RE: Surface Combat Sux

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: Surface Combat Sux

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 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:16:22 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Without knowing the ranges and what the hits were I can't say. But a destroyer with 5x5in/38 can pumpout 66 rounds in less then 2 minutes.

Every surface battle I've seen at less then 5k shows a large number of AA/MG hits. Most of the time they are doing nothing but slow the animation down. But they are listed as hits at end of battle.

BB Yamato 3984 shell hits (all from 7mm MG) would have 1 sys damage maybe as a result.

it's not the number of hits that matter. It is what hits and where. 1 good hit can do more damage then many ineffective hits.

Strafe PT with Nates. You hit quite often but the Nate does no real damage. (Now the 20mm on A6M2 is another matter)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 2:20:58 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 241

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:19:21 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Without knowing the ranges and what the hits were I can't say. But a destroyer with 5x5in/38 can pumpout 66 rounds in less then 2 minutes.

Every surface battle I've seen at less then 5k shows a large number of AA/MG hits. Most of the time they are doing nothing but slow the animation down.

And a Brooklyn-class more and bigger stuff than that. What's your point?

And would you consider not prefacing each and every one of your posts with "Hi"?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 242

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:21:26 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, No.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 243

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:24:28 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 244

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:25:26 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No.

Well, at least I can count on you for a prompt response.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 245

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:26:26 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

That would be a step in the right direction at least.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 246

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:26:47 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The point with number of hits shown beside a ship after a battle has no relation to the damage suffered and it does not reflect the time required to score that many hits.

There seems to be this idea that a TF has some complex fire control that directs every gun. Once a ship begins scoring hits it does not halt firing it goes to rapid fire. The chance that any one ship will engage more then 1 other ship in a surface action is remote.

In order for most DD to fire all their torpedos thay have to make several runs. In order for ships that can reload torpedos to do so they have to reduce speed. (and then spend 30 minutes to an hour per torpedo)

Ship fire controls do not engage multiple targets with the same type weapon.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 247

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:28:21 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yes. That and the fact that the engine appears to treat the engagement as a surface TF vs surface TF type engagement. They trade several "rounds" of fire, then mutually break off.
An aggressive commander will increase the poss. of a couple more "rounds" thus increasing damage, but the TF's will still then "mutually break off"

I'm hoping that a roll can be instititued where a competant commander will "realize" the target type he has and therefore will conduct combat far more aggressively vs the normal careful exchange of fire approach.

Hi, I think the break off is usally the result of the surface TF sinking all the spotted targets and all the unspotted targets running away. The fact good leaders for me at least seem to inflict 4x the damage means they are better at fighting their TF and finding more targets. We should also give credit to the other leader for breaking off.

I have to admit that I do not encounter this as much in my games because I have the habit of placijng combat ships in my transport TF.s (I give the TF leader at least a CL for a flagship. (In UV I killed Tanaka many times as Allied by sinking AP/AK) Then I always also provide a DD. If I am moving between my own bases I don't alays provide the combat ships and Dadman has caught me more then once but he always pretty much wipes out my TF so I don't think he would complain.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 2:32:06 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 248

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:30:50 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The point with number of hits shown beside a ship after a battle has no relation to the damage suffered and it does not reflect the time required to score that many hits.

There seems to be this idea that a TF has some complex fire control that directs every gun. Once a ship begins scoring hits it does not halt firing it goes to rapid fire. The chance that any one ship will engage more then 1 other ship in a surface action is remote.

Ship fire controls do not engage multiple targets with the same type weapon.

Within the context of this thread (daylight naval action versus merchies) that's a silly position to take. We're not talking confused night actions here.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 249

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:37:53 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Why not. Are daylight surface actions not also confused? What in daylight allows a ship firing its forward guns only in pursuit to target multiple targets?
In a surface combat where both sides want to fight they assume couse and formation that allows the fight to proceed. A transport TF is going to be trying to get away. While you are sinking this ship, that other ship is getting away. Once you finish the first you have to relocate the second and that might not be possible.

