RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

Page: << < prev 108 109 [110] 111 112 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:16:02 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

8 Aug 43

Things really quieted down. Our carrier forces separated with a handful of my subs around his damaged ships. I moved them to possible withdrawal directions. We'll see if any intercept tomorrow.

Hiyo and Shoho are safely in Truk's port. Shoho will be completely repaired in 18 days, but Hiyo will take 65 days to complete temporary repairs, then make the long trek to the Home Islands.

KB is 1 day out of Truk. They'll replenish as many planes as they can tomorrow. At that point I'll assess the situation and decide whether or not to disband or head south again.

Right now my best bet is on my subs.

Edit: I changed the screen shot. After reviewing the locations immediately after the battle, I revised my intel.

Well hell, I can't change the file. Sheesh.

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 3/11/2018 2:31:04 PM >

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3271

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:16:34 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I do not like the 11,ooo' CAP setting at all. It seems a "lazy" setting as you will be between a low strike and under a normal strike. While
I vary greatly to the situation, I like to have fighters at three heights on CAP albeit hard to do with only one or two carriers and manage
a strike package. I am not hesitant to break down a fighter squadron or two though.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3272

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:20:06 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Yeah, that does seem rather low for my tastes too.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 3273

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:27:53 PM

nashvillen

Posts: 3836
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline

Bravo on your attacks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3274

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:28:48 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Here's the new screenshot:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3275

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 2:30:30 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

In retrospect (always easy to do), I should have moved to a point 5 hexes north of the smashed CV TF. I could have worked over both today. There is the issue of few torpedoes though.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3276

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 3:30:50 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Banzai!!

You need some luck with your subs to bag another CV as those Yorktown Class are tough.

Weather seemed to be on your side, but severe storms didn't help your bomb runs in the PM phase.

I wonder if it was because my TBs were bombing from 14k feet?

Notice in the post above the TB's were actually releasing at 200'. Developers said long ago that when it comes to torpedoes the air group setting is for their transit/approach but they drop down to make attack runs.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3277

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 4:43:15 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

CV/CVL air groups - To a certain degree, your altitude setting revolve around the need to have your DBs between 10k and 15k to be used at DB. Above or below they are are more like LBs when they attack. I may be off by 1k here or there.

With Sam being so far off, you may need to think about making some of your CVs more fighter heavy vs Allied Hellcats to help with survivability. They are going to be equal to better than any of your Zero. It will get worse near end of '43 when the 2nd gen Corsairs come out and get on his CVs.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 3278

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 4:45:12 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Banzai!!

You need some luck with your subs to bag another CV as those Yorktown Class are tough.

Weather seemed to be on your side, but severe storms didn't help your bomb runs in the PM phase.

I wonder if it was because my TBs were bombing from 14k feet?

Notice in the post above the TB's were actually releasing at 200'. Developers said long ago that when it comes to torpedoes the air group setting is for their transit/approach but they drop down to make attack runs.

Right, I understand that. It's the TBs that are carrying bombs that I was talking about. They remain at 14k feet to bomb. Probably too high to get good results. I'm thinking of dropping the TBs to 9k feet.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 3279

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 4:48:10 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

CV/CVL air groups - To a certain degree, your altitude setting revolve around the need to have your DBs between 10k and 15k to be used at DB. Above or below they are are more like LBs when they attack. I may be off by 1k here or there.

With Sam being so far off, you may need to think about making some of your CVs more fighter heavy vs Allied Hellcats to help with survivability. They are going to be equal to better than any of your Zero. It will get worse near end of '43 when the 2nd gen Corsairs come out and get on his CVs.

Yeah, I've been pondering that on and off. I think that you're right. What do I reduce though? DBs or TBs? My first thought is DBs, but those 500kg bombs are awfully nice.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 3280

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 4:49:25 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

I'm thinking of reducing my DBs to 12k and TBs to 9k and then stagger my fighters between 12k and about 18k. Thoughts?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3281

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 5:01:15 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Banzai!!

