Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

modrow
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:02 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by modrow »

Castor,

I think you are at least off target, maybe even off limits here with your initial post. Let me try to get this exchange back to a less emotional and more rational level by explaining why I think so.
... that´s why my initial post was: Restricting strategic bombing but having uninterceptable kamikazes? Sounds reasonable.

To me, this post raises doubts about a game balance question.
ORIGINAL: castor troy
While I´m not interested in your fantasy mod and have never looked at it (I may be wrong therefore), which of those great aircraft actually are carrier capable?

The reason why I have concerns with your initial post potentially being off limits is that if you want to discuss a balance issue, you need to look at a mod in detail rather than isolating a single aspect of it. Judging without knowing the facts seems a bit unfair. But that's just my opinion, you may bash me for it if you want.

I still think and strongly recommend that you should look at Nemo's mods in detail, as it might change your perception of this entire discussion and provide you with an explanation why the reaction/reception you receive is a bit harsh. Let me explain why:

Talking from my limited experience with Nemo's Empire Ablaze mod for WitP, first of all I do not think it is supposed to reflect any type of reality, so yes they are fantasy.

Nemo's mods are not about how the war was and what was historically realistic, and they also do not fall into the class of AFB/JFB wet dream mods. Instead, they are usually an interesting intellectual puzzle for both sides and designed with the purpose of being one.

So yes, there are ahistoric options available to players in these mods, and each side has a missile or three in its quiver that may not be countered directly. These represent incentives to start some intellectual activity: Coming up with ways how to counter these threats and/or how to achieve your aims in spite of the straightforward way being bound to lead to disaster (which is also true in most cases for the straightforward use of your unstoppable devices - there are snares and traps for the unaware). And there is one thing you can be sure about: there WILL be a counter that works, but you may have to look for it. If Nemo's mods aim at one thing, then they strive for balance, but for asymetrically obtained balance. You have the tools you need, but you will have to figure out how they need to be used.

As a matter of fact, I think that your analysis of the problems of Allied *naval* fighters may potentially be a sound first step on this way. Just start evaluating the "unconventional" approaches, check whether the direct approaches that are blocked by asymmetric threats are carved into stone, or whether there is a way to get around the generally assumed "law" that this has to be done in that way (and no other way, as everything else is ahistorical - only if you and your opponent have agreed to play historically, it is relevant whether a CV TF was ever loaded with fighters only, otherwise griping about it is totally irrelevant).

In this case, the law supposedly carved into stone may be "Invasion TFs must be covered by carriers". Do they need to be ? Is there a route available under LBA cover for NON-CV-TFs ? Are the numerous CVs perhaps an expendable device that may attract the Kamis and allow you to gain the time to create the foothold you need (do away with the mantra "I need to protect my carriers at all cost") ? I don't know, I did not check, my time did not allow - but in general I think this is the way how you have to look at Nemo's mods.

Returning to the starting point, your initial post was a balance question, criticizing someone who really cares for balanced mods, who is in process of finetuning an unfinished product, an alpha - testing some ideas obtained from use of the standard AE engine in a limited scenario (this is also why the mirror game is important: One needs to take a look at how it feels from both sides) over a balance question, implying that he is just trying to create conditions that are in his favor.

So what you do is attacking someone who is striving and working hard to achieve balance for his mod, admitting that you did not look at, and isolating a single aspect, for a balance issue, implying that he just uses the mod to create conditions in his favor. If you do that, don't be astonished if the reaction is harsh.

As always, just my 2cts.

Hartwig
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

Hartwig is right. There are MANY assymetric solutions to this issue. Hell there are even very simple symmetric ones - "Wait for 3 months and have 1500+ USN fighters capable of flying over 39,370 feet". The Allies get roughly 400 such fighter per month IIRC.

As to the rest.... This is clearly a case of you engaging in a vendetta. You haven't even downloaded the mod in order to examine it and offer reasoned opinions. I have better things to do with my time than engage in debate with one who isn't interested in seeing.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Canoerebel »

Wow, it's been two weeks, and we still don't know what became of the Allied invasion that Nemo was expecting at any moment.

Nemo/Panzer, tell us what's going on!
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Hortlund »

Invasion hasnt taken place yet. We have only been able to play two turns due to lack of time at my end. Things should speed up now though
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3749
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Captain Cruft »

The turns do take a while, especially for the Allies. Bazillions of units ...
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

16th October:

The USN invasion fleet is finally spotted - previously I'd just had hints of it. It has a front of 2 to 3 hexes ( 92 to 138 miles ) and is 5 hexes ( 230 miles ) long. My recon ( most of which got shot down by CAP ) reports 25 CVs and about 20 CVLs. I also have spotted numerous BBs, CAs, DDs, AOs and AKs/APs.

