RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat)

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: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat)

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: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat)

Page: << < prev 57 58 59 60 [61]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/21/2020 11:16:34 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.
Wow, I always thought that meant that you could not sweep the same base that the squadron was located in (a squadron in Tokyo could not sweep Tokyo but it could sweep Yokahama). that is an expensive lesson for me to have learned. I'm sure that many Pixel souls at teh pixel Yakusuni shrine are glaring at me right now.

Granted it is pretty illogical restriction and hence surprising when one stumbles on it the first time. Not to mention it is outright detrimental when defending against late war bridgeheads. Alfred may know the history behind but I suspect the devs found no way to single out and restrict the base being swept from launching sweeps and decided to restrict all of them. Zero distance sweep is wrong yes, since fighters are supposed to take off and climb while in a contested hex - they will be shot down while in takeoff and climb. But other sweeps are not wrong.

I have to say that I agree on the oddity of the restriction on sweeping and it does hand an advantage to the allies in terms of preventing kamikaze attacks on beachheads in the late war period. But, I actually feel better knowing that it was a rule that I simply did not know than some bug I had encountered.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 1801

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/21/2020 11:18:22 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

what total and complete BS. I know that there are a lot of people on here who claim that this is a perfect game and anything that is not working must be the players fault, but these Kamikaze results are idiotic and basically designed to insure maximum losses of Japanese aircraft for minimal allied ship losses. There are other examples from this game (all sweeps flew in the morning, all kamis flew in the afternoon into the reconstituted CAP) but now we have this.

Here are today's total air losses. Interesting note, one (1!) Japanese plane made it through Allied CAP out of these 431 that were shot down.

Funny, I had almost similar results to you in my PBEM with Loka a while back, except the losses were around 1.1k planes in the one turn.

I've learned a fair bit since then, and with a friendly intention, I think you do too.

Some top line reflections from me:

- Kamikazes as a stand-alone weapon will always be in-effective, they really need to fit in to a wider strategy.

- If that strategy is limited to the air alone, then it is very likely to fail.

- What's needed is a multi-faceted approach that combines conventional air strikes with kamikazes, as well as naval actions designed to disrupt and disperse the Allied air response.

- For Japan in 1945 the night phase is your friend, even ineffective nuisance naval attacks on Allied task forces burn up AA ammo.

- Allied deathstar CAP is strong, but it can be beaten. I was previously convinced by the notion of one overwhelming co-ordinated IJ strike that would punch through Allied CAP and deliver a crushing blow. Bringing that about is a massive challenge.

- Much more feasible in my mind is the slow attrition of a CAP as it responds to threats with as wide an altitude delta as possible. In theory, Japan can conduct attacks on Allied CV formations from between 100ft to 48,000 feet.

- The advantage of 100ft attacks at avoiding the large Allied advantage of radar is often overlooked.

- So to is pilot quality. Escorting pilots are often considered expendable and a role beneath higher EXP pilots. I think this thinking is counter-productive if you are actually expecting escorts to get the bombers through.

Mindmessing, I did want to be sure to thank you for this thoughtful tactical guide. I've also noticed that varying the altitude of sweeps and escorts can be a good way to attrit down CAP. And, I think sending in sweeps high and then raids low can work in pulling the CAP up higher and giving it less time to make it to the bombers.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 1802

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/24/2020 11:36:28 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Well, things are back on track despite the occasional fist fight between pixel Kami pilots (the few who are left) and the pixel fighter pilots in the pixel O clubs now and again. But, at least the fighter jockeys are tanned rested and ready.

Not too much action today. More dead allies as Scott continues his troop build up and my troops continue their futile bombardment of Shiminoseki. I did repel and attack at Kewlein and pushed an armor battalion out of Hong Kong. I'm trying to get my CV TF back to Tokyo but I've moved all of the airplanes off the ships just in case. :)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1803

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 12:09:11 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

If you want to sweep enemy CAP, have you tried sweeping an Allied controlled but minor base am equal distance away from the beach head? You might get leaky CAP but then again, you might not. Also, putting a low LRCAP over his fighter bases will help increase the OPS losses.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1804

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 12:12:38 AM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Those are good ideas! The one down side is that if I move my fighters to bases close enough to do that Scott's recon sees is and he obliterates the base (and the planes on it) from the air. I can try some zeros with drop tanks to see if I can do the LRCAP over his base that way.

