Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Fall Turkis

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Fall Turkis Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fall Turkis - 12/30/2011 2:56:28 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
T-55: 7-2-42

Fall Turkis continues. I didn't get done what I wanted to this turn, though I will acheive a secondary purpose of getting him out of his first 3 belts of entrenchments, and into a litte more open terrain.

A major thrust past Voronezh ran into a Shock Army (or 2). Recon didn't pick-up how strong those units were. I would love to have encircled them, but it wasn't in the cards.

My thrust is fairly narrow; the rivers to either side sort of channelled it that way. This is unfortunate, except that the same rivers will limit his opportunities for counterattack.

Further south, we are winding down the Rostov operation. Due to the AGS bug, I'm not going to get the AG A-B split, which was one of my objectives getting south of the Don! Oh well.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 271
RE: Fall Turkis - 12/30/2011 6:31:08 PM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 1480
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: online
Keep your bridgehead down there, you might end up in stalingrad!

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 272
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/4/2012 8:54:06 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Keep your bridgehead down there, you might end up in stalingrad!


I will hold onto it as a threat; the minute I pull back to the Don, he'll be able to shift reserves out of there. But I don't think I'm getting to Stalingrad!!!!

T-56: 7/9/42. FALL TURKIS continues

Bletchley Geek's defenses were very tough, and forced a re-direct that I didn't really intend.

I planned to go wide on the Russians, gobbling-up Tambov as well as threatening Tula, but mostly pocketing a huge amount of Soviets.

B-Gs defenses were very tough, though, in particular a Shock Army along a couple rivers that funnelled by attack in directions I didn't want to go

Bletchley Geeks Defense Strategy:
His basic tactical defense strategy seems to be:

1. Very thin up front; only 1 unit adjacent to the Germans
2. Stronger 3 hexes back
3. Strong reserves, dug-in, 6 hexes back

Even though the first row or two are easy to push, you still need to expend MPs to do it, and this uses-up my infantry. Then, the Panzers hit units they have to Deliberate attack instead of Hasty. When that happens, the breakthrough is going to come to a halt, even if that attack is successful.

This is the exact way to do it as Soviets; light defense up front, but lots of depth and reserves.

My counter? I am going to try to bite-off quality units and destroy them. I don't expect a huge summer campaing though, mostly just a grind that I hope to come ahead on in losses.

This Turn:

Given all this, I re-directed on smaller pocketing. I couldn't quite finish the deal on the western-most units, but I think they will be in a position that they will be pocketed and destroyed next turn.

I cannot sustain this loss rate in tanks for 15 turns, so I hope to break the Red Army reserves before that happens.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 273
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/4/2012 9:03:06 PM   
Baelfiin


Posts: 1480
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: online
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time !

Same thing with the russian army is my theory.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 274
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 4:19:19 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
T59: 7/30/42

It's been awhile since I updated this AAR! Turns have been a bit slow, and I also just haven't hit this.

Fall Turkis: So far it's going OK. I am destroying a fair number of units; since the end of Blizzard, 88 Division equivalents, and I have taken 565,000 POWs. It's not 1941 all over again, but it's OK. We have also cleared some Manpower centers, including Tula, Lipetsk, and Rostov, and we should clear Voronezh. So that's OK.

We are not landing any knockout punches though, and B-G has good defenses in depth. My Mobile units have to rotate to stay fresh and REFIT, as we take losses blasting through units. If it wasn't for POWs, this offensive would not be worth it.

Numbers: I have noticed something; the Germans have a much higher ratio of KIA than the Soviets do. Anyone else notice this? I wonder what the reason is.

The Germans have suffered 436,000 casualties since Blizzard, and 278K KIA. That's 63%! POWs are minimal, so the balance is almost all Disableds.

The Soviets have suffered 1.51 mil; take out the 565K POWs, and that's 945K total, out of which 278K are KIA; or, about 29.5%. A much lower ratio.

Not sure why, but this is interesting. Anyone else see that?

What Next:

I am in a bit of a strategic pause at the moment; I am letting infantry catch-up to the mobile units, and cleaned-up a big pocket around Tula. What next?

The lines along the OKA are very strong. I may strike for Ryazan or Tambov, just to kill units, and clear more Manpower. I also plan to take Voronezh.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Baelfiin)
Post #: 275
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 12:25:50 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I have noticed something; the Germans have a much higher ratio of KIA than the Soviets do. Anyone else notice this? I wonder what the reason is.

The Germans have suffered 436,000 casualties since Blizzard, and 278K KIA. That's 63%! POWs are minimal, so the balance is almost all Disableds.

The Soviets have suffered 1.51 mil; take out the 565K POWs, and that's 945K total, out of which 278K are KIA; or, about 29.5%. A much lower ratio.

