RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

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: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/3/2009 11:59:42 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

As always, if one has any data that might be helpful in this or any other regard, don't be shy :)

Have you checked out all the data available at this site?

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww-ii/loc-ac/loc-ac.htm

There are *weekly* inventory/locations for all USN/USMC squadrons (as well as the locations of tenders and some other ships). These appear to be actual declassified USN reports from that period.

-CJ

Cheers, CJ :)

When I wrote "a historical OOB is (almost) done based on primary documents outlining the location and complement of USN carrier units", I was obliquely refering to these documents. If one knew the historical loss rates of particular aircraft, one could arrive at an decent approximation of PTO airframe allocations - providing one was able&willing to sink the necesary time into it - with the same material.

< Message edited by timtom -- 9/4/2009 12:01:12 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to CJ Martin)

Post #: 211

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 1:56:43 AM

Jaypea

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

IF you cut the AI production, come 43 I will bet you that you will be hard pressed to find an air threat from the AI. By then you will have probably sunk the AI's carriers, then what will you do? Where is the fun if you are simply taking islands with no threat or effort other than logistics.

The bottom line is the Allies are going to win against the AI, the only question is what strategy does the human player use and how fast can he do it.

My game is in January of 1943 and the AI has lost a total of 17K a/c and in reserve, the AI has 34k a/c plus all full groups on the map. I have lost 5k a/c with 1/2 of my airgroups idle due to lack of a/c. Up until late 1942, I was able to just keep up with the AI in terms of holding back the hordes. As of Jan 1943, my last reserves of planes hav ran out and my air groups are being decimated 1 by 1. With no chance to keep the AI numbers lower, I have stopped playing the game. Its very hopeless at this point and look forward its probably not until end 1943 that I would have suffient ARMY planes to go back on the offensive. Fighters, medium & heavy US bombers are pathetic in production. My only saving grace was canadian and british fighter groups which had enough fighters to help keep the horde at bay (but these reserves have just run out and now its all going down hill).

Jaypea

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 212

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 2:19:21 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I'm in January '43 and things are not nearly as bad as you say. Things are a bit tight, but by focusing strong groups together I can systematically close enemy airfields. Here and there it's a bloodbath and takes time to break the AI strength, but why should it all be one way? And new a/c are coming on production, like Corsairs. I have loads of P-40E & K models, P-39 and P-400's, various Hurricane models, some Spitfires, P-38's, etc.

I think the trick is to treat the bombers like precious resources: train them up, concentrate them, provide escort, provide sweeps if possible, and definitely rest them between missions. Check your squadron leaders regularly and change them out when necessary. Oh yeah - perform recon for a few turns before you first hit an enemy airfield. It makes a big difference in how much damage you can do.

Good luck.

(in reply to Jaypea)

Post #: 213

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 3:09:56 AM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I was alarmed at all the talk about allied players struggling for aircraft but then started to think about my playing style. I've played over 100 hours on the GC since release and was only on Jan 3, '42 before restart with the beta patch and can't understand how a person in '43 can be as meticulous with his forces as I am on 1 day turns. My forces are nothing to write home about but nothing unexpected either.

I have to wonder if an allied player uses-
size 5 airfields or better/ at the very least size 4
checks all his air forces every turn and don't abuse his forces
Leadership
uses escorts when possible and only attacks soft targets
gets air HQs at the airfield ASAP if none are there
Airfield at a safe location
Attacks from safe heights depending on the AAA expected
flies in good weather and not at extreme distances

will he be in a pinch with his LBA forces? I'd be surprised if this were the case.

I will ask a question to the air team/experts.

I usually refrain from attacking in extreme weather. I realize less damage will be inflicted on the enemy and believe it the weather take a bigger toll on my forces than if I attacked in decent weather. Is that modelled?

Is that modelled being will I suffer more operational casualties flying in extreme weather with LBA.
Thanks for all you guys do.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 9/4/2009 3:21:30 AM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 214

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 3:46:25 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaypea
My game is in January of 1943 and the AI has lost a total of 17K a/c and in reserve, the AI has 34k a/c plus all full groups on the map.

Does anyone else think these figures are absurd? Japan started the war with less than 4000 military A/C of all types, and built 8861 during 1942 (including 2935 fighters and 2433 bombers). So historically we're talking about less than 13,000 A/C (of which only perhaps 70% are actually represented in the game) ballooning to almost 55,0000 A/C (all of which are represented in the game).

