Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 12:12:29 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Hi,

re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.

5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq

44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present

251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army

just a few things i've noted.

cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 121
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 12:53:41 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3915
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
In Scen 2 you've omitted the HMS Exeter from the Allied OOB. That's about 1/2 the gun power of the ABDA Fleet.

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 122
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 1:06:29 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi,

re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.

5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq

44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present

251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army

just a few things i've noted.

Thanks Iron Duke ill stop whinging about 36th UK as I agree with you had I done my research right first time around I wouldnt have egg on my face only the 26th Indian Bde is missing from 36th UK Div and I also can find no reference to a 251st UK Inf Bde.

5th Indian is early and should probably be replaced by 19th Indian which was present at the time of the Ceylon incursion 5th Indian arriving per Iron Dukes post.

Only one of 44ths Brigades is already represented the other two were deployed quite late in the war as 77th Parachute and 14th Air Landing and may already be incorporated as normal Infantry Brigades in other divisions (I am fairly sure 77th Para is represented as one of the Bdes of 3rd Indian which is included as a proxy for the Chindit Bdes)

Other missing Bdes

Missing is 3rd Indian Inf Bde on the NW frontier a pre war formation and 150th Indian Bde from 1944 which was used for garrison purposes.

So I guess either remove 44th entirely (as its motorised Bde when it was an armoured divison is already seperately identified and its para Bde is already listed) and instead put in independnet Bdes for 26th/ 3rd and 150th with varying arrival times or just leave it as is but I stop whinging about missing Bdes.

My main issue is not actually the 42 ORBAT despite my many posts on the subject


My main beef is the 43 buildup which is a tad slow IMO and doesnt seem to really happen until late 44.

Andy

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 123
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 5:05:27 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3915
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
Photo of one of the omitted CG Cutters: Duane as AGC. All of these cutters: BIBB, DUANE, CAMPBELL, SPENCER, TANEY, and INGHAM were converted to this configuration in 1944 and served in the Pacific from late 44 through the end of the war. Only TANEY served in the Pacific as an escort type; the others were all serving in the Atlantic.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by spence -- 1/15/2005 3:56:55 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 124
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 6:05:46 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3915
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
CGC Taney - longest lived Pearl Harbor veteran. Armament configuration of 2 x 5"/51 cal, 4 x 3"/50 cal, 6 x 20mm, Y-gun DC thrower and stern racks (12/41 - 9/42). Subsequently rearmed with 4 x 5"/38 cal and additional ASW weaponry and deployed to the Atlantic/Med on escort duties.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by spence -- 1/15/2005 4:01:44 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 125
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 9:49:02 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
The first Yamato upgrade (class 501) has no 6.1in guns on the right side, but two turrets at R. All scenarios. Must be a typo.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 126
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 10:46:30 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6391
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
When the Yamatos wre refitted, the Port and Starbard 6.1" guns were landed in favor of more AA.
However, it should be 1 Turret forward, 1 aft. Not 2 rear.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 127
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 10:53:04 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
I looked over the sizes of Japanese naval shipyards. They don´t seem to conform to what was built there in RL. I went through my reference material and figured ot the maximum number of ships that were built at a single yard at the same time. Under the WitP model, to have the historical building rate, each of the yards should have the capacity to generate building points equaling the sum of the durabilities of all ships building there.

This is the list of the eight most important yards I came up with (only surface ships DD and bigger):

Kure Navy Yard (Loc Hiroshima/Kure) was building in 11/41:
Yamato (185)
Nisshin (45)
Oyodo (33)
Total: 263

Yokosuka Navy Yard (Loc Tokyo)was building in 8/41:
Shinano (180)
Shokaku (100)
Sum: 280

Uraga Docks, Yokosuka (Loc Tokyo) was building in 8/40:
4 x Kagero DD (44)
1 x Yugumo DD (11)
Sum: 55
Sum for Loc Tokyo: 335

Mitsubishi, Nagasaki (Loc Nagasaki) was building in 4/42:
Musashi (185)
Junyo (50)
4 x Akitsuki DD (52)

Sum: 287

Kawasaki, Kobe (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 8/41:
Zuikaku (100)
Hiyo (50)
Taiho (115)
Sum: 265

Fujinagata, Osaka (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 1/40:
5 x Kagero DD (55)

