Even a blind squirrel...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Even a blind squirrel...

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 >> After Action Reports >> Even a blind squirrel...

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Even a blind squirrel... - 5/22/2005 4:48:29 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

October 27 was fairly quiet. I received no reports of sightings of the KB or anything similarly interesting, my re-disposition continued, albeit at a more leisurely pace, more of my combat ships got long-awaited upgrades, and a small crowd of stragglers in Java surprised a Japanese TF that was casually steaming by:

Day Air attack on TF at 25,62

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 3
Beaufort V-IX x 2
A-20B Boston x 10

Allied aircraft losses
A-20B Boston: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
PG Unkai Maru #1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Jintsu
PG Nikkai Maru

It was the Beauforts, of course, who got that torpedo into that PG. These planes are "reinforcement fragments" who showed up in South Eastern Oz and who were then eventually moved far enough north for them to end up in Java. PzB will undoubtedly bomb that base back into the Stone Age the next turn, but it was fun while it lasted.

I could put a lot more planes back into Java if I wanted to do so, including fighters, but I don't want to bother at this time. I'm still building up my P-38 forces and want to reserve my planes and pilots. I also still have Mohawks awaiting upgrade to P-40Bs, so I don't want to waste P-40s either. Anyway, if PzB is bombing Java he isn't bombing elsewhere.

BTW - Kiska Island recently became a level 4 airfield and is on its way to level 5. So I just put a squadren of B-17s in to keep an eye on things. Once my old BBs are upgraded I'll send them back to the Aleutians to protect against bombardment TFs, then I'll start a long range air campaign against the Kuriles. If PzB responds then I'll try to get him into a protracted war of attrition. If he doesn't respond then I'll start to invade the Kuriles in the Spring of 1943. Sooner or later PzB will be stretched too thin and I'll start to be able to take advantage of him.

BTW II - PzB told me that his troops didn't beat me into Rawalpindi but that he has all key bases garrisoned. That will reduce the number of units that he can bring back from India. I tried to set my infantry unit in Rawalpindi to Ulan Bator as its movement objective but it wouldn't let me and said that the supply lines were cut. However, when I set the objective to one of my bases in Burma it was happy and let me do it. In the meanwhile, my other 6 units continue along their slow but merry way to Mongonlia. I presume that there is some obscure logic in how the land movement system functions, but that logic has continued to elude me.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 331

Sub wars... - 5/23/2005 5:19:53 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Well, for the first time in what seems like both game-months and real-months my forces sank not just one but two Japanese subs on October 28! For the past couple of game months PzB has been nailing my subs as if they were painted day-glow yellow and had big red flashing lights on them. At the same time I have hardly been able to find his subs, let alone sink them. But this time the escorts in two slow transport TFs on the way home found the range on two of PzB's subs without the subs getting any shots off at my ships:

ASW attack at 109,74

Japanese Ships
SS I-5, hits 11, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SC SC-701
SC SC-639

and:

ASW attack at 108,75

Japanese Ships
SS RO-62, hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Empire Cameron
AK Charles McCormick
AK Admiral Senn
AK Coloradan
MSW Katoomba
MSW Kapunda

And I only had two escorts in each of those TFs. Both subs sank immediately afterwards.

Meanwhile, back near Truk, one of my few remaining subs in the region spotted that carrier TF again. What I don't know is if the TF is heading back to Truk or leaving again. That doesn't matter a lot because I haven't needed to send any TFs back into that region and therefore there aren't any interesting targets for PzB to go after. (He is always welcome to test his naval air against my LBA...

)

In Java, as I predicted, PzB sent a load of planes off to hit the airbase from which I hit his TF last turn:

Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 22,65

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 26
G4M1 Betty x 57

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 21

Interestingly enough, all of the damage was repaired by this turn.

I sent some B-17s out just to keep PzB honest:

Day Air attack on Maloelap , at 82,81

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 3
B-17E Fortress x 37

Allied aircraft losses
F-5A Lightning: 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 21 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
42 casualties reported

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 25

This turn I'm sending more planes out against PzB's air bases around Timor - my TF with the base force is nearing Timor and I want to discourage PzB from putting bombers on naval attack in the region. I've also got fighters set to provide long range CAP over the TF.

PzB has been busy with Real Life the past week since I got back from my vacation, and he will remain so for the rest of this week, so that will continue to limit the rate with which we can turn around turns. I'm starting to look forward to 1943 and can't wait to get things moving towards that time and the reinforcements that I'll receive.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 332

Nuisance mining... - 5/24/2005 4:51:42 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

It looks as if PzB has decided to send out his subs "two by two" because on October 29 two more Japanese subs showed up, this time in Darwin Harbor, doing some nuisance mining. One sub surprised one of my ASW TFs:

Sub attack near Darwin at 36,84

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
MSW Junee, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Bellechasse
MSW Cessnock
MSW Whyalla

But after my naval search planes spotted this sub along with one more another of my ASW TFs went to work and sank this sub:

ASW attack near Darwin at 36,84

Japanese Ships
SS I-169, hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DMS Dorsey
DMS Lamberton

Now I'll have to send mine sweeping TFs to clear the port.

