Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: CHS errata

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 10:30:07 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I think this has already been brought up.
The B-17's have been nerfed so bad over the past couple of years that they can now operate from level 3 airfields.

Did this get rectified lately?
It really gives the Allies a major boost to be able to deploy these aircraft from single engine airfields.


_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 91
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 2:38:01 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I think this has already been brought up.
The B-17's have been nerfed so bad over the past couple of years that they can now operate from level 3 airfields.

Did this get rectified lately?
It really gives the Allies a major boost to be able to deploy these aircraft from single engine airfields.



It did get fixed, once we knew exactly what the "max load" values were used for.

Andrew

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 92
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 7:34:50 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" I think this has already been brought up.
The B-17's have been nerfed so bad over the past couple of years that they can now operate from level 3 airfields. "

How on earth was this possible? Level bombers need an airfield of Level 4 + bomb load/6500 (rounded down). Even if they were given only a bomb load of 500 lbs, they would still need a level 4 airfield to fly normal missions.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 93
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 9:17:50 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" I think this has already been brought up.
The B-17's have been nerfed so bad over the past couple of years that they can now operate from level 3 airfields. "

How on earth was this possible? Level bombers need an airfield of Level 4 + bomb load/6500 (rounded down). Even if they were given only a bomb load of 500 lbs, they would still need a level 4 airfield to fly normal missions.


I thought 4E bombers needed level 5 airfield?

< Message edited by aztez -- 8/10/2006 9:18:16 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 94
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 10:36:44 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Apparantly somewhere in the past, the bombload capacity was reduced to make the B-17 less deadly.

The result was a smaller load capacity which reduced the airfield restriction size to a 3 minimum for the B-17.

It used to be a minimum level 4 for B-17's.

Larger load capacity bombers require larger airfields Aztec.

You can thank the B-17 nerfers.
Instead they created a weapon platform that can now operate from single engine airfields.
Very handy for us AFB's.

So which CHS version returns this to normal AB?

To my IJN opponents.
As the Allies I don't station my B-17's at -4 airfields for this reason.
So my Allied opponents should make a note of this and comply with like treatment of this shortcoming.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 8/10/2006 10:52:25 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to aztez)
Post #: 95
RE: CHS errata - 8/10/2006 11:19:14 PM   
aztez

 

Posts: 4031
Joined: 2/26/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Thanx for clearing that out Halsey.

Hmpf, I never have flown my 4E bombers below level 5 airfields. That is a note to PBEM's opponents.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 96
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 12:09:46 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
So which CHS version returns this to normal AB?


2.05, I think...

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 97
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 1:48:51 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks AB!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 98
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 7:50:17 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Halsey, has the game itself been changed?

The Manual states that Level Bombers (which category includes the B17) require an airfield of level 4 + (bomb load/6500). Once again, there is no way that a level 3 airfield can satisfy this requirement, unless the code was changed to read "level 3 + (bomb load/6500)".

I realize that larger bombers require larger fields. As originally introdeced in the game, the B17 required a level 5 airfield for normal operations. The B29 required a level 7 airfield. The Hudson only requires a level 4 airfield. All level bombers require at least a level 4 airfield for normal operations (not operations at reduced load), unless one of the patches changed this.



< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 8/11/2006 7:52:20 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 99
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 2:36:43 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		So has anyone looked into the August 43 availability of the Kittyhawk III, a P-40 K which began production in 1942?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 100
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 8:22:39 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		Hi,

my references show only 21 P-40-K's went to the RAF the remaining 595 were P-40-M's BUT your correct that the availability date of aug 43 for Kittyhawk III is way off

P-40-K production ends(completes deliveries) Nov 42 (of which 21 are RAF KittyhawkIII)
P-40-M production starts (deliveries of Allison engined start)dec 42
P-40-M production ends (completes deliveries) Feb 43 of which 595 are RAF Kittyhawk III)

Kittyhawk availability should be mid DEC 42 or there abouts





_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 101
RE: CHS errata - 8/11/2006 10:19:31 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi,

my references show only 21 P-40-K's went to the RAF the remaining 595 were P-40-M's BUT your correct that the availability date of aug 43 for Kittyhawk III is way off

