RE: Notes from a Small Island

RE: Notes from a Small Island (Full Version)

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

Message

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 6:44:10 PM)
Let me say this. If the good ol' US Navy could get cleverly creative in naming the USS Shangri-La, it's not beyond possibility that something happened behind the scenes - on the home front! - in this war to give birth to these names. A clever AAR writer could come up with plausible vignettes (but please don't ask Cap Mandrake - he'll veer into the sensual): USS Death from Above: During the opening days of the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gives a fireside speech in which he promises that American industrial might will rain on Japan "Death from Above." USS John Wick: During the build up for Operation Watchtower, the 1st Marine Division arrived at Wellington, New Zealand. There, the unionized longshoremen refused to work overtime to combat load the gear and supplies for the invasion. Sea Bee John Wick said that the Navy and the Marines "didn't need no help from stinking civvies." Armed longshoremen attacked Wick's construction battalion, during which he gave his life to save three of his men. USS Emperor Norton: This one cannot be explained away. SqzMyLemon is forever banned from naming ships.

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 7:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Three or four turns back, I thought it 90% likely the Allies were going to lose Death Star and a significant amount of the Herd, putting Sikhalin Island in serious jeopardy. Against orders, my carriers reacted (part of the game). This left them badly out of position. They took serious damage that somehow ended up spread around rather than being decisive. But the cripples could only make three or four hexes per day, were in the shadow or Japanese airfields, were surrounded by hostiles, were threatened by enemy combat TFs getting in and creating havoc, and I didn't think it likely that I could re-assemble the carriers and the CVEs into one fighting force. It was like I had wandered into a box canyon, taken serious losses, and the way out was blocked. Some of you have experienced this before: going deep into enemy territory, getting chewed on a bit, and then finding the extraction impossible. Bedeviled by enemy combat TFs and the carriers homing in for the kill, a bad situation devolves over the next two or three or four days until utter defeat with massive losses ensues. You try everything possible, finally scattering your ships to the wind in hopes that a small percentage might escape. That's what I thought was going to happen. I was nearly certain it was going to happen. In the end (to this point), I lost one ship - CVL Cowpens. It turned into some Houdini-like escape. Why? Probably the number of strike aircraft lost left Erik unable to press. And possibly his combat TFs weren't close enough to attack and he feared heavy losses without his carriers in close escort. Whatever the reasons, I'll glad. Japanese strike planes just aren't durable enough to enable multiple days of strikes. You can almost count on it in every engagement.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 8:33:32 PM)
Gents, one member of the community sent me the link to a long discussion of reaction that occurred between Alfred and Lokasenna earlier this year. The discussion delved into when and why TFs react. I didn't find any discussion on how to avoid reaction. Back a long, long time ago, it was possible to avoid or minimize reaction by having a carrier TF follow a merchant TF. That feature might have been nerfed or might have been a figment of my imagination. It doesn't matter, though, as I don't want to use it even if it works. I don't want carriers and combat TFs following merchant vessels. Traditionally, I have my carrier TFs follow ASW TFs (or, more rarely, combat TFs). That's what was going on when the react happened twice during the Kuriles campaign. It's also what happened when a carrier TF reacted in SoPac recently in my game with John III. I tried lowering the aggression ratings of my carrier commanders. That was not a solution. The TFs still reacted. That leaves me with two options (unless you guys know of others): (1) plan on carriers reacting, configuring them as best you can, or (2) create carrier TFs with both CVs and CVEs. The advantage of the latter is that my carriers then won't become separated. The disadvantage is that the TFs will slow down and be more subject to attacks by enemy subs and, presumably, combat TFs and strike aircraft. So it's by no means a perfect solution but it's probably better than living with reaction dividing carrier protection piecemeal. What do you guys think? Anybody know of a better tactic to prevent or minimize reaction?

