RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (Full Version)

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

Message

princep01 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/13/2013 6:21:34 PM)
The puzzle for me is: why have KB attack Auckland for several days in a row instead of just once? It might have made some sense if an invasion fleet was behind the striking force and the sea eqivalent of deep battle was in the offerring. However, I think that any invasion TF would have been spotted some time ago if it existed. Therefore, I think it was just a raid and, as noted so well by BBfanboy, the hoped for Allied CVs were not at home. Nemo/deep battle....let's see if I get another hit:).

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/13/2013 6:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: princep01 The puzzle for me is: why have KB attack Auckland for several days in a row instead of just once? It might have made some sense if an invasion fleet was behind the striking force and the sea eqivalent of deep battle was in the offerring. However, I think that any invasion TF would have been spotted some time ago if it existed. Therefore, I think it was just a raid and, as noted so well by BBfanboy, the hoped for Allied CVs were not at home. Nemo/deep battle....let's see if I get another hit:). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle gives a very good top-line summary of the concept. Whether, or how much, it applies to naval operations is left to the reader.

Crackaces -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/13/2013 11:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: princep01 The puzzle for me is: why have KB attack Auckland for several days in a row instead of just once? It might have made some sense if an invasion fleet was behind the striking force and the sea eqivalent of deep battle was in the offerring. However, I think that any invasion TF would have been spotted some time ago if it existed. Therefore, I think it was just a raid and, as noted so well by BBfanboy, the hoped for Allied CVs were not at home. Nemo/deep battle....let's see if I get another hit:). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle gives a very good top-line summary of the concept. Whether, or how much, it applies to naval operations is left to the reader. I think it does apply to the IJ and a very specfic situation -- auto-victory. Deep battle might be extended in concept that to achieve victory conditions a strategic thust deep within the Allied LOC as such victory is achieved .. problem ... constrains: 1. In AE -- most of the Allied strategic resources are off map and unobtainable by the IJ. 2. In AE -- The Allies in an off map mode have a certain reinforcement schedule that the IJ cannot influence with the exception of auto-victory 3. IN AE -- The IJ are totally depdendent on resources that are very "touchable" by the Allies -- thus vulnerable to "Deep Battle" Because of 1 -3 above the Deep Battle is not a viable strategy for the IJ .. Read Grey Joy vs. Radier ... Radier could not intervine the off-board resources though he demonstated the map and built an empire, and eventually [with a shock even ] .. things turned around .. Now .. I might offer a picture of the current postion. I would more describe a chess match. I would more equate this as "Ruy Lopez" vs the "Kings Indian Defense" The analogy? Both sides are marching to two different opening moves and are not reacting to each other. The question is .. which side will blink and lose ovensive intiative reacting to the other player .. It looks like John is seeking to keep initive with a raid but lacks real pressure at this point .. I believe CR will steadily increase resources into theater to his plan and then dictate action. It will be interesting .. [sm=00000613.gif] The game for the IJ is to last till 1946 .. [or induce SCLS [8D] ] not many games go to 1946 ...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/13/2013 11:41:10 PM)
I think deep battle as a naval concept can go only so far and then it runs onto shoals. The concept of deep penetration to abuse logistics is fine and certainly preceeds the Soviets in the naval realm. (Sir Francis Drake at least.) But Soviet deep battle turns on terrain, lines with or without holes in them, fortification, arty support to force breakthroughs, etc. The PTO, with a mix of large and small land masses which cannot be walked between, is unlike a continental land war. Naval actions have no terrain features. There is no terrain bonus for woods or mountains. Both sides get the same weather. Sensors have very long ranges due to there being no contour lines or intervening mass (trees, rocks) to soak up energy. And on and on. Deep battle to me in a naval sense is a fancy way of saying go to the objective which gets you to the one after that. It's not about lines of defense per se. There are too many of those in the Pacific and too many huge holes. I do agree with the thought that CR and John are playing two different games right now. Probably the source of what I percieve to be CR's frustration. It's hard to plan for randomness. CR is steadily building a basis for later operations while his opponent is running around "trying things." One way to grab him by the scruff of the neck, a la Nemo, would be to organize a deep thrust which has some risk and show him it's time to come in off the playground. Where? Hard to say, but the north probably has the least need for force to achieve the most slap-in-the-face.

