Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A)

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:19:45 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I understand Seille, but so where should i be more conservative? Less Kates and Vals maybe?

I don't think that conservativeness in early air production is a good idea and particularly in Scen 2 which gives Japan a metric ton of extra supply to use on production. Against a good Allied opponent I would want at least 90 Zeros and about 120-150 Oscars per month, and at least 70 of both Betties and Sallies (in addition to light bomber/Nell production) per month. While A6M2 upgrade line is discouraging (it does not actually lead to A6M3 and other upgrades but to Sen Baku fighter bomber, so you actually might be more cautious with expanding A6M2 factories), there is no reason not to expand production of Oscars - later you can upgrade the factories to Ki-43-IIb/IIIa and produce them until the end of war for your kamikaze needs. And if production numbers will turn out to be excessive, it is much less painful to just turn off a factory for a time, than be stuck with a lack of planes on the frontline. As about Vals/Kates production, 35 of each was enough for me, but I'm cautious with my carriers. Of course, when you later in the game will need to refit carrier strike squadrons with new types, a much higher production is recommended unless you want this process to take forever. Also, I'd recommend to expand E13A production to 45-50 and H6K4 to at least 25.


Thanks FaTR! i see your points. It's still unclear to me how the pilots-pool work, so i don't get the whole problem related to late war japanese pool....playing allies i simply filled my training ranks with green pilots in their 30s and i never had any problem but i do understand that with Japan i'll have to be more conservative even with green pilots as they are not infinite.

My planning is simply to encrese those numbers posted above slowly through december, so not to run dry my supply and HI surplus too fast. I'd like to have my industry with the right settings by the end of march 42, when i'll be able to say if the Empire has reached its minimal objectives or not

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 91
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:22:45 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?


Nope. Tracker doesn't work on my Windows 7 laptop. I checked and the 1.8 version is still working on my old XP desktop...but when i tried to install there the 1.9.2 version (to see if it was a problem related with the OS) i simply bumped on the same problem...there seems to be something i don't understand in the latest tracker version
Damian is trying to help me out of this but the fact that my brain is stiff like a brick wall is not helping him

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 92
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:23:13 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I am to understand this is a 3 page AAR about a future AAR?



Four now....

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 93
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:31:55 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380


A suggestion on the airbase thing: I've noted that it appears the current version of Babes (all version of the game?) will let you run a Lvl9 airbase with only 250 aviation support, no matter how many planes are there. All lower-level airfields seem to be treated fairly reasonably in terms of limited groups/engines operational. I contend that the only thing that is broken is the Lvl9's. Two fixes: first, mandate that you can NEVER have aircraft at a base (possibly excluding those in reserve) in excess of the number of aviation support present. This should limit a lot of abuses. Second, cap the number of engines at Lvl9's, although I strongly suggest capping it at something like 100-200 engines per level rather than 50 (math again - that's 450 engines, or 100 4E's and 50 1E's, AKA two mid-war bomb groups and two pursuit squadrons for the USAAF - at that density for 1600 square nautical miles the 8th AF couldn't have fit in southern England.

Remember that a Lvl9 can usually only be built in a hex that is mostly land and really represents multiple actual airfields. I 100% agree they are overpowered by the game engine limits, but I think you're nerfing them too much.

Edit to add: if you want to nerf early/mid war 4E abuses, perhaps require that 4E bomb groups be kept together (they usually were), and can only fly strike missions out of bases that have one US Army Air HQ per group (using the limited number of unrestricted USA HQa to represent the limited supply of the highly specialized 4E ground echelons)?


mmmm....another very wise suggestion.
You guys are really making my mind puzzled.... I'd like to have a rule that it's simple enough to be easily followed turn after turn...at the same time i don't wanna nerf the best allied weapon but wanna have a realisticly slow-paced game....
I'm still waiting for my opponent's opinion.... in the end it's him who's gonna play with those limitations and i think it must be up to him to chose what he likes and what he considers balanced.

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 94
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:35:26 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.


At the moment, in stock scenarios (but afaik it doesn't change in DBB's ones), one can easily mass 3000 planes into a level 9 AF, being sure than with 350 AV every single one of them could be potentially operating, while the 75% of them will fly without problems.... so to say you could easily have 2500 planes flying out of 3000 from a level 9 AF..... the penality for overstacking, imho, is only 25% of grounded planes, no matter how much u overstack...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 95
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 6:50:24 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14937
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Do you guys mean to say that folks are using massed PBY raids for naval attack?

