Let me know if i understood...

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

User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by Puhis »

ORIGINAL: beppi

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi

The strange thing about your test is that you achieved the best result with less fighters. In the first test with 200 planes you destroyed a bunch of attackers, the more you added the less you killed.

To be honest I really DO hope that's the case. I would like to see the RL "law of diminishing returns" reflected in game results and hopefully somewhat discouraging the ever popular "Death Star" tactics where players strive to concerntrate their entrie force into a single hex \ base.

Problem is that there are some "reasons" which almost force an death star tactic.

1.) Multiple strikes during a combat phase. Each strike reduces the effective CAP. If you have only 200 planes on cap but face 5 100 planes strike the last strikes will only face a very very low number of remaining cap. To compensate you usually try to have a cap as big as possible. To have as much planes as possible remaining for the last strikes. And i personally have faced 10 strikes during the AM phase and even with 1000 planes CAP the last strikes faced a very small CAP.

You assume every strike is going to hit one single hex. If you spread your forces, it's probable that bombers are going to strike several targets.

Diversion forces does work, you know.

2.) Sometimes you cannot spread you assets. If you have to do a long range landing on a heavy defended position you only have a few spots to do. You will face a multiple enemy bases against you. Small CAP means your are quite dead.

Well, war is hell.

Diversion forces does work in this situation too...
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by Miller »

The funny thing about this for me is that I can't really recall a problem like this in my previous game. It ended in mid 45, and was one of the first (if not THE first) games to get to that stage since the game was released.

I was the Japs, and for the most part my late war strikes, even the larger ones got very chewed up by Allied CAP. This in the main was due to poor co-ordination.........very rarely did I get strikes of 200+ a/c to go in at the same time. Often it was like:

10 fighters vs CAP
20 fighters + 40 bombers vs CAP
40 fighters + 25 bombers vs CAP
20 unescorted bombers vs CAP
25 fighters + 15 bombers vs CAP
etc
etc

Perhaps all those support units and large airfields in Japan are borking the system in some way?
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Miller

The funny thing about this for me is that I can't really recall a problem like this in my previous game. It ended in mid 45, and was one of the first (if not THE first) games to get to that stage since the game was released.

I was the Japs, and for the most part my late war strikes, even the larger ones got very chewed up by Allied CAP. This in the main was due to poor co-ordination.........very rarely did I get strikes of 200+ a/c to go in at the same time. Often it was like:

10 fighters vs CAP
20 fighters + 40 bombers vs CAP
40 fighters + 25 bombers vs CAP
20 unescorted bombers vs CAP
25 fighters + 15 bombers vs CAP
etc
etc

Perhaps all those support units and large airfields in Japan are borking the system in some way?

Maybe, was there any modification to changes with impact on coordination? The list of michaelm´s beta
is so long that it is difficult to evaluate if there was a change that impacts this aspect...

My feeling is no, but you can never be sure.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

Hmmm....
123. Wrong altitude being used sometimes, impacting raid, co-ordination and low level
intercepts.
Image
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

Excuse me guys, but these results say to me that it's not a matter of "overstacking"...


1st test: 50 Betties + 51 Franks (from Tokyo) against an Amphib TF at Hakodate. At Hakodate is based a fighter group composed of the usual 200 P-47s with 80 experience.

Settings: incoming strike at 6,000
P-47s set to Escort, 50% CAP, 50% Rest, 15k feet, range 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 54 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 50 [&:]...50%CAP + 50% rest should mean fighters available for CAP duties...[&:]

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 13 destroyed, 31 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 19 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Arkansas, Torpedo hits 1
APA William P. Biddle
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
APA Heywood, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis



Aircraft Attacking:
43 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet nearly all the bombers got through...
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
2 x Ki-84a Frank sweeping at 10000 feet *

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (16 airborne, 34 on standby, 0 scrambling [&:]
16 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes

Ammo storage explosion on CVE Chenango
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Ammo storage explosion on CVE Sangamon
Banzai! - Hidaka C. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor









2nd Test.