We can make the program as bloody as we want. This does not make it any more realistic.
No combat result can be predicted before the action occurs. There is more here then just X number of surface ships versus X number of transports result in X number of transports being lost.

Certainly the lower the range the first contact is made will make it harder for the transports to evade. But a large part of the following results will be comparing the two TF leaders. The fact that the combat "breaks off" so soon tells me the scatter is being used. If the game treated it as normal surface battle there would be more rounds and after one action ended another would begin. (like in normal surface versus surface actions)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 2:39:45 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 250

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:41:12 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, I think the break off is usally the result of the surface TF sinking all the spotted targets and all the unspotted targets running away. The fact good leaders for me at least seem to inflict 4x the damage means they are better at fighting their TF and finding more targets. We should also give credit to the other leader for breaking off.

Sometimes, but not always.

quote:

I have to admit that I do not encounter this as much in my games because I have the habit of placijng combat ships in my transport TF.s (

Yes i noticed that in the last PBEM test we did

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 251

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:46:21 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Perhaps we also need the hexes weather condition at the time of the battle added to the AAR to help qualify the results.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 252

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:47:06 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I want to be clear here. I don't care how the system is changed. I will adapt myself to any change. I provide escorts to my transports so I'm not worried about losing some exploit in the system. I think I catch more unescorted TF then I provide.
But on the other hand I've never had a problem with the results. This is not defending the game beynd reason it is the simple truth. When I catch 10 transports and sink 4 and escape I am happy.

There is only a problem if these results are not what were intended. If that is the case then they will be changed to produce the desired results.

As long as we are all here submitting our opinions then the opinion I submit is that I don't think transport TF will (would have been) wiped out. Also is there not a check to see if when a surface TF is detected the transport TF runs (backs out of hex) to avoid combat altogether? (You see a message "transport TF xxxx aborts mission due to enemy surface ships in area" or something. So when combat occurs in the first place the surface TF has already gotten a good result. The damage is free because there might have been no battle in the first place.

I think wargames are too bloody most of the time but I am not opposed to making it more bloody to play badly. If we just wipe out any unescorted TF when caught we will improve play across the board greatly. We will also remove many of the exploits currently to be found. Now we only need to decide what is "unescorted" To me having a few PC/MSW in a TF still makes it unescorted if it encounters a enemy surface TF. The player who places a CL and 4-6 DD in his transport TF will still save most of the transports. (From time to time my escorts win the battle outright)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 2:54:35 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 253

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:52:59 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Just to further clarify the nature of the wish list item. "complete destruction" or "wipeout" is not the goal. Greater damage is. I would be happy with more common results of undefended or ill defended transports being serious damage and sinkings (immediate and eventual)

The ratio/preportion of which becomes more severe dependant on size of intruder force, speed differential and of course then throw in visability conditions.

The exceptions should be the common results seen now for the most part. Essentially a flip flop is needed. Such a reality would go a long way towards encouraging players to better plan their targets, and the organization it takes to successfully take said target. It would also make laying siege to a target more viable as well.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 9/9/2004 7:53:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 254

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 9:55:54 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, And we are happy at night this is all a daylight issue? (This could be another reason I never have problem since I stay under my own air)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 2:56:50 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 255

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:00:47 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

No. night time battles are actually just as bad. Daylight can at least be excused to some degree because of distance as you've pointed out, though as the Germans showed, daylight was dangerous as well.

Night battles carry inherant disadvantages of course, mainly lack of visability. However If training is high enough, and equipment up to the job and conditions aren't too serious (i.e. weather) than a close range battle might still end up causing serious damage/destruction to an underdefended convoy. If the TF is actually unloading , the carnage factor should be particularily maximized. The British, as mentioned made an art out of night time convoy interception, mid ocean.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 256

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:01:11 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I'm game either way. It will simply alter some playing styles.

The question is where do you draw the line?

Lets say to go to extremes we have a 100 AK TF coming from the West Coast to Oz.

Japan in their infinite skill manage to get a 25 ship heavy surface TF and catch it at sea on a clear day.

What do you expect for results?

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 257

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:03:55 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

a close range battle might still end up causing serious damage/destruction to an underdefended convoy

Not too sure I can agree to that one ... at night ... how do you *know* it's not escorted?

