Greyjoy(J) vs. Obvert(A) - The air war in China- DBB, SLs, PDU OFF

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: 1943!

Post by witpqs »

IMO, stacking limits improve things. That does not mean they make this or that easier for one player or the other. I do think they have the effect of slowing down the Imperial juggernaut in China. Stacking limits also require differences in play by each player.
User avatar
leehunt27@bloomberg.net
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:08 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by leehunt27@bloomberg.net »

I like what I see in China Greyjoy and also what a fantastic 1-9 defense on Nauru! That's the best feeling as a Japanese player. Stopping an amphibious landing cold. Hope it gains a couple months... How is your land based airforce for the next Allied amphibious target?
John 21:25
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 1943!

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I am only arguing with the claim that the Japanese have the ability to take any key position irrespective of the state of the Chinese forces with stacking limits. Your original post implies that even under ideal defensive conditions that the Japanese can force the Chinese back from any hex with stacking limits in place. It was not qualified by any statement about the status of the Chinese forces; it was an absolute statement. Moreover, the focus on your post was centered on the effects of the stacking limit instead of the weaknesses of the Chinese. As a result, I still feel confident and saying it is objectively false to say that with stacking limits the Japanese can take pretty much any key position.

So really what I think you are trying to say is that if China is isolated from India then China is likely going to get crushed irrespective of the stacking limit. This is a very separate issue than what you brought up earlier. And I mostly agree on your analysis of China without supply.

It might be 1000 AV, but it's 1000 AV with an anti-armor rating of 5, and anti-soft of 12. And morale is largely a function of supply. Even if you're right theoretically crsutton's point is what matters in the game. Supply rules all. China ain't got some.

Let's go back to crsutton's original post:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry.

So we agree the issue is supply and not stacking limits?

Not necessarily. The supply situation actually is spot on. If Japan had seized Ledo and pushed China hard the same thing would have happened. The issue is the relative immunity of tanks from the defensive efforts of infantry that do not have much of an anti armor value. You can just use a tank only force and even with 1-2 attacks you will eventually break a stack. However, if you were to mix any infantry with your tanks, your infantry will suffer. It is just a game mechanism. This works as well for Allied tanks later in the war. I have at times attacked Japanese infantry with tank regiments at 1-3 and 1-4 odds and not taken any casualties. I did some extensive testing many years ago and even if the defending hex has AT assets such at a unit or two of 37 mm AT guns, the tanks still don't take much of a hit. The game plan is to mass tank regiments without infantry in a single hex and then just pound your way through. Supported by massive air, the strongest Chinese stack will eventually crack. Under the old system without stacking limits you could at least pile up enough units to stop this. With stacking limits you really can not. This by no way means that I am not a fan of stacking limits. I was just pointing out in my post that if the one player uses this tactic then stacking limits actually hinder the other player rather than help them.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by veji1 »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Not necessarily. The supply situation actually is spot on. If Japan had seized Ledo and pushed China hard the same thing would have happened. The issue is the relative immunity of tanks from the defensive efforts of infantry that do not have much of an anti armor value. You can just use a tank only force and even with 1-2 attacks you will eventually break a stack. However, if you were to mix any infantry with your tanks, your infantry will suffer. It is just a game mechanism. This works as well for Allied tanks later in the war. I have at times attacked Japanese infantry with tank regiments at 1-3 and 1-4 odds and not taken any casualties. I did some extensive testing many years ago and even if the defending hex has AT assets such at a unit or two of 37 mm AT guns, the tanks still don't take much of a hit. The game plan is to mass tank regiments without infantry in a single hex and then just pound your way through. Supported by massive air, the strongest Chinese stack will eventually crack. Under the old system without stacking limits you could at least pile up enough units to stop this. With stacking limits you really can not. This by no way means that I am not a fan of stacking limits. I was just pointing out in my post that if the one player uses this tactic then stacking limits actually hinder the other player rather than help them.