That is seriously gamey.

I think they mean only the PB4Y - which were navalized versions of the B-24, and that was done IRL.

Anyway I find them far too useful for search to send them on risky raids. Soft targets make some sense.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 96
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/7/2012 10:32:52 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Thanks FaTR! i see your points. It's still unclear to me how the pilots-pool work, so i don't get the whole problem related to late war japanese pool....playing allies i simply filled my training ranks with green pilots in their 30s and i never had any problem but i do understand that with Japan i'll have to be more conservative even with green pilots as they are not infinite.

I don't think it is possible to expend all Jap pilots in Scen 2. The main problem is, green pilots won't get you anywhere as Japan. I find myself dedicating over 40% of total Japanese airforce to on-map training to keep pools filled with skill 70 pilots, plus some units in-theatre (such as dedicated escort units) also are replenished with green pilots and undergo whatever training they have time for between missions.




_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 97
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/8/2012 12:17:42 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14937
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Neither Babes nor any other scenario has control over how much air support is required per plane. That is strictly a code issue. It was posted a couple of months ago by the developers that the initial intention was to remove the 250 air support ceiling but that was erroneously omitted when AE was released. AFAIK it is planned to fix that (remove the 250 ceiling) in the next patch. At that point 1 sir support will be required for each plane no matter how many are present.

As far as an operational limit on level 9 air fields, that would be a separate issue.


At the moment, in stock scenarios (but afaik it doesn't change in DBB's ones), one can easily mass 3000 planes into a level 9 AF, being sure than with 350 AV every single one of them could be potentially operating, while the 75% of them will fly without problems.... so to say you could easily have 2500 planes flying out of 3000 from a level 9 AF..... the penality for overstacking, imho, is only 25% of grounded planes, no matter how much u overstack...

Made a reply earlier but it got lost...

The ceiling is (unfortunately) 250 air support not 350. They have promised it will change in a patch.

The number of planes that can otherwise operate out of a level 9 airfield is a different issue of course. I was really responding to the post that Babes had the 250 ceiling which implied other scenarios didn't have that ceiling. As you say, no change between Babes and Stock, or any other scenarios. It's controlled by the code, not the scenario.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 98
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/8/2012 4:23:22 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2668
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

GreyJoy, a quick note on pilots. You get lots. Raeder managed to keep decent pilots in the air so you only have to be a little careful. Not so for the IJN pilots. I think he ran that pool dry. I believe he did that through some massive over-aggressiveness in the SW pacific.
Actually, a question. I also have Windows 7 64. Did you get tracker working and if so how?


Nope. Tracker doesn't work on my Windows 7 laptop. I checked and the 1.8 version is still working on my old XP desktop...but when i tried to install there the 1.9.2 version (to see if it was a problem related with the OS) i simply bumped on the same problem...there seems to be something i don't understand in the latest tracker version
Damian is trying to help me out of this but the fact that my brain is stiff like a brick wall is not helping him

I have Windows 7 and asked the same question of witpqs. Here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2966329&mpage=4&key= post 99
and the subsequent four of five posts is his advice. Seems you need to download 32-bit Java for Tracker to run.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 7/8/2012 4:25:33 AM >


_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 99
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/8/2012 5:16:59 AM   
ItsAMadhouse


Posts: 129
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: Wichita KS
Status: offline
Hi,

I also had issues with tracker when I first set it up. Copying the java dll file I think helped and I had issues after patching and had to copy the pw-something.dll file from the game folder and overwrite the one in the tracker folder. Hope that helps!

Joe

_____________________________

Lift with your Airmen, not your back!

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 100
RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) - 7/8/2012 2:49:12 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 245
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

You guys are really making my mind puzzled.... I'd like to have a rule that it's simple enough to be easily followed turn after turn...at the same time i don't wanna nerf the best allied weapon but wanna have a realisticly slow-paced game....



Indeed. On that note... does anyone know if it is possible to slow down base construction (increase the # of engineer points it takes to expand each level) via the editor? Doing so wouldn't prevent the Allies from deploying their heavies, but would require them to send a lot more of their (plentiful by 1943) engineers along to build up the bases.

quote:


I'm still waiting for my opponent's opinion.... in the end it's him who's gonna play with those limitations and i think it must be up to him to chose what he likes and what he considers balanced.


And who is this mysterious opponent?

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 101
Let's start! - 7/8/2012 4:53:15 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
ok guys, here we go.