Crackaces -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 1:59:48 AM)
quote: I think deep battle as a naval concept can go only so far and then it runs onto shoals. Abstractly in my understanding, Deep Battle came from the concept that at the time armies did not go for occupation of vital resoruces per se or strategic intervention [think negotated peace of WWI] and the thought that long wars of attrition like WWI are useless to all sides. Instead, deep thursts to deny the enemy of resources, postion, etc whether the discussion is strategic, operational, or tatical. So, you might not find examples of Navy "Deep Battle," but thinking in the abstractions of concepts -- I can certainly see extending these concepts into a naval theater like the Pacific though the Soviets never doucmented this kind of warfare.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 3:21:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: I think deep battle as a naval concept can go only so far and then it runs onto shoals. Abstractly in my understanding, Deep Battle came from the concept that at the time armies did not go for occupation of vital resoruces per se or strategic intervention [think negotated peace of WWI] and the thought that long wars of attrition like WWI are useless to all sides. Instead, deep thursts to deny the enemy of resources, postion, etc whether the discussion is strategic, operational, or tatical. So, you might not find examples of Navy "Deep Battle," but thinking in the abstractions of concepts -- I can certainly see extending these concepts into a naval theater like the Pacific though the Soviets never doucmented this kind of warfare. Deep battle was the core naval strategy of the Reagan administration. To build a navy based on large cariers which could go up to the Kola Peninsula and destroy the Red Navy in its bastions, thus sanitizing the Atlantic for Reforger. A lot of debate on whether such a strategy would have gone nuclear, as well as being fantastically expensive for the US. In the past year I read Sir John Keegan's "A History of Warfare", a sweeping tome covering primitive and modern military history of many cultures from the perspective that Clausewitz was wrong. A very good set of arguments IMO. I'm not sure the Politiboro would have agreed. But in Keegan's view WWI was not an aberration or really all that different than many other wars before or since. I agree that the Soviets took away lessons from it which came from their POV on their front, but they might not have been good lessons or at least not universal ones. The Warsaw Pact was built around deep battle concepts, we knew that, and NATO was built around denying them the chance to break into rear areas. Fortunately we never found out who was right. My essential point is that one should be careful extending land warfare concepts to the naval realm. And vice versa.

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 6:19:22 AM)
Of course there is deep battle in naval warfare! Just ask any submariner! [;)]

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 2:27:56 PM)
I love these discussions. I'm vaguely familiar with the concept of deep war, but I didn't follow closely the discussions that usually started with or included Nemo. So I'm pretty ignorant on the theory. Nemo was a polarizing figure - it seemed that people either really liked him or (a relatively few) didn't. I found Nemo brilliant and really enjoyed his participation in the forums, though on occasion we got a bit crosswise. I think Nemo overestimated the forces "arrayed against him" and didn't realize just how much respect he had earned amongst the community. For his own peace of mind he decided to leave, which I respect but lament. There is an old saying from scripture: "Where there is no vision the people perish." I often apply that thought to the game. Sometimes I can envision a course of action that I am comfortable with and that I think (or feel sure) will succeed under the circumstances. Often, the strategies thus implemented are successful. Sometimes, forumites post suggestions that I ultimately reject, not because they aren't good (or perhaps even much better than mine), but because I lack the vision to see how to implement and sustain the strategy. I feel like I'm better off imposing something than I can envsion rather than trying to follow something I have no feel for. In the game now, I can envision how an Aleutians strategy will have benefits. I feel certain that the strategy comes with a certain promise of sustainability. IE, if John responds strongly, that's to my benefit either because I can fight effetively or because his efforts will detract from his opportunities elsewhere. On the other hand, I cannot envision a way to make a deep strike that would be sustainable somewhere like the Solomons or Sumatra. Too early for such an operation to have a credible degree of sustainability IMHO. I think a player of John's caliber would recognize that I had gone too far out on a limb in an operation that had no credible chance of sustainability. I could, of course, make some deep raids with my carriers right now, but at the moment I'm afraid that would be counterproductive. Circumstances may change, but until they do I think John is feeling his way due to uncertainty about my carriers - their location and what I might do with them. I am, however, considering a bombardment missions with several BBs against an IJ base in the Aleutians just to grab John's attention even while I'm surreptiously occupying a few of the islands. I want to add something to the variables he's contemplating in forming his Phase II plans.

