RE: 1945!

RE: 1945! (Full Version)

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

Message

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 7:31:05 PM)
Pretty soon you should start looking at your arrival queues for ETO planes and troops after VE Day. You will need vast amounts of troop transport shipping in CONUS to bring them forward. Same with the planes which can't fly across. Ops losses on single-engine at the ranges you're at might not be worth it so you would need transport for them too. But the troops can't walk and it's too late if you think of them on May 1 and you have 1000 needed ships sitting in the PI.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 7:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Pretty soon you should start looking at your arrival queues for ETO planes and troops after VE Day. You will need vast amounts of troop transport shipping in CONUS to bring them forward. Same with the planes which can't fly across. Ops losses on single-engine at the ranges you're at might not be worth it so you would need transport for them too. But the troops can't walk and it's too late if you think of them on May 1 and you have 1000 needed ships sitting in the PI. Good point. Most of the shipping has just dumped stuff of on Luzon. They are heading back within a week or two. Might as well keep them on the WC when they get back. I´m starting to get a good amount of local fuel now and I just dumped 3,5 million supply. With the 2 million supply already in place I should be good to go. Havn´t looked really at what comes from Europe. I assume its goodie goodie? [:D]

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 8:59:10 PM)
20th January -45 ______________________________________________________________________________ Looks like I will continue to have an armored force! [:)] ------------------------ Manilagrad ------------------------ I´m pleased with the results. Actually very pleased. [:)] quote: Ground combat at Manila (79,77) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 24168 troops, 680 guns, 3147 vehicles, Assault Value = 4529 Defending force 122700 troops, 1423 guns, 1550 vehicles, Assault Value = 3204 Allied adjusted assault: 626 Japanese adjusted defense: 16849 Allied assault odds: 1 to 26 (fort level 5) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 2573 casualties reported Squads: 21 destroyed, 175 disabled Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 53 disabled Engineers: 36 destroyed, 32 disabled Guns lost 53 (14 destroyed, 39 disabled) Vehicles lost 82 (29 destroyed, 53 disabled) Allied ground losses: 4 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 181 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 81 (27 destroyed, 54 disabled) Vehicles lost 469 (70 destroyed, 399 disabled) No Sherman that I can see was destroyed. Some got disabled though. I did loose a good chunk of light tanks among the USMC BTLs. Can´t wait for their TOE upgrade switching out the light tanks for Flame tanks and heavies instead. Lots of Motorized support got toasted though. And I had to pull a BTL from combat as its down to 0 AV with just 36 disabled Shermans left. [X(] The YMS managed to sweep another 31 mines before getting sunk. So thats about 10 mines per lost YMS. No really sure I can use this method. I don´t have THAT many YMS. This is a head scratcher. I think I have come up with a solution though... ------------------------ Superstack ------------------------ Erik continues to try and kill off the stack. To my knowledge no unit has been destroyed yet. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at 55,59 (near Tavoy) Japanese Shock attack Attacking force 48526 troops, 681 guns, 1551 vehicles, Assault Value = 140 Defending force 38194 troops, 329 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1243 Japanese adjusted assault: 1 Allied adjusted defense: 4186 Japanese assault odds: 1 to 4186 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), experience(-) Attacker: shock(+) Japanese ground losses: 1537 casualties reported Squads: 164 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 429 disabled Engineers: 15 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 51 (49 destroyed, 2 disabled) Allied ground losses: 91 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled No map today. Nothing has changed.