I don't care how dumb the AI is, it shouldn't need a 500% increase in A/C from historical reality to be competative. That's just rediculous....

(in reply to Jaypea)

Post #: 215

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 6:17:07 AM

racndoc

Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline

Actually, I think that the game designers just got things reversed....it was Japan that had the AC replacement shortages. According to "Shattered Sword", Japan produced a grand total of "just 56 carrier attack aircraft for all of 1942-a pathetically low figure." Akagi carried 66 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 54...18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates. Kaga carried 75 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals(plus 2 spares) and 27 Kates. Soryu and Hiryu carried 63 AC apiece at Pearl Harbor. At Midway, Soryu carried 18 Zeros, 16 Vals(plus 2 D4Y1s as recon AC) and 18 Kates while Hiryu carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates.

In effect "Kido Butai carriers had suffered a 16% decrease in their fighting power since December. Any casualties to the operating air groups, even damaged aircraft, would immediately impact the tactical cohesion of the air units, since there were no spare aircraft to feed into the formations."

Imagine a Japanese player in WitP sending his carriers into the penultimate air superiority battle to destroy the USN carriers with sub strength air groups due to a lack of AC production.....dont think Ive ever seen or heard of that one before.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 216

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 9:31:29 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

Actually, I think that the game designers just got things reversed....it was Japan that had the AC replacement shortages. According to "Shattered Sword", Japan produced a grand total of "just 56 carrier attack aircraft for all of 1942-a pathetically low figure." Akagi carried 66 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 54...18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates. Kaga carried 75 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals(plus 2 spares) and 27 Kates. Soryu and Hiryu carried 63 AC apiece at Pearl Harbor. At Midway, Soryu carried 18 Zeros, 16 Vals(plus 2 D4Y1s as recon AC) and 18 Kates while Hiryu carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates.

In effect "Kido Butai carriers had suffered a 16% decrease in their fighting power since December. Any casualties to the operating air groups, even damaged aircraft, would immediately impact the tactical cohesion of the air units, since there were no spare aircraft to feed into the formations."

Imagine a Japanese player in WitP sending his carriers into the penultimate air superiority battle to destroy the USN carriers with sub strength air groups due to a lack of AC production.....dont think Ive ever seen or heard of that one before.

At least someone out there grasps the absurdity of this situation.

And I would bet money that you, like me, would not have any problem if the game allowed the Japanese player to increase that pitiful historical output up to 200 or 250.

But to THOUSANDS?

This is just WRONG! And made worse by very tight restrictions on Allied carrier A/C availability.

(in reply to racndoc)

Post #: 217

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 10:03:09 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

I'm playing Japanese and I'm glad I have all the produciton I can get. I'm losing more planes than allies and I fear the pilot drought in the future. This coulpled with my inexperienced air group management (a lot of may squadrions are tired and refuse to fly)and clueless production goals.

But of course I don't the the AI bonuses.

< Message edited by jomni -- 9/4/2009 11:09:26 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 218

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 10:56:30 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

A question to all those seeing such high AC numbers for the Japanese, at what difficulty level are you playing ?

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 219

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 11:53:55 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I'm not looking to change U.S. production but want to stop the 3000 aircraft Japan is producing by telling the AI to not expand to 400 airframes at game start.

Is there an AI script that increases Jap aircraft production?

Also, what would we call a community designed scenario that corrects historical problems in the GC?

Heresy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Arimus)

Post #: 220

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 1:00:43 PM

Arimus

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I'm not looking to change U.S. production but want to stop the 3000 aircraft Japan is producing by telling the AI to not expand to 400 airframes at game start.

Is there an AI script that increases Jap aircraft production?

Also, what would we call a community designed scenario that corrects historical problems in the GC?

Heresy.

Thank you! I thought I was going to get left hanging!

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 221

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 2:33:02 PM

Jaypea

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

A question to all those seeing such high AC numbers for the Japanese, at what difficulty level are you playing ?

I was playing HARD

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 222

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/4/2009 2:40:55 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

A question to all those seeing such high AC numbers for the Japanese, at what difficulty level are you playing ?

