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: Disaster!

 
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: Disaster! Page: <<   < prev  225 226 [227] 228 229   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 1:43:02 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
July 17th, 1944

Allied bombers pound Honshu...targeting strategic VPs.

No faux invasion bombardments. Yesterdays weren't as damaging as ones prior, but they do more combat damage (which I don't think he knows).

Rail line cut west of Haiphong.

Holding for now at Camh Ranh Bay.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to MBF)
Post #: 6781
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 1:48:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Looks like he is landing supplies from a lone APD to trigger an Amphibious landing bombardment instead of a regular bombardment. If this is somehow more advantageous then doing a regular bombardment I would call it "creative use of the game engine".

To be honest I kind of did something similar in my game with Erik. You can´t place all those cool gun and rocket LCIs in a bombardment TF but you can place them in an amphibious. But I didn´t do it to get a better result. I just wanted to use the cool LCIs. Didn´t work very well though!





I have been waiting for those to show up.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6782
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 1:50:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MBF

He may be using the APD for asw purposes - although this late in the war he should have plenty of DD/DE ships around


No,he is dropping supply with them.

Good thing Allies are methodical because he may stop doing them given the last two days events.

(in reply to MBF)
Post #: 6783
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:00:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
A banner day, despite the bombing, the Allies only gain less than 400 victory points, and I finally get my long awaited 8cm to 12cm AA gun TOE upgrade.

Woohoo.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/16/2016 3:11:14 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6784
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:06:12 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Obligatory look at Nagoya's defenders.

The Armor all has 0 disruption, as the 47mm rapid fire cannon AT units.

A few more days of no amphibious bombardments should let the regiments/brigades and splinters get back to 0 disruption.

In less than 2 weeks I get another division, the 4th Tank Division (with tanks), and the rocket artillery starts showing up. Banzai!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6785
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:08:42 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Better flak will only increase Allied plane losses.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6786
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:15:11 PM   
Drakanel

 

Posts: 253
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
I certainly don't claim to be an expert or anything, but let's be honest here. Those are not amphibious TFs, and the amount of supply dropped is negligible. Those are just Bombardment TFs with one single APD attached. If he had 10 APD per TF I'd say "yes, he's dropping supplies". But with just one, no he's not doing that for the supplies.

It is my opinion that he thinks there is some merit in doing that. For example, I don't know, he may thinks that the ships involved get to shoot more or something like that...

Whether or not that is to be considered an exploit, I don't know. I don't know, for example, if he is actually benefiting from this or not... But I think the intent to gain an advantage is unmistakable.



< Message edited by Drakanel -- 2/16/2016 3:29:52 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6787
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:20:39 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1748
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
But he thinks it gives him an advantage. He would only do that if he knows it is an advantage (sandbox or previous game).

Not great.

_____________________________


(in reply to Drakanel)
Post #: 6788
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:40:27 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Generally speaking amphibious bombardments use up more ammo, especially when there is counter battery fire.

Of course he is doing it for advantage. It is war!

Hopefully, all he is going on is the losses caused, and doesn't see the targeting. I won't be able to hold Nagoya if half his bombardments are Amphibious day in and day out.


(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 6789
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 2:53:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24319
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakanel

I certainly don't claim to be an expert or anything, but let's be honest here. Those are not amphibious TFs, and the amount of supply dropped is negligible. Those are just Bombardment TFs with one single APD attached. If he had 10 APD per TF I'd say "yes, he's dropping supplies". But with just one, no he's not doing that for the supplies.

It is my opinion that he thinks there is some merit in doing that. For example, I don't know, he may thinks that the ships involved get to shoot more or something like that...

Whether or not that is to be considered an exploit, I don't know. I don't know, for example, if he is actually benefiting from this or not... But I think the intent to gain an advantage is unmistakable.



I agree, and I think it is an exploit.

_____________________________


(in reply to Drakanel)
Post #: 6790
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:12:25 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Is the faux amphibious bombardment a serious problem requiring an HR, or can it be counteracted? Maybe you can show us some combat results of that.

Cheers,
CC


The only way I can think of that this is advantageous to just doing a direct bombardment attack is that the "amphibious" TF will (mostly) just shoot back at the units shooting at it - so essentially targeting the units with guns. This may happen anyway in a bombardment attack, and shots aren't "wasted" on AF/port/industry facilities.


That could be significant. There's a nameless AAR out there (OPSEC) that suggests shore bombardments only disrupt support, not combat, units.

