well. Most of the ships you mention were on-map for a month or so, then off-map for six, then back on for three weeks, then off for eight, and so on and so on: some were only in-Theater for three weeks. Impossible to model since there�s only one withdraw and return data allowed. Would also require a major withdrawal clickfest on every turn, which we thought would annoy and irritate the general playing public. Babes abstracts this. If 10 ships were around for a month each, the scenario abstracts this to one ship consistently on-map. It could be two ships, each with a six month withdrawal, or the like. That�s why �some� of them are in the game, while others are not. Dealer�s choice as to which one got picked, but tried to have it be one that was around the most. The Perfect War mod uses Babes as the starting point for the ship OOB, so much of the Babes abstractions are included. Not to say this is the only, or even the best, way to do this. Just explaining how it was done, so you don�t have to reinvent or spin wheels.

derp -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/10/2012 3:35:47 PM)
Yeah, I was sort of working on the assumption that that was the case (hence all the caveats); I guess for me personally it just seems better to have a somewhat finer grain size for these sorts of ships, since a withdrawl is a replacement but a sinking is final, if you get what I mean. I don't think it'd be too much hassle to do, since it'd only amount to a corvette or frigate every couple of months. The Rivers do seem like a bit of an omission, though - none are available in the IO at all as far as I can see except a couple of French ones in mid-45; there's just the Australian ships through 1943-1944, then Lochs and Bays start up in July 1945; nothing much prior to that. They do seem to have been fairly active as Burma gunboats etc in addition to 'just' taking convoys around, so it seems a shame not to have'em.

John 3rd -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/10/2012 7:35:59 PM)
I am highly concerned about anymore Allied ships to the OOB. What we have already allowed is a pretty large boost in strength as well as numbers. Stanislav is back at work on the Mod so we have forward motion. No idea much past that...

Dixie -> RE: War in the Skies (4/10/2012 10:16:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MateDow I was wondering why the UK would switch their focus from the strategic to tactical. My read of the RAF (not as good as one I would have on the RN) is that they were dedicated to the concept of strategic air support. I would think that would spend the "less stressed" time to build the longer range strategic aircraft that are necessary in the PTO rather than focus on a more tactical approach. It requires a big rewrite of history, but possibly... Perhaps Trenchard dies and the RAF learns a different lesson between the wars? The successful policing of Iraq by a few squadrons of biplanes in conjunction with a handful of armoured cars leaves the RAF open to the idea of tactical air forces. Aware that any future war is better fought on French soil than on the British Islands the RAF develops a closer relationship with the Army. The RAF brass are more secure and less worried about losing their independence and with Trenchard gone the 'Bomber Barons' do not gain the hold on the RAF that they historically did, and the RAF is more willing to co-operate with the other services. Because of this there is less of a struggle when the RN make noise about regaining the FAA as they gear up for a war with Germany, thus the FAA returns to the Navy earlier. However, the RAF retains control of Coastal Command but with several naval officers seconded to CC. The reduced strategic element could result in a more experienced RAF, without the massive losses of manpower that were suffered the RAF is better able to train crews and with less turn-over it is easier to pass on knowledge to the new crews. More Spitfires are available, this means more Hurricanes in India at first. The UK would (at the very least) retain a similar number of squadrons as historical. With so many Spitfires around the Typhoon and Tempest enter service earlier as Hawkers try to build something to match the Spitfire. Coastal Command gets more Sunderlands as the supply of Hercules engines does not go towards the Stirling (cancelled in favour of more Halifax aircraft). The FAA gain the Seafire quicker and also show interest in a Sea-Typhoon, although this does not mature into a usable aircraft it does result in the Sea Fury entering service in 1944. Essentially Trenchard was the driving force behind keeping the RAF independent, in the inter-war period that independence was jealously guarded. The policing of the Mid-East was an attempt at proving the RAF could win wars on it's own. However they learned the 'wrong' lesson in a way and ended up with a generation of officers who were dedicated to the mantra of a strategic force. In my fevered imagination the brass are willing to co-operate as Trenchard dies leaving the RAF without his cult of personality.

oldman45 -> RE: War in the Skies (4/10/2012 10:24:29 PM)
It all sounds reasonable.

MateDow -> RE: War in the Skies (4/10/2012 10:24:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie It requires a big rewrite of history, but possibly... That was my point. The "bomber barons" without the lessons of close air-support from a North African campaign would prefer to build a PTO bomber force rather than a tactical force. Derp (aka ksfgo) did make a point about the lack of available targets from British bases that would mean that only tactical air forces would be assigned to theater rather than a complete reversal of British position. It seems like a reasonable explanation to me that would fit the "reality" of fighting in India against Japan.

oldman45 -> RE: Eastern Fleet (4/11/2012 2:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I am highly concerned about anymore Allied ships to the OOB. What we have already allowed is a pretty large boost in strength as well as numbers. Stanislav is back at work on the Mod so we have forward motion. No idea much past that... John, I am not as concerned about the added ships, they are just more targets for the long lance and IJAAF/IJNAF bombers. Its some of the added infantry and placement of them.

Page: << < prev 22 23 24 [25] 26 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203125