Time to reveal the name of Mr.X....*drums*....

Q-BALL!

As you know Q-Ball is a very experienced "all-round" player. As far as i know he's best known as a japanese player, which makes him probably the worst opponent for an virgin japanese like me.... however, challenge is what makes a game thrilling, so...here we are!

Turn sent!

Here are the final HRs...

-Just one Port attack on turn one
-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (not fragments all over)
-Landing or paradrops only on base or dot-base hexes
-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria
-> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that
start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia or Thay
Army to Burma).
-1 week russian activation if Japan decides to invade.
-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina.
- 4Es on ground bombing mission must be at 10k feet minimum-
- Only 50 planes for each AF level
- 4Es on naval attack only from PBY4s (or Navy 4Es anyway) but only from 6k feet-
- night bombing allowed with at least 50% moonlight....
- No strat bombing before 1943 .
- No Allied Air or naval units in Russia are allowed, even if Russia is activated.
- No Mersing Gambit on turn 1
- SWEEP and CAP altitudes at second best mnvr. band....
- no 1 ship TF except for the allies in the first turns

plus my own restrictions: only one ride at PH; max 6 months in advance for R&D


Ok, for my first turn i have to thank NY59Giants who, with a lot of patience, took me by hand and helped me to work out the first turn.... which was really a monster!

However.... The initial strategy for phase 1 is the following:

PI: landings at Vigan, San Fernando, Lyngayen and Aparri (Legaspi will follow during the first week of war). Usual disposition (65th bde, 48th Division plus some SNLF units).
Malaya: the idea is a fast conquest of the Peninsula, with the use of 6 full divisions. The goal is to conquer Singapore by the first week of Jan 42.
Borneo: for the moment only Miri will be invaded.
Southern DEI: i'll wait for more naval forces before committing towards Ambon, Timor etc...
Sumatra: will be invaded during the third week of war.
Java: only after the fall of Sumatra.
Burma: the Imperial Guard div + 2 weak thai divisions will be used for the initial advance, along with the 55th Cav Bde.
CENTPAC: Wake, Tarawa and Rabaul will wait untill the KB gets back from PH.

Being my first japanese game i don't wanna rush too much. Play safe and wise, avoiding any major defeat during the first 3 months.
Once the phase 1 is finished (historical perimeter) - possibly by the end of march 42 - we'll see what we can do for the second phase.
I have 3 possible targets at the moment...
North and western Oz
Cylon and Southern India
New Caledonia, Fijii and line islands...
...ok, i know i'm not that original...

Oh, well, China for sure... i'd like to secure a good offensive perimeter by July 42....so to say: conquer Changsha and the cities around it.

Looking forward....

One more note... i know these first turns will be boring for you readers...always the same soup... so i will try not to bore you too much with combat reports etc, trying to summerize as much as i can and posting only interesting (if ever) screenshots

Thanks for being here

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 102
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 5:08:03 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3778
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
BANZAI!

Those Cylons can be nasty. Make sure you have upgraded your Vipers if you are making them your phase 2 target.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 103
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 5:12:27 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

BANZAI!

Those Cylons can be nasty. Make sure you have upgraded your Vipers if you are making them your phase 2 target.


Yup! I bet those bastards are all in fully shaved-mode




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 104
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 7:26:44 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
If you are prepared to commit your airforce to China you should be able to claim it during 42. Getting some armour there will help too!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 105
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 7:42:24 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7205
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

If you are prepared to commit your airforce to China you should be able to claim it during 42. Getting some armour there will help too!


This is no longer true with stacking limits, which this mod has. I'm in mid-Jan 42 as Allies and the road to Sian is closed to a quick Japanese conquest and will be hard to re-open. This is the way it should be.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 106
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 8:00:36 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

If you are prepared to commit your airforce to China you should be able to claim it during 42. Getting some armour there will help too!


This is no longer true with stacking limits, which this mod has. I'm in mid-Jan 42 as Allies and the road to Sian is closed to a quick Japanese conquest and will be hard to re-open. This is the way it should be.


Yup. True. i studied the map with the stacking limits....between them and the garrison requirements it will be a HUGE victory if we could stabilize a front containing Changsha by the end of the 8th month of war...

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 107
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 8:13:52 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3464
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
Hope this is as epic as your other game but as an AFB I'm rooting for Q-Ball! Heres to a great game

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born



Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 108
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 8:53:56 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

This is no longer true with stacking limits, which this mod has. I'm in mid-Jan 42 as Allies and the road to Sian is closed to a quick Japanese conquest and will be hard to re-open. This is the way it should be.