Cheers,
CC



I think this came up in either this thread or Lowpe's other AAR thread, although is perhaps not the thing you are referring to, where we covered what gets shot at under each type of bombardment (ground/sea/air) and why. I think earlier in this thread. I know that one of my opponents is of the opinion that non-combat units only get hit by bombardments, but I have seen plenty of shore bombardments that shoot at combat troops at the base. The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 6791
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:14:45 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There is no reason for any HR,unless it is some kind of bug. Which I doubt.

But here you can see the Amphibious TF clearly target art and my heretofore hidden splinters and regiments.


Given that it's at Nagoya, where you have no forts, I'm honestly not sure from the posted results if it's causing more damage than a bombardment or not. Bombardments could shoot at those troops anyway. I guess if anything, maybe it's spreading the damage more evenly instead of concentrating it in just the artillery units.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6792
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:16:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.


I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6793
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:18:40 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Generally speaking amphibious bombardments use up more ammo, especially when there is counter battery fire.

Of course he is doing it for advantage. It is war!

Hopefully, all he is going on is the losses caused, and doesn't see the targeting. I won't be able to hold Nagoya if half his bombardments are Amphibious day in and day out.




OK, one more reply about this.

It depends on the number and strength of the ships in amphibious TFs, as well as the shore resistance, but oftentimes my amphibious TF's big guns will be down to their emergency supply of 2 shots per device after just one day of unloading. In some cases they appear to have dropped that low after just one phase (in the later phases, they fire less), but I can't tell because it's mid-replay.

Maybe it's a pseudo exploit, but I honestly don't think it's mattering in this case. Also, there are disadvantages to trying to bombard with an amphibious TF as opposed to a real bombardment TF. Real bombardment TFs will function as a SCTF in all other cases, but an amphibious TF won't...

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6794
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:19:06 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.


I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.




Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units .

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6795
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:20:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Bombardments could shoot at those troops anyway. I guess if anything, maybe it's spreading the damage more evenly instead of concentrating it in just the artillery units.


Bombardments could shoot at those troops, but 20 for 20 haven't.

The amphib bombardment is spreading the damage among units that fire back at the APD. Armor for example is untouched. Heavily disrupted units that don't fire are untouched.

So, used in conjunction with normal bombardments, it is very effective.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6796
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 4:21:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.


I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.




Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units .


Have they when there are 50 other units to chose from?

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6797
RE: Disaster! - 2/16/2016 6:19:05 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The line in the combat report is "XX ship firing at 48th Division", for example. Happy to provide examples if necessary.


I see that too, plenty of times, but it is normally a very large unit. With the amphibious bombardment the ships will target anyone shooting back like my regiments and splinters and less on support style units, or units with high disruption that don't fire.




Mine have fired at 15-squad SNLF units .


Have they when there are 50 other units to chose from?


No experience on that front.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6798
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 1:36:23 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Lowpe,

May be it isn't your opponent's intention (hmn just saw a squadron of flying pigs from my window) but the faux amphibious invasions are a clear game exploit.  They are not, as JocMeister suggested in post #6779, a "creative use of the game engine".  Joc used the LCIs with guns/mortars/rockets as they are intended, and suffered the logical consequences.  But that is not the case here.

Firstly, the game design is most definitely not intended to be exploited in this manner.  On 30 November 2009, Don Bowen, who for AE coded the bombardment actions of amphibious task forces and the shore response, specifically stated that the bombardment action of an amphibious TF:

"is not long term naval support, one would have to bring up a bombardment TF for continued support after troops are all ashore."
 

Secondly, I'll show you the benefits which your opponent is gaining from not using proper bombardment TFs.


1.  These faux invasions have only a single non combat ship in them.  Specifically they have a single APD, every other ships is at least a DD sized combat warship.  APDs can be inserted into a Bombardment TF, so quite unlike what JocMeister did, your opponent is deliberately using an Amphibious TF instead of a Bombardment TF because it benefits him and disadvantages the defender, not because it is the only way to involve APDs into the action.

2.  A normal Amphibious TF is comprised of many transport type ships (APs, AKs, landing craft,) often minewarfare ships to clear mines, combat ships to suppress shore guns etc.  Whilst the supporting non transport ships can be targeted by the shore guns, 4 out of the 5 minimum shore gun firing cycles focus on the abstracted (see point 4 below) troops in landing craft approaching the beach.  This means a BB, CA, DD in an Amphibious TF is much less often the target of shore guns than they are if they were in a proper Bombardment TF.  Look carefully at the CR posted and you will see the shore guns are not even attempting to shoot back at the combat ships, they are focussed almost exclusively on the sole APD.  This would not be the case if they were Bombardment TFs.

