Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/23/2011 4:18:11 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

RevRick what would be the difference with a supercharged P-39 over the regular one


A whole lot! The plane was entirely different with the supercharger. From what I have read, it would probably approach the performance of the P-63 in the game. Higher speed, higher ceiling, greater capacity, probably would have been still quite short legged, but still....

When I lost my hard drive about five months ago, I had the data for the website. I could probably still find it, but it would have made the early war a little more difficult for the IJN flyers.


_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 211
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 1:20:27 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2351
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Hmm must be a slow day.  So how would supercharging the orginal P-39, affect all the later versions.

doc

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 212
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 1:24:40 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have been doing some work on a tentative Japanese Atoll Defense Unit. Not much else exciting and, evidently, my partner in crime has been busy today as well.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 213
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 3:13:16 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2251
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Putting in the two stage supercharger would allow the planes to fight at a higher altitude. It wasn't a bad plane but it had a nasty habit of going into a flat spin. The US used them in the pacific because they didn't have anything else.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 214
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 3:33:55 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

RevRick what would be the difference with a supercharged P-39 over the regular one


A whole lot! The plane was entirely different with the supercharger. From what I have read, it would probably approach the performance of the P-63 in the game. Higher speed, higher ceiling, greater capacity, probably would have been still quite short legged, but still....

When I lost my hard drive about five months ago, I had the data for the website. I could probably still find it, but it would have made the early war a little more difficult for the IJN flyers.



I thought I read somewhere that a supercharged P-39 was very similar to the P-51, except the range. Of course, everything I've ever read is true.

Or was it that the P-51 with the prototype engine was similar to the P-39? It's been so long....

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 215
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 6:30:09 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Putting in the two stage supercharger would allow the planes to fight at a higher altitude. It wasn't a bad plane but it had a nasty habit of going into a flat spin. The US used them in the pacific because they didn't have anything else.


For all its shortcomings, the Russians liked the P-39 a lot -- they thought it was a much better fighter than the P-40.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 216
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 8:39:53 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 852
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
Just got caught up with this. Very interesting, gentlemen. I would say Indochina should remain as Japanese (i.e. remain the same as stock). Otherwise, there's much less of a threat on Thailand to join Axis and it would cock up the Malaya operations. Say the governor there was a quisling who panicked and sold out to the Japanese in May 1940.

However, why not add a naval squadron at New Caledonia with a few Dewotine (sp?) 520s, with upgrades to U.S. equipment later, and perhaps a Legionnaire bn or rgt? Also, a few fleet and air units and colonial troops could be added later as reinforcements.

I have no idea how tough it would be to mod the map, but regarding Madagascar, perhaps you could port its facilities over to Mombasa, and even base a couple of French units there, so as to keep the map intact?

Cheers,
CC



_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 217
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/24/2011 7:25:36 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
While I would enjoy seeing lots of different nationality's Naval Sqds floating around, I'm reminded that there is a kinda-sorta logistics thing going on.

There's a bunch of AKEs and AXs, and NavSup squads about, but I doubt they would have 90mm M1926, or 138mm M1910, or 240mm M1902, shells in present stock, unless they are French, of course. We are already pushing the envelope by allowing nominal ships and nominal squads to rearm, resupply, rewhatever, both US and RN/RAN/RNZN ships without regard to nationality.

Couple French DDs and Avisos won't break the bank, but once they get significant numbers of ships in the early war period, I wonder just how one will get the right shells to the ships and the pate to the Officers.

[ed] This is my latest serious code push. Make it where Brit ships need to rearm from Brit bases or from a Brit tender - only. US ships need to rearm from US bases or from a US tender - only. That would put an end to the nonsense of the Illiterate, Repulsive, and Prince of Whales, sailing around in a TF with Enterprise, Lexington, and a couple Pensacolas. Tagging rearm to base (or tender) ownership would sure limit operational deployment of any French squadrons.

Know how it might be done, but it isn't transparent to stock, and can't be faked as an _Alt thing, so not likely to be coming to a beta near you. Oh, well.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/24/2011 8:03:05 PM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 218
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 12:50:31 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I LIKE that John! Stop this total meshing of two Fleets that couldn't do that even in 1945.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 219
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 1:32:29 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2251
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I love the idea, hope it can get implemented. I would like to add there were French naval stores in North Africa and to a lesser extent in the IO and Indochina. Since this mod assumes a transfer of French units to the Far East, then it would not be that much of a logistical problem for the French to ship stores over in 1940 and 41. Then the US could start making the ammo. Its not like we didn't do that for our other allies.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 220
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 2:44:38 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

RevRick what would be the difference with a supercharged P-39 over the regular one


A whole lot! The plane was entirely different with the supercharger. From what I have read, it would probably approach the performance of the P-63 in the game. Higher speed, higher ceiling, greater capacity, probably would have been still quite short legged, but still....