Not sure why, but this is interesting. Anyone else see that?


I have posted and talked about this in length for several months now on several threads and got the normal your full of " " from everyone.

The combat ratio was changed from 1.04 to 1.05 to make up for 1v1=2v1 being removed after March 1942.

Its nice to see other players are finanly coming around to this game design al be it several months after the fact hehehe

Wait my friend until 1943 rolls around and when you win a battle you be taking as many loses as the russian unit that is forsed to retreat. Basicly by late 43 counter attacking and winning is burning up your own troops faster then losing battles and being forsed to retreat.

As far as this game goes your doing good for spring O. Keep up the pressure and you will easly be able to take Moscow. Your forsing him to burn up AP's which is really the KEY to winning the game by design. The more you forse him to burn up the longer it will take him to build his late war army.

After you take back Moscow you need to try and pocket some of his corp units. Most Russian players get a little to brave and will get you a chance at bagging his best units.

Pelton




_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 276
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 1:06:07 PM   
vlcz


Posts: 388
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Wait my friend until 1943 rolls around and when you win a battle you be taking as many loses as the russian unit that is forsed to retreat. Basicly by late 43 counter attacking and winning is burning up your own troops faster then losing battles and being forsed to retreat.


Not trying to mess in this AAR, But I can confirm this point being true (and seeming strange), even with good odds , non-hasty counterattacks against non-fortified hexes (just ocupied by russian spearheads in previous turn) are most of the times helping the russian to "grind" you more efficiently (for them) than his winnig attacks ..even if when you rout them by rerteat overstack your only "win" is their morale loss.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 277
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 3:54:34 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vlcz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Wait my friend until 1943 rolls around and when you win a battle you be taking as many loses as the russian unit that is forsed to retreat. Basicly by late 43 counter attacking and winning is burning up your own troops faster then losing battles and being forsed to retreat.


Not trying to mess in this AAR, But I can confirm this point being true (and seeming strange), even with good odds , non-hasty counterattacks against non-fortified hexes (just ocupied by russian spearheads in previous turn) are most of the times helping the russian to "grind" you more efficiently (for them) than his winnig attacks ..even if when you rout them by rerteat overstack your only "win" is their morale loss.




Yes I had a thread up that had many battles that showed silly loses vs a single division, vs 3 divisions that got routed and I lost 8% of my forse and loser lost 4%.

Its is what it is by design.

Pelton


_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to vlcz)
Post #: 278
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 4:40:07 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 312
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vlcz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Wait my friend until 1943 rolls around and when you win a battle you be taking as many loses as the russian unit that is forsed to retreat. Basicly by late 43 counter attacking and winning is burning up your own troops faster then losing battles and being forsed to retreat.


Not trying to mess in this AAR, But I can confirm this point being true (and seeming strange), even with good odds , non-hasty counterattacks against non-fortified hexes (just ocupied by russian spearheads in previous turn) are most of the times helping the russian to "grind" you more efficiently (for them) than his winnig attacks ..even if when you rout them by rerteat overstack your only "win" is their morale loss.




Probably due to late war Soviet TOE's being stuffed with mortars/SMG squads.

(in reply to vlcz)
Post #: 279
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 5:02:17 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2220
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

I have posted and talked about this in length for several months now on several threads and got the normal your full of " " from everyone.

The combat ratio was changed from 1.04 to 1.05 to make up for 1v1=2v1 being removed after March 1942.

Its nice to see other players are finanly coming around to this game design al be it several months after the fact hehehe


I haven't bothered to respond to your typical stuff in a long time, but...

You have been whining about a completely different issue from what Q-Ball is saying...you have been saying that Germans are taking heavier losses (relative to Sov losses) since 1.05, without mentioning KIA. Q-Ball is saying that the percentage of KIA is higher for Germans than for Sovs. Two very different issues.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 280
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/20/2012 5:06:19 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I have posted and talked about this in length for several months now on several threads and got the normal your full of " " from everyone.

The combat ratio was changed from 1.04 to 1.05 to make up for 1v1=2v1 being removed after March 1942.

Its nice to see other players are finanly coming around to this game design al be it several months after the fact hehehe


I haven't bothered to respond to your typical stuff in a long time, but...

You have been whining about a completely different issue from what Q-Ball is saying...you have been saying that Germans are taking heavier losses (relative to Sov losses) since 1.05, without mentioning KIA. Q-Ball is saying that the percentage of KIA is higher for Germans than for Sovs. Two very different issues.

