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: PBEM CTF strike, fair results?

 
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: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:49:42 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Your CAP altitude matters a lot. If your CAP was set at 15K then a lot of your 'CAP' time was spent climbing versus diving and shooting. The raid came in at 18K so try a CAP setting of 20K or higher.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 31
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:50:32 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Ok, I will try that and post the results.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 32
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 6:52:53 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Looks like 20% hit rate of the bombers. Do you mind showing your pilot details of the fighter squadrons and the leaders involved? To be honest, the result makes sense. You only got a 15 minut warning and didn't have enough planes in the air to intercept all attacking squadrons.

Best is to just avoid such a situation like this...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 33
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:04:41 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Here's the result with jap fighters CAP set to 90% at 20k ft. Again, outnumbered escorts don't suffer many losses, neither do allied bombers:

quote:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Kembla at 91,172

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 78

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 8
F4F-3A Wildcat x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
SBD-2 Dauntless x 34
SBD-3 Dauntless x 85
TBD-1 Devastator x 42

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 1 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 4 destroyed, 6 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 10 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Torpedo hits 1
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 2
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
DD Yugumo
CA Kako, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 3, on fire
DD Akigumo
DD Urakaze
CL Abukuma, Bomb hits 1
DD Isokaze
DD Ikazuchi
DD Shirayuki

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
11 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
2 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-2 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
6 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 17000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
9 planes vectored on to bombers
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
2 planes vectored on to bombers



Of course with such low escort numbers my bombers get slaughtered in comparison and the bombardment results are not great either but it may be due to weather in the hex as well:

quote:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Sydney at 92,169

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 29 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
B5N2 Kate x 92
D3A1 Val x 50

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 33
F4F-3A Wildcat x 22
F4F-3 Wildcat x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 35 destroyed, 7 damaged
D3A1 Val: 6 destroyed, 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
CV Enterprise
CA Portland
CV Saratoga
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 1
CL Concord
CL Trenton
CA Astoria

ircraft Attacking:
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
1 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
17 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
12 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-2 with F2A-3 Buffalo (3 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
15 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-3 with F4F-3 Wildcat (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes
14 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-42 with F4F-3 Wildcat (3 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
VF-6 with F4F-3A Wildcat (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
14 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-221 with F2A-3 Buffalo (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
11 planes vectored on to bombers



(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 34
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:12:51 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
@Cannonfodder - most fighter pilots are over 70 air skill and 70 defence with just a few of them below (6-7 in the total number as these came from reinforcements and I did not replace them with guys with over 70 air skill).

As for fighter leaders for the 5 squadrons: air skill 61,61,67,64,60 inspiration: 64,62,65,62,66

Sorry, don't know how to link screenies here so I just wrote it down but I hope it's ok?

Hmm, I just noticed the fatigue was over 20 for each fighter squadron after last turn cap. Could that influence the fight this much?

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 35
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:34:51 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Of course fatigue is a big influencer. Your CAP was not performing at their best (which is why keeping a high, 60 to 70 CAP is not a great idea, unless you are absolutely sure a battle is coming).
What was your CAP range? for best results, keep it at 0... that obviously won't work if you also need to escort; maybe some specific groups at 0 ; some just escort

Also, notice no CV TF in 1942 can survive scratchless vs. 2 waves of +160 bombers;
That said, having the Allies attacking so well coordinated is not normal at this stage of the war; but good rolls happen

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/15/2014 8:44:18 PM >

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 36
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:47:13 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Well, the rolls were very consistent over the several tries I played through with the allies having a big advantage in both plane and ship losses...

Anyway, thanks for the responses guys, I guess I learned my lesson not to use my CVs at all without LBA support or at least a 2v1 advantage :) It seems impossible to defend against allied planes otherwise. It also seems strange to me that Allies have such a big advantage since this early in the war as I was of an opinion that I still had an advantage in February but that got corrected promptly heh. Oh well, one learns by his mistakes I guess :)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 37
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:52:19 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
From personal experience (I am not a developer): if you are repeating the same turn, over and over again, some rolls are already being decided, and you will get "versions" of the same result.
Example: all your tests show a highly coordinated Allied attack.. which is not granted, specially not in 42

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/15/2014 8:55:31 PM >

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 38
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:53:21 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Are the pilots experienced or are they just highly trained new pilots? And your bomber pilots, well trained in the primary skill (Nav bomb / torpedo)? And how about the search skill?

