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: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't used to attack shipping...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't used to attack shipping... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/30/2005 8:24:40 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2577
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.



Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.


You miss the point entirely. The air attack rules make it far to easy and rewarding too use large 4-engined bomber
formations for Anti-shipping attacks. The bombardment rules make them far too easy and rewarding to blast every-
thing on any coast.. Both are exploits of poorly designed rules and combat results. If Darwin is correctly shown
without Rail connections and difficult to supply in any meaningful quantity, and the Allies want to expend the shipping
resources to try and support an effort there, I have no problem with it. In the game as released, an Allied Offensive
from that area IS another exploit of a poor design choice, and belongs on the same list as the level bomber and bomb-
bardment foolishness. All need to be fixed.


Good Lord, Now I am agreeing with Mike!!

I think he is right on the money with all three points. Not only could I not put it better myself, I couldn't say it as well.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 61
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/30/2005 8:40:42 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I was actually waiting for somebody to say, "Sure the B-17s attacked ships, tied up at anchore or docked or whatever.

(*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT*)

There are on 10 instances where the word "harbor" is mentioned in the above list of activities. Now, I certainly don't believe that all of the other attacks were made against shipping in the open water. But you people insult the crews of the heavies when you imply they never attacked anything but anchored targets. The simple fact remains that, majority of attacks were carried out against shipping that was in open water.

What you could have said, which would be entirely correct, is that

The the number attacks against enemy shipping in the open water began to decrease by the end of 1942.

You will note that in your "harbor" example, that the the instances of shipping be attack in the harbor occurred in
July
Aug
Oct x2
Nov x3
Dec x3

You think that might have something to do with the fact that, much of the shipping around New Guinea / Solomons had come to a halt by then, and most of the targets -were- stuck in the harbors...?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 62
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 1:57:13 AM   
pompack


Posts: 2577
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I was actually waiting for somebody to say, "Sure the B-17s attacked ships, tied up at anchore or docked or whatever.

(*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT*)

There are on 10 instances where the word "harbor" is mentioned in the above list of activities. Now, I certainly don't believe that all of the other attacks were made against shipping in the open water. But you people insult the crews of the heavies when you imply they never attacked anything but anchored targets. The simple fact remains that, majority of attacks were carried out against shipping that was in open water.

What you could have said, which would be entirely correct, is that

The the number attacks against enemy shipping in the open water began to decrease by the end of 1942.

You will note that in your "harbor" example, that the the instances of shipping be attack in the harbor occurred in
July
Aug
Oct x2
Nov x3
Dec x3

You think that might have something to do with the fact that, much of the shipping around New Guinea / Solomons had come to a halt by then, and most of the targets -were- stuck in the harbors...?

-F-


Now I'm not saying that there were not a lot of attacks agains ships under way and free to maneuver. Nor am I saying that there were not a lot of claimed hits and sinkings (remember at Midway, the B-17s claimed hits on five carriers; they also got their press release out to the newspapers before the navy). It's just that the record doesn't show many ships actually sunk by level bombing from alititude.

I am saying that the game as it sits in 1.4 provides as many hits on maneuvering WARSHIPS as the pilots claimed in real life. It is just far too accurate today.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 63
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 6:23:51 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16
Well I have come to think that there is not going to be any great changes to the game. It is pretty much in it's complete state. One way to make things closer to the truth is to make a limit to the amount of planes on a base, not just limited to base forces. Say level x 50 plus 50 per field is the max. For the Japanese make the 2e torp planes fly on pnly from base size 6 or higher as it is a bigger base with torp and make the range trops can be used a smaller range. Land combat who knows that is not why I play the game. Also I am not Japanese fanboy. I have 4 PBEMs as the Allies and 2 as Japan. If you play the game with in historical guidelines it works great.


Unfortunately, 2by3 seems to agree with you that they aren't going to actually spend the time and effort to complete this
game into the simulation they promised. What could have been great and definitive isn't going to make it past pedestrian.

I've offered a REAL solution to the basing problem several times, to no noticible effect. The "basing restrictions" you
are playing with are just another "poor design choice". There is nothing except runway length to prevent large A/C
from operating out of small bases. You just can't operate very many of them. What is really needed is a system that
reflects the size and servicing requirements of A/C. A 2-engined bomber should require twice as much base space and
servicing support as a single engined fighter, and a 4-engined Bomber about 3 times the space and support. Heck, when
you get to the B-29, it probably should be 4 times..

Bases don't suddenly aquire extra abilities when they reach a certain size. The abilities are there, it's just a matter of how
much of a load they can handle.. The same size base and support unit that can keep 50 fighters flying can only keep
16 B-17's adequately serviced and based. Now that would make some sense. The current system is a silly patchwork.
And it requires that a number of bases be a-historically oversized at the beginning of the game to stuff history into a poor
system. That by itself should have told 2by3 that they had a problem.