You need some luck with your subs to bag another CV as those Yorktown Class are tough.

Weather seemed to be on your side, but severe storms didn't help your bomb runs in the PM phase.

I wonder if it was because my TBs were bombing from 14k feet?

Notice in the post above the TB's were actually releasing at 200'. Developers said long ago that when it comes to torpedoes the air group setting is for their transit/approach but they drop down to make attack runs.

Right, I understand that. It's the TBs that are carrying bombs that I was talking about. They remain at 14k feet to bomb. Probably too high to get good results. I'm thinking of dropping the TBs to 9k feet.

Ah! I think that's too high for bombs. TB's used to 'glide bomb' in a certain range but I'm not sure if that was removed. Either way I think it was a lower altitude range, @14k they probably just level bomb.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3282

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 5:03:17 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I'm thinking of reducing my DBs to 12k and TBs to 9k and then stagger my fighters between 12k and about 18k. Thoughts?

There is a minimum for them to dive bomb, and I think it is 10k. At 9k I think they will level bomb. Is that what you want?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3283

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 5:12:33 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I'm thinking of reducing my DBs to 12k and TBs to 9k and then stagger my fighters between 12k and about 18k. Thoughts?

There is a minimum for them to dive bomb, and I think it is 10k. At 9k I think they will level bomb. Is that what you want?

I want my DBs to dive bomb. Why call them dive bombers if thy only glide bomb?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 3284

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 5:36:00 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I'm thinking of reducing my DBs to 12k and TBs to 9k and then stagger my fighters between 12k and about 18k. Thoughts?

There is a minimum for them to dive bomb, and I think it is 10k. At 9k I think they will level bomb. Is that what you want?

I want my DBs to dive bomb. Why call them dive bombers if thy only glide bomb?

Ain't no more glide bombing, they'd just fly along straight and level.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3285

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 7:01:31 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

KBs air group composition is not as easy as this CV/CVL get DB/TBs taken off for more fighters. I would say that your very best Zeros pilots stay as CAP. Usually I go with 40% CAP, but I think some groups will be CAP at 60 or 70% and range 0.

One of the things John and I came up with in his mods was the idea of a CarDiv being 2 CVs and a CVL. A lot of this was based on our reading of "Shattered Swords." The CVL was to be CAP only, but up to the players to make the changes in air groups to have those CVLs reflect that. Changes to construction were made. Once repairs are done, you might consider this.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 3286

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 8:20:34 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

KBs air group composition is not as easy as this CV/CVL get DB/TBs taken off for more fighters. I would say that your very best Zeros pilots stay as CAP. Usually I go with 40% CAP, but I think some groups will be CAP at 60 or 70% and range 0.

One of the things John and I came up with in his mods was the idea of a CarDiv being 2 CVs and a CVL. A lot of this was based on our reading of "Shattered Swords." The CVL was to be CAP only, but up to the players to make the changes in air groups to have those CVLs reflect that. Changes to construction were made. Once repairs are done, you might consider this.

Assuming the speeds and endurance are compatible.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 3287

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/11/2018 9:49:39 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I remember the Sam mishap, just giving you reinforcement that you made the right decision.

You don't need torpedoes to savage his ships...those Judys' are great, and the twin bombs the TB carry aren't slouches either at finishing off crippled ships.

Although, one tactic which is solid, is to have a spare squadron of Judy and Zero follow the KB around ready to fly in fresh squadrons.

(in reply to Zorch)

Post #: 3288

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 9:17:55 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Although, one tactic which is solid, is to have a spare squadron of Judy and Zero follow the KB around ready to fly in fresh squadrons.