My troop transport with the base force is now at Timor and was hiding under rain showers this turn. I did send out some heavy bombers to put some craters in one of PzB's local airfields:

Day Air attack on Amboina , at 39,73

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 24

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 3
B-17E Fortress x 39
B-24D Liberator x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 destroyed, 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 22 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 destroyed, 10 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Airbase hits 14
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 50

I've got two more groups of B-17s in Darwin so I'm sending them out again this turn against Ambonia while I rest the two that just flew.

It appears that PzB has many of his Bettys in Balikpapan and is using them to attack Java along with his Sallys. That's fine, as long as they are bombing airfields they aren't attacking ships.

As mentioned last turn, I also had some air attacks set up to keep PzB looking in all directs. One attack was rained out, the other flew:

Day Air attack on Jaluit , at 81,84

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 2
B-17E Fortress x 39

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Port hits 8
Port supply hits 7

I like to hit Jaluit once in a while just to keep PzB from building it up - he does try to reinforce it every so often.

Speaking of "reinforcements" - my recon now tells me that PzB has 28 land units in Rabaul. That sounds like a good target to isolate. I'd like to eventually get it into "punching bag" condition as I have Koepang:

Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 4
B-25C Mitchell x 27

No Allied losses

Runway hits 11

PzB doesn't even try to repair things there any more.

Dave Baranyi

< Message edited by ADavidB -- 5/25/2005 3:33:43 AM >

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 333

RE: Nuisance mining... - 5/25/2005 3:42:40 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

This turn was October 30 - I'm having trouble keeping my game dates right. (I'm in too much of a hurry to get more P-38s and ships I guess...

)

In addition to my minesweeping accomplishing nothing, not much else happened this turn. Somehow one of the MSW TFs that I set up last turn ended up being a "transport" TF this turn. Of course, it didn't sweep anything. Was that just a goof on my part or a problem with overwriting save files? I think that I'll go back to erasing my save files before copying the turns that PzB sends to me.

The turn wasn't that quiet - I bombed Ambonia again, PzB bombed Java and Columbo again. I move move ships around. The KB stayed out of sight. This is actually not a bad time for me to be doing little, so I don't mind that PzB is doing much the same. But PzB has promised that he will get more aggressive once his Real Life committments are out of the way later this week, so I'm still getting ready for another onslaught. The question is - where will it be?

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 334

RE: Nuisance mining... - 5/25/2005 1:17:56 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

October 31 was essentially a repeat performance of the previous day. PzB bombed various troops and bases in China, Colombo and Java, I bombed Koepang and Wotje. Another Japanese sub showed up off of Hawaii but it missed its target and its opponent missed it.

PzB has avoided making any more rash moves, and I'm happy to oblige him by simply sitting back and slowly building strength. So things are at a "boring" stage. I don't want to send my forces against hundreds of well-trained LBA and neither does PzB. The question remains, will PzB wait for me to finally make a move or will he try to push me into reacting?

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 335

Two days... - 5/27/2005 2:52:05 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I'm combining November 1 & 2, 1942 together because:

1 - Not much happened on November 1
2 - I was out late "entertaining" my boss and a couple of his colleagues from out of town and I was too beat last night to bother reporting on "not much".

Yes, things continue to be relatively quiet. Neither PzB nor I are attempting any major actions, although the Sig Int keeps on trying to convince me that he is planning BIG Things in China. I just can't get excited about that - I've built my bases as much as I can and my troops are rested, although their morale never does increase. I have no idea if these Chinese troops will do any better than my Indian troops did, but there isn't much I can do about it so I'm taking a "What, Me Worry?" attitude towards China.

We have also continued to exchange bombing raids. I've been easing mine off because PzB has improved his fighter protection and I'm still not ready to commit P-38s to serious action - I just don't have enough yet.

My tac bombers have been keeping PzB "honest" as far as his TFs of small ships go - for example, he has again tried to send a mine laying TF to the southern Marshalls and again my B-25s are in range:

Day Air attack on TF at 81,83

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 43

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
ML Ninoshima
ML Washizaki
ML Ma 1
ML Kuroshima, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
ML Katashima
PG Toyotsu Maru

and:

Day Air attack on TF at 81,83

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 37

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
ML Washizaki
ML Ma 1
MSW Shonan Maru #7, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
ML Toshima
PG Toyotsu Maru
PG Kaiun Maru
ML Ninoshima, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Two of those MLs eventually sank. I'm not sure why PzB doesn't send some LR CAP over those TFs - he should be in range. Oh well, don't give him any ideas!

