Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Confusing Allied Intel

 
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: Confusing Allied Intel Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:21:13 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


I could name dozends of games that were way out of proportion. Almost every Allied player acts in a totally ahistoric way.



But were those games out of proportion due solely to a-historical play by the Allied player? Or did other factors - skill level of the players, tactical/strategic decisions by either/both players - also have an impact?
I do not understand why so many of those who chose to play Japan insist on a-historical benefits while at the same time acknowledging that the game will end in the historical result.



When in any game will the Allied player be forced to consider the civilian populations of Singapore, Batavia or Manila and offer those locations relatively free of charge to the Japanese player?

Instead we regularly see protracted sieges in those locations that would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians....which is the primary reason Singapore and Java capitulated as quickly as they did.






When in any game will the Japanese player be forced to confront the actual over-whelming logistical and man-power restraints that prevented Japan from invading India and Australia, and over-running all of China, in real life?


Have you tried my Mod? Have you tried DBB Scen 28 v C?



quote:


Again, why do those who play the Japanese side insist that rationalizing a-historical "what-ifs" is legitimate for Japan, but not for the Allied side?



No one said the Allied player is not free from playing a game with good torpedoes...hell that doesn't even require a house rule and is designed as an alternative in the game.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 31
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:28:53 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
Is your mod available in the Scenario forum? I would cetainly be interested in checking it out, as well as the DBB Scen 28 v C.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 32
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:51:45 PM   
pharmy

 

Posts: 272
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war.


I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.


I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?




Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I always agree to do the midway invasion at the historic dates with just 4 carriers. I couldn't bear the fact that I act different from reality and that this is just a game - and not reality!

Actually, USS America and me spend hours for each turn tu read historic records where our ships have to be when, which airgroups have to do what. If the results aren't historic, we redo the turn until it is exactly as it was IRL.

Where wouzld this end, when everyone assumed that WitP AE is just a game? My sword is already next to me for seppuku once we reach 1945!



Yes, AE is a game.
I merely wonder why JFBs insist on the ability for Japan to deviate from historical deficiencies while denying the same ability to the Allies?

do they?

I could name dozends of games that were way out of proportion. Almost every Allied player acts in a totally ahistoric way.



But were those games out of proportion due solely to a-historical play by the Allied player? Or did other factors - skill level of the players, tactical/strategic decisions by either/both players - also have an impact?
I do not understand why so many of those who chose to play Japan insist on a-historical benefits while at the same time acknowledging that the game will end in the historical result.



Army ciphers were never broken, but the game assumes they were, so that pretty a-historical. I think army prepping is fair game to rectify this, but naval tricks are a bit different. Garrisons-the Chinese of course had excellent intel, but so did the Japanese on Chinese and Allied forces in the China. Every Chinese airbase should have coastwatchers for it to be realistic.

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 33
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 2:04:54 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Is your mod available in the Scenario forum? I would cetainly be interested in checking it out, as well as the DBB Scen 28 v C.


I had an earlier version of my mod up for a while....I took it down as I am currently revising it. One issue is it is not AI friendly.

DBB can be found HERE

< Message edited by treespider -- 6/29/2012 2:05:13 PM >


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 34
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 2:25:22 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 2860
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
...

< Message edited by Mundy -- 6/29/2012 2:36:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 35
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 2:30:29 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Is your mod available in the Scenario forum? I would cetainly be interested in checking it out, as well as the DBB Scen 28 v C.


I had an earlier version of my mod up for a while....I took it down as I am currently revising it. One issue is it is not AI friendly.

DBB can be found HERE



Thank you.

I have downloaded DBB Scen 28 v C, looks very good, very interesting. I look forward to your finished mod.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 36
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 2:47:24 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


I guess some AFB want to force Japan to move exactly as IRL, so they can intercept the KB in Midway and don't have to worry after that any more. The Japanese instead want to find a way to win the war militarily...



Trust me...the Japanese player can lose all six CV's in KB in one fell swoop on May 15, 1942 without having to go to Midway, and in spite of knowing exactly where the American carriers are...at least while playing DBB Scen 28 v C against Mundy....well played my friend... well played.

And that's the way it is ment to be - BECAUSE its a game!
And there are some who lost half of the KB in the second turn of the game

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 37
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 3:41:12 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 17874
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war.


I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.


I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?




Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I always agree to do the midway invasion at the historic dates with just 4 carriers. I couldn't bear the fact that I act different from reality and that this is just a game - and not reality!

Actually, USS America and me spend hours for each turn tu read historic records where our ships have to be when, which airgroups have to do what. If the results aren't historic, we redo the turn until it is exactly as it was IRL.

Where wouzld this end, when everyone assumed that WitP AE is just a game? My sword is already next to me for seppuku once we reach 1945!




_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 38
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 10:53:09 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6352
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.