For all you know, the groups massive escort is heading right for you as you pick on a couple of ships near the edge of the pack ... suddenly your tasty treat turns into a couple of BB's!

I view night encounters as always iffy

< Message edited by Mr.Frag -- 9/9/2004 3:04:41 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 258

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:05:37 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Well night battles in my games result in the transport TF being wiped out so I can't see the problem there unless it is too exessive at night and too light in the day. I've wiped out every transport TF I've found and the one Dadman snuck up on he sank over half outright. He hit every ship in the TF.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/9/2004 3:06:18 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 259

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:07:54 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I'm game either way. It will simply alter some playing styles.

The question is where do you draw the line?

Lets say to go to extremes we have a 100 AK TF coming from the West Coast to Oz.

Japan in their infinite skill manage to get a 25 ship heavy surface TF and catch it at sea on a clear day.

What do you expect for results?

Yes, obviously there is some room for varience. My viewpoint is that it is better to err on the side of carnage vs, the current "fleeting contact" in regards to transport TF's. The result of which will inevitably be, more honest well planned play vs the oft complained about, "amphib operation on the fly" that players love to do because we (the wargamers) dont have to answer to anyone for our actions, and noone of course is actually getting killed due to our careless mistakes.

Players who have as much fear of their fragile transports becoming nine-pins as the real life commanders will ensure that the chance of said interceptions are minimized. If they dont protect them....then they will pay the consequences, up too and including a failed/botched invasion. This goes hand in hand with another wish list item i championed.....a tweak that causes transports that are unloading and are hit by ordinance while unloading to suffer substantial losses in cargo and troops. The latter is already modeled somwhat, but not the cargo. (supply/fuel) I still recall the frustration i felt in trying to stop Kid from reinforcing Tarawa in our game. I was actually bombing the crap out of his transports but unless i could "actually" sink the transport in question, it continued to unload at the normal rate with it's full capacity....even if it was at 99% SYS. Add to that the Allied damage control bonus and you can see the problem.

As to your example. If those 100 transports are undefended and they are attacked by a compentant balanced naval force, i'd say the results would be very heavy. as much as 25 to 50% casualties. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, working alone without support managed to destroy between them over a dozen merchants in the time allotted vs one convoy they intercepted. An undefended convoy vs a full fledged TF in good vis conditions? aieee is what i expect. Pursuit! hunt! destroy!

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 9/9/2004 9:03:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 260

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:08:08 PM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, And we are happy at night this is all a daylight issue? (This could be another reason I never have problem since I stay under my own air)

no, I am not happy. I can't be satisfied after engaging no less than 25 transports and 2 PGs in the last turn of my game with a 2BB, 2 CA, 3 CL, 6 DD force...the japanese group was so big the battle screen only showed the japanese force, not mine.

Japanese losses were limited to one PG, three transports sunk. Some light damage to other 4 transports. The usual "lead-magneto" effect was on, one of the transports took about 65 hits and a couple of torpedos, the other, no less than 50 and another torpedo, before they sank (after the battle).

any BB surface combat TF against such a transport TF would've caused at least four times that damage.

Revenge and PoW sank next morning because KB was nearby (and it had went unnoticed) and mauled them with 7 torpedos each. That also contributes to the fact that I'm pissed off, not for the fact that I've lost my most powerful assets in the DEI (as losing ships because you've not spotted the enemy carriers is part of the game), but because those ships should've caused a major invasion TF to be devastated...and that was denied by the surface combat routine. All in all I lost 2 BBs in exchange for almost nothing, when I should've cut that transport TF to pieces.

Something must be done to avoid ships overkilling already dying targets, that should improve the thing so much that I'm sure most complaints will disapear.

< Message edited by RAM -- 9/9/2004 8:09:28 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 261

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:09:25 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, You know even during the day the faint hearted officer looking out on bridge wing will see a CA (really AP) or BB (really AK) and miss a great chance.
The foolhardy officer will see DD (CA) or CL (BB) and get killed

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 262

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:15:30 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Hi, You know even during the day the faint hearted officer looking out on bridge wing will see a CA (really AP) or BB (really AK) and miss a great chance. The foolhardy officer will see DD (CA) or CL (BB) and get killed

Quite true.