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 1805

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 12:46:41 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

It does not take much LRCAP, it represents aircraft that shoot down the returning aircraft when the pilots are tired and low on fuel.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1806

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 3:44:57 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.
Wow, I always thought that meant that you could not sweep the same base that the squadron was located in (a squadron in Tokyo could not sweep Tokyo but it could sweep Yokahama). that is an expensive lesson for me to have learned. I'm sure that many Pixel souls at teh pixel Yakusuni shrine are glaring at me right now.

Granted it is pretty illogical restriction and hence surprising when one stumbles on it the first time. Not to mention it is outright detrimental when defending against late war bridgeheads. Alfred may know the history behind but I suspect the devs found no way to single out and restrict the base being swept from launching sweeps and decided to restrict all of them. Zero distance sweep is wrong yes, since fighters are supposed to take off and climb while in a contested hex - they will be shot down while in takeoff and climb. But other sweeps are not wrong.

That restriction you refer to is not the real reason.

There is a simple and conclusive answer, and a long but somewhat circumstantial answer.

1. The short answer is :

(a) the sweep characteristics were determined by the great man himself, Gary Grigsby himself. Short of he himself answering, there can be no definitive answer provided, and

(b) it was outside of the AE development scope to substantially alter the classical WITP sweep characteristics. To alter the characteristics is a very big coding and testing exercise to ensure that adverse consequences in other air combat outcomes are not created.

2. The long answer is circumstantial as it doesn't come directly from Gary Grigsby. It is however soundly based on game design and coding details.

(a) the sweep mission is intended as an offensive action, not a defensive action. Sweeping your own base is fundamentally a defensive order.

(b) CAP and LRCAP are intended to be defensive actions. Over one's own base LRCAP addresses those elements not covered by CAP.

(c) a sweep over one's own base would be up against escorting fighters. There is already a built in initial benefit for a sweeping fighter over enemy CAP. The initial benefit for the sweeping fighter over an enemy escorting fighter would be even greater

(d) sweeps do not target enemy bombers or transports or recons. They just target enemy fighters. It would be a mockery of the design to have sweeps engage enemy escorting fighters in stage 1 of the air combat but then to totally drop out of the scene in the stage 2 of combat and avoid tangling with the enemy bombers. You don't have to be Einstein to foresee the player complaints which would ensue.

(d) as it is an offensive mission, you cannot launch a sweep from a level 1 AF yet how exactly would one prevent a player sweeping, from a larger AF over their own level 1 AF. There would be a logical inconsistency if it were allowed.

Whenever anyone complains that something is not logical in AE, they are really disclosing their lack of understanding of the complexity of the game design and coding. Plus the fact that when things are abstracted, which they inevitably must be in a game this complex, certain compromises are inevitable.

Alfred

Edit: corrected the reverse order of 2(c).

< Message edited by Alfred -- 9/25/2020 4:17:06 AM >

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 1807

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 11:07:46 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
1. The short answer ..

2. The long answer ..

Thanks, Alfred, very informative!

While I agree with your short answer (the head designer choice is to be respected), the long one is lacking.