I was playing on normal. As somebody suggested, I could *eventually* attrit the quality level of particular AI groups (which the AI doesn't seem to like to rotate) so in my most recent game I've managed to reduce the IJA and IJN pilot quality levels in the DEI significantly, but that doesn't stop a steady stream of full strength groups coming at me. I don't have the save game handy, but Japanese losses for hte first year of the war were dramatically higher than their entire historical production rate (like 3000 betties destroyed year one of the war for example) and the Japanese still had full groups.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 223

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/5/2009 9:27:05 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

The US produced about 2300 P40E's delievery starting around 9-41 (most built in 1942 many 2/3rds went to the allied nations)

1300 P40F's little different more engine little more control surface delievery started 12-41

There were about 2000 B/C/D models built starting in early 1941. With Brits/Commonwealth taking most of the D's

Of course some went to allied nations but still that is about 6000 fighters missing... :)

Anyway I used the editor an created the P40F and will build a few hundred. Even if 2/3rds went to allied nations that leaves 400+ for American inventory.

I just don't see Allied production as accurate in the early war.

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 224

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/5/2009 2:03:45 PM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

The US produced about 2300 P40E's delivery starting around 9-41 (most built in 1942 many 2/3rds went to the allied nations)

1300 P40F's little different more engine little more control surface delivery started 12-41

There were about 2000 B/C/D models built starting in early 1941. With Brits/Commonwealth taking most of the D's

Of course some went to allied nations but still that is about 6000 fighters missing... :)

Anyway I used the editor an created the P40F and will build a few hundred. Even if 2/3rds went to allied nations that leaves 400+ for American inventory.

I just don't see Allied production as accurate in the early war.

Don't forget that there were advanced training units that used and abused aircraft, too.

If you absolutely must know what happened to the P-40s or any other aircraft...

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Scott_USN)

Post #: 225

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/5/2009 2:06:41 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

"Fire in the Sky" says quite conclusively, that problem until 43 was not lack of pilots, but lack of planes. Seems quite historical.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 226

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/5/2009 2:13:43 PM

DivePac88

Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

Yes I have checked theater figures for P-40s (all Hawk models) for 1942, and if you add arriving P-40 units with replacement pools, they come out very close to historical figures.

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 227

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/5/2009 8:40:25 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I was alarmed at all the talk about allied players struggling for aircraft but then started to think about my playing style. I've played over 100 hours on the GC since release and was only on Jan 3, '42 before restart with the beta patch and can't understand how a person in '43 can be as meticulous with his forces as I am on 1 day turns. My forces are nothing to write home about but nothing unexpected either.

I have to wonder if an allied player uses-
size 5 airfields or better/ at the very least size 4
checks all his air forces every turn and don't abuse his forces
Leadership
uses escorts when possible and only attacks soft targets
gets air HQs at the airfield ASAP if none are there
Airfield at a safe location
Attacks from safe heights depending on the AAA expected
flies in good weather and not at extreme distances

will he be in a pinch with his LBA forces? I'd be surprised if this were the case.

I will ask a question to the air team/experts.

I usually refrain from attacking in extreme weather. I realize less damage will be inflicted on the enemy and believe it the weather take a bigger toll on my forces than if I attacked in decent weather. Is that modelled?

Is that modelled being will I suffer more operational casualties flying in extreme weather with LBA.
Thanks for all you guys do.

Actually I was thinking the same thing. I never seem to run into most of these issues. Maybe I just have a methodical, boring style of play.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 228

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 12:25:42 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

Yes I have checked theater figures for P-40s (all Hawk models) for 1942, and if you add arriving P-40 units with replacement pools, they come out very close to historical figures.

The problem with the mismatch in production is not with the allied figures.........

< Message edited by Reg -- 9/6/2009 12:27:07 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to DivePac88)

Post #: 229

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 2:39:20 AM

Djordje

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

The problem with the mismatch in production is not with the allied figures.........

The problem is on the side that AI plays. So if you play against allied AI they will also receive insane amounts of planes. Compared with Jap AI maybe not so many times out of proportion, but still huge and ahistorical numbers.
And like it was said many times, it is made that way to allow AI to be a challenge.
If you are asking for AI (especially Jap AI) to have historical A/C replacements be prepared to win the game before 1943 comes. And after first few months of the game it will become very boring experience.
PBEM replacements are completely different story and should not be mixed with AI replacements.

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 230

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 4:00:52 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Its Oct of 43, I sailed to Hokkaido(sp) and landed 2 divisions plus assets. Never saw a plane. I am a sloppy lazy player, you guys amaze me with the amount of work you do in a turn. Hats off to all of ya.