P-40-K production ends(completes deliveries) Nov 42 (of which 21 are RAF KittyhawkIII)
P-40-M production starts (deliveries of Allison engined start)dec 42
P-40-M production ends (completes deliveries) Feb 43 of which 595 are RAF Kittyhawk III)

Kittyhawk availability should be mid DEC 42 or there abouts






Thanks Iron Duke. Thought there was an issue.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 102
RE: CHS errata - 8/12/2006 5:27:50 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Ron,

In the RAAF the first Kittyhawk III were P-40K-10-CU (First Serial A29-164 or 42-10172) which were delivered from January 1943.

The first seem to have allocated to 77 Sqn around 22 Feb 43

4 P-40K-15-CU served with the RAAF, delivered in Feb 43, a further 4 were lost in transit.

The P-40 M-1 was also called the Kittyhawk III, these arrived in Australia from Feb 43 and were in Squadron service from march 1943.

So March 43 would be a better availability date than August 43.

From ADF Serials

Joe Baughers site has a lot of technical details but not much on their service.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 8/12/2006 5:31:42 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 103
RE: CHS errata - 8/12/2006 6:14:22 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline 		CHS 2.08....Ships 4202 (Crosley APD) and 4666 (Gearing DD) both have same name "Rodgers Blood", the latter being an inclusion as one of Ron's "missing ships" suggestion. Also, with the inclusion of the Bearcat, should not the 3019 Lake Champlain and 3015 Boxer arrive with Bearcats rather than Hellcats as they arrive long after Bearcat production has started?

In addition, the Hellcat production rate has been upped, but the Bearcat arrives in March 45 with a production rate of only 90 per month. Of course, the Hellcat production rate does continue until end of game, but in real life the Hellcat production came to an end and the Bearcats would have been the primary navy fighter in our "it does not have to end on the historical date" game. As the Bearcat production was ramping up, the Hellcat production would have been winding down.....but we cannot simulate this in the game as it is all or nothing. If this war lasts into 1946 then this production rate will be too low to sustain carrier operations against Japan, or even operations until the end of the historical period of war. Granted, only 1200 odd Bearcats were built, but we must take into accout the "What if" situation of the war not ending in Sept 45. I do believe that the Bearcat production would have increased considerably, probably coming close to the Hellcat production rate, in order to sustain the war effort thru this period and a possible invasion of the Japanese Islands. I believe from memory that well over 4000 Bearcats were ordered but were then cancelled due to the end of the war. In our "it does not have to end on the historical date" game, then these missing Bearcats really need to be produced.

I have increased it in my 2.08 "version".

EDIT: Compounding the Bearcat low production problem is the fact that the FM-2 Wildcat also upgrades to the Bearcat, and is subsequently competing with the Hellcat squadrons for the 90 new Bearcats being produced every month.

< Message edited by DD696 -- 8/12/2006 8:20:36 PM >

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 104
RE: CHS errata - 8/12/2006 10:10:01 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Re: F8Fs

Pretty sure that an improved model of the F8F (Bearcat) was produced post-war too...after a pause in production brought on by the end of the war with Japan. It's inconceivable that such a pause would have occurred had the war dragged on.

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 105
RE: CHS errata - 8/12/2006 11:10:31 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		I just used air transport in chs to move one of the marine para bns. The c-47's seem unable to transport the 75mm pack howitzers - device 433 - load cost 18. I am using an older version of chs 1.06 but checking the release notes I can see no mention of any changes to this device in newer versions of the scenario 155. Does the load cost for this device need changing or am I doing something wrong ?

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 106
RE: CHS errata - 8/14/2006 4:11:58 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline 		During the course of my dig for information on the French fleet, I may have stumbled on some useful info for CHS.

Apparently, like most French ships, Le Triomphant was very short legged. Her endurance was only 6600 km, instead of 8000 nm. Sometime between mid 43 and early 44 all four of her class that were in allied posession were returned to the states where their bunkerage was increased to 730 tons - at this point they were redesignated as CLs. Perhaps this is the reason WITP gave the ship higher endurance.

Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934. This is really slitting hairs, but there is a difference.

and the L'Adroit class mounts a 130mm/40 M1924 main gun. Not a 5.5incher, this is 5.1, much closer to a 5incher. You could use the new Russian 5.1; it seems a little powerful, but it'll work better than the 5.5. There's certainly no need to create a new slot for a solitary French DD. Then again, the two 13.2mm AA slots could be combined.

_____________________________



(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 107
RE: CHS errata - 8/14/2006 11:42:54 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Australian AMC Class, ID 428:

Same as the British AMCs: the crews of the 4 ships of this class have horrible experience values. Without an increase, they won't even know how to fire all those nice 6in guns. BTW, I think that the two forward facing 6in guns can be combined into 1 slot, single mount.

EDIT: Same for the only Canadian AMC class ship: AP Prince Robert, ID 6422.

EDIT2: And then there's the US Q-ship AK Anacapa, which was manned by US Navy personnel. ID 8736.

What's the verdict on AVG?


< Message edited by VSWG -- 8/15/2006 2:45:41 AM >

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 108
RE: CHS errata - 8/14/2006 11:48:58 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...


_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 109
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 1:43:44 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...



I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe?


_____________________________



(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 110
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 5:49:48 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...



I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe?



I was kidding about the 138.5 thing, but there may be more true than poetry there. I found another source that gives the gun as a 138.6mm.

_____________________________



(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 111
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 7:51:02 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Australian AMC Class, ID 428:

Same as the British AMCs: the crews of the 4 ships of this class have horrible experience values. Without an increase, they won't even know how to fire all those nice 6in guns. BTW, I think that the two forward facing 6in guns can be combined into 1 slot, single mount.

EDIT: Same for the only Canadian AMC class ship: AP Prince Robert, ID 6422.

EDIT2: And then there's the US Q-ship AK Anacapa, which was manned by US Navy personnel. ID 8736.

What's the verdict on AVG?




Shouldn't that last 6 inch gun be facing Rear and not Forward. That would make more sense for the use of two slots.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 112
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 2:55:34 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		There's another slot used for a rear mounted 6 inch guns.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 113
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 5:35:35 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I did some reading on the 4 Australian AMCs:

AP Kanimbla (ID 6640) is scheduled to upgrade to a "Small AP (Allied)", but should upgrade to "Australian LSI Class".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 4-inch gun
2 x 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns
2 x 2-pounder anti-aircraft guns
12 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

Conversion completed: Okt. 1943.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/kanimbla1.html


AP Manoora (ID 6641): should also upgrade to "Australian LSI Class", not "Small AP (Allied)".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 6-inch gun (later replaced by 2 x 4-inch guns)
2 x 3-inch anti-aircraft guns
8 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns
6 x 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns (added later)

Conversion completed: March 1943.

http://203.147.135.184/spc/history/ships/manoora1.htm


AP Manowai (ID 6642): I couldn't find any info on this ship. I guess this should be the NZ AMC Monowai. This ship is scheduled to upgrade to "Australian LSI Class".

Armament as LSI:
no info available.

Conversion date to LSI: Feb. 1944.

Monowai left the PTO for Europe in April 1943.

http://www.merchant-navy-ships.com/index.php?id=52,0,0,1,0,0
http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/monowai/monowai.htm
http://www.navy.mil.nz/ops/ship.cfm?ship_ID=34

Maybe no upgrade for her at all? Although she would have probably converted to "Australian LSI Class", too, when remaining in the Pacific.

AP Westralia (ID 6643): should also upgrade to "Australian LSI", not "President Coolidge Class".

Armament as LSI:
1 x 6-inch gun
2 x 3-inch anti-aircraft guns
12 x 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

Conversion completed: June 1943.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/westralia1.html

3 other ships upgrade to "Australian LSI Class":

AP Mount Vernon (ID 6395): This is a US Navy Ship, not Australian. I couldn't find any info about a conversion.
http://troopships.pier90.org/ships/m/mountvernon/default.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/22022.htm

AP Narkunda (ID 6436): sunk 1942 off Algeria. Should a conversion to "Australian LCI Class" be possible?