_____________________________


(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 64
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 7:23:17 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.



Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.


When it comes to ahistorical strategies and tactics, I believe the test that needs to be applied is "could the real-life commanders reasonably have taken the action in question, given the knowlege they had at the time?" Japanese sub doctrine, for example, represents deeply ingrained cultural issues within the IJN; Tokyo's simply issuing orders to "attack more merchantmen and fewer warships" would have had little effect, because the sub commanders had all been infused with the ideas of Bushido, which teaches that a warrior's only worthy adversary is another warrior.

There will always be gray areas, of course; I'd say Japanese BB bombardment is one of those. Yes, the idea of preserving the BBs for the final climactic battle with the US fleet was a major factor in Japanese doctrine; however, as the war progressed, both sides did attempt to modify doctrine (with varying degrees of success) as circumstances and experience dictated.

Another issue to be considered is, of course, hindsight. No game can perfectly eliminate this; and no player, no matter how hard he might try, can totally avoid having his knowledge of history color his decision-making process. Some people enjoy the Monday-morning quarterback style of play; others choose to attempt, as far a possible, to play the role of the historical commander. These are largely issues of personal preference, and (in a multi-player game) should be discussed with ones opponent or opponents ahead of time.

Finally, there is the issue of what is "gamey" and what is simply unorthodox. This can also have gray areas. To expound on an example that has been brought up before, suppose that, for whatever reason, the Doolittle Raid had not taken place IRL. Now suppose that WitP had more detailed carrier operation rules, allowing some land-based planes to take off from (and maybe even land on; this did happen very rarely) CVs, based on the aircraft's flight characteristics and the length of the CV's deck. Suppose also that the Japanese player took a huge political-point hit (and the Allies got a big boost) if Tokyo were bombed in 1942. The first time an Allied player managed to launch a squadron of B-25s on a suicide mission against Tokyo, some players would undoubtedly decry the action as "gamey," "unrealistic," etc. So what is and is not an "exploit" is not always black-and-white (sometimes it is, though).

quote:

Finally, there is the issue of what is "gamey" and what is simply unorthodox. This can also have gray areas. To expound on an example that has been brought up before, suppose that, for whatever reason, the Doolittle Raid had not taken place IRL. Now suppose that WitP had more detailed carrier operation rules, allowing some land-based planes to take off from (and maybe even land on; this did happen very rarely) CVs, based on the aircraft's flight characteristics and the length of the CV's deck. Suppose also that the Japanese player took a huge political-point hit (and the Allies got a big boost) if Tokyo were bombed in 1942. The first time an Allied player managed to launch a squadron of B-25s on a suicide mission against Tokyo, some players would undoubtedly decry the action as "gamey," "unrealistic," etc. So what is and is not an "exploit" is not always black-and-white (sometimes it is, though).


I understand the point you want to make and I appreciate it. You're thoughtful.

But re the Doolittle example: if it had never happened why would there be points for it, why would this capability be modeled? Look at our game. The Doolittle raid actually did happen and yet it's not modeled and there are no points for it. So I don't see this as a very good example.

I look it like this. Some players will see the simulation itself as "gamey" and take steps to correct the situation as best they might within the course of play. Other players will see those steps taken as being "gamey" and tell the other guy to play instead "by the rules." Can you see the fundamental conflict at work here?

What the solution is I don't know. Maybe just to design these simulations with more care to begin with.

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 65
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 7:24:56 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline
I still don't know what ya'll are complaining about, My 4Es are hardly hitting land based targets and I have very rarely hit any type of naval target (anchored, in port or at sea)!

Just in case some did not know, initial skip bombing trials conducted by the 5th AF were carried out using B-17s, but Gen Kenney wisely choose to use light and medium bombers instead.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 66
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 7:32:36 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Yes, the idea of preserving the BBs for the final climactic battle with the US fleet was a major factor in Japanese doctrine


Another thing to consider here, IJN clearly considered the Kongos to be in a different class than their battle line ships (which of course they were). The Kongos were the red-headed step children of the Combined Fleet, usable for just about any mission and apparently thought of as being more or less expendible (at least until a couple of them got expended).




(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 67
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 5:28:08 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I really like the idea of making tying the number of air-support required, to the number of engines.

Not sure how do-able it is. But I -really- like the idea.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 68
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 6:02:32 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
Another thing that would help would be to tie the max aircraft that can be based at a field to the number of engines. IE, you can base more B-25's at a level 4 AF than you could B-17's. Maybe I'm on the wrong track. But, I sure think you could base a lot more SBD's at Tinian than you could B-29's.