Allies get more time to intercept due to radar detection and even they "only" manage to destroy roughly half the bombers..

In carrier battles in 1942, the bombers will always get through when coordinated strikes happen. Pick your battles, there is no real winning setup...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 39
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 7:59:34 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
@Cannonfodder - The pilots are also experienced (in their 70s mostly). Most of them is in the squadrons since the beginning of the game since I did not have big losses at Pearl + the experience they gained over the 2 months of the game. Same goes for bomber pilots, all well trained and experienced.

@Jorge - I was changing stuff like CAP %, altitude etc. Do you mean the results will not be very different whatever settings I used since the TFs were in this and that hex (always using the same initial fleet positions and movement) and it's that date etc.? Might be worth checking if the results are different if I move the fleets into different hexes, thanks for the tip!

< Message edited by Endy -- 4/15/2014 8:59:49 PM >

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 40
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 8:09:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy
@Jorge - I was changing stuff like CAP %, altitude etc. Do you mean the results will not be very different whatever settings I used since the TFs were in this and that hex (always using the same initial fleet positions and movement) and it's that date etc.? Might be worth checking if the results are different if I move the fleets into different hexes, thanks for the tip!


Try going back 2 turns, run this as "head to head" game, and just move the two carrier TFs. maybe to slightly different hexes. And see if it changes results

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 41
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 8:16:01 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Just checked and nope, same thing :) The weather changed some bomber strike results but it's mostly the same, ie. Allied bombers just getting through like a hot knife through butter and Jap bombers getting slaughtered or missing their targets.

It seems these are simply unwinnable odds at this point of time and only more CVs/fighters would do the trick perhaps. I wonder what ratio of cap/attacking bombers would be sufficient to stop them... And of course there are many other factors to consider like radar for earlier warning, fatigue etc.

To sum up, apparently I made a mistake to be there with my fleet at all and just put my head under a falling sword and there's pretty much nothing I could to avoid disaster. Thanks for the help guys and the tips.

Edit: here's the latest result, different hexes etc. It just seems there is nothing I could do to stop the Allied bombers, the jap fighters are nowhere near enough (as someone correctly mentioned in one of the first posts without needing all these tests). I wonder if twice as many fighters could do it as right now it seems Allied bombers are just flying tanks they take so few losses :)

quote:

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 78

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 8
F4F-3A Wildcat x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 17
SBD-2 Dauntless x 34
SBD-3 Dauntless x 68
TBD-1 Devastator x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 1 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 2 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
SBD-2 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 11 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBD-1 Devastator: 2 destroyed


< Message edited by Endy -- 4/15/2014 9:21:14 PM >

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 42
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 9:02:14 PM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Your CAP altitude matters a lot. If your CAP was set at 15K then a lot of your 'CAP' time was spent climbing versus diving and shooting. The raid came in at 18K so try a CAP setting of 20K or higher.


Raid did not come in @18k, else the DB would not have released @2-3k. They came in at 15k, which admittedly put the escorts on 17k. Setting CAP higher than the strike A/C of a CV force is a bad advice, as it messes with coordination. You could in theory assign a dedicated CAP only squad to higher altitudes, but I would advise against it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 43
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 9:11:49 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9768
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I would say that lack of radar does contribute to the results. Your CAP has only 15 minutes regardless of your settings. In your test, the Allied CAP has 29 minutes to react.

Don't forget that both CV Hiryu and Soryu are like CV Wasp in being very fragile when hit by bombs. It doesn't take many to sink them.

Double check the upgrades for the non-Shokuka class CVs. Do they get radar in their June or July upgrades?? I think this was corrected in DBB at some point. If not drop Symon a PM.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 4/15/2014 10:12:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 44
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 9:25:16 PM   
LoBaron


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy
As for other information, what else would you think important here? I'll happily provide more info if needed.


