RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> AAR



Message

Taifun -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/25/2021 5:10:09 PM)

Leningrad was captured. The battle for Moscow was about to start.

[image]local://upfiles/23459/7DFA75F481BD4DE48779BD6B8DAFAFE2.jpg[/image]



Taifun -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/25/2021 5:11:16 PM)

The Japanese launched last November an offensive towards India coming from Mandalay and Kunming but their supply centers were destroyed by our strategic bombers based near Calcutta. Unable to advance our Indians were starting to counterattack. The Japanese lost the control of the air and their mauled bomber units retreated deep into China.

[image]local://upfiles/23459/A3CD5F132A9747FFB8C6A4E093117738.jpg[/image]



Taifun -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/25/2021 5:12:33 PM)

Rain in the Middle East, no action again. For the 4th turn in a row our planes were unable to fly. This was to much for me. This area is one of driest of the Earth and the fact that the weather was horrid and unflyable for so many months in this game was highly frustrating.

[image]local://upfiles/23459/611703800AD24C6B96FBB100051B9145.jpg[/image]



Taifun -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/25/2021 5:18:23 PM)

I decided to quit January 29.
Just for the fun of it I launched a suicide carrier battle near Sumatra and I finished the game. The Yanks were nearing the Azores on there way towards Rome. No U-Boote were operating in the Atlantic or the Norwegian Sea. We had air superiority with fighters level 3 against level 1 of the Germans as they never invested in fighters. The Japanese were unable to make any further progress with a beaten air force, only advancing in Siberia…

But the Russians were defeated, about to loose the Caucasus and most probably Moscow during the Summer.

IIo4Tu played well and deserved to win [sm=00000436.gif]. Well played, it was a fun game full of tension.

I suggest the developers to review the weather for this great game. There should only be mud/frozen turns October/November and frozen/snow Dec-Feb in Russia. Just take a look at the literature and check what was the weather in Stalingrad beginning November 1942 until March 1943. I recommend the new fantastic books of David Stahel about the Russian front: a great experience!
I was highly frustrated by the weather in the Middle East: 4-5 turns without being able to use my planes! Sorry but I have flown there enough to know that this is unreal (3 turns of rain [8|]!). Another issue with the game was the scorched earth, many times discussed in the forum. I suggest only 0-2 supply levels after capture for any port/town/city….

Good gaming to all of you! Thanks for following! We love this game!


[image]local://upfiles/23459/5B8325CB3BA84ED3AEB9B66E3942FB50.jpg[/image]



EarlyDoors -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/25/2021 6:58:59 PM)

I agree that Ukraine too often has neither rain or snow. I've played a game before where it was dry throughout the whole of the key '41 winter



smckechnie -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/26/2021 12:43:02 AM)

Why did you call it quits? Did I miss something?

1. Very large allied force to counterattack in the Middle East and into Turkey.
2. Japanese stalled with India advance.
3. Russia should hold out at least another year, longer with help from the allies out of Turkey.
4. Allies could probably Knock Italy out of the war within 6 months?

Did suicide carrier battle go that bad?

Just puzzled on this one.



petedalby -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/26/2021 3:09:45 PM)

Congratulations to IIo4Tu on developing an awesome Axis strategy. Commiserations to Taifun - I think many of us were hoping that you could record a win for the Allies.

But most of all thanks again for an excellent, informative and entertaining AAR Taifun. I look forward to the next one.



Marcinos1985 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/26/2021 7:03:57 PM)

First of all, grats to both players, very good game and fantastic AAR.

quote:

Just puzzled on this one.


To be honest, so am I. Maybe Allied position is not crazy good, but not that bad either, there are a lot of pluses actually. I suspect resignation was more due to tilt, than position itself, but I am poor psychoanalyst.

But apart from this, Taifun mentioned 2 important things which are very real:
1. Weather in South Russia. I don't know why, but weather pattern there is extremely generous to Axis. For Fall, associated with mud and early snow, there is 65% chance for a clear weather. So for example, in 2 of 3 games there will be clear weather in November. You can even get clear weather in Winter, only 10% chance but still kinda memish. That contradicts what happened IRL. This can be very frustrating, because a lot of players focus on push in the South.

Actually, France has similar problem. You may get a clear weather there even in Winter, and this may result in Fall of France 1-2 turns quicker. Typical example of 'bad RNG', which for good players may skew the game very early on. I believe this should be reconsidered - unless Winter was somehow mild in france in 1940?