Sum for Loc Osaka/Kobe: 320

Sasebo Navy Yard (Loc Sasebo) was building in 11/43:
Ibuki (40)
Yahagi (27)
Sakawa (27)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 120

Maizuru Navy Yard (Loc Maizuru) was building in 8/41:
Shimakaze (13)
2 x Yugumo DD (22)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 61

The Naval Shipyard numbers as they are:
Nagasaki 292 (should be at least 287)
Sasebo 0 (should be at least 120)
Hiroshima/Kure 45 (should be at least 263)
Maizuru 308 (should be about 61)
Osaka/Kobe 42 (should be at least 320)
Tokyo 280 (should be at least 335)

The reason I say "at least" is because at most of these locations submarines were building, too, amounting to between 60 and 250 building points. I´ve left out submarines because my sources don´t give exact building dates and because I think that their durability numbers don´t properly reflect the time and effort needed to build them, especially the late-war types ST and STS which both have a Durability of 36, surpassing the CL Oyodo(and meaning they draw resources for a year), but were nailed together in RL in a couple of months using sectionalized methods.

So, according to these numbers
- Nagasaki is about right
- Tokyo is a bit small
- Maizuru is wildly oversize
- the other locations are far too small

I´m sure my methodology can be criticized, but in the context of WitP this should make sense.

At least downsize Maizuru and increase Hiroshima and Osaka, they each had one of the "big four" yards.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 128
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 10:58:21 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
Class 501 is the update before they swapped the 6.1in side turrets for three 5in/40 mounts each. Musashi was sunk in that configuration. Class 501 has a total of 12-6.1in, 12-5in. I think the guy doing this class selected Facing "R" instead of "RS" by mistake.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 129
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/15/2005 11:00:50 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6391
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Ok, I get ya. Wasn't sure when the Jap upgrades were, I assumed 501 was the '44 configuration. My mistake.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 130
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/16/2005 6:49:55 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
It seems that the 18th IJA Division is a little bit overstrenght in Scen. 15/16.

Both its 23rd Brigade (only consisting of 56th Rgt. + 12 75mm Mountain Guns and the 12th Engineer Bn. at this time; also called the Takumi Detachment) and its 35th Bde (only reinforced 124th Regiment; also called Kawaguchi Detachment) are seperately in the game (which makes sense because this formations were used in the initial landings and operated independent from their parent division). 18th IJA Division had still a square organisation and its Brigades were different in function and makeup from the Japanese Independent and Independent Mixed Brigades. Thus the division should be reduced in strength accordingly!

K

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 131
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/18/2005 1:20:59 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Can we get the Battalion sized

44th (RM) Commando
42nd (RM) Commando
1st Commando
5th Commando

Units arriving in late 43 please with an Allied Commando Squad to go with them.

I would rather have individual Bns than 3rd Commando Bde for ease of FT when attacking rather than one Brigade.

I would suggest that at least the army commandoes are Parachute Trained

Andy

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 132
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/22/2005 12:31:02 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Any way at all we can set a few of the UK Squns to be India as in every game I run out of British Pilots very very quickly

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 133
ANZAC Air Group Designations - 1/22/2005 8:06:40 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2192
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline
I have just upgraded from U.V. and was a little disappointed to see that historical errors corrected in U.V have reappeared in WTIP.

The official designation for air force units from contemporary sources is "No. 75 Squadron RAAF" which is the same format used right across all the British Commonwealth forces.

I can understand this formal format is considered too large for the game data fields (though it does fit, try it), I feel that a historical designation for units in a historical game is appropriate. The British and Canadian air groups are labeled by an abbreviated format that still reflects the flavor of the historical designations so I think the ANZAC units should also follow suit.

Could someone please update the RAAF and RNZAF Air Group designations to the same format as the Canadian air groups (ie "75 Squadron RAAF").

At least it's better than the "75th FS RAAF" found in the original release of Uncommon Valor....