Addressing long (a,b) - When the actions are different in nature WRT requirements/benefits/risks there is no point in fundamental defensive/offensive divide. The actions are different and that's it. LRCAP works differently compared to sweeps, it joins the fight and not arrives at a different time, and it also does not have the sweep advantage cause fatigue, full fuel tanks etc. Sometimes you want to try and sweep the stationary CV CAP first with all the risks involved. In fact I can say that LRCAP would logically be more demanding to airfield quality cause planes take up additional fuel to loiter in the LRCAP zone, but game design prevailed and that's ok.
Addressing long (c,d) - potential clashing of sweeps with escorts can happen in any other hex cause bombing is not restricted to only enemy base hexes. I don't think it ever happens in the game, never seen it. So it seems that it was perfectly possible to code out this inconsistency you spent much time describing for home base sweeps too.
Addressing long (e) - see the previous point about escorts not meeting sweeps

In fact, instead of defensive/offensive divide the logical view on a possibility of a clash would be continuous/momentary. Planes either come and loiter (CAP, LRCAP) or come and go (everything else). And sure momentary ones never meet each other just like they are in a game now. This way there would've been no need for detrimental restrictions.

By the way, it's ok to admit the code is not 100% perfect, no need to go out of your way to defend the quirks. It is what it is, and it is still the best wargame out there. Peace

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 9/25/2020 11:26:30 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 1808

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 1:42:58 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.
Wow, I always thought that meant that you could not sweep the same base that the squadron was located in (a squadron in Tokyo could not sweep Tokyo but it could sweep Yokahama). that is an expensive lesson for me to have learned. I'm sure that many Pixel souls at teh pixel Yakusuni shrine are glaring at me right now.

Granted it is pretty illogical restriction and hence surprising when one stumbles on it the first time. Not to mention it is outright detrimental when defending against late war bridgeheads. Alfred may know the history behind but I suspect the devs found no way to single out and restrict the base being swept from launching sweeps and decided to restrict all of them. Zero distance sweep is wrong yes, since fighters are supposed to take off and climb while in a contested hex - they will be shot down while in takeoff and climb. But other sweeps are not wrong.

That restriction you refer to is not the real reason.

There is a simple and conclusive answer, and a long but somewhat circumstantial answer.

1. The short answer is :

(a) the sweep characteristics were determined by the great man himself, Gary Grigsby himself. Short of he himself answering, there can be no definitive answer provided, and

(b) it was outside of the AE development scope to substantially alter the classical WITP sweep characteristics. To alter the characteristics is a very big coding and testing exercise to ensure that adverse consequences in other air combat outcomes are not created.

2. The long answer is circumstantial as it doesn't come directly from Gary Grigsby. It is however soundly based on game design and coding details.

(a) the sweep mission is intended as an offensive action, not a defensive action. Sweeping your own base is fundamentally a defensive order.

(b) CAP and LRCAP are intended to be defensive actions. Over one's own base LRCAP addresses those elements not covered by CAP.

(c) a sweep over one's own base would be up against escorting fighters. There is already a built in initial benefit for a sweeping fighter over enemy CAP. The initial benefit for the sweeping fighter over an enemy escorting fighter would be even greater

(d) sweeps do not target enemy bombers or transports or recons. They just target enemy fighters. It would be a mockery of the design to have sweeps engage enemy escorting fighters in stage 1 of the air combat but then to totally drop out of the scene in the stage 2 of combat and avoid tangling with the enemy bombers. You don't have to be Einstein to foresee the player complaints which would ensue.

(d) as it is an offensive mission, you cannot launch a sweep from a level 1 AF yet how exactly would one prevent a player sweeping, from a larger AF over their own level 1 AF. There would be a logical inconsistency if it were allowed.

Whenever anyone complains that something is not logical in AE, they are really disclosing their lack of understanding of the complexity of the game design and coding. Plus the fact that when things are abstracted, which they inevitably must be in a game this complex, certain compromises are inevitable.

Alfred

Edit: corrected the reverse order of 2(c).

Alfred,

Thank you for taking the time to give me some insight as to what is going on in the game. I have been playing Mr. Grigsby's games since the 1980s (ah Mech Brigade, we hardly knew ye) and I've enjoyed them all.

I stand upon my constitutional rights to blame the game when something does not go the way I want it to. But, in this instance once you and others explained the rule to me and I can see that the game was acting as intended then I'm fine with it. It's just an expensive lesson that I've learned. Thanks also for taking the time to explain the thought process behind the design decision. I could quibble about choices but since the whole package works so well and I'm not qualified to declaim on programming matters I'll just get back to watching my cities get firebombed. :)

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 1809

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/25/2020 7:07:57 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
1. The short answer ..