What happened in Middle East for Taifun sounds very unlucky, there is only 15% chance for secondary weather effects in Fall/Winter. I'd throw my PC out of window. I remember ElvisJJ had similar situation in one game, developers even adjusted weather pattern slightly afterwards.

2. Scorched Earth. Why on Earth (pun intended) this effect is so weak in many places and why it depends on RNG? Another lottery, which may skew the game. Sometimes Axis can even get a port on 5 supply during Sea Lion - could you imagine that Brits would allow this? Everything would be destroyed and port unusable for months to come, as - I don't know- Cherbourg. Same in NA - many times I saw Tunis port caught intact.
I may still somehow understand that western nations would be somehow against devastation of their real estate, but USSR? Country was razed to the ground, due to Soviets first running away, and then Germans running away. But for some reason, there is possibility to catch cities on level 5 and operate troops even from France in 1 turn. This could be somehow logical on 1st turn, due to surprise effect, but later on, deep in 1941/42, this is debatable. Current SE effects let Axis to move way faster than IRL. This applies to Japan too, they may get supply 10 in China mainland easily. [X(]

But still, while looking at world map, I am very curious what would happen if there wasn't this suicide battle near Sumatra and all those US units would get to Med. Still rather a distraction for axis, than a problem, but distractions will ultimately lead to a gap somewhere.



Taifun -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/26/2021 7:51:53 PM)

For many years I have been fascinated by the Wehrmacht. I think that I have now read most of the good Books about the Eastern front. Recent studies have demonstrated that the Germans already lost the War in August 1941 near Smolensk when they failed to destroy the Red Army during their summer campaign. That is the reason why I like so much the 1941 year in this SC series of games. 1942 was a crucial year for the Wehrmacht, when they tried to end the war in a last summer offensive, that could change nothing.

I am trying to develop a winning strategy for the Russians in WaW so I focused in the 1941-1942 years in this game. I learned from smckechnie and Cpuncher how to defend China, and did a good job in this last game, even obtaining air supremacy in China with the Chinese air force! I concentrated most of the early Allied efforts in defeating the U-Boats and with level 2 and soon level 3 anti-sub warfare I was already defeating then in all theaters. I lost very few MPPs in 1942, less than 100 MPPs. The US was about to enter the fight with 5 marines, 4 tanks and 3 airborne troops in the Med. Japan was already on the defense.
But the Red Army was a defeated force. I lost Leningrad, the Caucasus and Stalingrad and Moscow was next. I could have done much better in 1941 and early 1942. The weather and the lack of scorched earth did not help. I will surely do better next time.
I could have continued the game but I am moving from my house and could not concentrate enough. Frustrated by the weather in The Middle East, I decided to stop here and try next time with a better led Red Army!




Marcinos1985 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/26/2021 8:04:42 PM)

That's the spirit [:)]

Do you remember, what was your tech path with USSR? And would you change your fort placement, especially in the South? I mean moving them back from Dnieper to around Rostov maybe?
And finally, what is your assesment of early attack on Italy? Worth it or not?



Elessar2 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/27/2021 2:15:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taifun

November 20 1942
Both Stalingrad and Irkutsk were captured. In the South of Russia we had clear weather for 2 consecutive turns! Not even mud or rain in December! The Germans roll over our defenses in the Caucasus. Highly frustrating and unhistorical weather.

January 1943
The Germans captured Grozny and Tbilisi menacing Baku and Saratov.



The weird weather aside, I'd have to concur and consider this to be Exhibit A in Scorched Earth needing to be made more stringent; since S.E. ostensibly models the rail conversion process, there really is no way the Germans could go from taking Rostov to snagging both Stalingrad as well as most of Caucasus in 3 fall months.



BillRunacre -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/27/2021 6:58:55 PM)

Thanks for the great AAR and also for the feedback, I've made a note to look at the weather settings in a few areas.

Scorched earth is a trickier subject because we have changed it in the past and IIRC the Axis AI struggled too much during Barbarossa, so we reduced its effect again. Unfortunately there is no mechanism to have a different scorched earth rule for multiplayer rather than against the AI.

However, there have been quite a few ideas put forward in the last month on this forum about game balance so various of these will be working their way into the game, hopefully making it a better experience all round.



Cpuncher -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/29/2021 2:47:42 PM)

I agree that the war was no where near lost, but Russia is largely defeated, even though Germany diverted a significant force to middle east. It shows how potent the Axis can be, if France was taken in whole (though the forward deployment of the Russians may not help). Before the fall of France, Germany can always divert a significant force to Algiers, and Italians from NA, while the Allies can't commit significant troops there, as all Allied forces stationed in Algiers will disappear should the Axis choose Vichy. Germany can even refrain from taking Paris or the other NM cities while waiting for Algiers to fall first. Allies simply have no counter to this.

