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: GA statistical musings

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: GA statistical musings Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/17/2019 6:05:42 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
A small test I did for the air supply transport concludes that:

1. Air supply mission between bases requires both airfields to be open, that is damage to runway <= 20+(Airfield Size *5). Otherwise, supply mission would not fly at all.
2. Air supply mission to non-base hex (presumably paradrop of supply) transports 1/2 of amount transported in case 1.

Bombers behave the same way as transport plane when on supply mission, all results hold for them too.

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/19/2019 2:23:25 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 61
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/29/2019 12:27:52 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3745
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Supplies will be delivered if the receiving airfield has 100% service and runway damage.

Here is my own mini-test:

See post 48

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3836195&mpage=2&key=

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 62
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/29/2019 2:10:44 PM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Supplies will be delivered if the receiving airfield has 100% service and runway damage.

Here is my own mini-test:

See post 48

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3836195&mpage=2&key=


I think this is important...
No message during AIR TRANSPORT PHASE about supplies being flown or dropped.


I was pretty sure I could deliver supplies to bombed out runways with bombers...although I never checked op report, only to see the wear and tear on my bombers when I selected them.


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 63
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/29/2019 5:03:41 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Supplies will be delivered if the receiving airfield has 100% service and runway damage.

Here is my own mini-test:

See post 48

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3836195&mpage=2&key=


I think this is important...
No message during AIR TRANSPORT PHASE about supplies being flown or dropped.


I was pretty sure I could deliver supplies to bombed out runways with bombers...although I never checked op report, only to see the wear and tear on my bombers when I selected them.




In PBEM (and presumably head to head), you don't get this message during the replay. It is in the ops report only.

Against AI, I think you do get this message when things are being flown but it's been ages since I played a game against AI.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 64
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/29/2019 5:25:02 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Supplies will be delivered if the receiving airfield has 100% service and runway damage.

Here is my own mini-test:

See post 48

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3836195&mpage=2&key=

They are not delivered in my test. At all.
I do not look through messages, I look for the supply level in the empty base.

Basically, we run exactly the same test. I did mine on Guadalcanal map (database from cleaned up GC scenario) using Tabby transports and Nell bombers, and flew from Japanese Townsville to Japanese Horn island. When there was no base on Horn island, just an LCU, supply level of the LCU increased. When there was sufficiently damaged empty base - nothing was transported for many turns including starting one when all aviation always flies. I wonder what gives

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/29/2019 5:32:05 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 65
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/29/2019 10:54:08 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Everybody running off the same Beta Patch?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 66
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/30/2019 5:51:14 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Everybody running off the same Beta Patch?

1.8.11.26b here

Interesting byproduct of me rerunning the tests (yeah, results are the same as they were before) is that 0 size airfield is still counted as suitable for transports . They transport supply fine into it but stop flying when this nonexistent airfield is assigned damage in the editor

Also, damage to the destination services does not matter for the transports. It is only the runway

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/30/2019 5:55:18 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 67
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/30/2019 7:17:40 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
This is beginning to seem like an oversight/minor bug.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 68
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 4:41:40 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
Just a minitest to see if kamikaze bombload matters. It does.
But those big bombs are darn hard to detonate on impact 20+ kami hits every time yet damage from 800kg is not always there for the ships that were hit




First turn of the head-2-head scenario. Surface TF of 8 old BBs at range 0, lit up by extensive navsearch. Frank-a edited to have 2x800kg bombs halfway through. Same pilots and everything else throughout, you get the drill by now )

Also, I moved around pieces of picture with damage digits halfway through the editing, so do not fret about BB speed being OK while obviously heavily damaged in the lower table ;) Those speeds refer to 2nd battle with 250 bombs. Not that speed matters anyway

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 2/5/2019 5:08:35 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 69
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 5:17:33 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Yeah, that was my guess..that penetration matters with kamikazes against certain ship types.

I suspect a test against merchant shipping either way would be deadly though.

Was it the GP bomb or the AP?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 70
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 5:49:51 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Was it the GP bomb or the AP?

There is only one 800kg bomb in stock (device 1883), and it is GP with 113mm penetration.
E.g. Japanese 500kg GP/SAP have 92/112mm, so not that big a difference.