JocMeister -> Arise! (10/30/2013 9:30:47 PM)
Operation "Arise" ______________________________________________________________________________ I don´t have access to my game computer tonight so no turn to Erik. Writing on the pad sucks btw so sorry for any spelling issues... I gave this OP the go ahead 4 days ago. Taken some time to get everything into place. I know you guys are going to chide me for this...but I´m going to try a last hurrah in the skies over Luzon. I need to be able to place Manila under some naval and aerial gunfire. The only way I can do that is by wrestling air superiority from Erik. If I can do that it opens up so many possibilities on Luzon for me. And as usual I have come up with a plan... [:D] Erik achilles heel on Luzon is lack of airfields. He only have Manila (Lvl 9) and Clark (lvl 8). He also have a level 7 airfield at Appari but thats too far away for him to properly protect Manila. I on the other hand have two level 9 AFs and one 8.57 within 2 hexes of Manila. So basically I need to close Manila and Clark AF and I have complete control of the skies. The latest Allied aerial debacles have made Erik a bit complacent I think. Clark is maxed out with 400 Fighters but Manila only have 180 fighters...And I have a way to close Clark during the night...I´m going to send in the Iowas and the other Fast BB group to plaster Clark! I´ve tried this probably 50 times in Sandbox today...Worst result I got was 13 FLT on Missouri by mines and 7 DDs lost. Only two times the airfield was open in the morning but only 50 or so fighters were operational. I have 9 Fast BBs 7 hexes from Clark. Between them are the mines and CD guns... My sandbox was a "worst case scenario" with 450 mines and some really big CD guns. The BBs seem almost invulnerable to both but the DDs really took a pounding...a price I´m willing to pay. I do hope my testbed really was a worst case scenario... Allied forces The entire fleet (including 11 BBs and 8 CAs to bombard). CVs will take position to give fighter support. 1800 Fighters (USAAF, USN, USMC, RAAF) 700 4Es 400 2Es Bombardment 8 Fast BBs will bombard Clark 8 CAs and 3 BBs bombard Bataan in an effort to disrupt the CD guns. Mines I have a bunch of "volunteer" minesweepers standing by to go in again... This is what I´m going to listen to when I do the turn tomorrow. Goto love Viking metal! [:D] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3WJX1cIuY4 [image]local://upfiles/32406/337744F893C347E0A26771D8834D3A98.jpg[/image]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 11:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Pretty soon you should start looking at your arrival queues for ETO planes and troops after VE Day. You will need vast amounts of troop transport shipping in CONUS to bring them forward. Same with the planes which can't fly across. Ops losses on single-engine at the ranges you're at might not be worth it so you would need transport for them too. But the troops can't walk and it's too late if you think of them on May 1 and you have 1000 needed ships sitting in the PI. Good point. Most of the shipping has just dumped stuff of on Luzon. They are heading back within a week or two. Might as well keep them on the WC when they get back. I´m starting to get a good amount of local fuel now and I just dumped 3,5 million supply. With the 2 million supply already in place I should be good to go. Havn´t looked really at what comes from Europe. I assume its goodie goodie? [:D] Yeah. I took a look after I posted and it comes later than I remembered. You'll need some ships in June, but massive numbers in Sept/Oct. Hundreds if not a thousand. The bombers and fighters alone are four-figures I think, mostly B-17Gs. The silver ones, primo 4Es. Hundreds and hundreds of P-47s and P-51Hs. Some jets. Some Bearcats. You get lots of IDs, and whole, pure tank divisions, high experience. The Soviets get scores of big LCUs over the summer too. If you plan to move them by sea plan for that too.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 11:17:34 PM)
FWIW, I think you're crazy to run anything past Bataan's CD. This move proves you are utterly, irretrievably, air-centric. [:)] Also, the idea of bombarding Clark from the sea is nuts. I've been to Clark, before it was buried under a volcano. It's a LONG way from BB land. I know it's the game, but still . . .