I didn't see any allied attempt on Norway or raiding the European coast...

I wonder why I haven't seen people try to help Russia by sending in 2 Allied HQs, from either the Middle East, or the north (Murmansk/Arkhangelsk), or both. They will have a local supply of 3, but with HQ boosting, the higher rated HQ will distribute 8, enough to make things work. The north side can't operate in air force though, until capturing some Finland territory. But from ME then Persia, Allies can fly in Air Forces directly, and can lend a huge support to the Russian southern front, provided the Allies can hold ME. This would actually make Germans going to NA, Egypt, then ME a very necessary move. (Correction: Just found out although Allied units can be supplied at 5 or more inside Soviet territory this way, they still can't be reinforced or upgraded. So on the north side you will need to capture some Finish land, while on the south side you may only use air units, that can be shuttled back and forth...)

In fact, is it possible to add a script to make Russia become cooperative when she gets into a dire situation? say when Russian unit count fall below a certain number or significant cities (Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad) have been taken. I'd think this is quite conceivable IRL. After all, there was an Allied bombing operation flown from Russia late in the war, though it was more for propaganda purpose.



petedalby -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/29/2021 5:26:25 PM)

quote:

Before the fall of France, Germany can always divert a significant force to Algiers, and Italians from NA, while the Allies can't commit significant troops there, as all Allied forces stationed in Algiers will disappear should the Axis choose Vichy. Germany can even refrain from taking Paris or the other NM cities while waiting for Algiers to fall first. Allies simply have no counter to this.


May I propose a (simple) fix?

When Vichy is declared Allied troops in France itself do not disappear. Why not extend this to the rest of the Vichy territories? That way presumably Algiers could be defended.

No doubt there may be some unintended consequences but at the moment this does appear to be a winning strategy for the Axis that really boosts their income.



Marcinos1985 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/29/2021 6:58:58 PM)

quote:

When Vichy is declared Allied troops in France itself do not disappear. Why not extend this to the rest of the Vichy territories?

Not a bad idea, but I believe that 'disappearing units' are an engine trait and this situation happens in similar situation. Therefore, you would have to alter the engine, and that's a chainsaw treatment. [:)]

Funny thing, 'All-of-France' case was already under fire some time ago. As solution, Oran was added as alternate capital. And now the issue is back.[:)]



Marcinos1985 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/29/2021 7:00:24 PM)

quote:

I'd think this is quite conceivable IRL.

Yes, and it's quite funny that Germans can get much better supply on Soviet soil than Allied, non-Soviet forces, though of course it's due to balance issues.



petedalby -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/30/2021 6:51:25 AM)

quote:

Not a bad idea, but I believe that 'disappearing units' are an engine trait and this situation happens in similar situation.


But when for example the DEI surrenders - Allied units don't disappear. The same happens in Burma - Allied units remain. It only seems to happen with Vichy - and then not in France itself.



Marcinos1985 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (6/30/2021 12:45:41 PM)

quote:

But when for example the DEI surrenders - Allied units don't disappear. The same happens in Burma - Allied units remain. It only seems to happen with Vichy - and then not in France itself.


But when these countries surrender, no other countries are created in their place - as is in Vichy's case. For example, UK units left in French ports will stay intact, but those in Syria etc. wil be interned.
However, maybe it can be changed indeed?



Cpuncher -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/3/2021 7:17:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

I wonder why I haven't seen people try to help Russia by sending in 2 Allied HQs, from either the Middle East, or the north (Murmansk/Arkhangelsk), or both. They will have a local supply of 3, but with HQ boosting, the higher rated HQ will distribute 8, enough to make things work.

Just found out although Allied units can be supplied at 5 or more inside Soviet territory this way, they still can't be reinforced or upgraded. So on the north side you will need to capture some Finish land, while on the south side you may only use air units, that can be shuttled back and forth...



IIo4Tu -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/10/2021 6:26:54 AM)

I would like to note for those who believe that the allies still had a chance to turn the course of the campaign in their favor.

I believe that this was impossible in this alignment of forces. The capture of Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Caucasus automatically releases part of the forces for transfer to the second front, plus there is a slow purchase of new units to the western front due to the large amount of free resources from Germany by 1943.

Of course, the landing in Italy would have brought some confusion, but there were also free German forces nearby-two heavy tanks were bored in the north, and in Albania the army and the corps, all of them were waiting for the approach of the headquarters from the north to either invade Greece or strengthen the Middle East.