It's probably because the Germans are getting more of their damaged/disables returned to the pool. KIA is KIA, but the other 'losses' are affected by experience levels, and so will skew the comparison of the KIA ratios.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 281
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/27/2012 4:33:24 PM   
coolts


Posts: 231
Joined: 2/1/2011
From: Auf Wiedersehen, Pet
Status: offline
Any progress? My popcorn is going stale! This is the Best AAR i've read so far. (took me 3 days alt-tabbing at work to catch up). So much i have learnt. Its inspired me to kick off a new '41 campaign. Bye bye another 4 months! ;)

< Message edited by coolts -- 1/27/2012 4:44:59 PM >


_____________________________

"Gauls! We have nothing to fear; except perhaps that the sky may fall on our heads tomorrow. But as we all know, tomorrow never comes!!" - Chief Vitalstatistix

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 282
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/28/2012 5:14:37 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coolts

Any progress? My popcorn is going stale! This is the Best AAR i've read so far. (took me 3 days alt-tabbing at work to catch up). So much i have learnt. Its inspired me to kick off a new '41 campaign. Bye bye another 4 months! ;)


Thanks.......I think B-G has RL time issues, and I have been swamped with work lately as well, so I haven't moved it along. But I wonder if this game is dying out.

Hope not, but I think it's fading.

(in reply to coolts)
Post #: 283
RE: Fall Turkis - 1/29/2012 11:17:57 AM   
coolts


Posts: 231
Joined: 2/1/2011
From: Auf Wiedersehen, Pet
Status: offline
That would be a shame. Post blizzard Axis recovery & offensives are one of the murky areas of this game, and especially with the new patches, it would be very instructive to see what has changed and what the new opportunities are. Too many games fade in the winter.

_____________________________

"Gauls! We have nothing to fear; except perhaps that the sky may fall on our heads tomorrow. But as we all know, tomorrow never comes!!" - Chief Vitalstatistix

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 284
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/3/2012 9:06:44 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
It appears that B-G will need to resign for RL issues. He is very gracious and is going to surrender, but I don't think he is in a bad spot at all. It's about even, I would say.

I asked B-G if someone else can pick-up his game.

Is anyone interested in taking up the Soviet side, if that's the case? Not easy to pick-up someone else's army, and the recent patch will add an extra layer of difficulty.

On the other hand, I will allow an intelligence coup, by reading this AAR to date (since you probably have already!)

And knowing B-G, his army is probably very well organized

Let me know if there is interest

This is an opportunity as a Soviet player to skip the beating, and move right to revenge for the Motherland. And there is also no way at this point you'll lose.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/3/2012 9:07:16 PM >

(in reply to coolts)
Post #: 285
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/3/2012 11:50:23 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
Is this game random, or non-random, weather?

I'm already playing you, and don't have time for another*, but thought it might be good for prospective substitutes to know.








* Until I force a surrender, that is...

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 286
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/3/2012 11:56:51 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
non-random, but I think I have a taker anyway. we'll see

I prefer random now, but this was a holdover

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 287
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/3/2012 11:57:38 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
A great shame to hear that Q Ball. I probably have too much on to take this on as well but I think it's been a great game and would be a shame if it ended here.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 288
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/3/2012 11:57:40 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
BG is in pretty decent shape here, this isn't a bad game to take over. But I like to bake my own cake.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 289
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/4/2012 12:11:01 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2170
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Bummer to hear that on BG. I really liked how this game was shaping up and was wondering what was up. I have very much enjoyed both AAR's on this one.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 290
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/6/2012 3:09:05 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
T-60: 8/6/42

The Death Ride continues! smokindave34 has agreed to pick-up the game from Bletchley Geek, so this game isn't dead.

B-G bequethed a good spreadsheet of stats, and a not bad situation IMO. I don't think I can land any knockout punches in 1942, but I hope to still kill bunches of Reds.

Fall Turkis Continues:

I think a push on Moscow isn't in the cards, I think. A huge line of guys along the Oka, and further lines in the rear.

However, at least that ties down alot of Reds, and allows a pocketing push to the East. I would like to take Ryazan, and take as many Reds as possible. But it's probably a bulge I should not occupy in the long-run.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 291
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/9/2012 4:15:07 PM   
Singleton Mosby


Posts: 47
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
Glad to see this AAR continue. It has been a wonderful read so far.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 292
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/10/2012 4:02:59 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
+ 1 to the community support and/of the individual stepping up to the plate

(in reply to Singleton Mosby)
Post #: 293
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/11/2012 5:27:10 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
T-61: 8/13/42

Fall Turkis continues, with the Soviets under the command of Comrade Smokindave.

Before Dave took over, my offensive was running out of some gas. So far, we have destroyed 69 Divisions during the summer campaign, taking approx. 700,000 POWs. Not bad, but not a knockout blow by any means.

But this turn, I wasn't very successful; I opened a couple thrusts, but didn't have the strength to close the deal.