Good idea. Now that I'm down 3 carriers total (Hiryu, Junyo and Zuiho), I have some spare air units.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3289

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 9:24:03 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

9 Aug 43

Sub War

The RO-38 attempted to close on some of the damaged Allied CVs but was caught by the DD Dunlap and hit by a couple of DCs. She got the dreaded �massive explosion� (never saw that in a sub before), so I thought she was a goner. Well, she survived but she�s hurting pretty bad: 37-83(34)-4-0. She�s headed for Truk.

The RO-111 found the remnants of the CVE TF and put two more torpedoes into the battered BB New Mexico (making 7 total torpedo hits!). Immediately afterward, I heard sinking sounds. The intel report showed her as being sunk and the Allied sunk ship total/points reflects it as well so I count her as a fish apartment now. In the retaliatory depth charge attack, the sub ate a DC and took enough damage to head for the barn for repairs.

As a response to all those who claim RO subs aren�t worth building, I respectfully disagree. Every weapon in the Japanese arsenal is useful, if used properly.

5 Fleet

Nothing to report.

4 Fleet

More quiet here. KB reached Truk and refueled and rearmed with replacement aircraft added. They�ll sit in port for a day because they have enough OP points to move only 1 hex. I don�t want them stopped surrounded by Allied subs. Tomorrow, they�re heading south again (minus Hosho because of speed considerations) to a location within 7 hexes of all the damaged Allied ships. The idea is to put them out of their misery. I haven�t seen the CVs since the battle, but they�re out there. Well at least some of them are out there. Wasp and Yorktown both had fuel storage explosions and Saratoga took 2 torpedoes and 5x 500kg bombs. All 3 of them have to be in bad shape. Another torpedo or 2 will definitely take them down.

SE Fleet

Rabaul�s airfield got beat up again. The secondary target was Kavieng. Here�s the current damage:

Manus: 100-17-0
Kavieng: 100-75-0
Rabaul: 44-100-96
Talasea: 0-52-0

SRA

Nothing to report.

Burma

The tank regiment will reach Warazup tomorrow. About 400 Chindits landed there on 4 Aug. They�ll try to push them out the day after.

China

I bombarded again today. I�ve noticed their AV increased to about 15k while mine is still at 6k. I�ll let the supply replenish and then try a deliberate attack to see what I�m really up against. In the mean-time, I bomb daily with 130 or so Sallies.

Other Stuff

Ok, I�m doing the math with carrier capacity once again. My main carrier capacity will be only KB. Between now and the end of September, it�ll include Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku and Ryujo. Hosho is going back to MKB. Currently, the numbers are:

Fighters: 201
Dive Bombers: 90
Torpedo Bombers: 117

Regardless of whether the 3 US CVs were sunk or damaged, they�re out of commission for a good long time. That leaves 6 CVs and 3 CVLs available, some of which are damaged. Assuming the damaged ones are repaired, that gives them:

Fighters: 240
Dive Bombers: 216
Torpedo Bombers: 144

The good news is that I get CVLs Chitose and Chiyoda (21 F and 9 TB each) at the end of August and the CVs Katsuragi, Amagi and Unryu (36 F, 18 DB, 9 TB each) and CVLs Mizuho and Nisshin (21 F and 9 TB each) at the end of September. Add Shoho (21 F and 9 TB) in 18 days and that�ll bring my numbers to:

Fighters: 414
Dive Bombers: 144
Torpedo Bombers: 189

By the end of September, the Allies will get the following:

CV Bunker Hill (36 F, 36 DB, 18 TB)
CVL Cowpens (12 F, 18 TB)
CVLMonterey (12F, 18 TB)

That brings their totals to:

Fighters: 300
Dive Bombers: 252
Torpedo Bombers: 198

I�m not counting MKB or the US CVEs, because we know what will happen to them when they come across real carriers.

I�m going to increase fighter strength on some of my carriers and give more of the carriers the A6M5c. (Currently, only Soryu has that model.)

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3290

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 9:51:32 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Ok, next topic of discussion: IJA fighters

Here's what I have producing. Note that the Frank will start producing in a few days.