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 3:16:37 PM)
Naval warfare is so fluid [no pun intended] that sustainability of a deep strike calls for massive dominance of the entire perimeter of the strike. The Allies cannot do this in 1942, so for a strategic "deep strike" I would envision a hit and run that really hurts Japan strategically. I am thinking something like a large convoy of supplies to Manila while the Allies still have it, escorted by CVs while KB is playing in the IO or south of Oz. If the Philippines had the supply to hold out several weeks longer that would tie up his forces and slow his expansion. He would even have to put more assests in the area to prevent it happening again. So sustaining the naval perimeter is not done for more than a few days, but sustaining the strategic blocking force is done for weeks. Or you could just do a City Strike - Naval on Hiroshima and sink Musashi in the builder's docks! [:D]

witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 3:25:57 PM)
I think that in naval/Pacific war terms the equivalent of deep battle is cutting through perimeter defenses and establishing island bases that exert the control (through basing for air power and sea power) that threatens strategic centers. It also thereby makes bypassed forces more vulnerable both as they try to redeploy or merely resupply.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 4:31:28 PM)
2/1/42 NoPac: The Cold Bay garrison convoy is perhaps three or four days out, with the American carriers providing escort to the SW. Again, patrols have some kind of interaction with an enemy sub, meaning John may be getting some intel. I'm drawing down the Cold Harbor (Vancouver Island) garrison - a Marine regiment and an engineer unit will move forward to Akutan Island, between Dutch Harbor and Cold Bay. SoPac: The KB doesn't show up on the screen, but a USN PC with 10/10 detection suggest the enemy carriers are NE of Auckland. QE will remain stationary off the SW cape of New Zealand until the route is clear. Oz: Quiet at the moment. The Pearl KB is off NZ and the DEI KB is around Merak. John is probably beginning to assemble ships and men and plan for Phase II. Oz is the most likely target. India: There's nothing menacing India at the moment, though the Allies continue to attend to the defences. The main forward defense is at Diego, with 330 AV (and 18th UK Div. slowly but steadily building so that eventually the Allies will have at least 400 AV). Port Blair is also well garrisoned, but supply is running low and every ship going there is hammered. So, Port Blair will look more stout than it actually is. China: No enemy attacks along the MLR for the past several days. John briefly had a shot at taking Kweilin, but the Chinese managed to hold and then reinforce. I think John wants to try something at Chengte. I think I have enough to stop him, but a failure there would be rather calamitous as I don't have a defense in depth yet.

Cribtop -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 7:22:03 PM)
Could you fly in supplies to Port Blair from Trincomalee?