As for the Middle East, they say that they say so and so, so many forces are thrown there, but look at how many allied forces are in the Middle East, they should all be in France, and what we see in the area of France is empty there, because they are all in Iraq.

As for the Japanese, of course, I did not succeed at all in terms of both China and India, but they also play their role by pulling the US Air Force and Navy, plus they weaken Russia.

From all this, I want to draw the following conclusion: there is a significant imbalance in the game on the side of the allies - the USSR is very weak and cannot really hold out within the historical framework, while the United States is very strong and ahead of its historical framework. Therefore, I would recommend that the developers think about how to make the USSR hold on until 1944, at the same time, the United States could not provide a significant landing until the same 1944.



Cpuncher -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/10/2021 10:05:00 PM)

Maybe a PBEM specific balanced campaign is needed, that differs from the default ones. I believe the default campaigns are mostly balanced based on AI playing each other. A player is so much better in offense compare to the AI, as it requires more specific maneuver and sequence. When I tested letting the AI playing each other, the Japanese couldn't even take Changsha after 2 years (The Japs were given a 0.5 exp and 15% MPP bonus in settings). Any decent human player can do that in maybe 6 turns against any other human player.

The Allied side are more mistake tolerant while the Axis can't make significant blunders, that's why at Novice to Mid level we often see more Allied victories. As more and more players are getting better in this game, with more strategies and tactics discovered which seem to favor the Axis more, it does appear the Allies need some balance help, especially the Russians. We can always reduce the US Industry power a little bit if we fear the Allies may be too strong if Russia wouldn't fall.



ElvisJJonesRambo -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/13/2021 12:18:23 AM)

Congrats to IIo4Tu, he wiped me off the map with his Axis strategy. I know what was coming but lost 3 games in row to him.
Taifun naval play is second to none.

My advice: Players should do a "bid system" before the game starts.

Example:

Player #1 bids, I'll take Axis and give Russia an extra 300 MMPs at start.
Player #2 bids, I'll re-raise, take Axis and give Russia 310 MMPs at start.
Player #1 bids, I'll,re-raise, take Axis and give Russia 325 MMPs at start.
Player #2 bids, I'll, make that 350.

Player #1, says, okay, I'll take Russia +350 MMP to start game.

Problem solved.



John B. -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/29/2021 5:54:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

First of all, grats to both players, very good game and fantastic AAR.

quote:

Just puzzled on this one.


To be honest, so am I. Maybe Allied position is not crazy good, but not that bad either, there are a lot of pluses actually. I suspect resignation was more due to tilt, than position itself, but I am poor psychoanalyst.

But apart from this, Taifun mentioned 2 important things which are very real:
1. Weather in South Russia. I don't know why, but weather pattern there is extremely generous to Axis. For Fall, associated with mud and early snow, there is 65% chance for a clear weather. So for example, in 2 of 3 games there will be clear weather in November. You can even get clear weather in Winter, only 10% chance but still kinda memish. That contradicts what happened IRL. This can be very frustrating, because a lot of players focus on push in the South.

Actually, France has similar problem. You may get a clear weather there even in Winter, and this may result in Fall of France 1-2 turns quicker. Typical example of 'bad RNG', which for good players may skew the game very early on. I believe this should be reconsidered - unless Winter was somehow mild in france in 1940?

What happened in Middle East for Taifun sounds very unlucky, there is only 15% chance for secondary weather effects in Fall/Winter. I'd throw my PC out of window. I remember ElvisJJ had similar situation in one game, developers even adjusted weather pattern slightly afterwards.

2. Scorched Earth. Why on Earth (pun intended) this effect is so weak in many places and why it depends on RNG? Another lottery, which may skew the game. Sometimes Axis can even get a port on 5 supply during Sea Lion - could you imagine that Brits would allow this? Everything would be destroyed and port unusable for months to come, as - I don't know- Cherbourg. Same in NA - many times I saw Tunis port caught intact.
I may still somehow understand that western nations would be somehow against devastation of their real estate, but USSR? Country was razed to the ground, due to Soviets first running away, and then Germans running away. But for some reason, there is possibility to catch cities on level 5 and operate troops even from France in 1 turn. This could be somehow logical on 1st turn, due to surprise effect, but later on, deep in 1941/42, this is debatable. Current SE effects let Axis to move way faster than IRL. This applies to Japan too, they may get supply 10 in China mainland easily. [X(]

But still, while looking at world map, I am very curious what would happen if there wasn't this suicide battle near Sumatra and all those US units would get to Med. Still rather a distraction for axis, than a problem, but distractions will ultimately lead to a gap somewhere.