Model/Pool/Production

Ki-44-IIc Tojo / 63 / 120
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar / 67 / 128
Ki-100-II Tony / 56 / 120
Ki-84a Frank / 0 / 120

What should I change? scrap? increase? keep?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3291

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:03:32 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Many of us had suggested and you agreed to get all your CV/CVLs back together. So I know you are kicking yourself for not following that "self" advice.

You lost the recon/intel battle as Ted seemed to have better knowledge of what you had vs what he had. Was it weather or did you not have enough Emily in area on NavS?

Why is the old, slow Hosho with your big CVs?

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 3292

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:05:33 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Here are the plane losses:

Mike, see those navel A/C lost on the ground? Means a CV went down. My guess is Wasp.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3293

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:16:42 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Yeah, I was surprised at the inability to kill Hellcats today.

Keep in mind that fighters assigned to escort duty are at a disadvantage. That coupled with a superior A/C and you can't expect too much. Besides as you said they did their jobs and kept his fighters off your bombers. OTOH your fighters should do a bit better against his escorting fighters. Don't expect miracles, but you might get 1:1 if you have a numbers advantage over him. Its why I like the Zero 5c, good firepower against a disadvantaged opponent. At least I hope it works. Looks good on paper.

At any rate you don't really want to down fighters do you? Its bombers you want.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3294

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:18:58 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The good news is that I get CVLs Chitose and Chiyoda (21 F and 9 TB each) at the end of August

Your welcome!

Edit:Hope you did the other two as well. They would be available end of September.

Never mind I see you did.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 3/12/2018 11:22:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 3295

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:23:33 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

CVLs Mizuho

Watch this guy. Only 24 knot top speed. Best sent to MKB.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 3296

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:36:04 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ok, next topic of discussion: IJA fighters

Here's what I have producing. Note that the Frank will start producing in a few days.

Model/Pool/Production

Ki-44-IIc Tojo / 63 / 120
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar / 67 / 128
Ki-100-II Tony / 56 / 120
Ki-84a Frank / 0 / 120

What should I change? scrap? increase? keep?

Keep in mind that I'm in late '42 in my game.

This is how I see it. Too many Oscars. When Frank comes online cut them in half or less and put 'em to Frank. I like the Oscar for late war escort, but you shouldn't need too many. BTW the Ki-43-IIIa has the longest range of all the Oscars. As for the Tojo and Tony, I'd probably reduce them by 25% and put that to Frank as well. Remember as you start to field Franks the other model pools will grow and the more limited use will mean less loss as the Franks take over. Just my .02 Mike. Let's see what the pros say, and then make a more educated choice.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 3297

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:43:49 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

I've got a question for you. Where's that CVL that builds in November '42 without its air groups. They inexplicable come in a year later, mistake I assume, but whatever. That's another 30 plane CVL that could have some LBA fighter group on it to up your CAP.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 3298

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/12/2018 11:53:42 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Many of us had suggested and you agreed to get all your CV/CVLs back together. So I know you are kicking yourself for not following that "self" advice.

At least Mike had his other CVs within supporting distance. Ted didn't; he could have had the last strike if his other 2 or 3 CV/CVLs were closer.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 3299

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 3/13/2018 12:43:29 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Here are the plane losses:

Mike, see those navel A/C lost on the ground? Means a CV went down. My guess is Wasp.

I suspected that was the case. Not sure which one though. First thought would be Wasp because she's the smallest. But look at the hits:

Yorktown: 2x500kg, 1x250kg, heavy fires, fuel storage explosion, don't think she sank.
Wasp: 2 torpedoes, 2x500, 1x250, heavy fires, heavy damage, fuel storage explosion.
Saratoga: 2 torpedoes, 5x500, 1x250, fires, heavy damage.

I'll take any (or all

) of them.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 3300

Page: << < prev 108 109 [110] 111 112 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)