Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Flak effectiveness

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Flak effectiveness Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 2:39:55 AM   
derp

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Are you talking about flak or dirt? Cuz dirt can be spread out on 46mi hex when flak concentrate in places which need to defend from air attack)


I appreciate the condescension, but it's still a very small number - given your average hex, with a port, a couple of airfields and some ground units to cover any flight against a particular target is only liable to encounter a fraction of them. I don't know what fraction fires in-game - perhaps it's most of them to compensate for the fact that there's no mechanism for firing at aircraft between their base and the target - but I would suspect it's not every single gun.

_____________________________

was kfsgo, managed to lock myself out of acct. oops.

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 31
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 2:46:55 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7043
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Japanese guns were not so hot and they basically used manual fire control. They did not shoot down much anyways. Allied flak is another story. I am OK with ground flak as the 90 mm gun works fine. As for naval, it has been said already that the 5 inch dual purpose will not work as a flak platform in stock. That is why Allied naval flak is tepid at best. What about the Japanese naval dual purpose guns? Anyone know if they work?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 32
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 3:06:40 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: derp
I appreciate the condescension, but it's still a very small number - given your average hex, with a port, a couple of airfields and some ground units to cover any flight against a particular target is only liable to encounter a fraction of them. I don't know what fraction fires in-game - perhaps it's most of them to compensate for the fact that there's no mechanism for firing at aircraft between their base and the target - but I would suspect it's not every single gun.

I wonder how much number of flak ENOUGH for you?

(in reply to derp)
Post #: 33
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 7:24:08 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: derp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.


There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)


The fact remains: 14 months of war, and japanese flak have shot down just 35 allied planes. 25 of these are dive bombers, and I think land based flak have shot down just 5 or 6 planes. 14 months, 6 planes.

Historically it was dangerous job to attack major japanese air bases with numerous flak guns. In this game it's not.

(in reply to derp)
Post #: 34
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 9:32:32 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5962
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 35
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 11:38:18 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3460
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.



True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 36
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 11:51:48 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
I think allied land based flak is OK, it is suicidal to fly japanese planes below 10k. Also, japanese shipborne flak is OK. Japanese heavy ships have 12,7 cm AA guns, and that gun have good stats. Some of the japanese destroyer's DP guns have too good stats (as a AA gun), historically some turret models didn't have true AA capapility like they have in game.

I think japanese land based flak and allied shipborne flak are too weak.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 37
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 1:23:50 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8313
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.


This is the 75mm I was using, device #068. It has a start date of 12/1941 and an Effect of 13. The one you posted is a '9999' with an Effect of 15. I am no editor maven, so I'm not sure which one is 'better'.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/14/2012 1:25:24 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 38
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 1:38:12 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3677
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.



Tweaking stuff without knowing the formula is an exercise in guesswork at best. Personally I find allied flak to
be utter Anaemic on naval vessels. This is ofc just one opinion. If/When or even should this be addressed, I leave
to others.

TTFN.






Hence why I came up with it being better to leave it be. The two things I did was to increase the ceiling to the max listed for the guns, and also increased ammo capacity. The changes were very noticable, but had unintended consequences. Then again, never know till you try, right? If you are interested, you could try it yourself.



Sorry Shark, think I cam across a bit less sympathetic than I should. WE should experiment i agree and kudos for trying. was just stating the law of unintended consequences before we get a pile of single issue ideas don't look at the bigger picture.

Also wasn't aware of the 5inch gun issue. That does seem a bit odd its not DP(in game) ?? is there a reason why i wonder?

< Message edited by Rob Brennan UK -- 3/14/2012 1:45:26 PM >


_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 39
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 1:48:51 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.



True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.



I hate it to say, but I really suggest to ppl thinking about this issue the same as I do to just start any new game using one of the Babes versions. Not only does this handle flak but also ASW and subwarfare. Doesn't help anyone with an ongoing game, I know.

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 40
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 2:34:57 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14507
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.



True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.



I hate it to say, but I really suggest to ppl thinking about this issue the same as I do to just start any new game using one of the Babes versions. Not only does this handle flak but also ASW and subwarfare. Doesn't help anyone with an ongoing game, I know.