Pilot morale & fatigue, airframe fatigue, for example. If you moved all the way down to battle on combat settings this might have already deteriorated performance before the shooting actually started. Range to target, DL of your own TF.

Weather for sure was a factor as well: Clear over your own force, overcast over the enemy CVs.

quote:


I know the strategic situation was bad, but it appears any situation involving 4 Allied CVs and 5-6 Jap CVs and a "fair fight" is bad? This is what I find baffling. Even if I had Kaga here I would have around 100 fighters in the air and that at 90% CAP. Which also means I don't get through to Allied CVs with my bombers because they get slaughtered easily by allied 80% CAP.


What is baffling about it? The number of forces was balanced, you had a disadvantage in detection time and radar, total number of planes involved, weather, and maybe fatigue, and you were way out of any protective umbrella.

I also partly retract my comment about CAP numbers. You definitely need to provide sufficient escorts for your strikes to get through. 90% CAP is too high in any situation, as it leaves only 10% for escort.

quote:


I'm just curious what the trick here is, because I can't possibly see a way to win against 4 Allied CVs, even if I had 6? Is the only way to win not to fight at all with these odds and only rely on LBA support as the jap player can't possibly win such a CV battle without it? I know it sounds like a complaint but it isn't. I'm just trying to understand what I could possibly do but the test just point me to one thing - not to fight...


The trick is not to get into a 'fair' fight. It really is that easy. A fair fight ends in IJN defeat 80% of the time, as the Allies can replace the losses, the Japanese can´t.

There is a certain timespan between summer ´42 and summer ´43 where the IJN CV overmatch is at it´s peak, both from a numerical as well as a qualitative perspective. Feb ´42 it not the right time, at least not in that location.


_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 45
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/15/2014 9:27:03 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I would like to show some examples from recent turns in my PBEM. It involves defensive combat by land based air over a PT-boat squadron (diverted CAP situation) and CAP over an airbase.

Notice the effect of "x planes vectored on to bombers. Consider it as multipliers: Time available to engage bombers, amount of aircraft available to engage bombers, heavy armament on the US fighters, low durability and armour on Japanese bombers...

Escorts doing the job: bombers screened from CAP
Morning Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 120,150

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 106 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 39 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 58
B5N1 Kate x 16
B5N2 Kate x 37
D3A1 Val x 31

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 15
F4F-3A Wildcat x 10
F4F-3 Wildcat x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
D3A1 Val: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3A Wildcat: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
PT-43
PT-37
PT-36, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PT-45
PT-40
PT-46
PT-59
PT-48
PT-47
PT-38
PT-44
PT-39

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
10 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
6 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
6 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VMF-111 with F4F-3 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(12 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 8 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
VMF-121 with F4F-3 Wildcat (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(12 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VMF-221 with F4F-3A Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(10 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 7 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
35th FG/41st FS with P-39D Airacobra (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(16 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes


Escorts engaged and 8 fighters manage to break through to the bombers.. Trained .50 fighters amongst bombers..
Afternoon Air attack on Luganville , at 120,150

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 83 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 50
B5N1 Kate x 24
B5N2 Kate x 45
D3A1 Val x 46

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 19
P-40E Warhawk x 23
F4F-3 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed
D3A1 Val: 6 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 33

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
15 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VMF-111 with F4F-3 Wildcat (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 4 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers
VMF-121 with F4F-3 Wildcat (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 5 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
18th FG/19th FS with P-40E Warhawk (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 8 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
35th FG/41st FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 9 on standby, 6 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers




_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 46
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 12:38:49 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

From personal experience (I am not a developer): if you are repeating the same turn, over and over again, some rolls are already being decided, and you will get "versions" of the same result.
Example: all your tests show a highly coordinated Allied attack.. which is not granted, specially not in 42


This is correct about the rolls being set in a turn. As the Allied played moves last, you need to change something in the Allied turn where a 'new' activity will occur prior to the CV action. Maybe run a scarificed ship out from Sydney to do a night surface action. Then when the turn runs, a different set of numbers will be used for the CV action. Or just back up two turns and the numbers will also change as noted above.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 47
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 1:30:38 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline
I am aware that the coordination from the Allied CVs was good. Just some additional information that hasn't been included yet.