When I lost my hard drive about five months ago, I had the data for the website. I could probably still find it, but it would have made the early war a little more difficult for the IJN flyers.



I thought I read somewhere that a supercharged P-39 was very similar to the P-51, except the range. Of course, everything I've ever read is true.

Or was it that the P-51 with the prototype engine was similar to the P-39? It's been so long....


I remember, somewhere, somewhen, reading your first statement above, or something very similar. Trouble is that I have no idea now where I read it. I have postulated in a mod that the Bell company tried to save their collective tookuses by building the P-400 with a supercharger, but only in limited quantities. The Army starts to take a look at it as a result of the failure of the P-40 to be effective in the Battle of Britain, and winds up with a relatively small number at the start of the war. I think it was General Electric building the superchargers, and their plant capacity was too small to include it in a lot of aircraft with the Allison engines.

I recollect the raw date for the XP 39, the pre-castration version, hitting very near 400 mph in the roughly 1939 time period. But some half-wit in the department for ordering aircraft for the AAC decided that they needed to be more of a ground support craft, and took out the supercharger for that purpose. I guess they weren't watching what has happening in Europe.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 221
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 10:15:01 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I really hope JWE's post doesn't get implemented. Suspect that would be the micromanagement straw that breaks the camel's back.

Can you imagine what happens if all tenders of one nationality get sunk? Or how about just changing the nationalities of bases by paying PPs? It's a BAD idea.

Oh, and tenders did service ships of different nationalities. The Dutch Zuiderkruis, for example, serviced RN ships at Trincomalee for two years.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/25/2011 12:42:15 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 222
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 1:40:16 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Not to worry, Termie. We have some nifty Fleet Train rules, but there's no way to make them default to stock. So no way they will show up in a beta.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 223
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 1:56:28 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
I remember, somewhere, somewhen, reading your first statement above, or something very similar. Trouble is that I have no idea now where I read it. I have postulated in a mod that the Bell company tried to save their collective tookuses by building the P-400 with a supercharger, but only in limited quantities. The Army starts to take a look at it as a result of the failure of the P-40 to be effective in the Battle of Britain, and winds up with a relatively small number at the start of the war. I think it was General Electric building the superchargers, and their plant capacity was too small to include it in a lot of aircraft with the Allison engines.


Yeah, the lack of available superchargers led to the decision to build the P-39's without them. But it also makes me wonder. If the US (with more than 10 times the manufacturing base of Japan) had shortages of such key components, maybe our friends in the other thread should take a closer look at the massive expansion they are planning. The US was able to correct this shortage simply by co-opting civilian manufacturers when war arrived---but the Japanese had virtually no civilian manufacturing to co-opt.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 224
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 2:58:03 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not to worry, Termie. We have some nifty Fleet Train rules, but there's no way to make them default to stock. So no way they will show up in a beta.


Good. This is definitely House Rules Territory (tm).

Anyway, back to the mod.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 225
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/25/2011 5:07:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25302
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not to worry, Termie. We have some nifty Fleet Train rules, but there's no way to make them default to stock. So no way they will show up in a beta.



While I am a staunch opponent of further micro-management implementations in a game already full of them....I have to admit I like the idea of there being a stricter re-arming rule based on Nationality. It would help improve the representation of the SRA situation as well as early SoPac.

Now if one could only fix all those little airfield "company" units. aiee.


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 226
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 5:31:54 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2351
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Alot of interesting thoughts.  I like the logistics of the game but dang making it so ships can only rearm in national ports would be a pain in the arse.  So what all has been agreed upon for the Allies?


edit: Was just thinking that if AC is added to PI and Singers, won't you need to add aviation support also.

doc

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 8/26/2011 6:47:44 AM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 227
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 6:23:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The units could be slightly more filled out at start so one has enough BF Support.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 228
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 6:35:22 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 858
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
Since you are looking at redeploying units. What about the two Canadian Bn being deployed to Malaya instead of Singapore?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 229
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 7:28:08 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The units could be slightly more filled out at start so one has enough BF Support.

Well, it is your mod, and you may do as you please. But I would counsel against doing that.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 230
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 10:08:11 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Yeah, the lack of available superchargers led to the decision to build the P-39's without them.