2. The long answer ..

Thanks, Alfred, very informative!

While I agree with your short answer (the head designer choice is to be respected), the long one is lacking.

Addressing long (a,b) - When the actions are different in nature WRT requirements/benefits/risks there is no point in fundamental defensive/offensive divide. The actions are different and that's it. LRCAP works differently compared to sweeps, it joins the fight and not arrives at a different time, and it also does not have the sweep advantage cause fatigue, full fuel tanks etc. Sometimes you want to try and sweep the stationary CV CAP first with all the risks involved. In fact I can say that LRCAP would logically be more demanding to airfield quality cause planes take up additional fuel to loiter in the LRCAP zone, but game design prevailed and that's ok.
Addressing long (c,d) - potential clashing of sweeps with escorts can happen in any other hex cause bombing is not restricted to only enemy base hexes. I don't think it ever happens in the game, never seen it. So it seems that it was perfectly possible to code out this inconsistency you spent much time describing for home base sweeps too.
Addressing long (e) - see the previous point about escorts not meeting sweeps

In fact, instead of defensive/offensive divide the logical view on a possibility of a clash would be continuous/momentary. Planes either come and loiter (CAP, LRCAP) or come and go (everything else). And sure momentary ones never meet each other just like they are in a game now. This way there would've been no need for detrimental restrictions.

By the way, it's ok to admit the code is not 100% perfect, no need to go out of your way to defend the quirks. It is what it is, and it is still the best wargame out there. Peace

You will understand that I can't go into details of what the devs privately discussed. However the long answer I provided does touch on issues which the AE devs could not easily dismiss.

Could the AE devs have changed the model regarding sweeping? Yes. Would doing so have generated a good ROI? No. Were the AE devs aware of deficiencies in the sweep model? Yes. Could these deficiencies be easily rectified without adverse consequences elsewhere? No.

The bottom line is that LRCAP will do the job. It isn't the responsibility of game designers to make playing a game easy. Too often players complain when the existing combat rules do not suit their preferences.

As to defending quirks. That isn't what I do. Rather I have to consistently point out that abstractions are in play and game results must be viewed in the context of abstractions.

Alfred

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 1810

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/29/2020 7:39:22 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

In the latest edition of "I didn't see that coming" apparently if you shell a hex with 21 BBs each turn my troops won't move. I've tried to pull a couple of divisions out for R&R and each turn they register zero movement points.

In other news, a good turn shooting down American planes and killed more troops at the shiminoseki beach head, but, Scott is racking up nearly 1,000 VP per turn in strat bombing. That's three CVs per turn in strat losses.

He sweeps the intended target with about 500 fighters and then the bombers go in. As a result, I can't have penny packets of fighters around I have to concentrate and, if I guess wrong, then the bombers go in unmolested.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 1811

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/29/2020 7:41:07 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Here are the actual plane losses. Nice hits on the B-29s but they shot down an inordinate number of night fighters! Corsairs continue to be the fodder for my fighter jockeys and the long range P-47N shows up.

I wonder why the plural of Jockey is not jockies?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1812

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/29/2020 9:51:31 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.
Scott is racking up nearly 1,000 VP per turn in strat bombing. That's three CVs per turn in strat losses. He sweeps the intended target with about 500 fighters and then the bombers go in. As a result, I can't have penny packets of fighters around I have to concentrate and, if I guess wrong, then the bombers go in unmolested.

It's frustrating yes. But he has a lot of targets still. Wait until he has less to choose from )
Also, one happy day it might happen that sweeps arrive after the bombers... Plenty stories of AFB woes in past AARs

WRT Zero and Irving, those are fragile ones especially the first. Do you have any R&D into more resilient and modern NFs? Randy is king, but other 2 engine varieties are nice to have too. Also, you are not earning VPs on shooting down 4Es as much as you are depleting the pools. NFs are acceptable casualties here, most of the pilots will live to fight another day.