In the PM stage after the main strike, about 2 or 3 groups of dive bombers attacked about 12 dive bombers each and were unescorted. They got slaughtered.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 48
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 7:29:52 AM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
Thanks again for all the advice. It certainly does seem this CV battle could not have ended in any other way and I just should not have started it, I guess it's lack of experience and overestimating my CV capabilities that led me to this. Hopefully it'll be a lesson learned for the future though :)

By the way, it seems radar is a huge advantage (among all the other factors of course) and I'm wondering how having radar here would influence the fight. Unfortunately that's something I can't really test as the earliest radar is the one on Shokaku/Zuikaku in June I think.

Anyway, thanks again for all the tips :)

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 49
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 1:31:40 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13373
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
The Cap didn't do too well but not much to expect with a 15 min pre warning only so the result seems perfectly fine to me. What would one expect when over a hundred bombers release their bombs over the carriers?

In real life it took far less bombers to wreck KB. This is not one of the late war results when 2000+ aircraft are involved on both sides and one gets wonky results as the engine can't handle these numbers, this is
one of the engagements the engine works very well. Don't know if I read you right but if your opponent has thrown in the towel because of this result then he's quite a bad loser IMO. Anyway, he should not blame
the game at all but his bad decision to take on that fight with 4 dozen Zeroes on Cap. Only thing that could have saved him would be thunderstorms and even then he would have taken some damage.

_____________________________


(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 50
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 4:23:56 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
All the advice here is excellent. You now know that this all can get pretty complicated. Many will disagree but this is how I do it. Allies or Japan. This is for 1942-early 43. Things change later on.

1. When we are talking about early war, I do not split my carriers. Actually, the coordination penalty is not that severe (most of the time) and I think this is countered by not having the risk of one TF reacting towards the enemy while another does not. Keep them together in my book.
2. I usually set CAP at 50% or 60% when I am expecting combat. But not for long periods.
3. All units of a particular plane type is set to 20% search. Usually torpedo bombers for the Allies (avengers) and dive bombers for Japan. No set search arcs. That is plenty enough searching planes. You can not have too many search planes in the air if you are unsure about the enemy.
4. CAP height 15,000-to 20,000K or so. Nobody will set their attack aircraft higher than this.
5. Good leaders, good crews, low fatigue, low plane fatigue, low morale.
6. Always have at least one fast BB (more is better) in your carrier TF. The AI likes to attack BBs. Better to have BBs soak up hits than your carriers.
7. Keep slow carriers out of your TFs. If you are using slow carriers (Juny, Hiyo) or CVEs put them in separate TFs.
8. Always have naval attack set if you think carriers might be about.
9. Don't waste valuable Japanese carrier aircraft on port of ground support missions unless you are certain of high value tartets, and see rule #8 above.
10. Pray to the God of weather and roll well.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 51
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 4:33:45 PM   
Endy

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 2/6/2014
Status: offline
@Castor Troy - it was me playing as the Japanese but it'd be nice if you read the whole story before passing your judgement.

Yes, indeed, I decided to surrender the game after this engagement but not because I'm a "bad loser" but because I just don't see a point after losing 4 carriers (most probably all 5) in February '42. Sorry, might be my inexperience speaking now but for me there is no point continuing the game as Japan without a carrier fleet in early '42. Mind you I'm speaking for myself and my skill level so yeah, there it is.

And yes, I brought it all down on myself as I was not expecting 4 carriers there and yes, it was my strategic mistake that led me there and my fault entirely. And no, I do not blame the game engine but I was very curious about the results and if they could be different if I did something differently, mostly set a different CAP %, altitudes, reorganized the TFs etc. but apparently I was wrong and the battle was hopeless from the start and as soon as I put my CV's into that situation I lost already, which I also admitted after hearing some advice from other guys.