Same as usual with the P-47s on escort + 50% CAP (0% rest), alt 15k, range 0



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 28 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 7 destroyed, 17 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 25 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 1
BB Arkansas, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis
APA Zeilin, Torpedo hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
37 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 67 on standby, 0 scrambling)
33 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes





3rd test

P-47s on 100% CAP, 15k, 0 range


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 76 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M3a Betty x 50
Ki-84a Frank x 51



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 200


Japanese aircraft losses
G4M3a Betty: 8 destroyed, 16 damaged
G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed by flak
Ki-84a Frank: 24 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 4, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APA John Penn
APA American Legion, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
APA Henry T. Allen
APA Harry Lee, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis



Aircraft Attacking:
47 x G4M3a Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet ...again, most of the bombers got to the target unmolested.-..
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
52nd Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 134 on standby, 0 scrambling)
66 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
48 planes vectored on to bombers

Banzai! - Agawa T. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor
Inoue N. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming BB North Carolina
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring BB North Carolina
Banzai! - Ishimori H. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring APA American Legion
Banzai! - Miyajima B. in a G4M3a Betty is willing to die for the Emperor




....so even with small numbers (50+50 attacking planes against a max number of 200 defending fighters) the result is always the same: put a few escort and the bombers will hit their target...and hit hard!

I don't know if i'm doing something wrong in placing my CAP...i'd like to be supported by some one else doing some tests to see if it's me or the code...

In my tests however CAP doesn't work as i thought it should...no matter the numbers...1000 defending fighters are ineffective exactly like 50....
beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: beppi

ORIGINAL: Dobey




To be honest I really DO hope that's the case. I would like to see the RL "law of diminishing returns" reflected in game results and hopefully somewhat discouraging the ever popular "Death Star" tactics where players strive to concerntrate their entrie force into a single hex \ base.

Problem is that there are some "reasons" which almost force an death star tactic.

1.) Multiple strikes during a combat phase. Each strike reduces the effective CAP. If you have only 200 planes on cap but face 5 100 planes strike the last strikes will only face a very very low number of remaining cap. To compensate you usually try to have a cap as big as possible. To have as much planes as possible remaining for the last strikes. And i personally have faced 10 strikes during the AM phase and even with 1000 planes CAP the last strikes faced a very small CAP.

You assume every strike is going to hit one single hex. If you spread your forces, it's probable that bombers are going to strike several targets.

Diversion forces does work, you know.

And you assume that there is no way to force a strike into a single hex. If you want to strike an airbase you just target it. If you use range limitation settings you can pretty much target specific naval hexes too. Thats basically the 1&1 of PBEM games.

Diversion of forces only leads only to more losses. And that is even quite realistic. Most RL combat during WWII depended on a concentration of forces. Most invasions and even most ground combat. Diversion does not help, and you know it [;)]

2.) Sometimes you cannot spread you assets. If you have to do a long range landing on a heavy defended position you only have a few spots to do. You will face a multiple enemy bases against you. Small CAP means your are quite dead.

Well, war is hell.

Diversion forces does work in this situation too...

Sure sure, war is hell. But some lets say "artificial limitations in combat" is hell too. And again diversion will not help here too. Big bases need big invasions or you fail by ill preparations. A artificial diversion does not help here either. Especially as the defending side can just concentrate its forces and destroy one diversion after another.
ADB123
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:56 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by ADB123 »

....so even with small numbers (50+50 attacking planes against a max number of 200 defending fighters) the result is always the same: put a few escort and the bombers will hit their target...and hit hard!

I don't know if i'm doing something wrong in placing my CAP...i'd like to be supported by some one else doing some tests to see if it's me or the code...

In my tests however CAP doesn't work as i thought it should...no matter the numbers...1000 defending fighters are ineffective exactly like 50....

It's not you, it's the Game.

We've all seen this.

That deliberate design decision to allow bombers to get through is a failure.

You've demonstrated it very nicely in your tests, and the rest of us have seen it repeatedly in our games.

This is also why 4Es seem so invulnerable in the early stages of a campaign - it has nothing particular to do with the 4Es but instead is just the Air Engine kicking in.

Now, the big question is - can anyone come up with a way around the problem?
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by Puhis »

Try run some test with very low number of escorts, or no escorts at all.