Of those test BBs most have 108mm deck armor except Nevada/Oklahoma (140mm) and Pennsylvania/Arizona (133mm), if compared with 800kg penetration of 113mm. Nevada got sunk once anyway :)

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 2/5/2019 6:13:24 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 71
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 6:38:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nah, it exists in stock too, at least in Downfall. I remember there being screwy things with attempting to use the editor and it...it was hardcoded somehow, but perhaps that was just on port strikes.

Penetration 170; effect 1200 in normal stock just checked scenario 10 (ironman..tracker info).






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/5/2019 6:41:18 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 72
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 6:40:15 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2345
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
What was the cause of sinking?

Was it due to flt damage associated with bombs penetrating the armour or were they abandoned due to fires?

Also was there the occurrence of the "penetrating hit" message during the replay that was present for one bomb type and no the other?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 73
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 6:49:50 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Nah, it exists in stock too, at least in Downfall. I remember there being screwy things with attempting to use the editor and it...it was hardcoded somehow, but perhaps that was just on port strikes.

Stock 1 Ki-115 has 800kg GP bomb (device 1883). Downfall is different, and Ironman too maybe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
What was the cause of sinking?
Was it due to flt damage associated with bombs penetrating the armour or were they abandoned due to fires?
Also was there the occurrence of the "penetrating hit" message during the replay that was present for one bomb type and no the other?

I did not watch the animations, would take too much time for my liking. Assume either penetrating magazine hit (most probable) or accumulated flotation.
Ships are not abandoned due to fires, but due to accumulated fire system damage. And as you can see system damage was not dangerously high for surviving ships.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 74
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 7:13:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17325
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
It does exist in stock 1, just ran a turn...and 800 kg ap bombs dropped. It is a funny animal, in that the default load for Toka (and her clone) is the 800kg GP, but put a unit on kamikaze strike and it changes to the AP version, as pictured earlier...which is the only place I have managed to find it too, btw, some units set to kamikaze strike will switch to the AP or SAP but not all plane models.

The B5N2 loads a 250 SAP for example as a Kamikaze for example, but Helens run with gp.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/5/2019 7:15:22 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 75
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/5/2019 7:39:35 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
It does exist in stock 1, just ran a turn...and 800 kg ap bombs dropped. It is a funny animal, in that the default load for Toka (and her clone) is the 800kg GP, but put a unit on kamikaze strike and it changes to the AP version, as pictured earlier...which is the only place I have managed to find it too, btw, some units set to kamikaze strike will switch to the AP or SAP but not all plane models.

The B5N2 loads a 250 SAP for example as a Kamikaze for example, but Helens run with gp.

Yup, found it, device 209

Run some more turns for 800kg version with combat animations. 3/3 used 800 GP bomb, with 80 xp pilots flying range 0 from 10 level airbase with air HQ. Not so easy to make them choose AP if at all possible for IJAF.
Have seen 90+ system damage too, as well as magazine explosions. Predictably it is *deck armor penetration* that is followed by nasty stuff.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 76
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/6/2019 1:33:51 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8671
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
if you look at the raw data file, you can see the substituting device. so 800gp (1883) and 800ap (209). you have to look at the file, you can't see it in the editor.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 77
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/6/2019 1:35:41 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3745
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Supplies will be delivered if the receiving airfield has 100% service and runway damage.

Here is my own mini-test:

See post 48

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3836195&mpage=2&key=

They are not delivered in my test. At all.
I do not look through messages, I look for the supply level in the empty base.

Basically, we run exactly the same test. I did mine on Guadalcanal map (database from cleaned up GC scenario) using Tabby transports and Nell bombers, and flew from Japanese Townsville to Japanese Horn island. When there was no base on Horn island, just an LCU, supply level of the LCU increased. When there was sufficiently damaged empty base - nothing was transported for many turns including starting one when all aviation always flies. I wonder what gives


Sorry, I think I caused a misunderstandment of sorts.

My test involved transports flying from an UDAMAGED airfield to an airfield with 100% DAMAGE of its runway and airfield. Supplies got delivered, there was no message about transport flying during the AIR TRANSPORT PHASE, and the only info about the flight taking place could be found in the Operational Report. I believe the supplies are actually dropped and the transport do not land and take off from the damaged airfield.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 78
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/6/2019 3:12:04 PM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

if you look at the raw data file, you can see the substituting device. so 800gp (1883) and 800ap (209). you have to look at the file, you can't see it in the editor.