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 9/29/2020 10:03:52 PM >

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1813

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/30/2020 1:18:48 AM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Well, Get Assista, this time you called it right with the heavies showing up before all of the sweeps went in and there are now few B-29s. But, in the afternoon he lost more of his privateers but then plastered my airfields and took out a number of planes on the ground.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 1814

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/30/2020 1:20:14 AM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Here are the actual plane losses. I have to think he loses a lot more pilots than I do. But, he did wipe out more factories. Still, there is the thrill you get when you see the bombers come in and there are lots of CAP fighters still in the air. :)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1815

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/30/2020 1:23:10 AM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

It was a very bad bombardment turn for me at Shiminoseki. I lost nearly two hundred squads hitting him and he lost 6. sigh. But, on a brighter note, an entire British brigade got wiped out just outside of Keijo. That reopens the rail line into the city so the resource stockpile has been refreshed and the light industry continues to churn out some supply each turn.

In other decent ground news, Kwelein held off another allied assault. The tank corps, which has been bombed all the way, is getting closer to the rought terrain and being able to prevent the Brits from advancing towards Changsha.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1816

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/30/2020 2:21:45 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

Try putting your units into reserve mode then moving them that way.

Also try a very low CAP with fighters with a high climb rate to play with his bombers.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1817

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 9/30/2020 4:40:16 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Try putting your units into reserve mode then moving them that way.

Also try a very low CAP with fighters with a high climb rate to play with his bombers.

Thanks for the tip on the reserve move. I"ve been doing the low CAP for quite some time after getting a message from QBall(?) describing the layered low CAP approach and it has worked very well.

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 1818

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 10/4/2020 1:45:33 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Well, the Empire of Japan has had better days. Another 800 or so VP for the US and he terror bombed Osaka. I had two torpedo shots at carriers that both missed.

. He bombed me in the teeth of some pretty high AA levels and took pretty light losses and then he took Kwelein. Heavy sigh.

For some reason he did not do shore bombardment and Shiminoseki so my boys had the first day off that they have had off in a long long time.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1819

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 10/4/2020 4:09:58 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Why do you have over 14K AV in the Manchukuo garrison when you have over 10K PP?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1820

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 10/5/2020 5:02:12 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Why do you have over 14K AV in the Manchukuo garrison when you have over 10K PP?

Scott invaded Korea with a huge number of divisions. I pumped in a number of divisions from China to prevent the allies from driving north. Scott has not pushed but those divisions count towards the Manchukuo garrison total. And, everything is China/Korea is pretty much stuck there. No ships are getting through anymore.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 1821

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/25/2021 9:46:49 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

Hello all, Scott and I have not given up on this game. For a reason we have been unable to figure out, Scott stopped being able to see the combat animations. He still has his same computer and I still have mine and the animations work for me, but not for him. So, we've been trying to fix the problem.

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1822

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/25/2021 10:26:12 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

Hello all, Scott and I have not given up on this game. For a reason we have been unable to figure out, Scott stopped being able to see the combat animations. He still has his same computer and I still have mine and the animations work for me, but not for him. So, we've been trying to fix the problem.

Thanks! March 1945, would be a shame to stop now!

_____________________________

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1823

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/25/2021 10:31:01 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

How far are you now? Or no new turns? I really enjoyed reading it and look forward to more :)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 1824

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/25/2021 10:50:26 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
I really enjoyed reading it and look forward to more :)

Same here! Well, one can infer this by my commenting too of course

Hope all technical issues will be resolved

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 1825

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/26/2021 12:43:15 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

No new turns as Scott, not unreasonably, wants to see what happens in the combats. :) I'm going to post something in the technical issues part of the forum.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 1826

RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat) - 1/28/2021 2:51:50 PM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

Good luck resolving this unusual issue and I am sure if it is fixed it might happen to others in the future.

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 1827

Page: << < prev 57 58 59 60 [61]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Quisling! An AFB does Japan (No PanzerKat)