Looks like this is the real deal. It is currently 150 miles south-west of Korea ( Daishu To to be precise ). Japanese preparations are at fever pitch with reserves which were mobilised 3 to 4 days ago arriving in position. The IJN is also at sea, closing in on the enemy as the number of kamikaze squadrons increased daily. I've added a half-dozen squadrons over the past two days alone.

The big news of the day for Japan was as follows:
1. Georges and Franks were able to achieve a 2:1 kill ratio in defensive fighting vs Hellcats and Corsairs escorting an Avenger strike on some of my shipping. That's a good trade and leaves the Allied carriers with 20 fewer fighters with which to defend themselves.

2. My forces at Tokarra Retto finally managed to anihilate the Allied invaders. This does, I feel, validate the creation of a central reserve of air-transportable units which can be used to rapidly flood invasion hexes.

Ground combat at Tokara Retto (100,62)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 8743 troops, 82 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 351

Defending force 3332 troops, 39 guns, 43 vehicles, Assault Value = 24

Japanese adjusted assault: 56

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 56 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: disruption(-), fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
393 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
3419 casualties reported
Squads: 91 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 387 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 313 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 54 (54 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (27 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 2


Assaulting units:
21st Ind.Mixed Regiment
4th Raiding Rgt /1
1st Raiding Force
25th Ind.Mixed Regiment
58th Infantry Bde /1
57th Ind.Mixed Bde /1
91st Ind.Mixed Bde /1

Defending units:
24th Infantry/B Division
Eighth Army Combat Engineer Regiment

It is nice, even while hugely outnumbered overall, to be able to deliver the occasional reverse.

Now, it is time to see whether or not the Japanese can defeat the much larger invasions which will be unleashed over the next week.

Another month would have made me certain of defeating them. As it is I think things are going to be very, very close.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3745
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hartwig is right. There are MANY assymetric solutions to this issue. Hell there are even very simple symmetric ones - "Wait for 3 months and have 1500+ USN fighters capable of flying over 39,370 feet". The Allies get roughly 400 such fighter per month IIRC.

As to the rest.... This is clearly a case of you engaging in a vendetta. You haven't even downloaded the mod in order to examine it and offer reasoned opinions. I have better things to do with my time than engage in debate with one who isn't interested in seeing.

I understand 100% where you are coming from on this issue, but from the outside looking in some of this "rings wrong". If you look at the issue more deeply you can understand what Nemo is trying to accomplish. Failing to have that depth of understanding can, in fairness, allow one to come to some conclusions that may be not valid. I am not releasing Castor Troy of complete responsibility either because it is also fair to expect that a person would investigate a matter thoroughly before commenting.

If you were just a casual browser and popped into this thread on a whim and saw, "We have a HR not allowing B-29 to bomb below 20k because they are too accurate" couple with "I have Kamikazes that cannot be intercepted because they have such a high ceiling" - you might go, "huh?"

Oh, in Nemo's defense, the Pe-2 was a plane that posed the exact same problem for the Japanese in the original WiTP EA. Just saying it goes both ways with Nemo
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

vettim,

It is one thing to ignorantly question balance. It is another thing to ignorantly, without ever downloading the mod to allege bias on the part of the designer. I don't think we should make allowances for people who, in willfull ignorance, go around making accusations against others and who then refuse to apologise when they are clearly in error and ignorant of the facts.

Castor was trying to stir up trouble, plain and simple. I don't see why we should make excuses for him on his behalf. You can, of course, differ.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3745
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

vettim,

It is one thing to ignorantly question balance. It is another thing to ignorantly, without ever downloading the mod to allege bias on the part of the designer. I don't think we should make allowances for people who, in willfull ignorance, go around making accusations against others and who then refuse to apologise when they are clearly in error and ignorant of the facts.

Castor was trying to stir up trouble, plain and simple. I don't see why we should make excuses for him on his behalf. You can, of course, differ.

One thing I have always wished was that AAR owners had the right to delete posts from their own threads. I know that many would view that as a slippery slope but I feel AAR's are meant to be about a specific game. We have all seen hijacks that were completely unrelated to the topic at hand and unwanted by the thread originator. I realize that the Forum software couldn't handle this but it would be nice.

Again, I wasn't necessarily pleading any one's case; maybe, just making the case for a little understanding and gentlemenly conduct. That said, sometimes the most gentile thing to actually say is "Bug off!!!!"

(Now realizing I have commited the sin I was actually admonishing. Now hanging head in shame and bowing out of this conversation)
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Hortlund »

Turn is out now.
 
I have done something...creative.
 
Should be interesting. There ought to be lots of action this turn.
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3745
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by vettim89 »

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, the Allies are landing on 3 islands..