I'm stuck in quarantine and using the time to catch up on AARs. So thanks for this one as it was both informative and entertaining. [&o]

As for the question about the weather on the western front in the winter of 39-40 it was the coldest winter there for a long time. In fact, in the Netherland it was the coldest winter since 1835.

http://www.warchangesclimate.com/b/Four_month_war.html



AshFall -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/31/2021 5:43:31 PM)

Thank you very much for the enjoyable AAR! :)

Very well done, entertaining and informative.

----------------------------------

Weather in general has always frustrated me in the SC games.

Overall the effects are nowhere near severe enough, as is seen in all these games where Germany attacks the low lands and France in the dead of winter.

In reality, such an offensive was simply impossible because of the weather, much like any offensive movements in the east became insanely costly and ineffective during the severe mud and snows of 41.

I would love to see much more impactful weather in general in the SC games, as well as a better model of the epic battle in the east.

It would be interesting to have mud do actual strength damage to moving mechanized units, and winter do strength damage to any unit moving for example.



Elessar2 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (7/31/2021 10:53:29 PM)

In terms of air units tho bad weather can seem unnecessarily punitive. In reality they'd launch missions during the lulls (assuming there would be any lulls-maybe precip can range between light and heavy, still can fly during the former, with appropriate penalties of course). But note made for extra mud penalties...[8D]



IIo4Tu -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (8/1/2021 11:26:21 AM)

the proposal of the respected EJR is interesting, but without a proportional weakening of the US, it looks unbalanced, I would like to hear the opinion of developers and expert players



rafaelmbaez -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (8/5/2021 1:03:25 PM)

In my experience in MP, its almost impossible to stop a good Axis player in the USSR. The Soviet do not have the resources, the tech and the MMP to stop them if Germany invades in March-April 1941.

And if you manage to survive 1941, in 1942 you will be destroyed by the far superior tech the Germans will have in airpower and tanks.

The only chance is kamikaze invasion from Allies and divert a lot of German troops in Italy or France.

I think in a low to mid level, Allies are better than Axis, but in a mid to pro level, Axis are clearly unbalanced and could win quite easily.

Having said that, I agree that attacking in mud / snow should have a bigger penalty ( in movement and odds ) so we stop to see the attack in the West in November 1939, and same thing with the Germans attacking through snow and mud in USSR.

I think MMPs are fine, but this small change could balance a bit more the game... its too fast, and normally, the game is clearly in one side by 1941 or early 1942.

( Maybe same thing should happen with desert storms, to limit the movement in Egypt, Lybia and Middle East? maybe the same with storms in the ocean, to lower the movement points ? )

Another thing to consider is that USA do not spend pretty much any resources in the Pacific War...





pjg100 -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (8/5/2021 8:15:07 PM)

I think it might be useful to motivate the US to focus more resources on the Pacific by, for example, applying NM penalties to the US for failure to take/retake certain islands and resources by a certain date. The NM penalties could be larger for, for example, Sydney or Calcutta than for Iwo or Truk or Singapore. This would have the collateral benefit of giving the JA player a carrot for playing an aggressive game in the Pacific rather than just continuing to pound relentlessly on China.

I agree regarding the suggestions to nerf the impact of rain/snow/storm on air units so perhaps they have half strength, and conversely to increase the impact of bad weather on ground units so the GE can't just pound away in winter 39-42. Perhaps an automatic material loss of strength points for any unit that attacks in frozen/snow on top of the reduction in combat effectiveness that already exists, and a reduction in combat effectiveness for attacks in mud. Would also I think be good to provide for Russians and Finns to be exempt from such snow/frozen penalties or affected to a much lesser extent. We might then see something like the large offensives of the Russians in winter 41 and 42 that occurred IRL.



ElvisJJonesRambo -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (8/5/2021 8:25:01 PM)

Totally agree, and have brought up before: The USA declared war on Japan, before German, after the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet the victory conditions offer zero incentive to battle in the Pacific due the fact Europe is in dire straights. USA morale was quite important on winning battles in the Pacific.



Duedman -> RE: TAIFUN (Allies) vs IIo4Tu (Axis) Full game 1939 (8/31/2021 5:39:22 PM)

So far I have only played WiE. Do the tanks have the same amount of movement points in WaW as in WiE?
I wonder if the smaller size of USSR makes it easier for the Axis player since the raw amount of turns it takes to reach Moscow must be smaller. Also I guess the supply situation is probably not as bad as in WiE?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.734863