Ah, forgot they were using the stacking limits!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 109
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 10:51:24 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Hope this is as epic as your other game but as an AFB I'm rooting for Q-Ball! Heres to a great game


Thanks Cantona!
Won't be that epic...well, not for japan at least! ...but i'll do my best!

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 110
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 11:11:50 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Following NY59's suggestion i've detached CV Kaga from the KB...she will join the CVL Ryujo and will support an early invasion of Sinkgawan, covering so also the invasion of Miri. At the same time this mini-KB should keep the Z Force at bay, while stopping any reinforcing of Palembang by the allies...

Ziuho and Hosho will move towards Southern DEI asap, in order to support the advance towards Menado, Ambon and Timor, possibly joining Kaga and Ryuho later on...


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 111
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 11:19:42 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
144th Rgt and Guards Bde will attack Rabaul and immediately after PM. During the same period we'll land at Shortland, Lunga and in the lower Solomons.
KB will support these landings and will try to look for some target of opportunity raids into the allies sealanes


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 112
RE: Let's start! - 7/8/2012 11:26:57 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1033
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Sorry Grejoy, but another one rooting for the Allies here!

Looking forward to reading your AAR though




(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 113
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 2:02:34 AM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1938
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

Cylon and Southern India

And I propose the GreyJoy drinking game. One shot for each creative mis-spelling. and we are off!

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 114
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 5:58:11 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Cylon and Southern India

And I propose the GreyJoy drinking game. One shot for each creative mis-spelling. and we are off!


Thats going to be a lot of hangovers!

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 115
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 6:54:36 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7228
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

144th Rgt and Guards Bde will attack Rabaul and immediately after PM. During the same period we'll land at Shortland, Lunga and in the lower Solomons.
KB will support these landings and will try to look for some target of opportunity raids into the allies sealanes




I assume you mean they will attack PM after Rabaul? The other bases can be taken concurrently. There are a lot of small SNLF units around for the unoccupied ones. A few units arrive at Saipan early as well and you should plan to use some fast transport TFs with CMs or something to take some smaller bases.

There won't be much in the seaplanes early for the KB, so best to let it run back to support PM. That's the one where you need it most, but Allied CA/CL TFs will most likely be waiting in the Solomons early so it's best to have good support for all of it. No need to hurry if the KB is on the way.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 116
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 10:18:04 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

144th Rgt and Guards Bde will attack Rabaul and immediately after PM. During the same period we'll land at Shortland, Lunga and in the lower Solomons.
KB will support these landings and will try to look for some target of opportunity raids into the allies sealanes




I assume you mean they will attack PM after Rabaul? The other bases can be taken concurrently. There are a lot of small SNLF units around for the unoccupied ones. A few units arrive at Saipan early as well and you should plan to use some fast transport TFs with CMs or something to take some smaller bases.

There won't be much in the seaplanes early for the KB, so best to let it run back to support PM. That's the one where you need it most, but Allied CA/CL TFs will most likely be waiting in the Solomons early so it's best to have good support for all of it. No need to hurry if the KB is on the way.



Yup, the idea is to support with the KB the first advances in the southern seas. The order should be this one: Wake, Tarawa-Makin-Baker, then Rabaul+Lunga and then Port Moresby. I'd like to get all of them before mid-Jan 42.
If everything goes well, the Kb may then move back to the Celebes seas in order to join the mini-KB and support a fast conquest of SRA-DEI.

My main concern is the fuel needed for these operations....fuel is very limited in those areas and the AOs are really really slow compared to the KB.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 117
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 10:23:43 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Brad is having some problems in running the latest beta with the MP version...hope he manages to sort it out...

In the meanwhile i managed to make WITP Tracker running! Damian has been great in helping me.... i'm so gratefull!


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 118
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 10:42:02 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3051
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Hope this is as epic as your other game but as an AFB I'm rooting for Q-Ball! Heres to a great game


Thanks Cantona!
Won't be that epic...well, not for japan at least! ...but i'll do my best!


Yeah yeah yeah, u say that now. Then in mid 44 u make an invasion on contineltal USA. We all see it comming

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/9/2012 6:47:44 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 119
RE: Let's start! - 7/9/2012 3:10:43 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1938
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: online
It seems that all Allied players need to at least attempt a "Fortress Palembang". Is Palembang on the Empires short list?

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Mister X (A) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.133