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/14/2013 11:05:38 PM)
2/2/42 and 2/3/42 NoPac: The Cold Bay troops will arrive and begin unloading tomorrow. The carriers remain in place. The Akutan troops loading at Cold Harbor are lagging behind due to slow loading. That TF leaves tomorrow and should make Akutan in about five or six days. I may keep the carriers on station or I may move them south towards Hawaii. Once Cold Bay and Akutan are finished, no more major operations will take place until early March. SoPac: I think the KB is nearing Fiji. PG Swan continues to show 10/10 detection including flyovers by Vals. QE will split the Kiwi islands and move east. I could be wrong, but this cruise by the KB seems to be a most uselss exercise. DEI and Luzon: Quiet at the moment. Imperial Guards withdrew from Singapore (the final proof that John was indeed "dissembling" in his email message several days ago). That unit is trashed. John has removed all units at Clark except three divisions. No support whatsoever. A deliberate attack three days ago didn't accomplish a thing. Both Singers and Clark will hold until supply is gone. India: Two construction regiments arrived. One will go to Diego and one to Attu. A third just arrived at Socatra (which should warm Princep's heart). The first Americal RCT arrives at Capetown in two weeks. Then I've got to decide whether to commit to Oz or India. Right now, I'm leaning just a bit towards the former, but alot will happen between now and then. China: It looks like John is shifting the focus of his army from the Sian front to the Chengte/Changsha/Kweilin front. My MLR is established, but the latter sector is the weaker of the two.

JeffroK -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 12:38:10 AM)
I think too many faf on about "Deep Strike" stategies without realising that a vast majority have never read about them and are playing their game, their way. While lots of moves are made after lots of planning, most use their gut to make the final decision. PS. KB was down south protecting the Japanese Whaling Fleet, sadly underrepresented in AE.

Crackaces -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:04:09 AM)
quote: a sweeping tome covering primitive and modern military history of many cultures from the perspective that Clausewitz was wrong You make an astute obversation that my agruments depend that Clausewitz got it right and that war is a projetion of power and it does not matter from where or what this power is projected, and that Deep Battle is a stratgic, opertional, and tatitical methodology for accomplishing political goals. If this is not true my abstractions are not as valid ...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces quote: a sweeping tome covering primitive and modern military history of many cultures from the perspective that Clausewitz was wrong You make an astute obversation that my agruments depend that Clausewitz got it right and that war is a projetion of power and it does not matter from where or what this power is projected, and that Deep Battle is a stratgic, opertional, and tatitical methodology for accomplishing political goals. If this is not true my abstractions are not as valid ... If you have not read Keegan's book you would enjoy it. It is a masterwork. Took me back to history I haven't studied since undergrad days. Lots of peers have criticised his Clausewitz arguments, but they're pretty well argued from where I sit. He argues among other things that C.'s core points only applied at the very narrow time and place (Napoleonic wars through mid-19th C.,, Prussian worldview) he had experienced, and that war is much more an artifact of culture, geography, religion, and climate than politics, when the whole sweep of human history is considered. I think I will read it again in a few years now that I know how it ends. [:)]

Houtje -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 12:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel DEI and Luzon: Quiet at the moment. Imperial Guards withdrew from Singapore (the final proof that John was indeed "dissembling" in his email message several days ago). That unit is trashed. Not trying to flame or troll or untrack this thread in any way, but does anyone else feel that dissembling in this way is somehow morally wrong? I mean, trying to misdirect your opponent about your intentions etc., seems fine, but actually claiming that the game is somehow malfunctioning while you know it is not, well, that feels different. Of course, this is just my humble opinion.