AP Neptuna (ID 6607): sunk Feb. 1942 in Port Darwin. Should a conversion to "Australian LCI Class" be possible?

"Australian LCI Class" in CHS:
1x 4in
2x 3in
2x 40mm AA
10x 20mm Oerlikon
4x .303 Vickers MG

I think the Vickers MGs should be dropped. Maybe replace the 4in with 6in?

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 114
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 9:13:55 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...



I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe?



I was kidding about the 138.5 thing, but there may be more true than poetry there. I found another source that gives the gun as a 138.6mm.


These quotes grow like Topsy. Ah, well...

The Le Fantasque class was armed with 138,6 mm Modèle 1929 guns. The Modèle 1934 was used only on the Mogador class, both of which were scuttled in Toulon in 1942. The weird caliber is traditional French - it was used for naval guns before WWI. The French had a lot of other weird calibers - 370 mm, 340 mm, 194 mm, 164 mm, 65 mm, neither of which are "round" numbers either in the metric or the Imperial system. They are possibly derived from some traditional French artillery designation system - maybe a conversion from the Napoleonic era 24pdrs etc? By the way, the now-universal 155 mm is another of those cases - the US Army adopted it from the French in WWI, when the units that were sent to Europe were initially equipped mainly with modern French guns. The famed 155 mm gun and its carriage were essentially a development of the French Filloux GPF-T.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 115
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 9:40:39 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
The weird caliber is traditional French - it was used for naval guns before WWI. The French had a lot of other weird calibers - 370 mm, 340 mm, 194 mm, 164 mm, 65 mm, neither of which are "round" numbers either in the metric or the Imperial system.


370mm (BTW I never heard about this calliber - was it a naval weapon?), 340mm, 65mm seems bloody round callibres for me. These are normal callibres for metric system.



_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 116
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 9:51:23 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I can find a 274mm, but not a 370mm naval gun. The 164.7mm and 138.6mm is also easily locatable.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_Main.htm

Them Frenchies do things their own way...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 117
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 10:13:16 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		If this has been mentioned earlier, I apologise, but in the basic CHS 2.08 scenarios (#155 and #156, which are the ones I've downloaded) class #89 is set to upgrade to class #0. I don't know if this can cause any ill effects, but having seen first hand how a single misplaced character in a data field can cause a CTD, I thought I'd mention it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 118
RE: CHS errata - 8/15/2006 11:00:21 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
Also, Le Fantasque class (Le Triomphant in WITP) apparently used a 139mm/40 M1934 main gun, which translates to 5.5in/40 M1934.

I thought their calliber was described as 138mm...



I've got one source that says 138 and another that says 139.

138.5, maybe?


Close, actually 138.6mm according to Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell

< Message edited by AlaskanWarrior -- 8/15/2006 11:01:21 PM >

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 119
RE: CHS errata - 8/17/2006 7:59:31 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

370mm (BTW I never heard about this calliber - was it a naval weapon?), 340mm, 65mm seems bloody round callibres for me. These are normal callibres for metric system.




No, the French Navy apparently never planned beyond the 340 mm in WWI, intending to use twelve in quad turrets in the Normandie class (one of which was completed as the carrier Béarn) and sixteen in quad turrets on the Lyon class. The 370 mm was used as a railway gun, both in WWI (by the French) and in WWII (by the French and the Germans). It might originally have been designed on spec for future ship designs, but I have found nothing else about those guns.

The thing concerning "round" calibers was perhaps awkwardly expressed. What I meant was that nearly everybody used inch-based calibers or at least metric calibers close to them (6 in vs 150 mm,
15 in vs 380 mm etc). 340 mm is close to 13,5 in (343 mm), but 65 mm is 2,6 in and 370 mm is 14,6 in, both outside the usual range of gun calibers. Perhaps the French value originality above everything else, even in technical matters. Looking at, for instance, Citroen cars, you might certainly think so, and there, it´s both a blessing and (more often) a curse.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.750