3.  Because the combat ships are not being targeted by the shore guns, they are not being damaged and can therefore maintain a much higher tempo of operations than otherwise would be the case.  This extremely high tempo of operations is causing both a huge drain on defender supply consumption (much higher than would otherwise be the case) and prevents defender recovery.  The number of defending shore guns which participate is dependent on their supply, morale, and undisrupted states.

4.  It is the "abstraction" which is the main game exploit here.  In fact it is bothering on it being a "cheat".  If there were no "abstraction" involved, one could not contemplate using the word "cheat".

What exactly is the "abstraction".

To quote Don Bowen from the same long post he made on this subject back on 30 November 2009


"From a purely code standpoint, remember that troops approaching the beach in landing craft is an abstraction, as are the landing craft themselves. They are not valid units and can not be referenced by code." 

Remember the key point which is being exploited, viz they are not valid units.

As said in point 2 above, the shore guns are focused on these abstracted approaching troops.  In a normal, dare one say properly constituted Amphibious TF, the expenditure of ammunition (aka supply) by the shore guns will inflict casualties on the landing troops.  Here they continue to shoot at the abstracted landing troops but are not getting any return for their efforts because there are no real troops being landed.  Again look at the CR and notice that although the CR says they are shooting at the APD (because that is a valid unit from a coding POV), what they are really shooting at are the abstracted troops on the abstracted landing craft on the water away from the APD.

5.  The net result of points 2 and 4 is that the shore guns are wasting their fire on "ghost" targets which cannot be damaged in any meaningful manner but the "bombarding" ships are able to get full bang for their bucks in complete safety.  And the most the Allies risk is a single APD and even then the odds are very low of any hits being achieved on the APD. The ships can shoot to suppress any shore gun which targets the abstracted landing troops.  Here it means they can concentrate their fire on Japanese units which would not necessarily be the target of a Bombardment TF.  It is all akin to populating a barrel with only one type of fish species and then shooting at the fish in the barrel.

Alfred

< Message edited by Alfred -- 2/17/2016 2:41:26 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6799
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 1:51:48 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24319
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

In fact it is bothering on it being a "cheat".

I think you meant "bordering on"?

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6800
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:58:19 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Alfred,

Thanks so much for that very clear explanation. I had thought of the extra supply usage, as the faux invasion has 150+ guns returning fire as opposed to the normal bombardment which has at most a dozen firing on the first bombardment (after that they are too disrupted to fire -- cd guns).

To find out that all those shots, or at least 4/5ths are in fact targeting abstracted rafts with 100 supply or so that I can't touch is worrisome. My pixel officers should be smarter!

But from my pov, the real worrisome outcome, is the faux invasions effect on troops that would not normally be targeted in a bombardment task force.

I hate adding HR, and need to think a little more on this. We will see if he uses this tactic again with the next turn and then I will probably craft some type of reply. It is somewhat sensitive, as the original player quit because of perceived exploits/extreme gaminess as a justification.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6801
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:58:58 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

In fact it is bothering on it being a "cheat".

I think you meant "bordering on"?


auto-correct I suspect. no biggie we all understand what is being said.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6802
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 6:51:51 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Alfred,

Thanks so much for that very clear explanation. I had thought of the extra supply usage, as the faux invasion has 150+ guns returning fire as opposed to the normal bombardment which has at most a dozen firing on the first bombardment (after that they are too disrupted to fire -- cd guns).

To find out that all those shots, or at least 4/5ths are in fact targeting abstracted rafts with 100 supply or so that I can't touch is worrisome. My pixel officers should be smarter!

But from my pov, the real worrisome outcome, is the faux invasions effect on troops that would not normally be targeted in a bombardment task force.

I hate adding HR, and need to think a little more on this. We will see if he uses this tactic again with the next turn and then I will probably craft some type of reply. It is somewhat sensitive, as the original player quit because of perceived exploits/extreme gaminess as a justification.


Very wise to think more on it before crafting a missive to send to your opponent. A few more observations for you to ponder on.

1. I have no doubt your opponent is deliberately using the faux invasions because he sees the benefit he derives. It is however possible he doesn't know the reason why he gets a benefit. Brought to his attention he may alter his play. Brought to his attention and he does not change his play then he joins that group of players who justify any gamey play which brings an advantage. In fact I am aware of players who hold the view that in any game, be it a computer game, a team sport, anything, the correct approach is to break any rule just to gain an advantage.

2. I am never in favour of HRs. In almost all instances a HR benefits one side and is a very lazy way for the disadvantaged to limit their disadvantage. In almost all instances, there is a legitimate tactic which obviates the necessity of a HR. A classic example is the constant whining of players that a HR is necessary to combat high altitude sweeps. You have consistently implemented the tactics which some of us have been saying for years are the correct response, and your results have been outstanding.

