Airfield Penalties

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Smeulders »

If you want to know the formulas, try running a bunch of tests. With something this complex you probably won't ever know the exact formulas but it can give you some ballpark figures.

One question I have though, does an HQ help against overstack from the number of engines, or only against an 'administrative' overstack ?
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Frankly, I have been on this bandwagon from the start. There is no logic to it what so ever, just something he wants. Frankly, the only way its going to get changed is if enough of you complain about it. So, if you want it changed, its up to YOU to make your wishes heard. My 1 voice isnt enough. Ive tried for months.

As fair and balanced as ever YH. Bravo. [:'(]

Ok, allow me to be fair.

What is your logic and historical justification for it? I have already shown you (and I can pull it up again if you wish) why it isnt justified. The answer you gave me at that time was something to the effect of "thats the way I wanted it". So please, be my guest.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

To refresh your memory:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I'm sorry, I had something in my eye, tell me again why having a groups limit makes sense to someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus_Air_Force

On August 20, Marine pilots from Marine Aircraft Group 23 (MAG-23) with eighteen F4F Wildcats of VMF-223 led by Major John L. Smith and a dozen SBD-3s of VMSB-232 led by Lieutenant Colonel Richard Mangrum, flying from the U.S. escort aircraft carrier Long Island, landed at Henderson, and were conducting combat operations the next day.[33] They were joined on August 22, by the U.S. Army's 67th Pursuit Squadron under Major Dale Brannon with five Army P-400s (an export version of the P-39), and on August 24 by eleven SBDs from the U.S. aircraft carrier Enterprise which were unable to land on their ship because of battle damage sustained during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. At the end of August they were joined by nineteen more Wildcats from VMF-224 under Major Robert E. Galer and twelve more SBDs from VMSB-231, also part of MAG-23. This varied assortment of Army, Marine, and Navy pilots and planes was the beginnings of the Cactus Air Force.[34]

Could be just me but I count 6 squadrons operating from this level 2 airfield.
ORIGINAL: TheElf

It's been a long time, but I am trying to come to terms with this rule. On the one hand I know what we are trying to do. Could we have a better rule. Absolutely. But this is what we put in. Ideally we'd have a drastically different AF system, but it didn't make the list. We discussed this quite a bit, but we had to compromise.

I feel some of the same frustrations having played several turns and struggled to jockey units around to avoid the penalties. It's a pain. But that is sorta the point. You can't just pile a bunch of units into an AF and not support them, or hell support them, and expect them to all operate without restriction. The idea was to limit the SCOPE of operations when players built their Land Deathstars.

If you jam 4 HVY LBA groups into a level 3 AF and try to obliterate your opponent you should feel a pinch.

The problem with the code as it is now is that essentially a level 2 AF with two groups Max size (3) a/c maxes the AF out from this penalty perspective.

We could certainly address this, but it'll take a code change. I would be willing to address it, and all MikeM needs is a "go" signal from Joe. If you all make a case to Joe, I have some ideas...

Edit: And thus the reason I said if enough people complain about it, it WILL get changed. Bold in Elfs response was mine, but even HE admits its a bad rule.

So there - I was completely fair. That was from late Feb.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4755
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Frankly, I have been on this bandwagon from the start. There is no logic to it what so ever, just something he wants. Frankly, the only way its going to get changed is if enough of you complain about it. So, if you want it changed, its up to YOU to make your wishes heard. My 1 voice isnt enough. Ive tried for months.
I'm with you on some of this one YH ... furthermore I was having a discussion in the old witp forum about some stuff, which I want to add here about modding Empires Ablaze to AE... This is directly affected by the base rules, which essentially force one strategic or operational agenda, not good for alt-histories (which I believe are much more fun to play)...
(I wrote)The other impediment might be the engine count / airfield hard code, which might make Angels ineffective (smaller numbers allowed) ... I think the devs made a mistake here by not allowing this to be modable, it's all ok if you want to play a historical game ( and even YH has said that this is not true - cause you can't base historical numbers of B-17 etc at bases) ... but what about alternative histories - which are certainly more fun than playing a historical game ???

Or would it be a case of making all bases exceed the 10 base lvl ... something to test I guess ...