I don't understand, would you find this OK if I called them "strategies" instead of "tricks"? Seems like semantics

I play both sides, and I don't have an issue with my Japanese opponent using these strategies without asking me.

Maybe that's me, but I think there is a difference between this, and say, using Para fragments to drop odds on a long stack or driving AKs ahead of your CVs to soak off air attacks. Those are expoits of game combat engine.


No, its because you call them tricks and approach them with that mindset.

You are not using your skills to maximise the forces at hand, which may be ahistorical but within the game.

You are using your knowledge, totally unknown to the japanese empire, that the AFB gets reasonably good intel and are deliberatly playing the game engine and not the game.

But, If you think it profitable to move your forces all over the place dont complain if the AFB starts sinking ships or that nobody is properly prepped to defend anywhere, if you keep moving KB or heavy surface fleets around dont be surprised that fuel stocks start running low.

As I said, if you can get an opponent happy to play against your style these things dont matter, but its interesting what advantages the JFB think they need to play this game.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 39
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 11:59:12 PM   
racndoc


Posts: 2503
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
Q-Ball....here is a response to your original question.

Another Japanese counterintelligence trick is to splt your divisions up into fragments.....different fragments can prep for different targets and the Allies have no way of knowing which fragments are the largest or which target is the real one.

My current opponent in the AE touney game has repeatedly used this tactic and its very effective....especially when used in conjunction with the bogus routing orders.

As an almost exclusive Allied player I find that trying to identify accurate intel from all the "noise" is one of the funnest aspects of the game.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 40
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 12:16:44 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15576
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Do any Japanese players even look at the SigInt report? After a 20th time I get nuggets like "Heavy Radio Traffic detected in San Francisco", I just decided to skip it.

Is there ANYTHING in there worth using?


I look at it every turn hoping for something useful. On occasion, I'll spot a TF in the open ocean but have no idea what's there. If I have a sub nearby, I'll go for a gander and a possible shot.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 41
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 9:03:10 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

No, its because you call them tricks and approach them with that mindset.

You are not using your skills to maximise the forces at hand, which may be ahistorical but within the game.

You are using your knowledge, totally unknown to the japanese empire, that the AFB gets reasonably good intel and are deliberatly playing the game engine and not the game.

But, If you think it profitable to move your forces all over the place dont complain if the AFB starts sinking ships or that nobody is properly prepped to defend anywhere, if you keep moving KB or heavy surface fleets around dont be surprised that fuel stocks start running low.

As I said, if you can get an opponent happy to play against your style these things dont matter, but its interesting what advantages the JFB think they need to play this game.


I have to disagree with you. The allied player receives far more intel on Japanese units than they did IRL. And they get it immediately. IRL that intel that is received on the same turn it occurred often took days, if not longer, to decode and analyze.

One of the biggest ahistorical intel bonanzas tha allied player gets is the revelation of Japanese aircraft unit movements on the turn they transferred. There has been many a turn where I've sent air units to a base that I hadn't used in some time only to see it bombed to smithereens the next turn by allied heavies. Yet its funny that I never hear allied players complain about this.

And as someone else said, the Japanese army codes were NEVER broken so why should the Allied player get free intel on army units outside of China that the allies never received in real life? It should be perfectly permisible for a Japanese player to conceal army intentions if we are going to maintain historicalness.

Q-ball's approach is no different than that of a diligent commander changing codes on a routine basis. The game engine does not allow the Japanese player that option so not assigning a destination for a TF or prepping for a different target is permissible IMO. The allied player has the same option to track radio intel and reveal TF locations as the Japanese player does.

There are many gamey tactics that both sides can exploit if they have the will to do so. I don't count Q-ball's amongst them.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 42
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 3:39:53 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6916
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online
Chez is absolutely correct on that airfield advantage; it's pretty huge for the Allies, and completely one-sided. The Allies can stock an airbase and launch a surprise, the Japanese cannot. I'm OK with it as Japan, it's just part of the game, and you have to account for that.

I play both sides, but one more observation: Those who accuse one group of players, AFBs or JFBs of having a hidden agenda around the rules....usually have a hidden agenda around the rules.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 43
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 4:45:26 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I play both sides, but one more observation: Those who accuse one group of players, AFBs or JFBs of having a hidden agenda around the rules....usually have a hidden agenda around the rules.


I couldn't agree more Q-Ball.

I'm tired of all the AFB/JFB rhetoric myself. As soon as I see either expressed in a confrontational way in a post, I tune out or simply green button. Unless you play solely against the AI, you need an opponent of one side or the other. I suggest more people keep that in mind before they start insulting people because of an opposing viewpoint or a preference for the side they choose to play. The whole game is ahistorical and a what if. Those that complain the loudest tend to want a RL simulation of the war, rather than be challenged by the game experience and what a human opponent can bring to the table. The game isn't perfect, but then neither are most people.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 44
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 4:50:45 PM   
Hanzberger


Posts: 921
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline

edit


< Message edited by Hanzberger -- 6/30/2012 4:52:56 PM >


_____________________________

Planning for #17 Ironman Tier2

Japan AC wire chart here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2769286&mpage=1&key=?