Drakanel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 9:48:20 PM)
I have only ever played against the AI, and as such, I am not experienced at all. However you asked for opinions.... I am ready to be corrected by more experienced players if need be [:D] It is my personal experience that you cannot ever completely avoid the possibility of a reaction. Perhaps, rather than following an ASW TF, what Bif1961 suggested would be better, that is having the CVs following the CVEs. Surely CVEs have a much lower chance of reaction compared to ASW TFs. Still, always planning for some reaction would seem to me the best possible way to do it. But that aside... If you will forgive me the bluntness, during those turns when you were crossing the Kuriles I would have not restricted the air assets to range 2 in order to avoid cap traps. You knew Obvert had had the time to bring KB and multiple naval assets in the area. It was simply too risky, reducing your range ensured you could not fight back. Yes, there was a reaction but had your range not been restricted, you could have actually seen the CVE fighters augment your defenses of the CVs during the strikes! More importantly, had your range not been restricted you could have either struck first against the KB, or at least struck second to make him pay for the damage he dealt. I just believe you are at a stage now where Obvert can afford the losses of carriers a lot less than you. Even worse case scenario, had you traded carriers 1 for 1, and even in the face of high plane losses, I believe it would have been worth it at this point in the war... Letting him strike you without retaliating was just giving him free cake. Sorry again, feels like I'm preaching to someone a lot more experienced than I will ever be [&o]. I just wanted to write my point of view on that one particular turn.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 9:55:22 PM)
The strategy has its pluses and minuses, so it's a weighing of benefits against risk. Erik had some big airfields nearby and a host of ships. CAP traps can simply destroy naval air - both strike aircraft and escorting fighters. So, without certain knowledge as to KB's whereabouts, I chose my strategy. This was guided in part by the fact that he had lost 500 carrier aircraft less than a week before. Erik is using a similar strategy. He didn't load up his airfields with strike aircraft and escorts. He feared my CAP too much, I think. Sifting through risks and benefits is far more complicated than it seems. I have no issues with the strategy but wish I'd had a better feel for his doctrine and carrier capabilities.

Drakanel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 10:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Sifting through risks and benefits is far more complicated than it seems. I have no issues with the strategy but wish I'd had a better feel for his doctrine and carrier capabilities. Well, perhaps my views also depend on the fact that I do not have a clear idea of how your fighters / bombers pools are faring right now. Maybe I imagine your aircraft pools a lot fuller than they actually are, and that is why I feel a conflict would have been beneficial here. That would be a classic rookie mistake. Entirely likely [:D]

BBfanboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 11:03:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakanel quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Sifting through risks and benefits is far more complicated than it seems. I have no issues with the strategy but wish I'd had a better feel for his doctrine and carrier capabilities. Well, perhaps my views also depend on the fact that I do not have a clear idea of how your fighters / bombers pools are faring right now. Maybe I imagine your aircraft pools a lot fuller than they actually are, and that is why I feel a conflict would have been beneficial here. That would be a classic rookie mistake. Entirely likely [:D] In the last couple of years IJ players have learned how to fine tune the economy to produce the most advanced Japanese fighters earlier and in greater numbers than ever before. They also have become good at keeping their pilots from being slaughtered before they get good fighters to fly. Land based modern fighters with good pilots are too much for the Hellcat in game. Canoerebel has some Corsairs but most of his Naval CAP is likely Hellcats and Wildcats. With that in mind, taking on CAP traps is throwing away good pilots, even if the plane losses can be overcome. I think the Allies begin to see the bottom of their naval pilot pools in 1944.

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 11:46:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Gents, one member of the community sent me the link to a long discussion of reaction that occurred between Alfred and Lokasenna earlier this year. The discussion delved into when and why TFs react. I didn't find any discussion on how to avoid reaction. Back a long, long time ago, it was possible to avoid or minimize reaction by having a carrier TF follow a merchant TF. That feature might have been nerfed or might have been a figment of my imagination. It doesn't matter, though, as I don't want to use it even if it works. I don't want carriers and combat TFs following merchant vessels. Traditionally, I have my carrier TFs follow ASW TFs (or, more rarely, combat TFs). That's what was going on when the react happened twice during the Kuriles campaign. It's also what happened when a carrier TF reacted in SoPac recently in my game with John III. I tried lowering the aggression ratings of my carrier commanders. That was not a solution. The TFs still reacted. That leaves me with two options (unless you guys know of others): (1) plan on carriers reacting, configuring them as best you can, or (2) create carrier TFs with both CVs and CVEs. The advantage of the latter is that my carriers then won't become separated. The disadvantage is that the TFs will slow down and be more subject to attacks by enemy subs and, presumably, combat TFs and strike aircraft. So it's by no means a perfect solution but it's probably better than living with reaction dividing carrier protection piecemeal. What do you guys think? Anybody know of a better tactic to prevent or minimize reaction? It be similar to a tactic to prevent or minimize pregnancy. Don't do it or do it all the way... OR Rhythm Method. a little reaction is like a little pregnant.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 11:47:55 PM)
Now you've gone and done it. AE Strategies: The Mersing Gambit. Fortress Palembang. Rhythm Method.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/21/2017 11:54:11 PM)
Hey, MakeeLeearn edited his comment, thus detracting from the pertinence of my reply.