1. Koshiki-jima Retto
2nd Marine Division and some tanks for 500 AV vs about 200 IJA AV.

2. Fukue-jima.
3 Divisions and multiple tank Bns. About 50% disablements during landing.

3. Nakadori-jima
6 Divisions ( including 3 Marine Divisions ) + 3 Corps Engineer Regiments. Unadjusted AV would be about 3,500 AV. Because of disablements during landing though this can muster only about 50% of this AV.

Overall I read this as pointing to the fact that these units were NOT prepped for these landing sites. It looks like the breaching of FOW continues to impact on the game in terms of causing a reselection of landing sites. This is, of course, PH's right. He'd be foolish to have landed where he initially planned if I had guessed right. The issue here is that the breach of FOW by the reader of the AARs continues to destroy this game going forward.


Amphibious Assault at Nakadori-jima

TF 173 troops unloading over beach at Nakadori-jima, 101,57


Allied ground losses:
5405 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1073 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 622 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 213 (0 destroyed, 213 disabled)
Vehicles lost 564 (8 destroyed, 556 disabled)


That's a LOT of disablements for a barely defended island. Similar results were found at Fukue-jima. I think that speaks to a lack of prep.


On the plus side my subs got two torpedoes into a USN CV and I sank a CVL and got two separate hits on a CVE with kamikaze attacks. I also, according to combat reports, got multiple hits on the CV Indomitable, Victorious and Indefatigable. Their armoured flight decks saved them but in days to come this may no longer hold true.

Bottom line though, these 10 divisions are going to be pretty worthless for further offensive action for about 2 to 3 months. So, while these 3 islands will probably fall it is at the cost of gutting 10 divisions till the end of January 1946 ---- a huge benefit to me overall strategically. These islands don't really give PH anything which Okinawa hadn't already given him. They're closer to Japan but I don't think that is worth gutting 10 divisions. PH obviously differs.

P.s. To give an example of how badly hurt the Allied units are... US Marine divisions begin with 490 AV. In the bombardment phase post-landing the 3 US Marine Divisions at Nakadori Jima could muster a combined total of 494. That is three divisions mustering the AV of a single division. The 3 Corps Combat Engineer Regiments should muster 756 AV. Instead they mustered only 147. The 3 US Infantry divisions should have mustered roughly 1,150 AV. Instead they muster only 416.

So, overall, more than 50% disablements ( although they probably aren't fully unloaded yet ). Still, huge, huge losses....which, I think, can only be explained by a lack of prep. Clearly these weren't the intended targets of the invasion until recently as otherwise there would have been better prep and fewer disablements on landing.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Hortlund »

Well, landing without prep cost alot of disablements. I knew that, but the price had to be paid. Two reasons, first, nothing is as hard to defend against as a sudden shift in attack axis. This was Mansteins speciality, and it is very hard to defend against a mobile enemy with less mobile defensive forces. I figured that would serve me well, since Korea presumably has been reinforced for a while. Second, I find myself doubting the CV CAP-ability in this game, so I figured it would be better to grab a few land-bases closer to shore to make the next wave easier.
 
I disagree with Nemo though that these bases do not give me anything Okinawa hasnt already give me. I get more bases closer to Japan, which means I can get more of my airforce into action. At the same time, most of the mobile reinforcements in this region should have gone to Tokara Retto in the counterattack there, meaning I will not face those AVs on the other islands.
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Capt. Harlock »

I figured that would serve me well, since Korea presumably has been reinforced for a while.

Shouldn't you have intel by now on at least some of the units there?
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

Well PH whatever about Manstein I still think that FatR ( I'm not breaching your confidence here PH as he has PMed me stating that this is what he did ) telling you that I had predicted your planned landing sites probably played a part in this change of plans.... that realisation annoys me ( not that you changed your plans - that was only sensible - but that someone would breach FOW and ruin the game like that, what an ass. ) . It was a nice move on your part in response to the situation but I regret the background to it.

Just for the hell of it I'll list the places I'd predicted you would land....
I was assuming landings in korea for the past month. I predicted you'd land at 2 bases in order to have some mutual support. By FAR the most likely candidates were Kaishu and Chinnampo IMO as that was as far away from my centre mass as you were going to get.

Next in line would have been the troika of bases Gunzan, Moppo ( useful because it isn't on a rail line and thus buys you some time to take it ) and a supporting invasion of Daishu To ( since that would have secured your SLOCs).

So, was I close? Was it Kaishu and Chinnampo? Or the southern tip ( Gunzan, Moppo and Daishu ) ? I had considered whether you might hit the Fushan/Fukuoka axis but I thought that was just too close to my shipping and reinforcement routes for you to believe it might be lightly defended PLUS there is a huge number of mines there which will not help either.