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 336

B-25s... - 5/27/2005 5:01:35 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

B-25s are always my favorite Allied bombers in GG's games. They have decent range and as tac bombers they have a reasonable effectiveness against shipping. On November 3 PzB's MLs stuck around longer than I expected that they would and my B-25s got more practice:

Day Air attack on TF, near Jaluit at 81,84

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 25

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
ML Washizaki, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
ML Ma 1
ML Katashima, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

and:

Day Air attack on TF, near Jaluit at 81,84

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 8
B-25C Mitchell x 28

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
ML Ma 1
ML Toshima, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Three of those MLs sank. Again, for some reason PzB decided not to put CAP over his ships.

But on the otherhand over in PNG, PzB did put some LR CAP on some AGs:

Day Air attack on TF at 55,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
AG AG-104

Oh well, I've got lots of Wirraways and I'm more than happy to use them to keep PzB's Zeros occupied.

Another odd thing that happened this turn is that a bunch of P-40Bs turned up on Java after having gone missing for quite some time. I didn't send them there, nor did I move them anywhere near Java or Northern Oz. But I'm not complaining - I didn't take them away in the first place. Maybe now I'll be able to surprise PzB's bombers a bit.

And yet another unexpected attack occured - a sub that had been badly damaged at Ceylon and that was limping home was nearly run over by one of PzB's transport TFs and yet got a hit on a ship:

Sub attack at 19,39

Japanese Ships
AP Neikai Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamakisan Maru
AP Ryugi Maru
AP Otake Maru
AP Mikage Maru #2
PC Ch 15
PG Magan Maru

Allied Ships
SS KVII

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Now, why won't my subs that aren't damaged shoot at anything???

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 337

Crunched... - 5/28/2005 6:16:45 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

PzB got his ships out of range of my LBA so my "fun" was overwith once November 4 came around. Instead I lost a sub that I sent to try to catch some of the retreating MLs in the Marshalls:

Sub attack near Kwajalein at 79,79

Japanese Ships
ML Hirashima

Allied Ships
SS Plunger, hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

while in Colombo I tried an attack with all my troops on PzB's land forces that had just come up. I was hoping to catch them a bit tired - no such luck:

Ground combat at Colombo

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19836 troops, 251 guns, 2 vehicles

Defending force 73355 troops, 412 guns, 6 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
119 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
2348 casualties reported
Guns lost 84

I didn't realize that he had brought so many troops in. Oh well, now I'll sit back and let him bring down the defenses.

One little bit of good news is that my newly appearing P-40Bs accounted for themselves quite nicely:

Day Air attack on Tjilitjap , at 19,62

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

The rest of my air strikes were okay but nothing special. This turn I've set all of my long range bombers in Darwin to hit the airfields at Kendari. PzB has a lot of fighters there and I want to see if I can close them down. I'm also sending in a fighter group to sweep the airfields. We'll see what happens. The good news is that by next turn I ought to have another P-39 squadron changed into P-38s. Once they get repaired I'll send them to the front to see what kind of difference they will make.

The other news is that I continue to be unable to get BBs to upgrade at Seattle, even with no other ships in port. I just can't get the sysdamage below 7. I'm trying one piece of advice that I've read in the forum and am sailing the "offending" BB to Vancouver for a turn or so, then I'll send it back. Maybe a "change of scenary" will make a difference.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 338

RE: Crunched... - 5/28/2005 1:11:42 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

I'd suggest hoarding the P-38's before using them in combat. Then launch a massive bombing range with escort and bomb some important base of his back to stone age.

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 339

RE: Crunched... - 5/28/2005 1:32:14 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

I'd suggest hoarding the P-38's before using them in combat. Then launch a massive bombing range with escort and bomb some important base of his back to stone age.

I agree - that's the best plan, and I'd love to be able to do that, but I want to continue to hit PzB at multiple locations along the front so that he can't mass too much of his power in one location. So I need to use some of those P-38s now in order to "keep him honest". For example, I do have one squadron in the Gilberts that are providing escort to my B-25s. They are there more for "demonstration" than anything else and I'm actually quite happy that they haven't had to face opposition yet - just flying along is giving them experience and I want to keep it that way.

But PzB has been able to rebuild several of the air bases that threaten Timor and northern Australia and while I do have lots of long range bombers I need to be able to close those bases without taking too many losses. Allied long-range bombers are no longer the "total death in the skies" that they were in UV so I do need to have escorts - particularly against PzB's newer interceptors.

So it's a tough trade-off for me - it would be better for me to be able to wait another two months to be able to build up a good stock of P-38s, but at the same time I can't allow PzB to do whatever he wants uncontested along the front lines. My guess is that once PzB captures Colombo he will finally turn his attention to Java and I want to be able to interfere with that in a serious manner. In order to do that I will need to shut down his bases that threaten Timor and northern Oz before he starts his invasion.