Crackaces -> RE: 1945! (10/30/2013 11:55:28 PM)
quote: Manilagrad ------------------------ I´m pleased with the results. Actually very pleased. quote: Ground combat at Manila (79,77) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 24168 troops, 680 guns, 3147 vehicles, Assault Value = 4529 Defending force 122700 troops, 1423 guns, 1550 vehicles, Assault Value = 3204 Allied adjusted assault: 626 Japanese adjusted defense: 16849 Allied assault odds: 1 to 26 (fort level 5) Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 2573 casualties reported Squads: 21 destroyed, 175 disabled Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 53 disabled Engineers: 36 destroyed, 32 disabled Guns lost 53 (14 destroyed, 39 disabled) Vehicles lost 82 (29 destroyed, 53 disabled) Allied ground losses: 4 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 181 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 81 (27 destroyed, 54 disabled) Vehicles lost 469 (70 destroyed, 399 disabled) He lost about 4% of his forces here 5% of vehicles .. You lost less than .04% of troops but 15% of your vehicles ..I am not sure how quickly these come back? Somehow you have to cut these forces off and get them disrupted ... The real key to this game IMHO) I can see is Southeast Asia and the huge supply problem here and I suspect in China .. PI seems to have plenty of supply ...at least for now ..

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 7:40:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 FWIW, I think you're crazy to run anything past Bataan's CD. This move proves you are utterly, irretrievably, air-centric. [:)] Also, the idea of bombarding Clark from the sea is nuts. I've been to Clark, before it was buried under a volcano. It's a LONG way from BB land. I know it's the game, but still . . . Its not proper CD guns. Its a BF with some CD guns. And if they can´t sink a YMS outright they shouldn´t be able to do more than scratch the paint on the Iowas! [:)] quote: 15th Base Force firing at YMS-127 I have to be air centric right now. If I´m successful I can all of the sudden get the 4Es to work over most of Luzon AND suppress the CD guns at Bataan. The will allow me to clear the mines, subs and MTBs at Manila. I can the turn on the wrath of 15 BBs to hit Manila almost daily! Erik is currently reinforcing Luzon via Aparri. So it looks like he will make this the decisive battle. If I´m to rise to that challenge I need to use the entire Allied arsenal. Most importantly the 4Es. They will disrupt troops and burn supply at a furious rate. Having the BBs able to pound Manila is a huge bonus too. I´m absolutely certain I have to do this. If it doesn´t work I´ll have to come up with something else. But I have to get air superiority over central Luzon.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 7:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces He lost about 4% of his forces here 5% of vehicles .. You lost less than .04% of troops but 15% of your vehicles ..I am not sure how quickly these come back? Somehow you have to cut these forces off and get them disrupted ... The real key to this game IMHO) I can see is Southeast Asia and the huge supply problem here and I suspect in China .. PI seems to have plenty of supply ...at least for now .. Of those 15% I would say 10% is motorized support and 3% Light tanks. The remaining 2% is Shermans. So we are talking real small numbers that will recover quickly. [:)] I agree on having to disrupt and burn supply at Manila. Thats the point of Arise. [:)]

JeffroK -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 8:18:42 AM)
Can you spare a TF to bombard Bataan on the day before?? Also, shooting at your kami MSW would use supply, get ready for a "gamey" email [:'(] To Bullwinkle, Jan 45 was the end of the Bulge, I dont think Ike was sending reinforcement to the Pacific just yet.

JeffroK -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 8:25:02 AM)
From GJ's thread Pax, you can have some of my supply if you want to? I have 103 million sitting around not doing much of anything. Joc, maybe you should be swapping it with QBall for a couple of hundred invulnerable T-Bolts. GJ's travails are perfect example of different problems in different games, things are rarely the same.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 9:08:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Can you spare a TF to bombard Bataan on the day before?? Also, shooting at your kami MSW would use supply, get ready for a "gamey" email [:'(] To Bullwinkle, Jan 45 was the end of the Bulge, I dont think Ike was sending reinforcement to the Pacific just yet. Already done! [:)] 3 BBs and 8 CAs will try to disrupt the CD guns. It will only have a little effect though but better than nothing. Tried it in sandbox even using 8 fast BBs the disruption won´t go above 78 and that didn´t have much effect on the shooting. You need to disable the actual guns and that would take 8-12 naval bombardments. Better to do that from the air I think. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK From GJ's thread Pax, you can have some of my supply if you want to? I have 103 million sitting around not doing much of anything. Joc, maybe you should be swapping it with QBall for a couple of hundred invulnerable T-Bolts. GJ's travails are perfect example of different problems in different games, things are rarely the same. Indeed. Thats why I´m against increasing Allied plane productions. I have a hunch though that Q-ball is really going to suffer from lack of air frames. Even more than I have as he has taken a lot more losses in 43 than I ever did. So thats going to give GJ better pilots than what Erik has further increasing allied plane shortages. All speculation of course. [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 9:40:41 AM)
And now the waiting begins. It will be a carnage no question about that. But who will suffer it?