I don't think you could base 4 SBD's per B-17, but maybe two to one.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 69
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 3/31/2005 9:07:05 PM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I really like the idea of making tying the number of air-support required, to the number of engines.

Not sure how do-able it is. But I -really- like the idea.

-F-


Well, speaking as someone whose only programming experience amounts to an incomplete Basic game back around 1982 . . . I couldn't really say, though it doesn't sound as if this would have broken the bank during development, so I'd guess Wood could turn the trick if he wanted to. I just think there's something approaching entrenched opposition to the notion of making a lot of fundamental change to the core concept of this simulation. For whatever reason, the notion of "appropriate abstraction at the given scale" seems to have an inertial grip on everyone involved with the project.

Mike's notion is fine, it's hard to argue with that logic. The change would help to ultimately curtail the air model in general on the land-based side, that's for sure; it would give Allied engineering assets added responsibility while forcing that player to more carefully plan for his counteroffensive, another plus; it would also tend to curtail early Japanese over-expansion somewhat, especially were this change wedded to a judicious re-editing of the potential size of some bases, and the latter could be accomplished in the editor, so there's no problem there. That's all on the plus side.

I can't think of a single demerit.

A possible further addition might be to make it easier to better disrupt base functionality by letting bombers hit supply stockpiles more often the higher the airbase level. That might sound illogical, but the purpose of this mechanic would be to better simulate the temporary loss of the more complex support necessary to keep the larger aircraft flying on a regular basis. The key to this alteration having the actual intended effect would be to then also change the way supply is expended and air support is required at bases.

At present it doesn't appear as if supply is expended to make inoperational planes operational over and above the supply required presently by the air-support units at that base. If so, that's a mistake. In any event, there appears to be a surplus of supply in the game for the Japanese, and it also seems to be the case that it's too easy to move this supply where it's actually needed, especially for the Japanese. If increased amounts of supply were required at airbases to properly maintain the planes parked there, then we could logically assume it would require more supply to bring and keep a 4E plane on line than it would to bring and to keep a 1E plane on line.

It would help further (already mentioned any number of times in various threads) to change the rule which allows 250 support points to operate any kind of base containing any number of planes. This rule was ill-bred. A requirement of so many air-support factors per engine would make more sense, per Mike's suggestion, and this would serve to impact both sides more or less equally. On the Japanese side the player would now be harder pressed (somewhat) to properly "engineer" whatever forward larger bases he planned to operate, with the desired increase in supply which is now required to maintain those additional air-support units as well. All to the good, as this would slow down the Japanese side of the land-based air-model equation as well as to begin to more properly address those real-life issues of logisitcal concern which plagued the Japanese throughout the war. On the Allied side of the board, this change would give added meaning and purpose to all those marvelous base forces the Allies are blessed with, and at the same time increase their need to provide increased supply to their even more complex (i.e. containing 4E bombers) and thus more supply-ravenous-still airbases, thereby similarly slow down their air operations, too. Eventually the Allies, with thoughtful play, will be able to surmount this new hurdle of logistics better than could the Japanese, but then that's only right and proper and follows a parallel path with history.

It's been suggested that 4E bombers require more air support than 1E planes and 2E planes. But I wonder if this progression of support requirement upward should be arithmetic or more geometric of nature. For instance, I'd not hedge by requiring 4E bombers to require just 3x the supply necessary to keep fighters aloft, but require something more like 6x the supply and air support required to keep these monsters flying over and above the operational needs of fighters.

This would also set the stage to address a problem regarding the supply model that's bothered me from scratch, namely, that the Japanese and Allies in the game consume supply at the same rate. What the correct rate might be I don't profess know exactly, and in game this could probably only be approximately ascertained from repeated play by serious players. But an increase in supply requirements, along the lines I suggest above, seems warranted given the disparity of supply "needs" and actual expenditure between Japanese forces and the Americans for sure. Were I to create a baseline for this, I'd say that if the Japanese consumed one supply point for a given game function then it should probably be the case that the Chinese only be required to consume 1/2 of a supply point for that same function, Australian, New Zealand, Dutch and British units consume 2x that baseline requirement, while Americans gobble up supply points at a rate of 3x or even 4x that rate.

I know one thing for sure. In this respect the model doesn't have it right now.

Back to airbases specifically.

The present game requirement of supplies to maintain offensive missions based on level-bomber loadouts may or may not make sense. I haven't done the math, maybe someone else would. I'd say on general principles it ought to cost more supply to operate a fighter bomber than a fighter, though, and possibly require an extra 1/2 support point to keep that fighter bomber operational turn to turn above the needs of a fighter.