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 2:10:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Gents, one member of the community sent me the link to a long discussion of reaction that occurred between Alfred and Lokasenna earlier this year. The discussion delved into when and why TFs react. I didn't find any discussion on how to avoid reaction. Back a long, long time ago, it was possible to avoid or minimize reaction by having a carrier TF follow a merchant TF. That feature might have been nerfed or might have been a figment of my imagination. It doesn't matter, though, as I don't want to use it even if it works. I don't want carriers and combat TFs following merchant vessels. Traditionally, I have my carrier TFs follow ASW TFs (or, more rarely, combat TFs). That's what was going on when the react happened twice during the Kuriles campaign. It's also what happened when a carrier TF reacted in SoPac recently in my game with John III. I tried lowering the aggression ratings of my carrier commanders. That was not a solution. The TFs still reacted. That leaves me with two options (unless you guys know of others): (1) plan on carriers reacting, configuring them as best you can, or (2) create carrier TFs with both CVs and CVEs. The advantage of the latter is that my carriers then won't become separated. The disadvantage is that the TFs will slow down and be more subject to attacks by enemy subs and, presumably, combat TFs and strike aircraft. So it's by no means a perfect solution but it's probably better than living with reaction dividing carrier protection piecemeal. What do you guys think? Anybody know of a better tactic to prevent or minimize reaction? In my many, many carrier battles (OK, like 8 or 10 maybe), my experience is: If you are within 5 or so hexes, they will react. If you are at 7 or more, they will not react. I have a very strong hunch this is a holdover from WITP code, but it's just a hunch. With michaelm being MIA since last year, we really have no idea on this. But I've never seen CVs react at 7 or 8 hexes, while I've seen them react to spitting range when at 4-5 hexes apart. Aggression doesn't seem to matter. If your CVs are at that reaction range, they will simply react. Sometimes CVEs don't react. TFs set to follow will not follow the reaction (I think). So - as the Allies, it's best to shoot for either 6-7 hexes of range (I don't think they react at 6 hexes but have honestly never ended up at that distance that I can recall), but if you don't want a battle err on the side of farther. If you do want a battle, err 1 hex closer if there is LBA present that you don't want to get sucked under. Shooting for 7 hexes is mitigated later when your planes can fly with DTs at that range and normal load, but IJN damage control being what it is 500-lb bombs still punch big fiery holes. And if I really don't want a battle, but the landing is going in anyway, I just set everything to 100% CAP (not 50% CAP with no escorts - the CAP squadrons are set to 100% and range 0 always, or 80-100% LRCAP and range 0). As Japan, I just add a hex to those ranges. I try for 8 hexes, but will err on the side of 7 if I need to. If I know the invasion target, 8 hexes is easy. If I'm guessing, it's all up in the air. Summary: I just try to eliminate chances for reaction. If I think my guys are going to react, I'll either send EVERYTHING (including the CVEs) closer so there's no reaction, or go for the 7-hex distance so there's no reaction (which gives 1 hex of buffer if a distance of 6 is also no react).

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 2:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakanel I have only ever played against the AI, and as such, I am not experienced at all. However you asked for opinions.... I am ready to be corrected by more experienced players if need be [:D] It is my personal experience that you cannot ever completely avoid the possibility of a reaction. Perhaps, rather than following an ASW TF, what Bif1961 suggested would be better, that is having the CVs following the CVEs. Surely CVEs have a much lower chance of reaction compared to ASW TFs. Even worse case scenario, had you traded carriers 1 for 1, and even in the face of high plane losses, I believe it would have been worth it at this point in the war... Letting him strike you without retaliating was just giving him free cake. Alas, it doesn't matter if your CVs are following another TF - they will react regardless. It is also my experience that Japanese CVs strike "first", although the USN CV planes are typically in the air simultaneously. Depending on your fighter pilot losses, this could have actually been a 300-some point (plus planes) purchase of XP for your pilots. That will pay dividends later if so.