Castor is totally right. It simply is very unlikely that there will be the kind of fixes to the stock scenarios that have been discovered, researched, calculated, tested, and then implemented in DaBabes. I've got two Babes PBMs going (both Scenario 28-C with optional stacking limits) and the I've seen the the ship-borne Japanese flak be plenty good. I saw a small group of USA dive bombers in the DEI attack a small TF of IJN DDs. They made their run against just one DD, and one DB was shot down while one was damaged. In Babes the ships shoot back! I don't have any anecdotes about land-based flak as the campaigns are at the stage where the Allies are trying to avoid concentrations of it.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 41
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 3:34:38 PM   
hkbhsi

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 4/22/2007
From: Rome, Italy
Status: offline
I think that Japan flak can be deadly to bombers but you need to mass it a little bit. I find that if you have a few guns they don't do much damage but if you put togheter 5 or 6 good AAA units you will force your opponent to raise his altitude and be less effective in the bombing.

The following screenshot from my ongoing PBEM (scenario 1) shows you the high number of planes lost to flak. Note that most of those for the Allies are 4Es.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 42
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 4:17:14 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi
The following screenshot from my ongoing PBEM (scenario 1) shows you the high number of planes lost to flak. Note that most of those for the Allies are 4Es.


In your screenshot it's 1945, so many of your AA units are now using 12 cm type 3 AA guns, which is available 9/43. Also, after TOE upgrades your naval base forces must have lots of 12 cm DP guns. I hope those are totally different gear than 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which are rather useless.

(in reply to hkbhsi)
Post #: 43
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 4:41:10 PM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 44
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 5:07:04 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7043
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: derp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.


There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)


The fact remains: 14 months of war, and japanese flak have shot down just 35 allied planes. 25 of these are dive bombers, and I think land based flak have shot down just 5 or 6 planes. 14 months, 6 planes.

Historically it was dangerous job to attack major japanese air bases with numerous flak guns. In this game it's not.



Historically Allied medium bombers went in low, using suppression and refining their techniques and weapons as the war progressed. Japanese flak did get a fair number but the Allies got results this way. In the game, it does not pay to attack at low level as the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Better to stay at medium to high altititudes. Thus very few Japanese flak kills.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 45
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 5:18:19 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.


There is many 75 mm AA guns in database that are not used. I think correct japanese guns are named 75mm T88 AA gun and 88mm Type 99 AA gun. Those does have lousy stats.

(in reply to Banzan)
Post #: 46
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 5:21:34 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Historically Allied medium bombers went in low, using suppression and refining their techniques and weapons as the war progressed. Japanese flak did get a fair number but the Allies got results this way. In the game, it does not pay to attack at low level as the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Better to stay at medium to high altititudes. Thus very few Japanese flak kills.


I know that. No point use low level bombers or strafing fighters, because you can destroy airfields just using high flying 4Es.

And that is another story...

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 47
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 5:32:39 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.


There is many 75 mm AA guns in database that are not used. I think correct japanese guns are named 75mm T88 AA gun and 88mm Type 99 AA gun. Those does have lousy stats.

Yes i wrote weak stats for 75 type 88 AA gun but people continue citate STATIC guns which cannot produce and not use in flak LCU.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 48
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/15/2012 1:20:30 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7108
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.


This is the 75mm I was using, device #068. It has a start date of 12/1941 and an Effect of 13. The one you posted is a '9999' with an Effect of 15. I am no editor maven, so I'm not sure which one is 'better'.







Didn't notice the 9999 when I looked it up, that one I posted is not used in game.

The effect difference would make a slight difference, but nothing overly noticeable.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/15/2012 7:08:29 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The effect difference would make a slight difference, but nothing overly noticeable.

Some few hundred first Devices seems to be not used in game. They are probably remnants from original WitP.

Also it seems, that there is cap to maximum damage dealt, as even with YAMATO guns changed into DP I could not get more than 1 destroyed B29 during attack.


Some time ago I have done some tests with three latest upgraded ESSEX CVs (and no other ships in TF). No CAP, and it was massacre for attacking planes. Most waves have lost 50% of planes. Smaller packets (around 30) got 75-90% destroyed regularly (during attack, not ops). So if there is something wrong with AA fire, it is either because not enough guns firing, or something happening if there is friendly CAP present.