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 11:30:35 AM)
EDIT Nm...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 1:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK To Bullwinkle, Jan 45 was the end of the Bulge, I dont think Ike was sending reinforcement to the Pacific just yet. Gee, really? Please re-read what I said.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:36:18 PM)
Watched the replay. The BB bombardment went in perfectly and losses were miniscule. Only a couple of hits on the DDs from CD guns and 1-2 mine hits. No ships in danger of sinking. Sadly the air war went bonkers. Half the sweeps rained in together with most or all of the LRCAP set to support them. So the bombers flew against the Manila CAP alone probably supported by leaky CAP from the CVs. Despite the aid of the CV CAP or LRCAP and 400 P38s the bombers got mauled pretty badly. Erik is really upset I have "broken our agreement". I have no clue what kind of an agreement he thinks we have. But in light of how well his CAP did against the bombers despite CV CAP/LRCAP aid and the critical allied pools I have asked if we can remove the "escort for escort" agreement. To my knowledge NO other game have a ban on LRCAP for escort?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:40:11 PM)
You both need a team of lawyers. Fifteen each should be sufficient for a start.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 You both need a team of lawyers. Fifteen each should be sufficient for a start. Thats a good start. But we probably need 35 each and fourteen years in court...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:44:34 PM)
Or, you could look at the paint job on your planes and see if there's a meatball there . . .

Crackaces -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:47:11 PM)
quote: I have asked if we can remove the "escort for escort" agreement. To my knowledge NO other game have a ban on LRCAP for escort? What game mechanic does this compensate for? or is this an attempt to conform to a perception of "real life"? I like Bullwinke's game .. with no home rules the algorithms no matter how badly written .....are the final arbitrator

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Or, you could look at the paint job on your planes and see if there's a meatball there . . . Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means. [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: I have asked if we can remove the "escort for escort" agreement. To my knowledge NO other game have a ban on LRCAP for escort? What game mechanic does this compensate for? or is this an attempt to conform to a perception of "real life"? I like Bullwinke's game .. with no home rules the algorithms no matter how badly written .....are the final arbitrator Yeah, Erik felt his fighters took too heavy losses when LRCAP protected the bombers and the bombers itself never took any losses. That was of course in 42 when he was flying Tojos. Now he is flying stuff that shoots down a bomber by just looking at it. I agreed to it then because it seemed to make sense and I had a nice pool of both fighters and bombers. Right now it feels kind of stupid with the BETA and gazillion fragments not being escorted and shot down in droves by his CAP. So everytime I attack something that is CAPed/LRCAP it will loose a tremendous amount of bombers when the unescorted fragments starts coming in.

Crackaces -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means. [:)] I missed the quote from Bullwinke58 .. so this seems totally out of context .. However, to keep the conversation going .. I postulate the following: 1. the players mutually agree that a particular game mechanic/algorithm can be exploited and the user behaviors that cause this exploitation are prohibited / constrained. 2. The players mutually or one side has some notion that a certain algorithm does not simulate their particular perception / understanding of history, and changing user behavior will help the game to conform to their worldview. This I might suggest has inherent problems of unintended consequences that might not be immediately apparent. I might suggest a third problem: The game at one time had an algorithm problem that players commonly understood the problem, but now the behavior has changed in one of Michaels patches. Continuing the home rule causes even more unintended consequences.