As said earlier, for every measure there is a counter measure : with stacking limits quality (aka tanks) can make the difference whereas without it was all about quantity. But in this case the point I made at beginning remains : This means that the japanese player has to use more quality units in China if he wants to break through. All those tanks could have been so useful in India or in Australia, yet they are stuck in China and have been battling there for 14 months and likely till mid43. This is a pretty good trade off for the allies... With those tanks in India, Obvert might have seen his first counter attack there cut off and destroyed. SL isn't perfect and has its mechanical flaws, but it remains overall an improvement.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I like what I see in China Greyjoy and also what a fantastic 1-9 defense on Nauru! That's the best feeling as a Japanese player. Stopping an amphibious landing cold. Hope it gains a couple months... How is your land based airforce for the next Allied amphibious target?


It all depends on where the allies will land. As far as I can tell, Erik is not eager to risk a lot until he gets the Hellcats
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by GreyJoy »

Jan 29-31, 1943

January ends with the allies putting a max effort in SW India. Hundreds of thousands of men are advancing towards Madras, while the enemy fighters and bombers are massing at Trivandum and in the nearby bases, ready to smash Ceylon (they have already closed Dambullah airport).
The Empire is trying to hold, but it's clear that my time is running up here. I don't have the means to really defend everything and I need to make some hard choices.
In Oz the enemy stack is now being on hold at 12 hexes from Kalgo since mid jan... that cannot mean anything good cause his long-legged recon units are patrolling every single base of mine in western Oz.
Choices choices choices.
Horn Island and Darwin are being reconned and so is PM and Bouganville...
The circle is closing...
Choices choices choices

Can't defend everything and it's time to make a choice


China: At Chengtu we had two bad results... two 1-2 in a row in the last 4 days... that ain't no good. Worse the Guards tank ID got a series of bloody noses on the mountains NW of Kweyiang. Time is running up and I need to secure the perimeter before sending the tanks somewhere else...
The Chinese are far from being beaten guys. Tanks can't do much against well dug in corps in +3 terrain. Near Changsha the 3rd Tank Id got a series of 1-2 against well dug in corps and now its AV is halved...

No sign of the American CVs.

Daily naval bombings at Nauru Island...sooner or later this position will fall... but now I fear for SOPAC...

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Sangeli


Let's go back to crsutton's original post:
ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry.

So we agree the issue is supply and not stacking limits?

I'm late to the party due to a moose needing sleep, but yeah, I agree with crsutton here pretty much. It's not stacking limits. In a pragmatic sense what matters in China is supply, then supply, and finally, supply.

I haven't played with SL, but I've read volumes of AARs where they are in use. I understand they are intended to try to "fix" the telephone pole problem, but they really don't, at least in continental warfare.

The original design had SLs on islands, where they are key to the overall design. Without them the Allies have no chance to advance across the Pacific in any sort of historical manner. The 6000/30,000 breaks make atoll warfare possible and interesting.

The SL changes also IMO help on the medium and larger islands such as the PI and Borneo where supply routes are shorter and more self-contained, and terrain is often more uniform. The limited maneuver area makes LCU mix decisions matter more. But you still essentially move from a telephone pole to a fence pole. What SL takes away it takes away with both hands. The battles are smaller, but the ratios between the sides are the same. SLs also make the supply problems easier to handle though, which favors Japan. In absolute numbers less supply has to be sealifted to the larger islands and the Allies can't use their overwhelming advantages in shipping and supply generation as well as in stock.

In Asian continental warfare, where the game engine has always been weakest, I think SLs don't help and add a huge amount of complexity and clicking. More maneuver, swapping units in and out of defensive lines, etc. when the basic truth as above still exists--SLs remove capability from both sides at the same time in the same ratio. You end up working harder, but you end up in the same place in, say, China, over time. You work harder because SLs force, still because of the supply variable, much more swapping in and out, which in the engine is a lot of clicking and squinting. It looks like you're stretching out the inevitable, but you really aren't since the supply issue is consistent. It looks like you're making the campaign longer in part because many Japan players don't use their tanks as crsutton describes. But if they do the Chinese, SL or no-SL, are going to be a weak infantry balloon with no AT capability. They're going to break, rout, and take immense casualties with or without SLs.