Also, try to set fighters flying LRCAP over ships instead of CAP.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

GreyJoy, if you want to provide the save of your testscenario I try to find the time
to play around with it a bit. I cannot guarantee today, and I will not use the modified
.exe you are using but the beta r6 instead we are using for PBEM, but I guess this makes
sense anyway.
Image
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

As stated in your AAR, I think part of the problem with your latest tests could be cramming 200 fighters into one group. Split the group up into 4 groups of 50 P-47s and run the same few tests again.

Also, if you post your modified scenario, I'll try to run some of my own tests using the latest public patch as well.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.


Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...

beppi
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by beppi »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.


Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...


From a test point of view you should conduct it if you have time, would give more information and information always helps.

From a realistic point of view you are right. It is always "easy" to comment a combat after it has been done.

Basically altitude settings of the defender should only have a very very minor effect on the combat. There is more than enough time in a combat time frame to climb a 10000+ feet and more than enough time to drop to 100 feet from 35000. And there are radios to tell the pilots the height of the incoming strike so they can climb/drop on their way to interception point.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Rerun the test with layered CAP from 6k-12k. I´d expect a better result then.

With CAP at 15k and Betties at 6k you are putting the escorts right between the CAP and the bombers.

I always try to at least have some layers very close to the incoming alt of the strike.


Ok, i can, but it's not exactly a "real scenario"...if you only have 100 fighters possiblt due to CAp would you really put the CAP at that low altitude?? I mean...if you split the CAP between different altitudes (as i always do), i've been told (after my CVs debacle) that too many different altitudes screw the CAP...

mmm...and however i think it's a reasonable GAP between 15k and 6-8k feet... i mean from 15k feet you can easily dive over the incoming strike...



You bet I would stagger them from up high down to low altitude, with emphasis on down low.

You are right that a dive from 15k to 6-8k should not be a problem, but were not talking realism in
this case, but game mechanics. And from game mechanics as soon as you have a gap too large you lose
much of its effectiveness.
If you got 100 fighters on CAP at max alt, you can sneak a whole truckload of B-24 in at 10k without them even
being engaged.

I agree with TheLoneGunman btw.
In case we want results which can be used for investigaton, we have to remain withing the limits
the campaign itself provides. So I rather doubt any result with an airgroup as large as 200 planes
leads to anything conclusive as nothing comparable exists in an unmodded scen.
Image
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by GreyJoy »

Here u are... 4 groups of 50 planes each. Escort + 50% CAP, 0 range, 15k alt....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 01, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 11 destroyed, 31 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 5 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
CVE Chenango, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Colorado



Aircraft Attacking:
33 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes


And here are the same 4 groups at 6,000 feet (always escort mission with 50% CAP, 0 hex)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hakodate at 119,53

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y2 Frances x 50
Ki-84r Frank x 50



Allied aircraft
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 100


Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y2 Frances: 22 destroyed, 5 damaged
P1Y2 Frances: 8 destroyed by flak
Ki-84r Frank: 15 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 6 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVE Sangamon, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Chenango
BB Colorado
BB Valiant, Torpedo hits 1
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x P1Y2 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 42000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
347th Fighter Group with P-47D25 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

Biiiiiiiig difference at 6k feet! [X(]
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 9928
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by Sardaukar »

I think it's totally different ballgame when both attackers & defenders are divided to squadron-size like in unmodded AE. Air Coordination problems for attacker will be way more severe and I think it'll benefit defending CAP.

I don't think game engine can really support air units with size of 100-200 or up.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by LoBaron »

[;)]

With 2-3 layers you can probably further improve.
Not too far apart, just enough to box the escorts in.
Image
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

Now you gotta keep playing with it till you get the optimum defense package, then scale the whole experiment back up to 1000 aircraft and see how the results look then.
Elladan
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:15 am
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Let me know if i understood...

Post by Elladan »

As to the why the unassigned fighters do not scramble some time and do some other time question - it looks to me very much like a die roll is being made to check whether they are able to do that. Basically, sometimes you get lucky (or have good pilots/commanders/whatever) and your CAP gets increased, some other times hard luck.
Combat rounds cap in huge air battles is different problem though.
Post Reply

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