But that's all in this thread and it'd be awesome if you read it before passing your judgement on what kind of person I am or what I blame or not. Thank you!

@crsutton - thank you for the tips, very informative :) By the way, do you only set DBs on nav search and not TBs as well as Japan? If yes, why? I had both DBs and TBs set for search so that was not a problem at least but the Allied CVs only set out from Brisbane a turn before the disaster happened :)

< Message edited by Endy -- 4/16/2014 5:38:21 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 52
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 5:01:28 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Endy, don´t mind CT. Hes just an old ranter. The decision is solely between you and your opponent, and it is an understandable decision considering that you both still seem to be in the learning phase. Also, those who cared to read the whole thread know that you both were mainly looking for explanations for an ingame experience.

The first grave mistake in WitP AE is a tough one, even more for Japan. In your situation it acts a reminder to take only calculated risks, and only in support of a strategic goal of sufficient importance.

One small advice though: With this specific event in mind I suggest you try to play through the whole game in a rematch, independent of any adverse battle outcomes. Only by doing so , and by adopting the required mindset for this type of game, WitP shines in all its glory. Because only then the decisions you make have the potential to impact years of gaming. This is what makes the WitP so unique and nailbitingly challenging.

Players who get accustomed to restart after every mistake will never experience WitP AE PBEM as it was meant to be. The best damn WWII grand strategy game ever.

_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 53
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 8:24:06 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Endy

@Castor Troy - it was me playing as the Japanese but it'd be nice if you read the whole story before passing your judgement.

Yes, indeed, I decided to surrender the game after this engagement but not because I'm a "bad loser" but because I just don't see a point after losing 4 carriers (most probably all 5) in February '42. Sorry, might be my inexperience speaking now but for me there is no point continuing the game as Japan without a carrier fleet in early '42. Mind you I'm speaking for myself and my skill level so yeah, there it is.

And yes, I brought it all down on myself as I was not expecting 4 carriers there and yes, it was my strategic mistake that led me there and my fault entirely. And no, I do not blame the game engine but I was very curious about the results and if they could be different if I did something differently, mostly set a different CAP %, altitudes, reorganized the TFs etc. but apparently I was wrong and the battle was hopeless from the start and as soon as I put my CV's into that situation I lost already, which I also admitted after hearing some advice from other guys.

But that's all in this thread and it'd be awesome if you read it before passing your judgement on what kind of person I am or what I blame or not. Thank you!

@crsutton - thank you for the tips, very informative :) By the way, do you only set DBs on nav search and not TBs as well as Japan? If yes, why? I had both DBs and TBs set for search so that was not a problem at least but the Allied CVs only set out from Brisbane a turn before the disaster happened :)


Well at this stage the Val's only carry 500 pound bombs vs the deadly torpedo on the kate. So, it makes more sense to have the DBs do the searching. Likewise the American torpedo bombers are handicapped by their miserable torpedo so better to have them do the searching and leave the carrier killing to the DBs. I would not use devestators for searching due to their poor range, but frankly, am not seeking any kind of fight while my carriers are equipped with them.

It is early in the game for you guys. Nothing wrong with a restart if your opponent is agreeable. It is really between the two of you. But if it were 1943 then the righteous thing to do is to play it out or just agree to play for a agreed period of time-say another year. Give your opponent at chance to benefit from his victory and perhaps make his own mistakes. Therer is not situation winning or losing where you are not gaining experience.