There are obviously some planes that carry the big AP or even SAP as kamikazes (or on naval strike) all the time and I am having a devil of time figuring out which ones.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 79
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 12:55:10 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2345
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Regarding the AP/GP distinction - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3714317

Basicaly, the game decides depending on DL.

In the context of kamikaze missions, GP bombs make the most sense. They have higher effect ratings than AP bombs, and doctrine was for them to go after high-value thin-skinned ships such as CV/CVE/CVL, amphibs and smaller warships. AP bombs therefore are a bad trade, as it's less boom in return for only a marginal increase in usefulness.

FWIW, I am almost certain that the cause of BB's sinking above is due to high sys and fires. I'm suspected that the FLT damage occurs as a result of fire-fighting procedures.



(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 80
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 7:16:31 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13172
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Regarding the AP/GP distinction - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3714317

Basicaly, the game decides depending on DL.

In the context of kamikaze missions, GP bombs make the most sense. They have higher effect ratings than AP bombs, and doctrine was for them to go after high-value thin-skinned ships such as CV/CVE/CVL, amphibs and smaller warships. AP bombs therefore are a bad trade, as it's less boom in return for only a marginal increase in usefulness.

FWIW, I am almost certain that the cause of BB's sinking above is due to high sys and fires. I'm suspected that the FLT damage occurs as a result of fire-fighting procedures.


Or the heat from the fires melts the rubber glands that seal all kinds of hull penetrations and the water comes in that way. It is all abstracted - even when the flotation damage is showing as small and the fires are raging in the 90s, the on-screen reports will say the ship experiences "heavy flooding" before it sinks when it really just burned up. Once fires hit 99 the AI pretends the hull seams open up and let in the water!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 81
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 7:40:04 PM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Regarding the AP/GP distinction - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3714317

Basicaly, the game decides depending on DL.

In the context of kamikaze missions, GP bombs make the most sense. They have higher effect ratings than AP bombs, and doctrine was for them to go after high-value thin-skinned ships such as CV/CVE/CVL, amphibs and smaller warships. AP bombs therefore are a bad trade, as it's less boom in return for only a marginal increase in usefulness.

FWIW, I am almost certain that the cause of BB's sinking above is due to high sys and fires. I'm suspected that the FLT damage occurs as a result of fire-fighting procedures.





Your points do not bear up under repeated testing. The Jill/Kate/Peggy T/Betty/Francis/Nell always carry SAP on kamikaze missions. The other torpedo bombers probably do as well. It is not random, not a die roll, but a 100% certain. I wonder if the Emily does as well?

SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

I agree with damage on BB and sinking.

It may very well be that the SAP carrying bomb kamikazes are a mistake/code not finished/ bug, but it is there, it is measurable, it is meaningful and it is statistically very relevant.



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 82
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 8:19:23 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 83
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 9:07:36 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)


I wasn't really looking for real world justification to coding but rather simple game mechanics.

My guess on the SAP carrying kamikazes is that they trigger many more extra damage messages as in cargo ships because the sys damage is only slightly higher, but there is substantial eng/float/fire damage beyond what a GP bombload kamikaze causes.

I am guessing that any plane capable of carrying a torpedo defaults to the SAP in kamikaze attacks. I haven't tested them all, but the trend is 100% so far.


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/8/2019 9:08:59 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 84
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 10:43:13 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2345
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)


I am guessing that any plane capable of carrying a torpedo defaults to the SAP in kamikaze attacks. I haven't tested them all, but the trend is 100% so far.



I would expect all the torp planes to default to SAP then, and it's probably an oversight? I suspect that GP only bombs is WAD, even if it isn't optimum. GP bombs makes the most logical sense, even if it isn't the best move in terms of game mechanics.

IJ already gets far more air-dropped torpedoes that were ever used in the real war, so I won't complain too loudly.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 85
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/8/2019 11:18:18 PM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



I would expect all the torp planes to default to SAP then, and it's probably an oversight? I suspect that GP only bombs is WAD, even if it isn't optimum. GP bombs makes the most logical sense, even if it isn't the best move in terms of game mechanics.

IJ already gets far more air-dropped torpedoes that were ever used in the real war, so I won't complain too loudly.