I own the DEI, I did it by building up the bombers, picking an airfield and bombing it to the stone age at night. Once it got to where there were few fighters, I switched to days and finished the bombing, then I took the location and moved on the to next one.

I know the AI pilots have little or no exp pilots left, I break up their air attacks if they bother to send any planes at all. My fighters tend to sweep them from the sky. I think the average exp of my non carrier pilots is low 70's high 60's. I have seen the message several times that my pilot training was accelerated, I assume that means I went through too many pilots. Non the less, I have driven the AI out of every where I needed them removed from. I still plan on being in Manila at Christmas. If the AI production was lowered, I would have been there by the summer of 43 and in Hokkaido(sp) about the same time.

I will try the game on hard after the patch, but I have enjoyed it on historical level. Other than the burps of the AI parking ships at ports I own it has been challenging and well worth the investment.

(in reply to Djordje)

Post #: 231

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 5:02:40 AM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

You mentioned you didn't see a plane. Did you check to see if the Japanese economy has shut down? In my discussions of production levels this same thing was happening in WITP and it almost sounds as if it's happened to you as well. Any force sailing to Japan proper regardless of date should see aircraft even if only kamikaze. This is my primary concern about production.

_____________________________

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 232

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 6:31:40 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

It took 3 days but they are sending over strikes now. I turned off fog of war (too lazy to load their side) and it shows 300+ planes that should be in range. Thats fighters and bombers.

Even if the a/c production didn't shut down the economy, the lack of oil should do it pretty soon. They are not getting oil or resources out of DEI or indochina.

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 233

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 7:10:01 AM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

My only concern is the Japanese economy shutting down. If this is fixed I'm very happy with that. I'm not so much concerned with them having more aircraft than me. I'd like a historical production number as I like historical counts such as the allies get, but with a bonus influx (even a LARGE influx) of aircraft based on difficulty to make the AI more challenging. The AI cheating doesn't bother me as much as annoy me from time to time as I'm sure it does to others as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 234

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 7:21:49 AM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

I know when I check economic health of the AI I look at HI, engines, aircraft produced, supply , fuel ect. If the AI economy is collapsed then lowering production but raising bonus aircraft might be an answer. I bring this up because of reading some of the well done treatments on the Japanese economy. In most if not all of those posts overproduction is the #1 bad thing to do. I'm just thinking if the AI economy can be kept "fat" by lower production it should stay healthy longer and shouldn't crash or if it does maybe help it recover. I don't know if the AI economy will crash but all the symptoms causing it to crash in WITP are still there in AE and I haven't heard how much more robust the Japanese economy is.

_____________________________

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 235

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 1:35:34 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I wouldn't really have minded if the ahistorical production rates had been included in an "alternate history" scenario, but when I started the "historical" game I expected to see historical production rates for both sides. Knowing that the production rates are nerfed to give the AI some extra advantage kind of detracts from the enjoyment of playing the game.

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 236

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 8:06:29 PM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

In patch 1 there will be a fix to expansion and in patch 2 there will be production caps that when triggered will turn on or off frames factories as needed.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 237

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 9:31:24 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

I understand now that the excessive production figures for the AI were done for the purposes of balancing player vs AI, and it probably makes for a more challenging game (in fact, I'm sure it does).

What I don't like about it is that it increases the challenge level by fundamentally altering the mechanics of the game. In human vs human play with relatively balanced production, attritional combat is a highly viable strategy for either side if they can get the ratio in their favor. In human vs Ai play, attritional combat is a waste of time (yes, i can reduce IJN quality, but I can never reduce their airframe quantity). The same thing is true for some of the other AI cheats such as the AI's ability to run aircraft out of bases with no aviation support.

If the AI gets to play by a totally different set of rules than the player, it may be more challenging, but for me at least its not more enjoyable. It'd be like if I bought Madden 2009 and they decided to balance human vs AI play by giving the AI side snipers.

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 238

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/6/2009 11:42:35 PM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

Thank you to the folks at matrix. This sounds like a great fix to an already fantastic program. No mater how heated things can get on the board I want to say how much I appreciate the level of support matrix gives to their products and listening to feedback from their users (fans). No mater the answer to a perceived issue it's nice to know you do listen to us no matter how loony our ravings can get.

_____________________________

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 239