Hope Nemo doesn't mind me posting this here to ...
Nemo121: Yes, for all the talk of modability they have actually done something rather peculiar insofar as there is a huge ability to add new planes and plane subtypes etc. Same for ships, troops etc.

There is however very little ability to mod the basics of the game itself so as to achieve different operational and strategic realities.

In short there is a great ability to mod items they want you to mod in the ways they wish them to be modded BUT the game is NOT a fully open game yet as this modability extends only to changing technical characteristics.

I wish them well but, sadly, I think they missed a major opportunity here. Certainly people will mod every little plane which had a production run of even 2 or 3 planes and mod in many hypothetical planes but I think that little was done to accomodate the scope of something like Empires Ablaze which seeks to create different strategic and operational atmospheres.

So, yes, your planes can be a bit faster, or slower, more heavily armed, jet-powered or piston-powered BUT changing the strategic flavour of a game isn't accomplished through changing the technical-tactical factors of a weapons system but through changing the base environment in which that system can be employed... E.g. Damian's example of not being able to mod support capabilities is highly relevant here.


In short, AE is a case of "By all means add planes which had tiny production runs and Asperger yourself to death in creating subtypes BUT woe betide you if you have a strategic-level vision."

If there were some expressed willingness to allow issues of strategic relevance to be modded then I'd buy AE and churn out an EA version for it as I think most of the people who have tried EA have found it to be a very different and interesting ( albeit excruciatingly tough ) experience but I'm in no mood to have to struggle with a system to free up the strategic options again.
(I wrote:)
Furthermore to what Nemo is saying, I'd propose the editor should also reveal the following to really make this game modifiable to encompass both operational and strategic alt-histories...
1. Base load/dock limits for shipping based on base lvl.
2. Base plane capacity variables based on base lvl
3. Production cost/build variables (1000/repair etc)
Additionally, but not essential.
5. Base repair/build modifiers for engineers.
6. Base Lcu limits.(although I can live with the new reality here)

etc ...
anyone else want to chime in ?

Here's wishing, some time down the track

--Damian--
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

Smeulders: Rules page 214 states: "In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base,". I think that this actually refers to number of aircraft engines, so a base with 2 squadrons of 24 each of 4 engine bombers will have 192 engines to compare to base size for overload, unless 1 squadron is put on "Training/Rest" or "Training - Patrol Level = Training 100%" (I have to experiment more with settings). If the correct Training/Rest buttons are pushed then the engine total for comparison should be 96 plus 96/3 or 128 engines and 1 + 0 = 1 "group" to compare to the 2 overload criterias. The resulting criteria seems to have overload penalties as follows:

Reduced aircraft launches - No indication of magnitude except for ELF's explanation of the magnitude of non overstacked bomber launch reductions. Unless he is infers that this also applies to overstack, an overstack of even 1 engine or "group" could lead to a 25% 50% reduction or even 100% reduction in launches............

casualties from attacks - No indication of magnitude in the rules. An enemy attack could destroy an additional 25%, 50% or even all aircraft on a base due to an overstack of 1 engine or "group" from my "so called rookie" reading of the rules.

aircraft repairs - No indication of magnitude in the rules. The rules do not seem to state whether repair times are increased 25%, 50% or even 100% due to even a slight overstack.

I will try to do some experiments on the 3 penalty magnitudes, but it is difficult, since even the non stacking numbers for aircraft launches, casualties and repair numbers are created complexely and somewhat randomly.

I know this will again expose me to the more labeling, such as being called a "Loophole Seeker", "Number Cruncher" or "Obsessive Knitpicker", but I truely only want to honestly enjoy a great historical simulation in a comfortable manner. I have unbounded respect for the knowledge, skill, and hard work of all the people who have contributed and sacrificed time and sweat to WITP AE.