Thanks for the comments -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to String)

Post #: 340

Score time... - 5/28/2005 7:04:28 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I haven't listed the score for this game for quite some time, so I decided that I would as of the current turn - November 5, 1942:

-------------- Allied --- Japanese
Bases ----- 3168 --- 10700
Aircraft ---- 4510 --- 6458
Army ------- 1057 --- 16327
Navy ------- 2077 --- 8032
Total ------ 10816 --- 41517

As you can see, the number one factor in the game is the Allied land unit losses. It goes to show you - don't let your units be trapped. This is where the "flypaper" movement rule really aids the aggressor in the game, and in this case specifically the Japanese land units in 1941 and 1942.

The next biggest factor is the naval ratio. A small amount of that is due to the "edge" effect and having units "teleport" into destruction in Karachi, but overall PzB has employed his naval forces much better than either Wobbly or I have done.

So all-in-all I've got my work cut out for me. You can certainly understand why I haven't been risking my naval assets at this time. PzB is still determined to be the first player to "win" by a 4:1 margin in 1943 and I am equally determined to try to avoid that. (We have agreed to continue play beyond a "ratio win", but I would still like to "rob" PzB of the satisfaction of reaching that milestone.

)

BTW - at least one Forum member has taken PzB's success in India to heart in a big way - I have a new, "virgin" v1.50 PBEM game underway and within the first week of the war my opponent has sent the great majority of his forces on their way to Burma and India while essentially ignoring the PI and Malaya, other that to bomb their air bases. I am moving along with my defensive plan, but it will still be interesting to see what the two of us can do - the Allies are really short of resources with which to fight in December 1941.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 341

RE: Score time... - 5/29/2005 12:08:45 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Interesting, I always found the Allied medium bombers (Mitchells and Marauders) to be pretty useless in any role.

I always find their range just is never quite good enough, the base you want to cover is always a few miles out, like Rabaul-Lunga, or Cairns-Port Moresby.

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 342

RE: Score time... - 5/29/2005 2:18:37 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Interesting, I always found the Allied medium bombers (Mitchells and Marauders) to be pretty useless in any role.

The B-25 is the most devastating anti-shipping LBA weapons system in the Allied arsenal. Set them for naval attack at 1,000 feet to start with, and then, when the pilots have an aggregate experience rating over 70, set them at 100 feet so that they can skip bomb. They will clean a six-hex radius of everything and anything (including Japanese CVs, if given sufficient fighter escort). B-26s are almost as good, but they have a more limited range. I always replace them with B-25s as soon as possible (particularly the B-25J, which has those eight forward-firing .50 cal MGs).

You have a lot of B-25s to work with by mid-1942, and a secondary role to their anti-shipping work is bombing of airfields, ports, and LCUs. The preferred altitude is 6,000 feet, but, if the Japanese have weak AA defenses, 1,000 feet is a lethal altitude. Also, with B-17s taking 50 percent operational losses and damage whenever they fly and losing 20-30 percent of their numbers to A6M2s (how did you manage to do that, Mike?), medium bombers are a much better option. You might as well reserve your B-17s for ASW patrol for all the effectiveness you get out of them now.

Of course, now that the cat is out of the bag, Mike will be instructed to eviscerate B-25s for the next patch, as was done with B-17s for 1.50.

The best nasty workaround for B-17 weakness under patch 1.50? "Upgrade" them to LB-30s. These things are nearly indestructible (and now they will be casbradytrated, too, of course).

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 343

RE: Score time... - 5/29/2005 3:28:11 AM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

I'm not sure I agree with those comments about the "castrating of heavy bombers". The lessened effectiveness of bombing applies equally across the board. Similarly, if the air combat is skewed it is so with respect to all bomber types. Finally, if there are problems with the 4E bombers it's that there aren't enough of them, they take a long time to repair and use a lot of supplies ...

What I do agree with is that the US medium bombers are an awesome force. The reason for which is that there are just so many of them.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 344

Air wars... - 5/29/2005 3:33:28 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

I decided to challenge PzB over Kendari and sent in all of my LBA at Darwin at various altitudes. I also sent in at 100 feet some Demons from Timor to try to catch the Kendari CAP "sleeping". Well, the Demons didn't do very well:

Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 29

Allied aircraft
CW-21B Demon x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
CW-21B Demon: 7 destroyed, 1 damaged

But the long range bombers did cause some damage and will force PzB to keep his fighters around in case I try it again:

Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
A6M3 Zero x 29

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 5
B-17E Fortress x 79
B-24D Liberator x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 3 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 6 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F-5A Lightning: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 36 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
110 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 35

I want to make certain that PzB can't base bombers at Kendari and I have enough long range bombers to be able to keep him committed there. The big bonus of this strategy is that he hasn't been sweeping Java with his fighters which is giving me a breather there.

I also hit other areas, again to keep PzB honest:

Day Air attack on Wotje , at 82,79

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 3
B-24D Liberator x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 5 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 47

Again, I don't want PzB to be able to base bombers at Wotje - notice that he has given up on trying to defend it with CAP.