Encircled -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:55:40 PM)
In the unlikely event I ever have time for PBEM, I'm going to have two house rules max. No Mersing gambit (see Cannonfodder being turned into, er, cannonfodder v quioxte) Pay PP's for restricted units Thats it I've lost count how many HR's you two have got, but on the plus side you have made 1945!

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 2:58:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means. [:)] I missed the quote from Bullwinke58 .. so this seems totally out of context .. However, to keep the conversation going .. I postulate the following: 1. the players mutually agree that a particular game mechanic/algorithm can be exploited and the user behaviors that cause this exploitation are prohibited / constrained. 2. The players mutually or one side has some notion that a certain algorithm does not simulate their particular perception / understanding of history, and changing user behavior will help the game to conform to their worldview. This I might suggest has inherent problems of unintended consequences that might not be immediately apparent. I might suggest a third problem: The game at one time had an algorithm problem that players commonly understood the problem, but now the behavior has changed in one of Michaels patches. Continuing the home rule causes even more unintended consequences. You didn´t miss the quote. I added it when I saw you have posted "between" my post and Bullwinkles so you woun´t think my post was aimed at you. Guess I was too slow! [:D]

Crackaces -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 3:04:25 PM)
quote: Yeah, Erik felt his fighters took too heavy losses when LRCAP protected the bombers and the bombers itself never took any losses. That was of course in 42 when he was flying Tojos. Now he is flying stuff that shoots down a bomber by just looking at it. I agreed to it then because it seemed to make sense and I had a nice pool of both fighters and bombers. Right now it feels kind of stupid with the BETA and gazillion fragments not being escorted and shot down in droves by his CAP. This game takes at least 18 months I would estimate and in some cases a lot longer to fully appreciate what seems to be a good change to correct the moment. Therefore The unintended consequences takes years to really understand. If both players do not appreciate the unintended consequences and victory becomes more important than game play .. you get highly emotional highly contentious debates. I would not say these are Crucial Conversations as I am not sure a game qualifies as "high stakes". But, if one is really personally invested in this game over a year or two, then I could see a high stakes component and all the ingredients of a Crucial Conversation. These types of conflicts are mote likely to result in disruptive behaviors ... One bad thing in a long game like this is a home rule that leads to an unbalanced situation in itself -- only 2 years down the road ...

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 3:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces This game takes at least 18 months I would estimate and in some cases a lot longer to fully appreciate what seems to be a good change to correct the moment. Therefore The unintended consequences takes years to really understand. If both players do not appreciate the unintended consequences and victory becomes more important than game play .. you get highly emotional highly contentious debates. I would not say these are Crucial Conversations as I am not sure a game qualifies as "high stakes". But, if one is really personally invested in this game over a year or two, then I could see a high stakes component and all the ingredients of a Crucial Conversation. These types of conflicts are mote likely to result in disruptive behaviors ... One bad thing in a long game like this is a home rule that leads to an unbalanced situation in itself -- only 2 years down the road ... Indeed. Lets just say I´m a lot more opposed to HRs in general then I was a year ago...

