Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

ASW tactics

 
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 >> ASW tactics Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
ASW tactics - 10/23/2013 11:02:46 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14425
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Let's say you have a TF with ASW escort included, but you want another layer of protection by having an ASW TF(s) following by 0 hexes. Stop repeating after me, it's not funny. Now let's say you have 4 ASW ships available to do the job. Seriously, stop repeating after me. Is it better to have one ASW TF of four ships or two ASW TFs of two ships?
Post #: 1
RE: ASW tactics - 10/23/2013 11:19:44 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24912
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Correct - either one of four ships or two of two ships each. But the following might be in the wrong order. You might want the convoy to follow the ASW group. If they are stopped for a while (like at an island invasion) then maybe the order of following won't make any difference.

I suppose with two groups of two ships then one group can go home to rearm while the other one stays on duty.

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 2
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 3:58:48 AM   
Capt Hornblower


Posts: 238
Joined: 10/29/2010
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline
Personally, I favor 4 1-ship ASW TFs.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 4:17:52 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14425
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

Personally, I favor 4 1-ship ASW TFs.


If it works for you it could work for me. At least others are thinking about this.

(in reply to Capt Hornblower)
Post #: 4
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 5:48:36 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Actually, the best course is to set the ASW TF to patrol around the projected track of the TF with a reaction range of 3 to 4. Then put up a good day and night air search cover. The ASW TF will react multiple times and might attack multiple subs in the area. As long as the convoy has decent escort, I prefer this method and think it results in more sub sinkings. Remember, use good naval commanders with high aggression values.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 5
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 12:28:41 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
The concern I have with an ASW TF in the lead followed by a convoy, is that the ASW TF would outrun the convoy as the TF would cruise at 15 knots (speed 4) and most convoys are at 12 knots (speed 3) thus the "close" cover would quickly be lost. Or am I reading the tea leaves wrong and that the lead ASW TF would slow down?

Why I ask is that I learned long ago to put my SLOWEST CV TF in the lead of multiple Allied CV TFs (because of the penalty for too many CV planes in one TF) as to do otherwise would leave a CV TF behind!

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 10/24/2013 12:33:11 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 4:20:11 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14028
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
I seem to find more success the more ships I run in an ASW convoy. I suspect this is why it was limited at some point from an larger possible size to only four ships max. More ships thus have a chance to attack once contact is made, and also if one runs out of DCs others may not have and it can stay out longer.

I run them most often as crsutton mentioned. Around the area of the convoy's path and with a react, although i prefer only two. The air finds them though and I might change the patrol every day to match sightings and changes in course for the convoys.

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/24/2013 4:23:05 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 4:58:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I seem to find more success the more ships I run in an ASW convoy. I suspect this is why it was limited at some point from an larger possible size to only four ships max. More ships thus have a chance to attack once contact is made, and also if one runs out of DCs others may not have and it can stay out longer.


There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 8
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 6:16:08 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9126
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I seem to find more success the more ships I run in an ASW convoy. I suspect this is why it was limited at some point from an larger possible size to only four ships max. More ships thus have a chance to attack once contact is made, and also if one runs out of DCs others may not have and it can stay out longer.


There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.


I've noticed that in 3- and 4-ship TFs, rarely do all get involved in the action. It's usually 1 or more often 2 ships, and sometimes 3.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 6:23:34 PM   
Sieppo


Posts: 757
Joined: 12/15/2012
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I seem to find more success the more ships I run in an ASW convoy. I suspect this is why it was limited at some point from an larger possible size to only four ships max. More ships thus have a chance to attack once contact is made, and also if one runs out of DCs others may not have and it can stay out longer.


There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.


I've noticed that in 3- and 4-ship TFs, rarely do all get involved in the action. It's usually 1 or more often 2 ships, and sometimes 3.


I also feel this might be close to the truth. I thought 4 ships might help finding subs but rarely more than one drop charges. Subs might also fire more against lonely targets..

< Message edited by Sieppo -- 10/24/2013 6:26:55 PM >


_____________________________

- Playing Japan is hell. Sweet sweet hell.
- Failing CAPs and escorts since 12/2012.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 10
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 6:49:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I seem to find more success the more ships I run in an ASW convoy. I suspect this is why it was limited at some point from an larger possible size to only four ships max. More ships thus have a chance to attack once contact is made, and also if one runs out of DCs others may not have and it can stay out longer.


There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.


I've noticed that in 3- and 4-ship TFs, rarely do all get involved in the action. It's usually 1 or more often 2 ships, and sometimes 3.


In a 4- I see that. In a 3- I'm not as sure. The issue might be though that in a 1- or a 2- the contact breaks contact and gets away with fewer or no DCs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 11
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 6:59:34 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
I use three DDs to an ASW TF, if possible. I don't know if sonar triangulation is modeled, directly or indirectly, but we all have our foibles.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 12
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 7:30:25 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I always use 4 myself as 45 sq miles of ocean is pretty big

The reason that only one drops is because the other escorts are out of position. Rarely do more than one drop but it does happen.