< Message edited by crsutton -- 4/16/2014 9:28:41 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 54
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/16/2014 9:59:52 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
one hint if you tring to hunt enemy CVs allways try to use japanese planes range advanage so you can hit them and enemy cant stike back - but for this you will need stong escort to not get thes slaugtered and so they have chance to score few hits. But it is triky if enemy decide to move closer.
and why you were tring to hunt down just posibly one CV, risking that your KB will move into posible trap ?
as many pointed out - use your LBA as cover for your CV forces if posibe as eigther search planes or stike planes which can help your main cv stike (or finsh rest).
if i can use LBA planes i use "nas mnogo" (rusian startegy - it mean we are to many) - point is to thow at him to many SEPARATE stikes - firstly idealy arive figters to draw enemy CAP to fun and delpete his forces, if they are not avaivable, well...point is that instead of one/two massed stikes with heavy cap defence lowering your chance to sucefuly hit enemy ships, you will send 5-6 separate stikes, first 2-3 get usualy masacred due to low numbers, but later wawes will meet low opisition since his stength was used on previus ones, with his planes damaged/refualing/rearming at base, giving your stike max chance for succes.
It have meaning only agais enemy ships, no use against land units.
Yes, in end you suffer much greater causalties that with big raids, but your chances to score hit wil be higher too. So do this ONLY with unist which can afford causalties - LBAs , never do it with CVs units since they are to precius.

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 55
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 10:29:56 AM   
urtel


Posts: 125
Joined: 9/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy

@Castor Troy - it was me playing as the Japanese but it'd be nice if you read the whole story before passing your judgement.


i m noob here but one thing i already know if you post anything from Japan side ignore CT...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy
Yes, indeed, I decided to surrender the game after this engagement but not because I'm a "bad loser" but because I just don't see a point after losing 4 carriers (most probably all 5) in February '42. Sorry, might be my inexperience speaking now but for me there is no point continuing the game as Japan without a carrier fleet in early '42. Mind you I'm speaking for myself and my skill level so yeah, there it is.

And yes, I brought it all down on myself as I was not expecting 4 carriers there and yes, it was my strategic mistake that led me there and my fault entirely. And no, I do not blame the game engine but I was very curious about the results and if they could be different if I did something differently, mostly set a different CAP %, altitudes, reorganized the TFs etc. but apparently I was wrong and the battle was hopeless from the start and as soon as I put my CV's into that situation I lost already, which I also admitted after hearing some advice from other guys.

But that's all in this thread and it'd be awesome if you read it before passing your judgement on what kind of person I am or what I blame or not. Thank you!

@crsutton - thank you for the tips, very informative :) By the way, do you only set DBs on nav search and not TBs as well as Japan? If yes, why? I had both DBs and TBs set for search so that was not a problem at least but the Allied CVs only set out from Brisbane a turn before the disaster happened :)


your setup for this battle was same as 95% of Japan players will have in this situation for same time period, beside CAP = 90%, and divide in 2 fleets...

So try tu put all in one fleet KB :) set cap 50%-60%, i use 50 because if you not detect enemy carriers in morning phase there is good chance all planes planed from escort strike will join defence in AM phase..

Two more things:
1. check fatigue of you fighter pilots if it is >30% they are too tired reload turn before rest them then try again
2. check KB detection level before battle turn if it is too high reload turn before and try to go into are through some other path

if you got same results then i will like to have that save file, you already stop game so nothing to lose there, so i can experiment little more...

I have one theory but veterans will put fork in mine eyes if i m wrong so i will not talk about it if i can't get more proof...

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 56
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 1:50:34 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
As the IJN KB airgroups cannot be resized till July 42 and are a bit light on fighters, what I do is find one of the 45 plane land based Zero units, split it and put 15 each on the under strength CVs (Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu). I also set them purely to CAP with range at 0 to keep their fatigue down and increase response time. But as has been said, NEVER split up the KB when you know the US could have 4 CVs in the area, as they will have almost parity in a/c numbers.

(in reply to urtel)
Post #: 57
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 3:40:37 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy
Is a fight between 5 Jap CVs and 4 Allied ones this early in the war winnable at all considering the planes they carry, pilot experience etc.?


Maybe. Don't fight "fair" though. You want an overwhelming superiority in numbers and capability when you're hunting Allied CVs at any stage in the game.

Generally speaking the 5 IJ: 4 USN carriers is about parity in numbers due to the higher capacity of the American flattops. You should assume that the American carriers are operating together after December 8th and not in singletons. By February-March, you should assume that the Allied CVs are operating together en masse and that the four of them have upgraded their aircraft as soon as the pools allow. By April 1942, you should assume that they are operating some TBFs as an upgrade to those atrocious TBDs.