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 1:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Hey, MakeeLeearn edited his comment, thus detracting from the pertinence of my reply. It's pertinent. reedit... Rhythm can be the determining factor in what is being done.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 2:56:27 PM)
6/20/44 Death Star and The Herd: Continues to steam east without issue. A bunch of IJN subs are to the south and southwest. I don't think Erik has a fix on my ships but he knows they'll be heading to Seattle and/or San Fran/Alameda. Shikuka: There was a very weird air battle over Shikuka that resulted in modest losses but enemy strike aircraft getting through to damage three xAKs. I'm going to describe this at length in the following post, because Erik is using a tactic that I don't know how to counter. The question is whether there is a counter. I'm hoping a few of you readers will have been through this before and know how to deal with it.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 2:58:41 PM)
6/20/44 Shikuka Raid One: Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Shikuka at 126,43 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 53 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3a Zero x 18 A6M5 Zero x 30 A6M5c Zero x 63 A6M8 Zero x 431 D4Y3 Judy x 21 J2M3 Jack x 75 N1K1 Rex x 20 N1K2-J George x 101 Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 109 Ki-84a Frank x 140 Ki-100-I Tony x 38 Allied aircraft P-38J Lightning x 57 P-39D Airacobra x 24 P-39N1 Airacobra x 25 P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 113 P-51B Mustang x 16 F4U-1 Corsair x 17 F4U-1A Corsair x 159 F6F-3 Hellcat x 114 Japanese aircraft losses A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed A6M8 Zero: 1 destroyed D4Y3 Judy: 12 destroyed D4Y3 Judy: 2 destroyed by flak Allied aircraft losses F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed Allied Ships DD Brown Aircraft Attacking: 3 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 2000' Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb 2 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 3000' Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:00:12 PM)
6/20/44 Shikuka Raid Two: Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Shikuka at 126,43 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 151 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 50 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zero x 28 A6M5b Zero x 30 D4Y3 Judy x 36 J2M3 Jack x 67 N1K2-J George x 28 Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 100 Ki-84a Frank x 96 Ki-100-I Tony x 50 Allied aircraft P-38J Lightning x 57 P-39D Airacobra x 24 P-39N1 Airacobra x 25 P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 112 P-51B Mustang x 16 F4U-1 Corsair x 17 F4U-1A Corsair x 159 F6F-3 Hellcat x 110 Japanese aircraft losses D4Y3 Judy: 18 destroyed D4Y3 Judy: 1 destroyed by flak J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 2 destroyed Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed P-39N1 Airacobra: 1 destroyed F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed Allied Ships xAK James D. Phelan xAK Richard B. Moore, Bomb hits 1 xAK Phoebe A. Hearst, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires xAK Michael Casey, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking 1 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 1000' Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb 8 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 2000' Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:08:20 PM)
I think Erik has set up all his fighters to LRCAP - more than 1,000. I think his handful of strike aircraft came in without escorts. It looked like his LRCAP acted in such a way to tie up most of my CAP (600 good fighters) so that some of his strike aircraft got through. But the LRCAP vs. CAP action wasn't intense, as you'd expect with 1,000 fighters vs. 600 fighters. The action was short with few fighters on either side damaged. But the effect was to soak off 98% of my CAP so that his unescorted bombers got through to drop. The next time, he'll employ 1000 strike aircraft. If this is any indication, his LRCAP fighters will tie up my CAP and 90% of his strike aircraft will get through to devastate my shipping at Shikuka. Is there a way to counter this? I don't know of one. Some of the options I've considered, with my analysis: 1. Increase my fighter CAP percentage from 70%/80% to 90%/100%. I don't see why that would be any more effective as my fighters will still be tied up "ghost" dogfighting. 2. Change my fighters to LRCAP (or a combination of that and CAP). Again, I don't see that as being effective. 3. Move my fighters to Toyohara and have them LRCAP Shikuka. Ditto. LRCAP doesn't engage opposing LRCAP. Any ideas as to tactics here? This isn't the time for experimentation, so I'm hoping somebody with experience will know how to effectively counter this.

BBfanboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel 6/20/44 Death Star and The Herd: Continues to steam east without issue. A bunch of IJN subs are to the south and southwest. I don't think Erik has a fix on my ships but he knows they'll be heading to Seattle and/or San Fran/Alameda. Perhaps sending some of the ships to Prince Rupert would be safer? Troops can easily be sent there by rail and supply can be drawn there by setting the draw to maximum. Shikuka: There was a very weird air battle over Shikuka that resulted in modest losses but enemy strike aircraft getting through to damage three xAKs. I'm going to describe this at length in the following post, because Erik is using a tactic that I don't know how to counter. The question is whether there is a counter. I'm hoping a few of you readers will have been through this before and know how to deal with it. Looks like he was trying to wear down your CAP (experimenting himself), but instead lost way too many aircraft. I doubt he can afford to continue to mount strikes like that for much longer.