Which is why in both of my PBEMs I've just cut out the middle-man in China. Run away, either out of the country or to Chungking. Cut out thousands of clicks. It's where you're going to end up anyway against a good player like Lokasenna. In our game it's February 1943, I have Chungking, it has Level 6 forts after about ten attacks, and half the Japanese army has been tied down there for a year. And my mouse finger is thankful.
The Moose
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by veji1 »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In Asian continental warfare, where the game engine has always been weakest, I think SLs don't help and add a huge amount of complexity and clicking. More maneuver, swapping units in and out of defensive lines, etc. when the basic truth as above still exists--SLs remove capability from both sides at the same time in the same ratio. You end up working harder, but you end up in the same place in, say, China, over time. You work harder because SLs force, still because of the supply variable, much more swapping in and out, which in the engine is a lot of clicking and squinting. It looks like you're stretching out the inevitable, but you really aren't since the supply issue is consistent. It looks like you're making the campaign longer in part because many Japan players don't use their tanks as crsutton describes. But if they do the Chinese, SL or no-SL, are going to be a weak infantry balloon with no AT capability. They're going to break, rout, and take immense casualties with or without SLs.

Which is why in both of my PBEMs I've just cut out the middle-man in China. Run away, either out of the country or to Chungking. Cut out thousands of clicks. It's where you're going to end up anyway against a good player like Lokasenna. In our game it's February 1943, I have Chungking, it has Level 6 forts after about ten attacks, and half the Japanese army has been tied down there for a year. And my mouse finger is thankful.

Fair enough, SL make the game in China a lot more complicated, but they do still make it better in the sense that it feels and looks somewhat more like what a wargame should look like : no more arcade style deathstars just rolling forward, more plodding, more front stretching then pummeling of the weakest point. It makes it more of a grind, which from an entertainment value doesn't sound great, but feels more historical to me. I mean stretching out the ennemy so that you weaken their line and then crush through, isn't that was war has always been about, weather tactically or later in WWI or WWII setting operationally ?

The heart of the matter is that whether you put SL or not, the defeat of the Chinese (either wiped out or reduced to Chungking) is inevitable if the japanese player commits to it. SLs make the commitment required bigger in terms of focus, play time, quality of troops. It creates some form of a trade off. Better than before imo.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 1943!

Post by crsutton »

Once again, I am was not arguing against stacking limits. I like them.
I am not advocating changes in the combat system or supply system in China. A good defense of China will cost the Japanese.
Nor am I suggesting that massing tanks in one theater or one single hex wrong. I do it myself.
I was simply pointing out what I consider is a liability to stacking limits when people use this option. Not a big deal either. Just saying.....that's all.

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
MrKane
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: West Poland

RE: 1943!

Post by MrKane »

But I am against SL now, after a few games with SL :).
I do not share point of view that modern warfare is like medieval battle 1 Division vs 1 Division.
If you have advantage you game should allow you to use it. I do understand that some people are in favor of small warfare, but please do not try to convince us that this how modern warfare looks like. The warfare always was and always will be, about: "get more guys/tanks/planes.ships and beat/kill other guys". ;)

Whole reason for SL introduction was to make China dependable, does it help ? I do not think so, as many you here already agreed and our host already has proved, if Japanese player want China he will take it.

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: 1943!

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I disagree;

in modern warfare, you don't just put all hundred thousands troops in one hex and start advancing..

If you see this map from Desert Storm, and it is hard to argue there had been a more overwhelming "more guys, planes, tanks" in history.
You can see that the troops still spread out quite a bit. probably for good reasons, maybe it has to do with too many troops too little space for proper maneuvre.. but I am no military expert

To move all Chinese LCUs to Chungking and then have a 1 year siege against half the Japanese army looks a lot more medieval.
If that is the only tactic I have left to delay the inevitable conquest of China, then so be it... but it is not a good simulation of WW2

Image
Attachments
DC_OpDesertStorm_Map.jpg
DC_OpDesertStorm_Map.jpg (211.44 KiB) Viewed 62 times
User avatar
MrKane
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: West Poland

RE: 1943!

Post by MrKane »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree;

in modern warfare, you don't just put all hundred thousands troops in one hex and start advancing..

If you see this map from Desert Storm, and it is hard to argue there had been a more overwhelming "more guys, planes, tanks" in history.
You can see that the troops still spread out quite a bit. probably for good reasons, maybe it has to do with too many troops too little space for proper maneuvre.. but I am no military expert

To move all Chinese LCUs to Chungking and then have a 1 year siege against half the Japanese army looks a lot more medieval.
If that is the only tactic I have left to delay the inevitable conquest of China, then so be it... but it is not a good simulation of WW2

Image

Just look at this map. How many Allied divisions were protecting over 1000km long right flank ? 100% forces concentrated at one point, Kuwait City on both sides. And allied forces have overwhelming forces on every attack direction. It is not good map to prove you point.