We'll see how this plays out; I will probably need August to clean this up and seal it off, leaving 1 more month for a last push this summer.

My goal is to take Tambov, and get to 100 destroyed divisions.

Red Army OOB is currently 6.1 mil




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 294
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/15/2012 5:31:12 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
8/20/42

That last turn I wasn't 100% happy with worked out anyway; we bagged and destroyed quite a few units. We have now destroyed 90 division equivalents this summer, which is about 10 short of my goal of 100.

This turn, we finished-off several encirclements. I am already playing the following turn, we destroyed all the units, and I have taken Tambov to boot.

On the downside, our Panzers are pretty tired; several are below 5 CVs and are off the line, and AFV counts are low all over.

We are going to do another operational pause to accumulate fuel and replacements, and go for one more push this summer.

Not sure yet about a winter offensive; I feel like I am pushing it, but I also hate to surrender the initiative.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 295
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/15/2012 7:11:29 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2220
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
I think 6.1 million seems like a really low number for the Sovs at this point. I think you should keep attacking, with a focus on small pockets, otherwise his strength will mount quickly.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 296
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/15/2012 10:04:47 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I think 6.1 million seems like a really low number for the Sovs at this point. I think you should keep attacking, with a focus on small pockets, otherwise his strength will mount quickly.


I agree; I figure he is getting 95,000-ish guys a turn. I didn't take Moscow, so he is OK Manpower-wise.

One thing I have noticed, is that smokindave tends to stack a little more up front than B-G did. B-G always just had a single-unit up front, and stacks in the rear in good defensive positions. I think B-Gs approach is better, and he was making it harder to pocket men. The fact that I spent alot of resource early in the summer, though, is preventing me from getting a big breakthrough. That, and I do think smokindave has moved alot of reserve armies to that area, which is wise.

The 1942 Soviets need to spread-out. I see too many players stack up front, that will get guys pocketed. It's way too easy to defeat; just blast a 3-hex wide hole, and pin one part of the line. This is what I did two posts ago, with that breakthrough near Tambov.

The exception is major river lines; stacking along the OKA is a good idea.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/15/2012 10:05:46 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 297
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/22/2012 4:01:43 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
9/17/42

I haven't posted in awhile, but we are winding down the Summer Offensive. How did it go?

Overall, I did destroy alot of units, approx. 92 divisions worth, and I also kept the Red Army to a low OOB level. My hope is that the damage in men and APs is enoug to prevent much of a comeback until mid-1943.

I need that, because the Wehrmacht is a bit burnt out. In my other game, Baelfiin has over 4 mil men in Wehrmacht in late 1942, and here I have just over 3.5 mil. That's alot of dead guys. My tank losses are also high.

I have a couple other attacks to pull this summer, but we are winding it down.

Tula Bulge:

I have created a big, massive bulge this summer. What should I do?

The OKA will freeze this winter, making that line easily penetrable by the Reds. I could withdraw out of this this winter. I could couple that with a backhand blow of sorts against the advancing Soviets, taking advantage of the lack of forts and frozen rivers.

The other option is to wait until Spring, and pull-back then. That's another option, and would mean there wouldn't be much of a summer campaign for him in that area.

Let's see.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 298
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/22/2012 4:17:05 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2170
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
It looks like you more or less have your mind made up by the string of forts to the west of Tula.

I would look to hold the area for now and continue to prepare the line there. You can fall back out of there to that line if he looks like he is going to push hard. The thing is, he may not attack there with the anticipation that you will just retreat. Instead, he could attack in the "joint" area of the line and unhinge all your fortifications to the south and outflank your proposed line from the north.

One other operation you could consider.

While it might be hard to cross the river in an attack, he has his own little bulge/finger at the mouth of the major river there. A drive to the east and then to the river for a small pocket could be possible perhaps and also help shorten the front as well.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 299
RE: Fall Turkis - 2/22/2012 4:28:23 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5589
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

It looks like you more or less have your mind made up by the string of forts to the west of Tula.

I would look to hold the area for now and continue to prepare the line there. You can fall back out of there to that line if he looks like he is going to push hard. The thing is, he may not attack there with the anticipation that you will just retreat. Instead, he could attack in the "joint" area of the line and unhinge all your fortifications to the south and outflank your proposed line from the north.

One other operation you could consider.

While it might be hard to cross the river in an attack, he has his own little bulge/finger at the mouth of the major river there. A drive to the east and then to the river for a small pocket could be possible perhaps and also help shorten the front as well.


I was thinking of hitting the Kaluga bulge, great minds think alike.

The string of forts are Fort Zones tending a line of Level-3 forts that were built during the spring. That's why they don't seem to follow a particular river line. They are there just to save me digging later; I'm sure they will come in handy at some point!

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Fall Turkis 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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.129