MateDow -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 12:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Houtje Not trying to flame or troll or untrack this thread in any way, but does anyone else feel that dissembling in this way is somehow morally wrong? I mean, trying to misdirect your opponent about your intentions etc., seems fine, but actually claiming that the game is somehow malfunctioning while you know it is not, well, that feels different. Of course, this is just my humble opinion. PsyOps are always valid. My interpretation is that John wasn't saying that the game was broken, just misrepresenting the results of the turn.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 12:59:54 PM)
2/4/42 NoPac: Garrison troops arrive at Cold Bay and begin unloading. A Mavis squadron finds the ships and strikes ineffectively (John doesn't have any airfields in the Aluetians, so I'm assuming these were small bombs). The enemy hasn't gotten any hard intel on my carriers, yet, and they remain posted just to the south. Cold Bay has 110 AV with some more to come ashore. The Akutan occupation troops are perhaps five or six days away. The carriers will cover that and a BB TF will bombard Amchitka or Adak just to raise the ante a bit. Then my ships will vacate the area for some time to come. I think at that point the operation will have whatever attention John chooses to give. SoPac: PC Swan, which has been trying to evade the KB for the past week, finally stumbles into the same hex just west of Fiji, reporting Akagi, Kaga, Zuikaku, Shokaku, Zuiho and one other CVL. Then Swan stumbles across the IJN replenishment convoy. Swan takes heavy damage in the various surface engagements, but might live to fight again. With the Pearl Branch of the KB at Fiji, QE will continue east not far from the edge of the map. India: Two Indian divisions will arrive as reinforcements in the coming days. One will report to Chittagong (joining a division that is en route there now). The second reinforcing division will probably go to Viz. Phase II: John has been paying a great deal of attention to Port Blair. Four BBs bombarded a few days back. No question he will invade here fairly soon. He's also giving attention to Port Moresby, Perth and Fiji. I'm hoping that his next phase might target non-essential locations like these, buying me additional time to attend to the most critical areas - India and SE Oz.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:02:05 PM)
That's a very interesting question about dissembling. John went further than I would go in trying to throw me off on what happened at Singapore, but I recognize that this is a highly personal question and that my standards do not apply to anybody else. I therefore harbor no negative view of what John did, other than to find it interesting that he felt sufficiently mortified at what happened to feel the need to dissemble.

Houtje -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:22:15 PM)
Yes, I suppose such matters are indeed highly personal - I just noticed that it piqued my interest as a moral topic. Anyhow, rooting for poor PC Swan here.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel That's a very interesting question about dissembling. John went further than I would go in trying to throw me off on what happened at Singapore, but I recognize that this is a highly personal question and that my standards do not apply to anybody else. I therefore harbor no negative view of what John did, other than to find it interesting that he felt sufficiently mortified at what happened to feel the need to dissemble. Highly personal, roger. "Dissembling", well, that's kind on your part. I would call it something else. As a contrast, in my game we have agreed, more or less by our actions, to just not do any of this stuff. Turns are either "Here it is" or accompanied by a short missive on the NFL, wives and their habits, how sick we are, or other manly POVs. Nothing on the game other than, very occasionally, "Getting tense there in Burma." (We both have eyes.) This is nice. It allows each player to play his own game without flies buzzing around his head. Further, for the crowd who screams bloody murder about the need for HRs to preserve "historical correctness" it's historically correct. The Japanese high command did not cable FDR and say "Midway looks bad, but I actually saved most of my pilots." What happened at Singers gives you info you can use against him. It shows weakness, uncertainty. It shows you he can be rolled. Just do it on the map and not in e-mail. I'm sure you will.

witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel That's a very interesting question about dissembling. John went further than I would go in trying to throw me off on what happened at Singapore, but I recognize that this is a highly personal question and that my standards do not apply to anybody else. I therefore harbor no negative view of what John did, other than to find it interesting that he felt sufficiently mortified at what happened to feel the need to dissemble. Highly personal, roger. "Dissembling", well, that's kind on your part. I would call it something else. As a contrast, in my game we have agreed, more or less by our actions, to just not do any of this stuff. Turns are either "Here it is" or accompanied by a short missive on the NFL, wives and their habits, how sick we are, or other manly POVs. Nothing on the game other than, very occasionally, "Getting tense there in Burma." (We both have eyes.) This is nice. It allows each player to play his own game without flies buzzing around his head. Further, for the crowd who screams bloody murder about the need for HRs to preserve "historical correctness" it's historically correct. The Japanese high command did not cable FDR and say "Midway looks bad, but I actually saved most of my pilots." What happened at Singers gives you info you can use against him. It shows weakness, uncertainty. It shows you he can be rolled. Just do it on the map and not in e-mail. I'm sure you will. +1 In my game it's just light-hearted things like 'those three torpedoes were only a flesh wound!' or 'you're just making my supply situation in China easier!'