I have an interesting British report from early war, against Ju-88. It compares different types of fire control, but expended ammunition is also interesting:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 50
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/16/2012 11:55:20 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3899
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
Allied flak has been seriously nerfed in the current AE. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the historical 29 a/c shot down at Pearl Harbor to say nothing of the many a/c damaged beyond repair that the KB suffered in its surprise attack. But even worse is the enhancement of the historically terrible IJN AAA to where they routinely shoot down attacking Allied aircraft in significant numbers. At Midway, the best of the IJN flak shot down only 3 a/c out of well over 200 attacking a/c on June 4th and one of those 3 was one of their own fighters.

(in reply to derp)
Post #: 51
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/17/2012 12:07:33 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1422
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied flak has been seriously nerfed in the current AE. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the historical 29 a/c shot down at Pearl Harbor to say nothing of the many a/c damaged beyond repair that the KB suffered in its surprise attack. But even worse is the enhancement of the historically terrible IJN AAA to where they routinely shoot down attacking Allied aircraft in significant numbers. At Midway, the best of the IJN flak shot down only 3 a/c out of well over 200 attacking a/c on June 4th and one of those 3 was one of their own fighters.


2 AC out of 200 attackers is pretty much in line with what my Jap naval AAA is in my WitPAE... Vs. that I couldnt even keep Singapore properly suppressed, bombing at 15kft, because I lost too many bombers to Allied AAA. Brewsters didnt need to fly. I dont want to see late war Allied flak.

Allied naval flak OTOH... Yeah they could shoot more. But now in my DBB campaign single old British CLs score hits on about every 3rd attacking plane.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 52
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/19/2012 10:44:57 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3899
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
The fact is that the flying cadre of the IJN's 1st Air Fleet, the implement by which they started the war at the run, was all but destroyed by the end of 1942.

One can credit either:
1)USN flak (prior to the introduction of the proximity fuze);
2)USN CAP while equipped with the less than sterling F4F

Neither option seems to appeal much to some but that is what happened in real life.

(in reply to derp)
Post #: 53
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/21/2012 9:39:54 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The fact is that the flying cadre of the IJN's 1st Air Fleet, the implement by which they started the war at the run, was all but destroyed by the end of 1942.

One can credit either:
1)USN flak (prior to the introduction of the proximity fuze);
2)USN CAP while equipped with the less than sterling F4F

Neither option seems to appeal much to some but that is what happened in real life.


Well, some of the pilots went down with their ships on June 4, 1942, no?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 54
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/21/2012 6:34:46 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
As I recall, according to Parshall and Tulley and other sources as well, very few of the IJN pilots lost at Midway went down with their ships. Most of 'em died in subsequent A2A combat at Eastern Solomons and the Btl of Santa Curz Islands. Japanese CV-based aviators took fearful losses in A2A combat when fighting USN CV-based pilots. And USN flak tore great gaping holes in their attack a.c. ranks beginning in August.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 55
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/21/2012 9:03:32 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

As I recall, according to Parshall and Tulley and other sources as well, very few of the IJN pilots lost at Midway went down with their ships. Most of 'em died in subsequent A2A combat at Eastern Solomons and the Btl of Santa Curz Islands. Japanese CV-based aviators took fearful losses in A2A combat when fighting USN CV-based pilots. And USN flak tore great gaping holes in their attack a.c. ranks beginning in August.

Most experienced jap pilots died from summary of:
1. A2A combats against enemy in better position (radar scramble, survive from rescue, unlimited reinforce, design of planes, unlimited intelligence, better radio net and info)
2. Flak
3. Operational losses
4. Error in strategy of post-Midway war
It summary and almost useless losses. Main keyparts of jap strategy was missed:
1. One main battle of US and Jap fleets. Lil battle was Midway when Yamamoto hope draw americans under Nagumo's hammer. But jap lost it. Again it happen only in Marianas.
But before japs dieing without achieving their target.
2. Wide-spread out forces on border of jap area. Months spent before forces concentrated on Guadalcanal direction. It give US slowpokes ability for accumulate enormous force in region and take a win. Against splinters of KB too.

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/21/2012 9:05:31 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 56
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/21/2012 9:05:45 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody


Well, some of the pilots went down with their ships on June 4, 1942, no?

Cheers,
CC

Losses from sink lesser then in one air raid.

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/21/2012 9:07:20 PM >

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 57
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Flak effectiveness Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.102