User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

To refresh your memory:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I'm sorry, I had something in my eye, tell me again why having a groups limit makes sense to someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus_Air_Force

On August 20, Marine pilots from Marine Aircraft Group 23 (MAG-23) with eighteen F4F Wildcats of VMF-223 led by Major John L. Smith and a dozen SBD-3s of VMSB-232 led by Lieutenant Colonel Richard Mangrum, flying from the U.S. escort aircraft carrier Long Island, landed at Henderson, and were conducting combat operations the next day.[33] They were joined on August 22, by the U.S. Army's 67th Pursuit Squadron under Major Dale Brannon with five Army P-400s (an export version of the P-39), and on August 24 by eleven SBDs from the U.S. aircraft carrier Enterprise which were unable to land on their ship because of battle damage sustained during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. At the end of August they were joined by nineteen more Wildcats from VMF-224 under Major Robert E. Galer and twelve more SBDs from VMSB-231, also part of MAG-23. This varied assortment of Army, Marine, and Navy pilots and planes was the beginnings of the Cactus Air Force.[34]

Could be just me but I count 6 squadrons operating from this level 2 airfield.
ORIGINAL: TheElf

It's been a long time, but I am trying to come to terms with this rule. On the one hand I know what we are trying to do. Could we have a better rule. Absolutely. But this is what we put in. Ideally we'd have a drastically different AF system, but it didn't make the list. We discussed this quite a bit, but we had to compromise.

I feel some of the same frustrations having played several turns and struggled to jockey units around to avoid the penalties. It's a pain. But that is sorta the point. You can't just pile a bunch of units into an AF and not support them, or hell support them, and expect them to all operate without restriction. The idea was to limit the SCOPE of operations when players built their Land Deathstars.

If you jam 4 HVY LBA groups into a level 3 AF and try to obliterate your opponent you should feel a pinch.

The problem with the code as it is now is that essentially a level 2 AF with two groups Max size (3) a/c maxes the AF out from this penalty perspective.

We could certainly address this, but it'll take a code change. I would be willing to address it, and all MikeM needs is a "go" signal from Joe. If you all make a case to Joe, I have some ideas...

Edit: And thus the reason I said if enough people complain about it, it WILL get changed. Bold in Elfs response was mine, but even HE admits its a bad rule.

So there - I was completely fair. That was from late Feb.
uh oh...now you've done it...[:D]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
Kwik E Mart
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Kwik E Mart »

quote:
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
I'm sorry, I had something in my eye, tell me again why having a groups limit makes sense to someone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus_Air_Force
On August 20, Marine pilots from Marine Aircraft Group 23 (MAG-23) with eighteen F4F Wildcats of VMF-223 led by Major John L. Smith and a dozen SBD-3s of VMSB-232 led by Lieutenant Colonel Richard Mangrum, flying from the U.S. escort aircraft carrier Long Island, landed at Henderson, and were conducting combat operations the next day.[33] They were joined on August 22, by the U.S. Army's 67th Pursuit Squadron under Major Dale Brannon with five Army P-400s (an export version of the P-39), and on August 24 by eleven SBDs from the U.S. aircraft carrier Enterprise which were unable to land on their ship because of battle damage sustained during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. At the end of August they were joined by nineteen more Wildcats from VMF-224 under Major Robert E. Galer and twelve more SBDs from VMSB-231, also part of MAG-23. This varied assortment of Army, Marine, and Navy pilots and planes was the beginnings of the Cactus Air Force.[34]
 
Could be just me but I count 6 squadrons operating from this level 2 airfield.
 
end quote
 
YH, I see your point and kinda agree with you, but I also see the devs desire to somehow slow down op tempo and reduce uber air combat. I would submit that you make a couple of assumptions in your argument...
1) Yes, 6 squadrons operated from Henderson, but how effectively did they operate? It seems to me that Elf has tried to point out that part of the design is that you can and will in certain dire circumstances operate overstacked. But again, how effective were they in history? Subjective, I suppose...
2) Were there any HQ's within commmand radius of this base? I don't know, and kinda doubt it, but if there was a substantially large HQ nearby or on the island, I would assume it would help with the overstacking...
3) Level two for the real life airfield seems like an assumption that may be difficult to defend. Perhaps in real life the base was more like a level 3 or 4, in game terms...  *shrug*
Again, I see both sides, just some observations...
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

Image
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Mike Scholl »

We seem to have limits based on the number of squadrons, the number of aircraft, and the number of engines.   Couldn't we just pick one and stick with it?  To me, engines seems fairest, but I'd settle for any ONE basis.  Limitations are fine, but this sometimes feels like confusion for the sake of complication...[&:]
User avatar
Justascratch
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:56 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Justascratch »

Just an outside thought. It seems that the primary playability issue behind this entire argument is the uber air combat problem. I must agree that the problems caused by using overstacking rules to solve the uber problem are an improvement, but just barely. The cost of the improvement is higher than necessary because of the players inability to make sense of things.