160K Japanese troops siege 160 Chinese troops is better simulation of WW2 ?
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: 1943!

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

good point.., they all ended at Kuwait City [&:] [:D]

But is it feasible to have everyboy attacking together at the same time?

I agree 160 defending vs. 160 attacking is not as normally assaults happen. In the case of China it doesn't matter as the lack of supply come into play and you can have multiple 160K echeleons
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In Asian continental warfare, where the game engine has always been weakest, I think SLs don't help and add a huge amount of complexity and clicking. More maneuver, swapping units in and out of defensive lines, etc. when the basic truth as above still exists--SLs remove capability from both sides at the same time in the same ratio. You end up working harder, but you end up in the same place in, say, China, over time. You work harder because SLs force, still because of the supply variable, much more swapping in and out, which in the engine is a lot of clicking and squinting. It looks like you're stretching out the inevitable, but you really aren't since the supply issue is consistent. It looks like you're making the campaign longer in part because many Japan players don't use their tanks as crsutton describes. But if they do the Chinese, SL or no-SL, are going to be a weak infantry balloon with no AT capability. They're going to break, rout, and take immense casualties with or without SLs.

Which is why in both of my PBEMs I've just cut out the middle-man in China. Run away, either out of the country or to Chungking. Cut out thousands of clicks. It's where you're going to end up anyway against a good player like Lokasenna. In our game it's February 1943, I have Chungking, it has Level 6 forts after about ten attacks, and half the Japanese army has been tied down there for a year. And my mouse finger is thankful.

Fair enough, SL make the game in China a lot more complicated, but they do still make it better in the sense that it feels and looks somewhat more like what a wargame should look like : no more arcade style deathstars just rolling forward, more plodding, more front stretching then pummeling of the weakest point. It makes it more of a grind, which from an entertainment value doesn't sound great, but feels more historical to me. I mean stretching out the ennemy so that you weaken their line and then crush through, isn't that was war has always been about, weather tactically or later in WWI or WWII setting operationally ?

The heart of the matter is that whether you put SL or not, the defeat of the Chinese (either wiped out or reduced to Chungking) is inevitable if the japanese player commits to it. SLs make the commitment required bigger in terms of focus, play time, quality of troops. It creates some form of a trade off. Better than before imo.

Fair enough as far as it goes. But the China theater in no way resembles history, either in 100% capture or a year-plus siege of the capital. I prefer to focus on the Pacific. The game is War in the Pacific. It's where victory took place, not China. If you want continental land warfare there are engines in games sold by Matrix that do a much better job.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

Very true. With some help from 4es.

Not many AARed games with SLs have gotten to the late-war. Almost all of the discussion of SLs has been over China, with a little on India and Burma. I'm interested in seeing how they affect Sumatra and Java. Especially Java, with its excellent RR net.
The Moose
User avatar
MrKane
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:54 pm
Location: West Poland

RE: 1943!

Post by MrKane »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

Very true. With some help from 4es.

Not many AARed games with SLs have gotten to the late-war. Almost all of the discussion of SLs has been over China, with a little on India and Burma. I'm interested in seeing how they affect Sumatra and Java. Especially Java, with its excellent RR net.

Well actually I am right now fighting on Java Sep 1943, one IJA Division is sitting a cross 40 miles and is blocking my 9 US Division advances towards Batavia due to SL 30K and hex modifier 3x :) I have to fight it 1 Division vs 1 Division or go around. It does not look very realistic warfare model for me ;) It is the same sorry like for China with one difference defenders are well supplied, so it make almost impossible to take hex. As I remember GreyJoy meet the same problem, during our last game, in exactly the tame spot. He could not take hex and he organized amphibious operation behind my lines. Summarizing, with SL every well supplied hex with woods, hills, jungle become Monte Casino for attacker.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 1943!

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree;

in modern warfare, you don't just put all hundred thousands troops in one hex and start advancing..