And I've been trying to weaken Shortlands a bit, but my bombers aren't doing much port damage so far:

Day Air attack on Shortlands , at 63,93

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 41

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Port hits 1
Port supply hits 2

I also have my tac bombers at Lunga on Naval Attack with Airfield Attack as the secondary mission:

Day Air attack on Shortlands , at 63,93

Allied aircraft
B-26B Marauder x 51

Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 13

So with this sort of thing and only a level 1 air base PzB isn't putting CAP there.

I also regularly keep Lae under control:

Day Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
B-26B Marauder x 49

No Allied losses

Port hits 1
Port supply hits 2

I've reset those Marauders at PM to hit Gasmata next turn.

I've even started a "tit-for-tat" air war in China:

Day Air attack on Nanning , at 40,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4
Ki-27 Nate x 15

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 3
SB-2c x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed
Ki-48 Lily: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
I-153c: 2 destroyed
SB-2c: 5 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 7

And with my survivors from India:

Day Air attack on Nanning , at 40,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4
Ki-27 Nate x 15

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 6
Wellington III x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 3 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 4 damaged
Wellington III: 8 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
22 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 12

This is to let PzB know that he can't just "have his way" in China anymore. Sure, he will probably swarm my bases with the tons of air power that he has there, but once again, I'm interfering with his "schedule".

BTW - the Japanese forces in Colombo took a lot more casualties than I expected during their first deliberate attack:

Ground combat at Colombo

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 69734 troops, 414 guns, 4 vehicles

Defending force 22690 troops, 154 guns, 2 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 7

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 7)

Japanese ground losses:
1286 casualties reported
Guns lost 28
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
358 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

Of course, with the fortifications already brought down 2 levels this won't last, but it is still nice to see.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 345

RE: Air wars... - 5/29/2005 6:37:39 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Well, on November 6 PzB came back to hit my planes in China and Java as I predicted. Losses weren't too bad and I did get a few of his planes. This won't stop me from continuing to harass his air bases.

In a more concrete manner, my tac bombers in northern Oz visited Koepang again to keep things out of commission:

Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 8
B-25C Mitchell x 76

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 7
Runway hits 29

and:

Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 59

No Allied losses

Port hits 2
Port supply hits 1

I don't need to do this so often any more because PzB hasn't been able to get any supplies in for quite some time.

I'm curious as to why Port Attacks seem to be relatively ineffectual nowadays. PzB has a lot of troops in Koepang, so I'm not going to bother to go in with troops myself to see what the situation really is like, but I've got to hope that some damage is occuring. My sigint tells me that the airfields and ports are nearly at 100% damage so I wonder what the troop condition is like. In any event, those troops in Koepang aren't available to PzB to use elsewhere, so it's a pretty good situation from my p.o.v. .

As usual, my air attack on the airfield at Gasmata was reasonably successful:

Day Air attack on Gasmata , at 59,90

Allied aircraft
B-26B Marauder x 44

Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported

Runway hits 2

PzB hasn't been able to increase the airfield size and has to supply the base via barges, so this sort of attack keeps him our of mischief. This turn I'm giving those Maraders the airfields at Lae as the secondary target. PzB sent some AGs into Lae recently so its time to waste those supplies for him.

And yes, we had our daily attack on Shortlands:

Day Air attack on Shortlands , at 63,93

Allied aircraft
B-26B Marauder x 53

No Allied losses

Runway hits 2

I'm not sure why it is so hard to do much damage to Shortlands. I suspect that PzB has a lot of troops there. But he isn't defending against air attacks, so I'll keep on pecking away at his forces there.

I decided to send a transport TF into Tulagi to build up the supplies. I've put a base force, a combat force and an engineering group into Tulagi so that I can build it up a bit. It's hard to build the airfield from "0" to "1" but I'm determined to do that so I can station a fighter group there for a little extra CAP in the region. But I'm only halfway there so I have to use LR CAP against PzB's long range attacks:

Day Air attack on TF, near Tulagi at 68,96

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13
G4M1 Betty x 16

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
DMS Perry
AK Pacific, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
AK Julia Luckenbach

This turn I'm setting two fighter groups over that TF. I want to wear down PzB's air units in the region and this gives me a chance to fight him over my bases while his planes are at extreme range. Just for the heck of it I am also going to try to simultaneously catch him with his CAP down at Rabaul with my B-17s from PM - we'll see how well this goes.

The big surprise this turn was that PzB's engineers didn't reduce the fortifications at Colombo:

Ground combat at Colombo

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 67948 troops, 422 guns, 2 vehicles

Defending force 22100 troops, 142 guns, 2 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 7)

Japanese ground losses:
1003 casualties reported
Guns lost 14
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
679 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

I have no idea why this happened, but I'm not naive enough to think that I have a chance there.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 346

4 Months at War... - 5/29/2005 8:25:08 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

It's November 8, 1942, game-time, and I've now been playing this game against PzB for 4 game-months. Let's see what I have to show for it:

First, my Grand Successes:

- A handful of unoccupied enemy bases captured
- One enemy base that was defended by a starving fragment captured

Next, my Minor Setbacks:

- The loss of some Brit Colony called India, or something like that
- The loss of a couple of dozen capital ships (they were old anyway)

Hmmm - yes, it's just like the old Beatles song, "...and we haven't done a Bloody Thing all day..."