(posted on both 1.4 OOB and Combined Historical Scenario threads)


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 134
December 7 OOB corrections - 1/26/2005 12:43:23 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
Just a few minor corrections...

a) The Theater HQ for PatWing 1 (VP-11, VP-12, VP-14) should be Central Pacific.
b) The Theater HQ for PatWing 2 (VP-22, VP-23, VP-24) should be South Pacific.
c) The Theater HQ for PatWing 4 (VP-42, VP-43, VP-44) should be North Pacific.
d) VMSB-231 currently has a delay of 420830, which doesn't make much sense since they were being ferried by Lexington to Midway Island on Dec 7, 1941 and they participated in the Battle of Midway. So, VMSB-231 should have 18 aircraft and should be with Lexington at the beginning of the game. [Note: Historically, VMSB-231 didn't arrive at Midway until a few months later. Lexington returned to Pearl before completing the mission and the Marines ended up ferrying the aircraft from Pearl to Midway with an escort of a Catalina.]
e) Lexington and Enterprise Task Force locations should be swapped. Enterprise was returning from Wake Island and Lexington was heading to Midway.
finally,
f) The course of the Enterprise TF (formerly the Lexington TF) should be moving away from Wake and heading back to Pearl Harbor, not moving toward Wake. This would eliminate unhistorical airstrike by the AI carrier against the Wake invasion fleet.

< Message edited by eMonticello -- 1/25/2005 10:47:34 PM >


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 135
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/29/2005 7:19:13 AM   
Packrat

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 4/16/2002
From: Idaho
Status: offline
RE: Ki-43-I "Oscar"
The Ki-43-I in the game is the Ki-43-Ib with 1x 7.7 mm and 1x 12.7mm machineguns.
Actual production for the Ki-43-I series:

Ki-43-Ia: aprox. 35 produced between Apr and Jun 41
Ki-43-Ib: aprox. 45 produced between Jul and Aug 41
Ki-43-Ic: over 800 produced beginning Sep 41.

The Ia, with 2x 7.7 and the Ib with 1x 7.7 & 1x 12.7 guns were distributed between the 59th and 64th Sentais who used them in the Malaya - Burma area at the opening of hostilities. these aircraft were rapidly replaced by the Ki-43-Ic with 2x 12.7 guns and the older aircraft sent to the Akeno flying school.

It would probably be more useful to just change the type to the Ki-43-Ic and use it for the entire early series as the OB now uses the Ib model.

_____________________________

Packrat

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 136
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/29/2005 9:47:09 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6391
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Packrat)
Post #: 137
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/29/2005 5:08:42 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Tanker, because its all up to us now!

Packrat,
The Oscar-1 was produced in the 'C' variant the most but the Japanese pilots at that stage of the war loved their 7.7's so they had mechanics strip off one of the 12.7's and replace it with a 7.7 .

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 138
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/29/2005 5:35:48 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?


The mods had to reduce the number of sticky threads on the main page, I just now found where they put this thread... Go Figure

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 139
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 1/31/2005 11:27:15 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 140
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 12:23:19 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
British units:

48th Light AA Rgt is at Khota Bharu at start of Scen. 15/16. It left the UK (from the Clyde) on 12-07-41 and was never send to Malaya. Instead it was transported to Batavia where it eventually surrendered.

125th Anti-Tank Regt is not in the game (it arrived together with 18th British Division but was not part of her; and it seems that it is not included in the OOB of the 18th Division). It arrived at Bombay on 12-27-41 and at Singapore on 02-05-42.

35th Light AA Rgt is not in the game. It left Durban/SA on 12-24-41 and arrived at Singapore on 01-13-42.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 141
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 1:05:30 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 142
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 4:58:57 PM   
Tallyman662


Posts: 1252
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline
Scenario 12

Leaders are missing at start for about 1/3 of Chinese and Russian land units.

Att start, in Colombo, The Royal Sovereign Class BBs have a discrepancy in their floatplanes. One member of the class (Resolution) has floatplane, the other three members of the class (Ramilles, Royal Sovereign, and Revenge) do not have a floatplane assigned.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 143
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 7:06:23 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron


Booboos.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 144
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 8:00:34 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8143
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron


Booboos.


Is that Boo-Boo or Boob-oh!

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 2/2/2005 12:31:23 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 145
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 8:15:08 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6391
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Boobs?

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 146
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 8:42:27 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13409
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
This is the OOB, not the BOOB thread

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 147
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 8:55:30 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
My army shall be equiped with Uma Thurman as a morale building asset.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 148
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/2/2005 9:00:42 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

Also, up through July 43, the allied player has the 6 prewar carriers and the Essex and one CVL (there may be more essexes, but I don't have a perfect memory). Factor in the expected losses (probably 4 CV's), and you don't have all that many CV's in July 43.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 149
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 2/3/2005 3:56:46 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)


He's the guy who does not look like Clark Gable...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.094