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 5:05:08 PM)
This game generates enough drama it should be on american television....[8\|] Basically it boils down to possible LRCAP (not even sure it was LRCAP. Could be CAP leaking from the CVs) protecting the bombers over Manila. I know this is a huge deal considering every other game out there freely uses LRCAP as escorts and I probably lost at least a months worth of 4Es AND probably 50 P38s on escort. I´m truly a vile person for unintentionally using such massive game exploits. [8\|] I spent an entire day in sandbox trying stuff out to minimize LRCAP interference and bombardments. To be called a cheat after that is a little bit more than I can stomach. I asked Erik if could just remove the LRCAP HR all together and get rid of silly situation like this. I was told to "get real". Havn´t gotten the turn back and I´m not sure I will. Honestly don´t know if will send it back even if I do. I´m fed up with the drama. I´m not enjoying the game and even less so after todays email conversation. Whatever happens it was a good allied day. We go out with a bang! quote: Night Naval bombardment of Clark Field at 79,76 Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses H8K2 Emily: 75 damaged H8K2 Emily: 13 destroyed on ground N1K2-J George: 57 damaged N1K2-J George: 14 destroyed on ground N1K1-J George: 48 damaged N1K1-J George: 6 destroyed on ground Ki-84r Frank: 22 damaged Ki-84r Frank: 4 destroyed on ground Ki-84a Frank: 15 damaged Ki-84a Frank: 5 destroyed on ground Ki-43-IV Oscar: 26 damaged Ki-43-IV Oscar: 6 destroyed on ground Allied Ships BB Missouri BB Wisconsin BB New Jersey BB Iowa Japanese ground losses: 434 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Non Combat: 32 destroyed, 30 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 23 (13 destroyed, 10 disabled) Vehicles lost 14 (6 destroyed, 8 disabled) Airbase hits 34 Airbase supply hits 4 Runway hits 50 Port hits 8 Port fuel hits 3 Port supply hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Naval bombardment of Clark Field at 79,76 Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses Ki-84a Frank: 23 damaged Ki-84a Frank: 3 destroyed on ground Ki-43-IV Oscar: 21 damaged Ki-43-IV Oscar: 4 destroyed on ground N1K2-J George: 78 damaged N1K2-J George: 8 destroyed on ground Ki-84r Frank: 19 damaged Ki-84r Frank: 3 destroyed on ground H8K2 Emily: 52 damaged H8K2 Emily: 6 destroyed on ground N1K1-J George: 28 damaged N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed on ground Allied Ships BB Richelieu BB Massachusetts BB Indiana BB South Dakota Japanese ground losses: 408 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 29 disabled Engineers: 4 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 10 (9 destroyed, 1 disabled) Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled) Airbase hits 11 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 27 Port hits 6 Port fuel hits 1 Port supply hits 1 And to celebrate Tokyo REALLY burned tonight. The fires caused here at 10 times bigger than anything we accomplished before. [X(] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Air attack on Tokyo , at 114,60 Weather in hex: Light rain<--Finally! Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes [:'(] Allied aircraft B-29-25 Superfort x 5 Allied aircraft losses B-29-25 Superfort: 3 damaged Manpower hits 21 Fires 76140 [X(] Aircraft Attacking: 5 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 9000 feet * City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 5:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Or, you could look at the paint job on your planes and see if there's a meatball there . . . Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means. [:)] Sorry. Maybe an American English idiom. In the era, the Japanese national symbol found on the military flag (the red circle) was called a "meatball." I was saying, are these your planes or his? I get why some people like HRs even if I don't, but this endless, never-ending litigating in the middle of combat . . . It's your game, as is always said in these cases. We're watching. And it's a very, very interesting game. But the stoppages of play to try to "fix" the unfixable are hard to watch. That's all.

JocMeister -> RE: 1945! (10/31/2013 5:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Sorry. Maybe an American English idiom. In the era, the Japanese national symbol found on the military flag (the red circle) was called a "meatball." I was saying, are these your planes or his? I get why some people like HRs even if I don't, but this endless, never-ending litigating in the middle of combat . . . It's your game, as is always said in these cases. We're watching. And it's a very, very interesting game. But the stoppages of play to try to "fix" the unfixable are hard to watch. That's all. Heh, while I might never play a completely HR free game like you have I´m slowly, slowly getting there. I´m at the same point Encircled is right now. PPs for restricted units. Thats the only one I would really want in my next game. PS. I don´t know idiom either. Had to look it up! [:D]

Page: << < prev 80 81 [82] 83 84 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375