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 45
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 4:52:40 PM   
Hanzberger


Posts: 921
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.


What is the problem with using intel deception? The Japanese get NO intel other than radio traffic messages which might be something good or might not. In the war they actually had a lot more than this.

Isn't the goal of a player on either side to attempt to improve upon historical results while having fun doing it? Veiling your intentions takes many forms in game. This is just a small part of it, and in no way detracts from the experience of either side. It should make the game MORE interesting, and more like real intel, as stated above, where players have to sift through carefully and make some sense of what is happening.


Totally agree. I actually never realized the Allied Intel could pick up on "prepping units". IMO the Axis player has to work twice as hard as the Allied player. AFB's are worried about bad intel.....really? Just got done watching an episode of 'Crusade in the Pacific'. The Americans produced more men and material then all Axis countries combined. In the game the AFB's get how many Essex Carriers? and how much of everything else? IRL Midway could have gone totally wrong for the Americans. But I guess because it didn't then it shouldn't in the game....
If your IJFB is not thinking outside the box and playing within agreed HR's, why are you playing? News flash....ALLIES WIN~!
Bad intel, really?

_____________________________

Planning for #17 Ironman Tier2

Japan AC wire chart here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2769286&mpage=1&key=?

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 46
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 8:30:23 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Chez is absolutely correct on that airfield advantage; it's pretty huge for the Allies, and completely one-sided. The Allies can stock an airbase and launch a surprise, the Japanese cannot. I'm OK with it as Japan, it's just part of the game, and you have to account for that.

I play both sides, but one more observation: Those who accuse one group of players, AFBs or JFBs of having a hidden agenda around the rules....usually have a hidden agenda around the rules.

They usually play only the other side. That's why they can't see all the advantages they get - or they accept them as "code-given and thus intended". No matter whether it is the intel or the amphib-bonus. Both sides equally can profit...


You are absolutly right, Lemon!

< Message edited by Historiker -- 6/30/2012 8:31:13 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 47
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 8:47:52 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
No I am biased and have a hidden agenda to shift the game slowly into true realism.

JAPAN was superior in ANYTHING. They could have easily won if the Allies didnt cheat with their dishonorable material and technical superiority.The Ise could have easily sunk any Iowa class Battleship. The Japanese were the good guys and fought for the greater good of Asia against the forces of Evil. Also Roosevelt knew they they were coming for Pearl Harbor and Santa Clause (who is an American invention) sabotaged that float plane radio at Midway. Otherwise the Japanese would have won due to their perfect plan from awesome Yamamoto.

So, its out now and you cant do anything against it MUAHAHAhahaha

< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 6/30/2012 8:49:22 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 48
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 8:55:50 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21096
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Q-Ball pulled one of the greatest tricks I've ever seen in our match.  He had India by the short hairs, then the Aliles came back and were making Japan pay with interest, and just as the Allies were organizing their first great invasion of the war, Q-Ball vanished to the Eastern Front in Russia!  I knew he was there.  I could see him.  I even tried to cajole him to come back.  But it was no use.  He was gone. 



It sure is good to have him back.  Him and his tricks!  He's one of the finest IJ players I know.  Others can vouch for that.  And more will in the future.

(P.S.  Aint it grand to also get GreyJoy back?!)

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 49
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 10:04:03 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 6/30/2012 10:09:50 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 50
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/30/2012 11:41:33 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

.

exactly what I thought! You took the words right out of my mouth!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 51
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 7/1/2012 2:08:51 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I think the game tries to do two things with "history". First it tries, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, to ignore situational "events" or single events. However it also tries to build in certain historical underpinnings. For example the fact that the USSR can't enter the war until certain things happen or a date arrives. This is an underpinning event and we as players should not try to "trick" this event in a substantial way so as to change the playability that the designers tried to build in to reflect that underpinning historical assertion; the USSR was not going to enter the war until it saw certain factors line up. Someone joked about how they built into the game the battle of Midway, by limiting the KB to four carriers, etc. Clearly this is not "built into the game" as it is not an underpinning event (and yes I realize the poster was only pulling our "leg"). But I would argue that the US intel advantage was an underpinning event that the game engine tries to replicate in a less than perfect way (which is what "gaming" is all about!). So while I certainly think it is fair game to try to derail intel, I would suggest that if such "tricks" change the underpinning assumptions such as the US did actually have relatively speaking, "good intel", then that would not be a good thing UNLESS both players agree to it, then of course, as suggested above, it is fine! Just some thoughts given to a very long thread that I certainly didn't mean to derail! Thanks, Hal

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 7/2/2012 11:55:03 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Confusing Allied Intel 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

0.240