That strikes me as a more sensible approach.

There's a lot to look at, most of which would require either a new engine or and/or a new editor. For instance, why weren't planes developed to have distinct mission-accuracy ratings assigned? That is, why is an aircraft's mission equally rated to hit a moving target at sea as it is to hit a stationary target on land? Certainly no one would argue that the logic of having both rated the same is anything other than dubious. A change in this area might well help to correct the air model's penchant for giving odd and overly-robust results. Level bombers, for instance, on Naval Attack missions now might be more accurately rated for the real-life effect they actually had in this role, meanwhile allowing us to independently further fine-tune their abilities vis-a-vis missions assigned to impact land targets.

Do I hear any argument in opposition to that? Any discussion to make that seed of an idea better still?

And we haven't begun to address the problems of the naval air model. Or the naval surface model. Or the land model.

Speaking of the land model, does anyone but myself question the wisdom of designing "railroads" to all work the same for all kinds of units? For instance, was a "railroad" in real-life Sotheast Asia, say, able to move a division as fast from point A to point B as a "railroad" could from Los Angleles to San Francisco? And why does a battalion-sized unit move at the same rate along that RR line as does one of divisional size?

And so on.

You know, the list of ways to better articulate the game model would not be difficult to expand were any encouragement by Matrix offered whatsoever. Volunteers to do so would scurry quickly out of the woodwork. This ought to have been the developmental attitude coming into the project. Instead, the developers apparently felt more comfortable to pursue a half-baked rehash of UV, replete with nearly all of the intrinsic system problems (that nobody with half a brain and a straight face could deny) which plagued (and still plague today) that otherwise venerable title. In light of this realization I just don't see Wood, much less Gary, and disregard completely Joel going to the trouble of making the requisite changes to transform WitP into something very much more sophisticated than what we have today. I'd really like to believe that that isn't true. So please, Matrix, prove me to be wrong.

Comments?

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 70
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/1/2005 8:40:33 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
We'll give this one the same boost. It needs more discussion. So . . . TTT.


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 71
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/1/2005 11:13:33 PM   
Milman

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Serbia
Status: offline
We need airfield to be like factories . For example wake airfield size=50 (only 50 planes can be put on that airfield) . If you vant to expand you do that like you do with factories . Cost of expand may be changed to 500 sup. +- . When you attack airfield you damage him like factory . And there should be rules for penalties on using damaged airfield and let say if airfield is 50% damaged no air ops from them . But I don't think that they will do that but this can be good idea for future game or WITP 2 .

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 72
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/1/2005 11:50:24 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Poor Mike Wood. He'll never get a break!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 73
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/2/2005 1:57:52 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Poor Mike Wood. He'll never get a break!


As far as I know he gets paid for this work. Question is, how long will Matrix continue to pay him for further work on WitP.


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 74
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/2/2005 1:59:04 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milman

We need airfield to be like factories . For example wake airfield size=50 (only 50 planes can be put on that airfield) . If you vant to expand you do that like you do with factories . Cost of expand may be changed to 500 sup. +- . When you attack airfield you damage him like factory . And there should be rules for penalties on using damaged airfield and let say if airfield is 50% damaged no air ops from them . But I don't think that they will do that but this can be good idea for future game or WITP 2 .


All of that is basically handled by the game mechanics now. The problems with the system run much more deeply.

(in reply to Milman)
Post #: 75
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/2/2005 2:01:39 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
I'm sure he's looking forward to upcoming patches for GGWAW.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 76
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/2/2005 5:33:16 PM   
Milman

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Serbia
Status: offline
quote:

size=50 (only 50 planes can be put on that airfield)


This means that you can't put 51 or more planes on wake island . Right now I think that you can put 1000 planes on aitfield size 4 , and they will fly (with penalties) . so it isn't the same as the situation which we have now in WITP .

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 77
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/3/2005 1:58:04 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milman

quote:

size=50 (only 50 planes can be put on that airfield)


This means that you can't put 51 or more planes on wake island . Right now I think that you can put 1000 planes on aitfield size 4 , and they will fly (with penalties) . so it isn't the same as the situation which we have now in WITP .


I understand, but the mechanics are still in there. What the actual in-game numbers ought to be is another matter.

Mostly this kind of stuff could have been, if not made "right," then at least "leaned on hard" had Gary provided a more thoughtful logistics model. He didn't, Mike's not going to change it, end of story.


(in reply to Milman)
Post #: 78
RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't u... - 4/3/2005 1:58:36 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'm sure he's looking forward to upcoming patches for GGWAW.


I'll pass on that.


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 79
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: I'm tired of folks saying B-17s and B-24s weren't used to attack shipping... 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

0.199