Okay, let's ignore the past and look forward to our glorious future...

Hmmm - other than my unopposed tac bomber raids on some already enfeebled Japanese bases, nothing much worked right on November 7.

However, I did get more of my ships into their long-delayed upgrades, with the exceptions of a few ships that just don't like to reduce sys-damage.

And, for some unknown reason, Colombo is not only still holding out, but it is causing PzB some losses and his engineers don't seem to be doing anything. But as we all saw in India, "little victories" of this sort don't amount to much in the long run. Oh well, it is tying up some of his forces.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 347

Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 12:16:08 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

As I started my fifth month at war on November 8, 1942 it struck me that this turn captured in a nutshell many of the little frustrations of the game for me:

1 - PzB sent what appeared to be a Fast Transport TF into Lautem and surprised my PTs that were on guard there:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu
DD Yugumo
DD Hayashio
DD Akatsuki
DD Amagiri
DD Asanagi
DD Yunagi

Allied Ships
PT PT-67
PT PT-68
PT PT-73, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
PT PT-74

I checked afterwards and I saw that I have 700 mines in Lautem that were placed in a number of passes by my minelayers. I can't remember seeing any of PzB's TFs hitting any of my mines since I took over the game. I've asked him if he remembers.

2 - I can't seem to get the Nevada down below a damage level of 7, no matter how many ARs I stack into Seattle. I've removed all other ships other than the Nevada and those ARs. I've sailed the Nevada out of port to Vancouver, disbanded her, formed a new TF the next turn and then sailed her back to Seattle but subsequently the damage level still won't go down. The damage has been sitting at 7 for weeks! Is there something wrong with Seattle? Is there something wrong with the Nevada? Must I sail the Nevada to a port where I have one of my few Naval HQs in order to get it to lower the damage down to "3" so that the ship will finally upgrade?

And WHY do we have the "magic number" of "3" to upgrade? What does that add to the playability, enjoyment or historical veracity of the game?

BTW - I've got another 20 knot BB in an Australian port which has upgraded beyond the 1942 upgrades, but it lost its radar in combat and after a month in port the damage has gone from "13" to "10" and the radar is still a "red zero". What will it take to get the radar back?

3 - My "stragglers" that are North of the Indus River have suddenly had their "distance traveled" reset from "55" to "0". I didn't do anything to them or with them. There are no Japanese troops within a dozen hexes. There are no hexes with "Js" in them within a dozen hexes. The troops have destinations set. Why oh why does land movement have to be so frustrating?

After struggling with these sorts of irritations PzB's activities are almost anticlimatic. Well, not quite - PzB has started to fly huge numbers of planes on combat missions everywhere again and his is taunting me with his ability to "move up" production of the good planes that he wants to fly. 80% of the replacement planes that I'm due to "receive" over the next two months are assigned to "unknown" so there is little that I can do except let him continue to fly pretty much where he feels like going.

So unless PzB does something stupid like send his Fast Transport TF back to Lautem when my fast BB battle squadron happens to be by there is almost nothing I can do against him. It will be six months before I will start to receive any forces with which I will be able to attempt advances. By then, maybe, just maybe, some of my ships will be repaired and upgraded...

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 348

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 1:48:30 AM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

Try moving the Nevada to SF. Seattle has a smaller shipyard w/ fewer repair points. BBs take a heck of a lot to repair, I had a BB @ Pearl for Months w/ no change - moved it to SF and started repairing right away. I use Seattle for smaller ships (subs and DD), LA for medium, and SF for Large.

For what it's worth...

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 349

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 4:06:25 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BLurking

Try moving the Nevada to SF. Seattle has a smaller shipyard w/ fewer repair points. BBs take a heck of a lot to repair, I had a BB @ Pearl for Months w/ no change - moved it to SF and started repairing right away. I use Seattle for smaller ships (subs and DD), LA for medium, and SF for Large.

For what it's worth...

Thanks for the suggestion - I guess I'll try that. It seems stupid that I have to do that - there are currently 400 repair points at Seattle. I'll also remove everything else that is being repaired at San Fran in advance.

This is so stupid and such a waste of time. I just can't see the point of it. If the designers have set things up so that battleships have to be repaired in San Fran or Pearl then they ought to just say so.

Thanks again -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to BLurking)

Post #: 350

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 5:23:32 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Well, November 9 found the BBs still in the same condition, so I'm taking Blurking's suggestion and moving the Nevada to San Fran.