That is my thinking, an oversight because Alfred never really makes mistakes. I have had a few developers drop into my AARs every now and then and remark that a lot of the end game content was never really tested...Japanese coastal gun forts for example comes to mind right way.

Of course there could be something hidden in the game code we mere peons have no clue about.

Normally, trying to reverse engineer how the code works is very tough given all the variables, but this time it is so consistent, and measurable.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 86
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/12/2019 11:42:52 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2451
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Try considering what kind of bomb/fuse setting was used IRL.
- For all soft skinned and I would also say PRIMARY kamikaze targets - Transports, LSTs, picket DDs, CVEs, CVs - you would probably want GP with rather short fuse setting to get the bomb explode inside the smaller target and inside the hangar for carriers
- For all other targets and I would say SECONDARY kamikaze targets - fire support ships like BBs, CAs, CLs - you would pick up AP or SAP with longer fuse to get the bomb inside before exploding.

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 87
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/14/2019 6:27:34 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
What was the cause of sinking?
Was it due to flt damage associated with bombs penetrating the armour or were they abandoned due to fires?
Also was there the occurrence of the "penetrating hit" message during the replay that was present for one bomb type and no the other?

I did not watch the animations, would take too much time for my liking. Assume either penetrating magazine hit (most probable) or accumulated flotation.
Ships are not abandoned due to fires, but due to accumulated fire system damage. And as you can see system damage was not dangerously high for surviving ships.


If you used Tracker from turn to turn, you could determine what it was by looking at the Ships data set and then looking at the sunk ships, then what their damage level was that reached 100. It would be either Flt or Fire.

System damage never reaches 100. It will max out at 99, at which point it is statistically improbable to the point of "might happen 1 time in 1000" that damage control of Flooding or Fire will be successful. Ships always, always, always, always sink from Flooding = 100 or Fire = 100 in this game.

Fire and System damage just happen to be correlated.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 88
RE: GA statistical musings - 7/21/2019 5:35:44 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3745
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

And the saga continues.
Today I want to bring your attention to some of the pecularities of HQs and preparation.

TL/DR: Don't leave home without your army/corp HQs - presence is more important than preparation.

The idea was to gain more understanding in what defines adjusted AV. Many things affect it, so I tried to isolate two of the more important and less understood ones - HQ and preparation percentage. Tests have a single Japanese ID attacking a single US regiment in a clear terrain base with forts at level 2. Commanders were edited to have all stats at 60, experience for infantry was set at 50, morale at 99. TOE of ID had 450 infantry squads and 450 support, TOE of US regiment is standard. Attack commensed at the start of scenario, so presumably clear weather all the way. I toggled prep between 0 and 100 both for attackers and defenders, and sometimes added HQs for the attacking side, both army/corp and command ones.

Many of the combinations are yet to be tested, so I want to point out two most important findings (for me)

1. The effect of army/corp HQs is much more important than ~10% to AV which I've seen circulated. HQc have a chance to double the adjusted AV, and all but eliminates leaders(-) penalties, that are usually disasterous (x2 to x4 drops in AV). Command HQ can further double adjusted AV on its own, and the effect is cumulative. With ID+HQc+HQ all at prep 100 I got 1994 adjusted AV once from 450 base. In ~50% attacks AV doubled, while in ~20% quadrupled.

2. Mere presense of the HQc is a big boon (more than x2) to average adjusted AV. Even with prep at zero. See on the picture how adjusted AV of an 100-prep division behaves if 0-prep HQc is added to the hex. With HQc in hex, attacking LCU stops getting leaders(-) almost entirely, while w/o HQ 70% of attacks got this negative modifier which generally halved adjusted AV.



3. Prep itself matters for LCUs, but not as much as HQ presense. Defending regiment with base AV 127 gets average adjusted AV ~50 with prep 0, and ~70 with prep 100. Adjusted AV is still consistently lower than base, but preparation alleviates some of the negative effect


Great find. This HQ effect is far more useful than HQc 10% combat bonus and better healing of damaged squads that are mentioned by the manual and devs. Alas, HQ units are scarce for any combatant nation but China.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 89
RE: GA statistical musings - 8/17/2019 3:04:28 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1907
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
An illustration of how important China is for training Japanese troops experience. This is one attack where a total of 56 jap squads were destroyed (so no big deal for xp)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: GA statistical musings Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.160