I agree with the others that indicate that your greatest mistake was the port attack. Much like the Japanese IRL at Midway, their ability to attack enemy carriers was disrupted by their ongoing attacks on the island. You misplaced your mission priorities and cut your offensive firepower significantly. You say that only a 'few DB squadrons' attacked the port? Did they have escort? Those escorts could have / would have been of much greater use in your CAP or escorting a alpha strike against the enemy carriers. Similarly, those DB squadrons may have broken through to put bombs on the enemy fleet.

If your CAP is set to 90%, your strike packages may balk at flying underescorted. 40-60% CAP is generally the sweet spot.

ETA: Don't do what the Japanese did IRL with piecemeal commitments. Like the authors of "Shattered Sword" state, there were exactly two strategic missions in the whole of the Pacific for the Japanese. Those that required *all* of the KB and those that required *none* of the KB. Nothing in between.

Having 6 IJN carriers: 4 USN is better. Having 7 CV + 2 CVL is better yet. By mid-1943 you should be able to field 11-14 CV/CVL (depends on how much you accelerate the ones being constructed) into a very fearsome package. If you're going into a scrap, bring 'em all.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 4/17/2014 4:46:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 58
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 5:59:30 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Only against the Allied AI can you afford to split the Japanese CVs up and even then there is a risk. Especially when the Essex's start showing up. In a PBEM game, you need to bring every thing that floats and can carry a DB and TP to any fight with the US CVs. Because the Allied played can have combined the CVs from the CW with the US CVs and really become a headache for Japan.

Typically the Allied will not risk their CVs until a close parity is reached or an opporunity presents itself like what happened here. For Japan having a 'fleet in being' is far more important than trying to sink a few CVs. At some point Japan will need to use their CV fleet since by '44 all it will be then is VPs waiting to happen . When and when that point will be for Japan is one of the critical decisions the Japanese player has to make. February '42 at Sydney is not the time nor the place for that decision

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 59
RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? - 4/17/2014 8:52:21 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endy


As for other information, what else would you think important here? I'll happily provide more info if needed. There were no previous strikes on my CVs, this is the first one in the turn and I also removed the port strike from the equasion. No support from Allied LBA. All jap fighters at 90% like I said.

I know the strategic situation was bad, but it appears any situation involving 4 Allied CVs and 5-6 Jap CVs and a "fair fight" is bad? This is what I find baffling. Even if I had Kaga here I would have around 100 fighters in the air and that at 90% CAP. Which also means I don't get through to Allied CVs with my bombers because they get slaughtered easily by allied 80% CAP.

I'm just curious what the trick here is, because I can't possibly see a way to win against 4 Allied CVs, even if I had 6? Is the only way to win not to fight at all with these odds and only rely on LBA support as the jap player can't possibly win such a CV battle without it? I know it sounds like a complaint but it isn't. I'm just trying to understand what I could possibly do but the test just point me to one thing - not to fight...

By the way, using Dababes mod here as well, forgot to mention.


well, with some simplifaion you can take that basiclay you need 1,5-2x more japanese fighters for same job as allied because japs lack firepower, durabilyty and armor compared to them so even just small damage is forcing japanexe fighter to leave combat instead of continung in fight.
Foc cv combat - well 5 ijn vs 4 us is sucide for japanese, bu to mentioned ineffectvity of fighters and mainly number advantage to us side because of capacity of planes per CV.
Even 6 vs 4 can be considered big risk to japs if you dont use your stike planes range advantage corectly. You should look for 7 vs 4 or 5 vs 3(2).
As simple rule ijn should have 2x more cv for strike than us side.
And i dont think taht 90% cap is ideal, it leaves your stike force to get slaugheterd by more effective allied fighters, i think 50% is optimal, and to make effective numbers of CAP planes... well us adequate number of Cvs.

(in reply to Endy)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: PBEM CTF strike, fair results? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.261