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 1:56:36 PM)
Interesting comments, gents. I've long had a personal policy of giving absolutely no information in my emails, just like the Moose. This policy means I don't have to worry about making misleading statements, giving away intel I shouldn't be giving away, or inadvertently coming across as gloating when something goes right. Those are three important objectives. But I recall that Nemo was very big into mind games via email, so I realize it's a big and fun part of the game for other players. To me, the most egregious offense I could give somebody is to gloat over a victory. I've been on the receiving end of that more than once and don't like it. Most players (and most of my opponents) avoid gloating (or comments that appear to a stricken opponent as gloating even if not intended that way) like the plague.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:02:57 PM)
I have a tough decision to make at Singapore. It's February 5, the Allies have 31k supply, which is diminishing at a rate of about 1,000 per day as Japanese bombers have been ratcheting up the level of activity. I have about 950 AV with a potential of a bit more than 1100 AV if disrupted troops recover. Japan has two divisions present but can't accomplish anything until reinforcements are brought in. So, do I pay 150 PP to replace Percival? If I had unlimited supply, I would definitely do so as my garrison would fight that much harder and longer. But once supply runs the quality of the leader becomes meaningless. I'm slightly inclined to allow Percival to remain. It'll probably be another week or two before John can ready another attack as he'll have to bring in reinforcements and do so carefully so as not to trigger a shock attack. By the time he's ready to strike hard again my supply situation may have mooted the point, so better to retain the PP. (Or, not?)

Houtje -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:09:35 PM)
If you're sure he won't attack for another couple of weeks, then I'd save the PP now, as it gives your more flexibility (you can always decide to replace him when an attack is imminent, or decline to do so if Singers is out of supply).

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Houtje If you're sure he won't attack for another couple of weeks, then I'd save the PP now, as it gives your more flexibility (you can always decide to replace him when an attack is imminent, or decline to do so if Singers is out of supply). This is true to some extent, but I believe a top CO slot like Perceval's goes more to the admin aspects than the direct combat support. So a top CO with better stats might help with replacement rates for example in the interim between attacks. A combat LCU CO could be replaced right before the battle, but IMO if one were going to replace Perceval at all sooner is better.

Chickenboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel So, do I pay 150 PP to replace Percival? If I had unlimited supply, I would definitely do so as my garrison would fight that much harder and longer. But once supply runs the quality of the leader becomes meaningless. Do you think that replacing Percival will buy you more than 3 days time with the garrison? That's how much it will take you to replace those PPs. Not much, really. If you think that replacing Percival will cause the garrison to hold a week or more, it's a slam dunk, IMO.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 2:56:49 PM)
Good points. Percival's exceedingly low administration rating interferes with the recovery of disrupted troops. So replacing him might help me recover some of the 150 AV currently disrupted. Is it worth it at this point? I honestly don't know. It's a tough call. I do have 1,000 PP accumulated, though I'm hording them to buy out 27th/B and 27th/C Div. for Oz and to buy out the troops that would be used if I invade Amchitka or Adak. I need those PP for those uses, but every day that Singers holds is gold. It's always gold, but even moreso here since John has fixated on the frustation he has experienced here thus far. That might be reason enough to tip the scales towards doing everything I can at Singers. By the way, I have already expended PP at Singers. All the AA units got top-notch commanders at the start. Those AA units inflict alot of damage on Japanese bombers (and I assume that better commanders contribute to more effective firing). I also replaced the commander of an Indian division (50 PP) and several other infantry unit leaders.

obvert -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (1/15/2013 3:18:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel All the AA units got top-notch commanders at the start. Those AA units inflict alot of damage on Japanese bombers (and I assume that better commanders contribute to more effective firing). Which category did you prioritize in the picks for an AA commander? I've often wondered what would help.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359375