I should also point out that there is code in the game that allows subs to attack any ship in a convoy regardless of the number of escorts. There was a thread a while ago discussing this. Basicly, there is (I'm making these numbers up) a 10% chance to ignore escorts and hit a simi-valuable target, i.e. non-escort. There is a much smaller chance to high a major target, like a CV regardless of the number of DDs in the TF.

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 13
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 8:25:47 PM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 656
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline
Another reason to have the main TF to lead and have the ASW TF follow is that you probably don't want the TF to follow the ASWs as they go gallivanting all over the ocean chasing subs (I speak hypothetically, of course). Seems to me it's best to have the main TF proceed on its intended course and let the ASWs return, rather than the other way around.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 14
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 8:58:50 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I rarely see my ASW TFs move off their pattern. Granted I rarely spend PPs to put a good leader in command of the TF so that may be the reason why.....

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to CaptDave)
Post #: 15
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 9:01:25 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.

Without opening the overcoat, there’s a lot of info out there that suggests why this may be so. The code is rather primitive and doesn’t work in double precision. In broad, each algorithm follows a rather simple statistical profile. In fine, certain of the algorithms are related through passed variables.

It’s pretty fundamental that the more shots you get (the more selections you get from Shewharts bowl) the greater the probability you will pull the prize. That was the fundamental problem with the Japanese E types. They had enough aggregated “shots” to ensure a 92% hit rate.

Same thing is true for ASW ships in a TF. Put in lots and you get guaranteed kills. Not goodnik.

So michaelm did the same “diminishing returns” thing for ASW that he did for Arty oh, so long ago. It was in the term-decreasing DLs for the next subsequent ship. Don’t really care what the IRL model would be, it is what it is and seems to work.

So, given diminishing returns, one can figure out where the high points are and get a rough estimate of sigma. 3 ships work well within the mean. Doesn’t mean 4 are bad, they are ok, just not significantly better. 5 is at the end of the distribution but a really good die roll might let it play.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 16
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 9:55:18 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9126
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I've seen ASW TFs react a hex, sometimes 2, but it seems to require (as it should and does for other TF reactions) a good DL on the target.

I rarely see more than one ship actually prosecute an attack on a sub. I was pulling my 2- and 3-ship participation from the combat report screen, as frequently a sub will be sighted by the TF and only 2-3 ships of a 4-ship ASW TF will show up there. It is not uncommon for multiple ships to "continue to search" even if only one of them attacks, however.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 17
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 10:11:36 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
There is a recent thread (in the last month or so) on ASW where Symon/JWE says the algorithm is optimal at three ASW ships in the TF, not four. I believe I'm remembering that correctly. Don't know why that would be, but he's seen the code. In RL I could see why, especially in low visibility. Three would allow a good "round-robin" with one dropping and two listening. But I don't know how that would be modeled in the game's odds. I have been experimenting myself though.

Without opening the overcoat, there’s a lot of info out there that suggests why this may be so. The code is rather primitive and doesn’t work in double precision. In broad, each algorithm follows a rather simple statistical profile. In fine, certain of the algorithms are related through passed variables.

It’s pretty fundamental that the more shots you get (the more selections you get from Shewharts bowl) the greater the probability you will pull the prize. That was the fundamental problem with the Japanese E types. They had enough aggregated “shots” to ensure a 92% hit rate.

Same thing is true for ASW ships in a TF. Put in lots and you get guaranteed kills. Not goodnik.

So michaelm did the same “diminishing returns” thing for ASW that he did for Arty oh, so long ago. It was in the term-decreasing DLs for the next subsequent ship. Don’t really care what the IRL model would be, it is what it is and seems to work.

So, given diminishing returns, one can figure out where the high points are and get a rough estimate of sigma. 3 ships work well within the mean. Doesn’t mean 4 are bad, they are ok, just not significantly better. 5 is at the end of the distribution but a really good die roll might let it play.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

Ciao. JWE



I think so in broad strokes. It's good to know there is at least some variable passing. I know you're not referring to RL, but that is exactly what would happen on a tactical net. Also, subsequent shots might be less accurate due to ensonified water from the preceding DC steam bubble. The two factors would work against each other.

For the Allies, knowing that three will do fine is a very important fact to know in 1942. Fuel and hulls.

I know there's no sensor models and a lot rides on DL. And it's easy as a player to see the effect of adding the K-guns in the first 1942 upgrades to the hit percentage. I'm probably never going to fully understand why having three K-guns is slightly better than four, but that's OK.

Thanks for confirming my memory isn't fully shot.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 18
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 10:29:19 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Thanks for confirming my memory isn't fully shot.

You are welcome. I kinda think you get it, Moose.

Keep on keeping on. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 19
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 10:36:23 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Thanks John. Now I have to go around and rearrange my ASW TFs. On the bright side, I get a third more TFs out of it.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 20
RE: ASW tactics - 10/24/2013 10:50:50 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I rarely see my ASW TFs move off their pattern. Granted I rarely spend PPs to put a good leader in command of the TF so that may be the reason why.....