Is it possible to consider a different approach all together - for example penalizing air groups that fly too many "consecutive" sorties with higher fatigue. Or, borrowing from the ASW TF issue - limiting the number of air groups that participate in a single mission (size 4 base max of 3 CAP groups if bomobing missions flown on same day etc.). Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting any of the ideas I mention in this post are the way to go. I just think that we may be confining ourselves to the overstacking issue when the real problem is the uber air combat issue.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26250
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Justascratch

Just an outside thought. It seems that the primary playability issue behind this entire argument is the uber air combat problem. I must agree that the problems caused by using overstacking rules to solve the uber problem are an improvement, but just barely. The cost of the improvement is higher than necessary because of the players inability to make sense of things.

Look at it this way - introducing a level of uncertainty there is part of the intention. It helps replicate the uncertainty of the friction of war. I was concerned about a clearer understanding of the mechanics of 'administrative overstacking' because I thought it was something to definitely be avoided. But seeing Elf's explanation, it is intended (WAD) that many airfields will frequently operate with administrative overstacking. Knowing that is a big difference.

In WITP I always stuck to 'normal' stacking for airbases - 50 planes per size (size 3 AF = 150 aircraft, etc.). So, when I started seeing the admin overstacking in AE in situations where I couldn't really do anything about it, that bothered me. Most of it occurs early in the game before the air hq's begin showing up. They tone things down quite a bit. Which is another benefit of it - the early war coordination issues are implemented by the lack of air hq's plus admin overstacking.

Sure they might find things to adjust in patches as time goes on, but hearing what is behind it and how it fits in, so far I like it very much.
romanovich
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:51 am
Location: SoCal

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by romanovich »

Some other posters have taken this position already, and I'm inclined to concur: I'm happy that the algorithms aren't exposed and you aren't able to make 'rational decisions'. The beauty of AE is that it allows you to immerse yourself in gameplay and to make yourself believe that you are planning and executing something as complex as warfare historically was. Don't kid yourself, operations research made preparing the hypothetical a lot more efficient, but once the fighting started, all statistics, plans and predictions went out the window.

If the devs would divulge the algorithms and the probably two dozen (at most) variables that determine game play, it would be a constant reminder for me that, instead of this immersive experience I fancy AE to be, I am really spending my time - despite's AE's scope - with an extremely simplistic representation still of the real thing. That would really take the fun out of it for me.

I am all for trying to micro-manage, calculating and planning in the game. But if you insist on being told exactly how this game runs, you're really asking to be allowed to play to manage some puny flower shop: two dozen of roses in at $.45 per, add margin, subtract overhead, voila: profit. BORING!

I much prefer to be required by AE to test and try to approximate, and then live with the fact that Ian and the gang won't allow me - on purpose - to calculate the maximum on the curve. Cause that's not how wars work.
User avatar
88l71
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:01 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by 88l71 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

We seem to have limits based on the number of squadrons, the number of aircraft, and the number of engines.   Couldn't we just pick one and stick with it?  To me, engines seems fairest, but I'd settle for any ONE basis.  Limitations are fine, but this sometimes feels like confusion for the sake of complication...[&:]

That, and it's just one extra thing to do to go through every base and go "okay, 10 B-17's with 4 engines, 8 2-engine PBY's, 40 P-40's, 15 Mitchells on training, okay, now, lessee about damaged/reserves, oh, wait, one of those P-40 groups is transferring next turn ...."

Would be nice if it could be done in some way that the UI would have a display listing aircraft/max current aircraft at a base.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8471
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by bradfordkay »

"As designers we INTENDED for AFs to be overstacked."
 
Thanks for posting that tidbit, Ian. It is going to require a complete change of mindset for me, as I have always carefully avoided overstacking my airbases. I was beginning to go nuts trying to figure out were I was going to put all the air units I have in AE, because I didn't have enough air support or large enough airfields to handle the number of units and aircraft I have to use... now I realize that I am expected to "just deal with it" the same way that the leaders of teh real war did.
 