PzB told me that his CL/DD TF wasn't a Fast Transport so he must have been hunting my PTs with it. That would be all well and good, but the BB TF that I sent to Lautem last turn didn't leave port! Neither did a minelaying TF. But an ASW TF that was in Darwin with the other two TFs did leave! I would love to know what is going on here. All three TFs had zero prep-points used up, Darwin and Lautem both have lots of CAP, the only sub in the area is in Lautem and there are no Japanese carriers around. So I left those two "delinquent" TFs the way that they were. I wonder if they will move next turn. I'm getting the feeling more and more that this particular game is breaking down due to too many upgrades.

Otherwise all of the action was in the air. PzB continued to send out enormous quantities of combat aircraft everywhere. I sent a large bomber contingent to Kendari at high altitude and PzB's Zeros ate the B-17s alive. But I still had enough planes that they caused some damage to the air base.

PzB has also finally sent some troops along the road to attack my troops in central Java. He can't use naval bombardments there. It will be interesting to see what happens. In theory there ought to be a reasonably even match between the US Marines, their tanks and artillary and the Japanes forces. But for the moment I'm not betting that anything realistic will happen. One additional test I am trying is to send bombers on ground attack on the incoming troops. Ground attack was a total waste of time in earlier versions of the game and supposedly it has been "improved" now. We'll see how it goes.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 351

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 6:24:21 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I had a transport TF get 'stuck' in Bali. For about 4 or 5 turns it would not move. I was trying to sent it to Koepang with a home port of Derby. I finally set it to return to Soerbaja and it left the Bali hex. I was then able to send it to the destination I really wanted. Don't know if it is simular but ....

_____________________________

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 352

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 12:07:21 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

Can you do a review of the forces you could realistically scrape together for an offensive in the pacific?

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 353

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 1:05:49 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I had a transport TF get 'stuck' in Bali. For about 4 or 5 turns it would not move. I was trying to sent it to Koepang with a home port of Derby. I finally set it to return to Soerbaja and it left the Bali hex. I was then able to send it to the destination I really wanted. Don't know if it is simular but ....

If those TFs don't move this turn I'll have to disband them and try something else. I'm hoping that this problem is a "one-off", but I remember seeing this all the time with later versions of Pacwar to the point where I ended up giving up trying to play that game because I could never get invasions to happen later in the game due to TFs never sailing. In Pacwar it would occur after playing the game for a couple of game years - I assumed that it was some sort of gradual corruption of the data structure. That's what I'm afraid of here - this game has gone on 330+ turns with all the upgrades and various "options" turned off or on depending upon the upgrades.

Oh well, we'll see what happens.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 354

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 1:30:55 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Can you do a review of the forces you could realistically scrape together for an offensive in the pacific?

I can pull a fair amount of force together at any one point, but to do so will leave my defensive line weak elsewhere. It's not a matter of what forces I have as much as it is the forces that PzB has - he can match my forces anywhere and still has forces left over to go on the offensive elsewhere. The main advantage he still has is in carriers - he has only lost two fleet carriers. He has also developed a lot of big and experienced LBA units. So PzB can overwhelm my air capabilities at any given location if he wants. That's why I keep on making air attacks at different parts of the Front - this way I force him to keep his forces spread out a bit.

But here's roughly what I have available to support any Pacific offensive:

3 Fleet carriers - I'm still trying to get two of them to upgrade to the first 1942 upgrade.
2 Fast BBs - one is being repaired from torpedo damage
5 Slow BBs - one of which is still waiting for the 1942 upgrade and another is stuck waiting for a radar to repair
A couple dozen cruisers - all in reasonably good shape and upgraded
Several dozen DDs - all in reasonably good shape and upgraded

I have several dozen subs but all in fairly poor shape and most in port under repair

5 big B-17 groups and two B-17 squadrons with plenty of replacements
3 big B-24 groups and plenty of replacements
A handful of experienced medium bomber groups
1 P-38 Group and 1 P-38 squadron - both with little experience and there is no pool of replacements
A half dozen Marine Wildcat squadrons and a handful of Marine Dauntless squadrons with lots of replacements

I have a number of other second-line fighters and bombers around, but in reality they aren't going to ba able to contribute to any offensive. The basic reality is that aircraft that couldn't stop the Japanese in December 1941 will do even less in November 1942.

A handful of rested Army RCTs along with a couple of Marine Raider units and two armored units - the rest of my LCUs are committed to forward bases.

So, in theory, I could grab a couple of undefended bases in the Marshalls via fast transport, but it would be tough to supply them and PzB could hammer support TFs with his LBA and the KB while remaining out of range of most of my air power.