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:12:31 PM)
Try a Sweep? In same hex as your cap.

Lecivius -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:14:15 PM)
1424 fighters?!? [X(] Am I, as an AFB, the only one that see's a problem here?

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:17:37 PM)
Yeah it's a weird game. He has more than a 1,000 fighters and many of them are in squadrons of 49 planes or some such. I have 600 fighters and will bring in more, but most of my squadrons are 16 or 25, with the exception of some of the carrier squadrons (which reminds me to look into re-sizing more carrier squadrons). Over the past two weeks, he's lost something like 1,500 aircraft. I might've lost 500. But prior to that the air war was quiet for many months. So he'll have an inexhaustible supply of fighters and pilots. That's why I wanted to fight a defensive battle. But has he hit on a way to nerf Allied CAP?

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn Try a Sweep? In same hex as your cap. Hey, I hadn't thought of that. But can you sweep your own base?

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn Try a Sweep? In same hex as your cap. Hey, I hadn't thought of that. But can you sweep your own base? I was Wondering that. Not able to access game at moment

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:23:45 PM)
Just the manual quote: Sweep � In this Mission the aircraft attempt to draw enemy CAP over the target hex into an air to air engagement. If the group attacks at 100�, the planes will also attempt to strafe the target if CAP does not drive them off. Squadrons are limited to one Fighter Sweep per day; if weather keeps the fighters from flying a Sweep Mission in the morning, they will be eligible to fly one in the afternoon

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:25:55 PM)
Search of forum quote: Yep, can�t sweep your own bases.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:28:30 PM)
I opened the game and gave it a try. A fighter squadron did accept the order to sweep Shikuka from Shikuka. I'll give it a try in modest numbers next turn. I've also sent an PM to Lowpe for help. He has tremendous experience dealing with and trying out novel tactics. Makee, thanks for the suggestion. It gives me at least some hope that there may be a counter.

MakeeLearn -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:30:42 PM)
Are you around one altitude? Setup a large difference of CAP altitudes?

Chickenboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel So he'll have an inexhaustible supply of fighters and pilots. No such thing. You've just got to be on the dirty end of the stick for a while longer than usual until you begin to whittle down his pools. Good progress thus far, Canoerebel. Your position is strong and your sacrifices quite worthwhile to attain that dominating position. quote: But has he hit on a way to nerf Allied CAP? Two iterations are insufficient data with which to formulate meaningful conclusions. Change some of your settings (e.g., sweep your own bases-that's a great idea Makeelearn) to gum up the intel works of the Japanese so that they can't make heads or tails out of their efforts too. In general, I'd happily trade hits on three xAKs for liquidating 50+ strike aircraft. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all that. The only thing that gives me trepidation about your lodgement on Sakhalin island is the absence of an ingress / egress point through the kuriles. Paramushiro or Ominato would be a most useful base, but I'd settle for a couple of the smaller ones too. They would bifurcate his potential defensive vectors and divert attack sorties.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:32:11 PM)
I have huge spread in altitudes - from 4k to 40k. The P-39s are low, the P-38s are high, in between are the Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Hellcats and Thunderbolts. I shift the latter around a bit so that Erik doesn't keep getting a set look.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (12/22/2017 3:36:32 PM)
What I'm worried about is that he sent 60 unescorted Judys against my base. Some of them made it through to drop on my ships. What would happen if he sent 500 or 1000 bombers and kamikazes against my shipping? I have 100 APA/AKA and good combat TFs there. He'd take heavy losses but so would I. I agree that this is an insufficient data set but I'm pretty sure that Erik can employ this on a mass scale and succeed. So I'm seeking advice. Makee's suggestion is a great one that will be tried. Chickenboy, I agree with your thoughts. It has been a successful operation at modest cost. It would help a great deal to have the upper Kuriles. My troops are prepping accordingly. The original plan was for Death Star to stay at Sikhalin until the invasion was ready to go in about three weeks. But Erik's attack and the reaction by my carriers mixed up the deck of cards good.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125