Using the Henderson Field example: when the carrier squadrons were based there because their ships had been damaged,they did not have their regular support staff with them - those guys were still on the carriers. Several marine and army squadrons were flown in as replacements during the campaign without any extra ground support personnel. This is an excellent example of a base that is short on both support crews and administrative personnel. Thus it appears to me that the new AE system is modelling this quite well.
fair winds,
Brad
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"As designers we INTENDED for AFs to be overstacked."

Thanks for posting that tidbit, Ian. It is going to require a complete change of mindset for me, as I have always carefully avoided overstacking my airbases. I was beginning to go nuts trying to figure out were I was going to put all the air units I have in AE, because I didn't have enough air support or large enough airfields to handle the number of units and aircraft I have to use... now I realize that I am expected to "just deal with it" the same way that the leaders of teh real war did.

Using the Henderson Field example: when the carrier squadrons were based there because their ships had been damaged,they did not have their regular support staff with them - those guys were still on the carriers. Several marine and army squadrons were flown in as replacements during the campaign without any extra ground support personnel. This is an excellent example of a base that is short on both support crews and administrative personnel. Thus it appears to me that the new AE system is modelling this quite well.


Yep, me too. I feel like a bit of a chump being so careful about minding the rules.

Very good info and very well explained by the devs. It's a shame there is all the dirty laundry flying about.

Thanks for improving the air aspect of the game so dramatically.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by denisonh »

Trying to abstract airfield operations in a location with a single parameter is the real heart of the problem.

The single digit represents any where from a single short dirt airstrip (1) to a large multiple airfield complex (10).

It abstracts:
number of airfields
airstrip length
airstrip hardness
parking
maintenance facilities
fuel storage
air traffic control and communications

Aviation support only respresents the staffing within this parameter.


The single digit to represent an airfield in a game of this level of detail severely hampers how to model airfield operations in a wide variety of locations, each wih varied circumstances.

I think the air team has done the best you can do given this limitation.

Put this on the list for "Witp II".


Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
racndoc
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Newport Coast, California

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by racndoc »

Elf......thanks for the explanation.....I had been wondering how it would be possible to stack B-29s in the Marianas for strategic bombing of Japan and now it all makes sense. I think that Air HQs with large combat radii will become some of the most important land units in the game.
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20738
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Cap Mandrake »

Indeed..the Cactus Air Force is a good example....for both sides.


Multiple squadrons and squadron remnants did operate there..even across services...and did manage to get a fair number of aircraft in the air.

But the support and command services were chaotic at best. Geiger flew in to take charge but most of his MAW remained in Noumea. It was an emergency situation, when something broke, instead of repairing the airframe, in most cases, they just pushed the thing aside and called for more planes. By all reports, pilot morale was in the crapper after non-stop action and Gieger turned it around with force of will and by giving the pilots some offensive action to take.

Here is part of the Cactus Air Force in "dispersed" mode[;)]



Image
Image
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I like the uncertainty. Consider the real world. No base commander could possibly know every source of friction that will pop up on day X. He may simply discover there aren't enough fuel trucks when a bunch of P-39's arrive or that hanger space is now inadequate because it takes 10 hrs to pull a B-17 engine....etc. etc.

This is one of the most sublime aspects of the game.


What He said.

(there used to be a emoticon with that sign but I can't find it; anyway I agee with the Doc)
Takeshi
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:42 pm
Location: West TN

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Takeshi »

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I like the uncertainty. Consider the real world. No base commander could possibly know every source of friction that will pop up on day X. He may simply discover there aren't enough fuel trucks when a bunch of P-39's arrive or that hanger space is now inadequate because it takes 10 hrs to pull a B-17 engine....etc. etc.

This is one of the most sublime aspects of the game.


What He said.

(there used to be a emoticon with that sign but I can't find it; anyway I agee with the Doc)

What he said 2. If I wanted certainty I could play chess. Keep some mystery in the game. [:)]
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by medicff »

Elf, Erik or someone in the know. I like the uncertainty, rules and explanations that have been given here.

but please....

can someone answer my questions of an earlier post.

Apparently the program isn't calculating the overstacking of admin groups constantly and not accounting for groups that are NOT on 100% training (not those on combat and training) but on rest and training.

1) Has this calculation on admin overstacking and viewing (the *) been fixed? OR how does it work and calculate it?

2) Does this program calculate and inform player when group is overstacked via engines? I have never seen this occur.

TIA
Pat
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”