There is really no point for me to risk the naval forces that I have right now. If I wait six months I will have more carriers and more troops and then things will start to even up a bit. In the meanwhile, I can cause PzB problems when he goes beyond his air defenses - you saw what I did to those MLs. So as long as my recent problems with TFs not moving are isolated incidents than I will be able to balance PzB at the front. The other "wild card" will be the performance of my ground troops in Java. In theory they ought to be able to stalemate PzB's troops, particularly since PzB hasn't committed overwhelming forces yet. But my experience is that everytime the ground combat routines go into play "common sense" goes out the window.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to String)

Post #: 355

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/30/2005 3:32:44 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

What is your plan for Java when he comes after it? Will you try to evacuate it? What kind of LCU's do you have there?

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 356

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/31/2005 2:27:46 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

What is your plan for Java when he comes after it? Will you try to evacuate it? What kind of LCU's do you have there?

I will fight for it. If I could have evacuated it before I would have. Now I want to try to tie up his forces. I've got a number of good LCUs there - the only question is - are they good enough?

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to String)

Post #: 357

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/31/2005 2:31:07 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Okay, here's the state of the Allied Land-based "Air Power" as of November 11, 1942. Please note: I'm listing the number of units, not individual planes. There are some groups in there as well as squadrons.

Fighters:

4 x Brewster 339 D
2 x CW-21B Demon
11 x F4FWildcat
2 x Hawk 75A
1 x I-153c
12 x I-16 Type 24 (S.U.)
2 x I-16c
9 x Kittyhawk I (including one "no planes" unit that has just appeared in Java)
1 x LaGG-3 (S.U.)
2 x MiG-3 (S.U.)
2 x P-38G Lightning
5 x P-40B Tomahawk (including one unit that recently appeared in Java)
9 x P-40E Warhawk (including one unit that recently appeared in Java)
1 x Spitfire Vb
2 x Yak-1 (S.U.)

Fighter-bombers:

5 x Hurricane II
4 x P-39D Airacobra
7 x Wirraway

Dive Bombers:

4 x IL-2 Shturmovik
9 x SBD Dauntless

Torpedo Bombers

2 x TIVa
2 x TBF Avenger

Level Bombers:

5 x A-20B Boston
7 x B-17E Fortress
3 x B-24D Liberator
6 x B-25C Mitchell
4 x B-26B Marauder
1 x Beaufort I
18 x Beaufort V-IX
2 x Blenheim IV
11 x Hudson I
1 x IL-4c
8 x Pe-2 (S.U.)
2 x SB-2c
3 x Wellington III (one trapped in Colombo)

As you can well imagine, I'm pretty reluctant to take on the Japanese air force with that motley crowd above.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 358

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/31/2005 2:32:25 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

Okay, here's the state of the Allied "Naval Power" as of November 11, 1942:

CVs:

3 x US Fleet CVs - two require upgrades
1 x Brit CV
1 US CVE
and The "Lost Island"

BBs:

7 x 20 knot BBs - 2 require upgrades, one requires a radar
3 x Fast BBs - 1 requires an upgrade, 1 is under repair at 30 sys dam thanks to an aerial torpedo, 1 is under repair with 37/35/3 battle damage

Cruisers:

6 x CA - all upgraded, all 8-12 sys dam
13 x CL - 2 combat damaged, 4 require upgrades, the rest are below 10 sys dam
4 x CLAA - all 4 upgraded, all less than 10 sys dam

DDs:

4 x APD - all upgraded, all around 15 sys dam
69 x DD - 1 with bad combat damage, rest lower than 20 sys dam, most upgraded

Subs:

101 x various - 3 with serious combat damage, rest lower than 30 sys dam, most upgraded

There are lots of transport ships of various flavors.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 359

RE: Little Frustrations... - 5/31/2005 2:33:33 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

The following are the units that will be made available to me over the next 90 days. I'm also listing those units that are due but which I won't get because of the loss of Karachi.

Naval Units:

1 - 30 days: 1 BB, 2 DD, 2 APD, 2 MSW, 2 SC, 3 SS, and a number of transport ships

31 - 60 days: 5 DD, 4 MSW, 2 SC, 3 SS, 3 CVE, 1 CL, and transport ships

61 - 90 days: 9 DD, 2 APD, 2 MSW, 1 SC, 2 SS, 2 CLAA, 2 CVE, 3 CL, 1 CA, 1 CV, and transport ships

Naval units that I won't get: 1 CLAA, 1 CA, some transports

Land Units:

1 - 30 days: 1 HQ, 7 ENG, 1 AA

31- 60 days: 1 HQ, 12 ENG, 1 AA

61 - 90 days: 3 HQ, 14 ENG, 1 ARM, 1 ART

Land units that I won't get: 7 HQ, 2 ENG

Air Units:

1 - 30 days: 1 F, 2 DB, 1 T

31 - 60 days: 2 B, 6 F, 2 DB, 1 TB, 1 T

61 - 90 days: 3 B, 5 F, 1 P, 1 DB

Air units that I won't get: 10 B, 8 F, 1 P, 1 TB

So for the next 30 days in particular I won't be getting much to work with. Notice also that I don't get any infantry units. So I'm still going to be quite limited until the Spring of 1943.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 360

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> Even a blind squirrel...