So, now for the next discusion point in the "bloody" combat ...

When do ships break off or do you also expect them to use up every last shell?

Inquiring air force pilots want to know

Next issue I can see right off ... SYS damage to the attackers due to prolonged use of heavy weapons. Not a BB built that could actually use up all it's ammo without shaking itself to pieces ... wheres the line need to be drawn?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 263

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:16:34 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

The officer that (often) doesn't recognize his target is one who will quickly be removed. Bear in mind that in the 'real world' the commander being assigned his mission will in most cases be briefed on what his objective is. If that objective is "destruction of commerce/intercept a convoy/destroy a invasion TF" then if he encounters said golden opportunity and doesn't follow through then he will have alot to answer for.

Look what happened to Mikawa. He wont one of the greatest naval victories for his nation at little cost but at the moment of decision he opted to withdrawl rather than hunt for the transports he knew were present. Yamamotto was not happy on hearing this news despite the reports of mass naval losses to the Americans and a cloud decended on Mikawa as a result.

Now 'had' Mikawa actually contacted the transports.....i seriously doubt he would have just contended himself with exchanging a couple rounds of fire and THEN deciding he'd had enough and withdrawn.

Had he done THAT....he would have gotten more than a frown from Yamamotto...he would have been relieved.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 264

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:23:06 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

In my opinion, surface forces that engage moving transport taskforces during the day should sink between 4 and 10 transports if unescorted and between 0 and 4 transports if escorted. Night examples should have reduced damage due to less knowledge on both sides. Unloading transports should receive almost all sunk if unescorted and some damage if escorted (depending on escort)

I'm not sure how the game is working, (not a lot of examples to base my opinion), but I HIGHLY agree with Mogami on his posts regarding surface fleets pursuing transports. Historically, only 2 or 3 convoys in the med suffered complete loss (I think Ron posted much earlier in this thread) and the German raiders had some successes, though never complete loss to a convoy that I know of.

Fix the model if it is broken, but don't allow for complete destruction of convoys unless actively unloading. (please)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 265

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:23:35 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, OK I agree. If I get results that I do not approve of I stop using the officer. That does not prevent my having to lose a few golden chances while I sort through my officers.

I spend almost all my PP early in the game (both sides) changing officers. Not moving airgroups or landunits to new HQ swapping officers for LCU and airgroups and assigning them to TF's

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 266

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:25:10 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In my opinion, surface forces that engage moving transport taskforces during the day should sink between 4 and 10 transports if unescorted and between 0 and 4 transports if escorted. Night examples should have reduced damage due to less knowledge on both sides. Unloading transports should receive almost all sunk if unescorted and some damage if escorted (depending on escort)

I'm not sure how the game is working, (not a lot of examples to base my opinion), but I HIGHLY agree with Mogami on his posts regarding surface fleets pursuing transports. Historically, only 2 or 3 convoys in the med suffered complete loss (I think Ron posted much earlier in this thread) and the German raiders had some successes, though never complete loss to a convoy that I know of.

Fix the model if it is broken, but don't allow for complete destruction of convoys unless actively unloading. (please)

Hi, If the TF is escorted then you cannot predict how many transports will be sunk. In fact the surface TF might be sunk instead.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 267

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:27:02 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Right. that's why i said (depending on escort). (the battle of Samar is a good example of escort whipping a greater surface force)

I'm with you Mogami. I can only give an opinion on what I expect the game to do. I havent played enough to know what the game does.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 268

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:32:26 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK I agree. If I get results that I do not approve of I stop using the officer. That does not prevent my having to lose a few golden chances while I sort through my officers.

Right, but if you still get medicore results more time than not, even using 'good officers'....

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 269

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/9/2004 10:34:15 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

Nice to see some things never change here in the Matrix forums, LOL. The one constant in an ever-changing world.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 270

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 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

0.891

Slitherine

RE: Surface Combat Sux