3. The fundamental evil in your opponent's tactic is that it gives you only a "ghost target" whereas he has a very tangible target. If he had 20-30 transports in the Amphibious TF, with their poor manoeuvre ratings thus more likely to be hit by your shore guns, dropping off some LCUs so that your shore guns have the possibility of inflicting some damage by destroying devices as they approach the beach abstractedly, it would not be such a clear cut code exploit.

4. I said 5 cycles. In fact it can be many more than that because the cycles loop until the Amphibious TF is unloaded or the shore guns are silenced.

5. A Bombardment TF is not guaranteed to target only LCUs involved in port activities. There is a certain randomness involved. It is therefore possible that a Bombardment TF would target your armor units which currently are left untouched by the faux Amphibious TF. Any task force will return fire at units which fire at it. This is why a Bombardment TF tends to focus on ground units equipped with naval guns as those guns will be targeting the Bombardment TF.

The point which cannot be made too often is that here, artillery and machine guns which normally are too short ranged to fire at combat ships in a Bombardment TF (particularly if the Bombardment TF has orders to stand out to sea out of range) and therefore do not become candidates for suppression fire, are within range of firing at the approaching "ghost" troops in "ghost" landing craft (both being abstracted) and by doing so, open up their LCUs to suppression fire from the BBs, CAs etc. And all this at no risk to the Allies.

6. IRL, faced with this situation the defenders would not fire their weapons at the approaching troops in order to not reveal their location. Only when the big ships have moved away, would the concealed guns open up on the deposited LCU. The landed LCUs on the beach do happen to be valid units for the AE code to handle.

7. A defending unit which is shot at, even if it does not return fire, increases its supply consumption.

8. One counter tactic you should consider employing is placing up to 25% of your LCUs (particularly the badly shot up ones) into reserve mode.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6803
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 1:52:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
July 18th, 1944

No faux invasion bombardments.

Nagasaki, Fuokoka, and Shimoneski are heavily bombed. My Frank sweep runs into no CAP.

Cam Ranh Bay falls, a victim of the worsening supply situation and the Allies concentrating 6 armored units and two divisions.

You can see an Iboat delivering 38 supplies.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6804
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 1:57:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
No one owns the rail block west of Haiphong. So, I am still evacuating by SR troops there. Since the Allies now have 9 units, I expect to be forced out of the hex this day...but my troops should wander over to Haiphong hopefully in good order. It is a lot to expect, however.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6805
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:04:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Honshu:

Shock attack at Matsumaya.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6806
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:05:42 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Matsumaya




No reduction in forts. Some good HQ bonus kicking in I bet.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/17/2016 3:07:22 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6807
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:11:18 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Still making ships. I could have halted her production, but really why? So she will give the Allies more VP, probably without accomplishing anything, but I get to have a little fun with her first.

She needs to make a run into the relative safety of the Yellow Sea, dodging aerial mines and also Allied submarines (which are really deadly).

She will meet up first with an E, and then a squadron of three destroyers.

The KB lives again!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6808
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:34:53 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

8. One counter tactic you should consider employing is placing up to 25% of your LCUs (particularly the badly shot up ones) into reserve mode.

Alfred


I have some units on Reserve, but not 1/4th.

A few questions if you don't mind.

How does reserve mode impact AA units? Will they still fire at bombers with full strength? I know they do fire, but is there a penalty associated with being in reserve mode and not moving. I realize one penalty is that their very small combat value won't be added into combat (I believe they do shoot, much like artillery).

It is my understanding, from perhaps interpreting the rules too much, that a reserve unit that gets released into combat gains no benefit from terrain, leadership HQ bonuses, forts. In fact, the unit is a little penalized because it is in move mode but does gain protection earlier in combat and bombardments.

It is my understanding the check needed is a simple leadership ground check? Or do other factors like morale, inspiration, experience, aggression come in to play?

Will units in reserve mode be aerially bombed? Is the chance they are targeted less frequently than units in combat mode perhaps?

Perhaps a good choice for reserve (no pursuit) status would be the weaker TOE IJA units?

Thanks in advance for any help!







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/17/2016 3:41:33 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6809
RE: Disaster! - 2/17/2016 2:38:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
A look again at Nagoya's defenders after several naval bombardments.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 6810
Page:   <<   < prev  225 226 [227] 228 229   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Disaster! Page: <<   < prev  225 226 [227] 228 229   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

0.195