Just for fun I'd invite you to rerun your turn and send your forces into Gunzan instead.... I think it might be very interesting to see what a properly constituted defence does to an Allied invasion TF. Basically each base has between 1500 to 2,000 AV, Level 5 forts, hundreds of engineers, several hundred additional artillery pieces, at least a regiment worth of tanks and 2 to 5 dedicated CD units. I think I'd have butchered even bombarding BBs at those bases. Unfortunately the little toad's intervention ruined that possibility.


As to the islands... Well, I think that you'll find it very difficult to keep them as supplied as you'd like without my kamikazes taking a huge toll of your forces. xAKs unloading supplies are just going to be sitting ducks. I may be wrong, but that's my assessment.... Also I really don't think they gain you much more than Okinawa.... on the other hand I know what my plan is in this contingency - and I never disclosed it to the forum so I don't fear that he posted it to your AAR.

As to the mobile reinforcements... No, I committed 5 regiment equivalents. Japan has the equivalent of 60 divisions+ available. I could flood each of the islands you've invaded with 5 divisions easily if I had the ability to transport them. I'm not the sort to waste the reserve on a sideshow.... and we're still very much in sideshow territory. Nothing essential has been hit yet, not even those offshore islands.

It'll take me a day or so to decide which squadrons I'll commit. Obviously I'll be attacking the fleet but I'm just deciding between 16% per day and 25% per day... Important because one is the rate I can maintain day after day at a steady pace while the other will see my attacks fade after 4 to 5 days.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3745
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by vettim89 »

I read that last post and I shake my head in amazement. Downfall was on the edge of my ability to handle. What you have done here is Downfall on 'roids. Just too many units to process. AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Hortlund »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Just for the hell of it I'll list the places I'd predicted you would land....
I was assuming landings in korea for the past month. I predicted you'd land at 2 bases in order to have some mutual support. By FAR the most likely candidates were Kaishu and Chinnampo IMO as that was as far away from my centre mass as you were going to get.

Next in line would have been the troika of bases Gunzan, Moppo ( useful because it isn't on a rail line and thus buys you some time to take it ) and a supporting invasion of Daishu To ( since that would have secured your SLOCs).

So, was I close? Was it Kaishu and Chinnampo? Or the southern tip ( Gunzan, Moppo and Daishu ) ? I had considered whether you might hit the Fushan/Fukuoka axis but I thought that was just too close to my shipping and reinforcement routes for you to believe it might be lightly defended PLUS there is a huge number of mines there which will not help either.

I had three targets actually. Kaishu, Chinnampo and Gunzan. The idea was to land on the northernly two on day 1 and Gunzan on D+7 after your reinforcements had rushed north. 3k AV on each base, and another 2 in a floating reserve.

Yeah, it would have been interesting to say the least.

As to the islands... Well, I think that you'll find it very difficult to keep them as supplied as you'd like without my kamikazes taking a huge toll of your forces. xAKs unloading supplies are just going to be sitting ducks. I may be wrong, but that's my assessment.... Also I really don't think they gain you much more than Okinawa.... on the other hand I know what my plan is in this contingency - and I never disclosed it to the forum so I don't fear that he posted it to your AAR.

As to the mobile reinforcements... No, I committed 5 regiment equivalents. Japan has the equivalent of 60 divisions+ available. I could flood each of the islands you've invaded with 5 divisions easily if I had the ability to transport them. I'm not the sort to waste the reserve on a sideshow.... and we're still very much in sideshow territory. Nothing essential has been hit yet, not even those offshore islands.
Yeah, this is not the big one, but if I can secure these islands I have taken another step towards Tokyo. I dont fear your kamikazes as much as you think, I think my land-based CAP can handle that. I get enough supporting bases to have land based CAP together with CV CAP protect against most you can throw at me. We will be very vunerable during next turn though. Im expecting having the kitchen sink thrown at me.
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
modrow
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:02 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by modrow »

Panzerjaeger Hortlund, Nemo,

just a quick thanks for feeding this joint AAR. Very interesting comments, I truly appreciate it.

Hartwig
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, the turn is back with PH.

I think that, overall, he's going to regret going for these islands instead of landing on a mainland ( either Korea or Japan ). Isolated island bases are just too easy to close down. With that said he gets more fighters and many times more bombers than I do so combined with the engineers maybe he CAN keep them open.

In the end though this was always going to happen. Japan is just far too weak relative to the US at this stage to do more than win the occasional sideshow. I suppose that's why I think that such a big landing shouldn't be in support of something incremental but, rather, something decisive.

Anyways, the next turn ought to feature the largest combat replay either PH or I have ever seen. Should be fun.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Hortlund
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Open Armaggedon AAR. PH Welcome.

Post by Hortlund »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, the turn is back with PH.

I think that, overall, he's going to regret going for these islands instead of landing on a mainland ( either Korea or Japan ).
Considering what you say you had waiting for me in Korea, I seriously doubt that I will regret landing someplace else
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”