If you see this map from Desert Storm, and it is hard to argue there had been a more overwhelming "more guys, planes, tanks" in history.
You can see that the troops still spread out quite a bit. probably for good reasons, maybe it has to do with too many troops too little space for proper maneuvre.. but I am no military expert

To move all Chinese LCUs to Chungking and then have a 1 year siege against half the Japanese army looks a lot more medieval.
If that is the only tactic I have left to delay the inevitable conquest of China, then so be it... but it is not a good simulation of WW2

Image

Actually the best argument for stacking limits is not so much how it affects land combat. It is how it effects and slows down operations and from what I have seen I like it. In my last campaign. I would just stack all my units in one convenient base close to the action in preparation for any major assault. For ease of play, I just liked to stuff them all in one base. However, with stacking limits as the Allies you really need to bases the bulk of your troops in Australia until you take the Philippines. There are just not any bases between the PI and OZ that can hold a lot of troops. This requires more planning and a longer logistical tail. The way it should be.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Sangeli
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

RE: 1943!

Post by Sangeli »

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Well actually I am right now fighting on Java Sep 1943, one IJA Division is sitting a cross 40 miles and is blocking my 9 US Division advances towards Batavia due to SL 30K and hex modifier 3x :) I have to fight it 1 Division vs 1 Division or go around. It does not look very realistic warfare model for me ;) It is the same sorry like for China with one difference defenders are well supplied, so it make almost impossible to take hex. As I remember GreyJoy meet the same problem, during our last game, in exactly the tame spot. He could not take hex and he organized amphibious operation behind my lines. Summarizing, with SL every well supplied hex with woods, hills, jungle become Monte Casino for attacker.
But if you go over the stacking limit by a bit its not like you pay a huge penalty, correct? What I like about stacking is that it's not a hard limit; you can go over it. It just means your units are less effective in the confined space which often times is accurate. Why shouldn't unflankable positions in good defensive terrain become Monte Casinos to the attacker? There are plenty of examples historically where the Allies were held up for long periods of time in conditions like this.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: MrKane
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

Very true. With some help from 4es.

Not many AARed games with SLs have gotten to the late-war. Almost all of the discussion of SLs has been over China, with a little on India and Burma. I'm interested in seeing how they affect Sumatra and Java. Especially Java, with its excellent RR net.

Well actually I am right now fighting on Java Sep 1943, one IJA Division is sitting a cross 40 miles and is blocking my 9 US Division advances towards Batavia due to SL 30K and hex modifier 3x :) I have to fight it 1 Division vs 1 Division or go around. It does not look very realistic warfare model for me ;) It is the same sorry like for China with one difference defenders are well supplied, so it make almost impossible to take hex. As I remember GreyJoy meet the same problem, during our last game, in exactly the tame spot. He could not take hex and he organized amphibious operation behind my lines. Summarizing, with SL every well supplied hex with woods, hills, jungle become Monte Casino for attacker.

Amphib is always available late-game, but if it's known to be necessary it becomes a one-dimension threat.

Could you stack, say, five of your IDs, pay the penalties for a couple of turns, and just muscle through?

I hear you about Java and supply. That too could drive the Allied needed strategy (deny supply first) and make targets easier to determine for Japan.
The Moose
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: 1943!

Post by GreyJoy »

Feb 1-3, 1943

Progresses in China. We managed to conquer Chengtu and now we're advancing towards Kienko, while, east of Chikkiang, the big enemy stack against with i've been fighting for the last 2 months is finally pushed back with heavy losses. We can now advance eastwards towards Chengteh and Changsha.
Chungking will soon be isolated both from Kunming and from Sian-Lanchow areas. Good. China is broken in three parts now. much easier to conquer

India: we've reinforced Madras with the crack 38th ID, while the 6th Guards ID is getting to Tricomalae. Erik keeps on piling units at Madras... more than 200,000 men...[X(]...ouch

OZ: the decision is taken as soon as 15 subs appeared near Perth, which may mean he's really coming now. I fear the most a move from the wormhole..if his CVs would arrive supporting an invasion between Perth and Exmuth i would risk losing the whole 16th Army... so We've moved out, leaving behind just a shadow force and a good air force.

SOPAC/CENTPAC: More bombings at Nauru, while Rekata Bay is invaded and ready to be conquered.

KI-61b arriving this month
KI-44 IIc arriving on march
A6M5c arriving at the end of this month


Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”