It may have been changed but I remember leaving the reaction set on six and then had some ASW TFs make multiple reactions deep into enemy air space. Leaving them sitting ducks the next day phase. I rarely set reaction beyond 3 as a result. The key though is the DL of the surrounding enemy forces. To have good ASW results you need to have a good air search pattern overhead. With night naval search set as well to get them to react more during the night phase.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 21
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 1:14:19 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Thanks John. Now I have to go around and rearrange my ASW TFs. On the bright side, I get a third more TFs out of it.


And for the Allies early a lot of AMs and KVs as TF escorts. I do a LOT of ASW work and constantly short of escorts.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 22
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 1:52:54 AM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
You can't have too many tincans. I could use fleetloads just escorting capital TFs.

More than a few AMs have decent ASW ratings, which is helpful. Later on, DEs help a lot.

I just arrived at three DDs per TF as my basic quality/quantity mix. Not to disparage AMs, KVs & the like.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 2:21:16 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

You can't have too many tincans. I could use fleetloads just escorting capital TFs.

More than a few AMs have decent ASW ratings, which is helpful. Later on, DEs help a lot.

I just arrived at three DDs per TF as my basic quality/quantity mix. Not to disparage AMs, KVs & the like.


The AMs and KVs are for merchant escorts. With them subs will often not attack, or will attack them. Merchants without them are meat. Especially tankers. I remain convinced there's code for lone tankers to blow the Viking horn so Japan can hear them across 300 miles of water and come running to sink 'em.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 24
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 2:26:43 AM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
I escort Troop convoys only & use AutoConvoy to the vast majority of my ports. Important non-Troop convoys might get an escort. I think of it as the cost of doing business - overhead.

There's no statue of me at King's Point, you betcha.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 25
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 8:28:36 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I remain convinced there's code for lone tankers to blow the Viking horn so Japan can hear them across 300 miles of water and come running to sink 'em.




_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 26
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 1:01:03 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

I escort Troop convoys only & use AutoConvoy to the vast majority of my ports. Important non-Troop convoys might get an escort. I think of it as the cost of doing business - overhead.

There's no statue of me at King's Point, you betcha.


Well, I play for VPs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 27
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 2:57:14 PM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It may have been changed but I remember leaving the reaction set on six and then had some ASW TFs make multiple reactions deep into enemy air space. Leaving them sitting ducks the next day phase. I rarely set reaction beyond 3 as a result. The key though is the DL of the surrounding enemy forces. To have good ASW results you need to have a good air search pattern overhead. With night naval search set as well to get them to react more during the night phase.


I keep my reaction range a 2/3, too, since a very agressive commander decided to hunt subs at Sydney while being ordered to protect Brisbane. The DDs get worn out very fast that way and have to dock for repairs far too often.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 28
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 4:29:36 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
What do you guys choose in an ASW TF commander? High naval and aggressiveness?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Banzan)
Post #: 29
RE: ASW tactics - 10/25/2013 4:33:54 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

I escort Troop convoys only & use AutoConvoy to the vast majority of my ports. Important non-Troop convoys might get an escort. I think of it as the cost of doing business - overhead.

There's no statue of me at King's Point, you betcha.


Well, I play for VPs.


Well, so do I. Now, I haven't been beyond 29 May 42 in any game I've started, human or AI. I don't know, I can't state things as actual observations, but, what I have seen as the Allied player is that the Allies haven't enough to escort all that might be wished.

* I use AutoConvoy a lot. I give the AC system about eight DDs in SF and some KVs and a DE or two in Colombo. That's it, that's all AC gets for escorts. What I have seen is a whole lotta dribs and drabs for AC TFs - two or more merchies is unusual. It uses the escorts for some TFs. So I end up with a buncha AC TFs all over the sea lanes. My attrition, afaics, with the penny packets has been minimal. So the IJs end up sinking a 5k Supply manifest. My reaction is, "So what?" I got plenty. You gotta sink a whole megaton of merchie hulls to make a serious difference in VPs, I would think.

* At the same time, I am assembling large long-legged convoys, four, six, eight, a dozen merchies in the TF. Supplies & Fuel. I'm starting to integrate some Resource convoys, but, afaics, there's not a pressing need for these as the Allies - useful, but not a high priority. Nonetheless, I fill 'em up and send them out. Yes, there will be losses - but, so far, my losses have been (to me) surprisingly low. Far from negligible, but not a major concern.

* I absolutely escort every troop convoy, adequately, or more, if available. I don't think I've lost LCUs yet to IJ torps. An important non-troop convoy will get an appropriate escort.

* I send the big convoys to the same places where my ACs are going - I've got almost all ports in the AC system, anyway. So, I send 20K, 50K Supplies to places for further distribution or to pile up in big ports. My Fuel convoys are more like 25 - 35K.

The losses really ain't that bad. The IJs have to find 'em, first, and it's a big map. Stuff gets there - more than adequately.

My ports and approaches are well patrolled. AMs are usually Mine Sweeping - the rest usually ASW.

Anyhow, that's how I see it. Afaics, early war, I ain't got enough ASW vessels to really escort oceanic convoys.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> ASW tactics Page: [1] 2   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

0.191