Not disputing this statement, as it is accurate in that there were not enough superchargers for all of the fighters that the Army wanted to build. However, it is also a fact that there was a lot of politics surrounding the P-39. My opinion, is that it was political decision within the DoD whereby the P-39 did not get supercharged. Just my opinion though ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 231
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/26/2011 11:07:55 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Yeah, the lack of available superchargers led to the decision to build the P-39's without them.


Not disputing this statement, as it is accurate in that there were not enough superchargers for all of the fighters that the Army wanted to build. However, it is also a fact that there was a lot of politics surrounding the P-39. My opinion, is that it was political decision within the DoD whereby the P-39 did not get supercharged. Just my opinion though ...


As the P-39 was orriginally ordered as a high-altitude interceptor it's hard to see what "politics" could have been involved in deciding not to supercharge the engine. Do you know of something specific?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 232
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 3:18:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Since you are looking at redeploying units. What about the two Canadian Bn being deployed to Malaya instead of Singapore?


Do you mean Hong Kong?

That raised a thought. HK might actually be useful for while pending on where we start China action with the IJA.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 233
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 4:23:59 PM   
Carny

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
This mod looks very interesting. As a dedicated AFB, who unfortunately hasn't ever been able to sustain PBEM play, so plays against the AI, I'd like to talk more about the torpedo issue.

I know it was mentioned before, and it seems like an article of faith that it isn't possible to give the USN reliable modern (for the time) torpedoes, and still have a viable game.

I read this http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm article, and while having only one source, and that just an internet piece, is crappy scholarship the article seemed fairly well researched and written.

If it is accurate, the USN's torpedo woes came from a perfect storm of bureaucratic idiocy, plain bad luck, poor design choices, and almost unbelievable failures of communication on many levels, the whole thing being too crazy to be believable as fiction, but nonetheless true.

All it would have taken is one calibration device that was properly aligned, or one naval officer who talked to the British about their torpedo experiences in 1939 - 1941, or a few dozen of the torpedoes tested at a secure location in the late 1930s using common sense methods, and the USN would have had modern torpedoes as reliable as anybody's in December of 1942.

Clearly, it would have made a big difference in the war, and it would make a huge difference in the game.

So, with all that in mind, given perfect freedom to make any changes I saw fit, I'd do the following.

1) Effectively set the scenario to play with US dud torpedos as off.

2) In addition to having more destroyers and escort ships at game start, as part of their fleet improvements, allow for comprehensive upgrades to improve Japanese ASW ratings on relevant platforms over the course of the war, since they'd have a much more dangerous and robust submarine threat to react to. These upgrades should get most Japanese ASW platforms to ASW rating 6, at the least, by January 1st, 1944.

3) Either mandated, or optional, diversion of Japanese industry to building/accelerating additional escort/destroyer vessels.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 234
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 4:24:36 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That raised a thought. HK might actually be useful for while pending on where we start China action with the IJA.



You seem to be getting on with the 'naval architecht' side of things; do you have a concrete geopolitical outlook for (let's say) 1930, 1933, 1936 and 1939, as regards what's changed vs. our boring old reality? I get the impression the Japanese are spending a bunch more money on the navy; has there been a global or regional economic change to enable that, are they just transferring money around, or is it being handwaved away? I don't mean that perjuratively - I guess what I'm getting at is that it'd nice to have a summary of what's gone on and a 'story so far' for Japan so as to start getting something concrete together for their likely oppos. Is there one that I've missed?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 235
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 5:53:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
We are getting serious progress down with the naval side and a BUNCH of ideas have been floated regarding the Alt History. Most important is starting China in 1939 allowing for my investment within the economy (Manchuria/Korea) for those years.

The Fleet is increased but not by much. Roughly same number of CVs (but better size), a few additional BB, however, there is a reduction in cruisers and DDs see only slight growth in their numbers at start.

As to the TT Question, I am more then happy to do some changing here. Just got past the 'fixes' to the issue in Silent Victory. AMAZING! If possible I would like to improve TT performance in August 1942 (instead of Jan 43) and then again in Jan 43. Should be a good, historical change.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 236
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 6:09:53 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As to the TT Question, I am more then happy to do some changing here. Just got past the 'fixes' to the issue in Silent Victory. AMAZING! If possible I would like to improve TT performance in August 1942 (instead of Jan 43) and then again in Jan 43. Should be a good, historical change.

No can do, my friend. Hard wired, with dates. And dud rate is hard wired by date, too. Been that way since WiTP.

Only way you can tweak it is with a series of torpedoes in the Device file, with different availability dates and dud rates. Then change all the subs in the Class file to get the different torpedoes as upgrades. Sorry 'bout that, but thought I would save you doing a lot of tweaking and testing for nothing.

Ciao, John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 237
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 6:50:28 PM   
Carny

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
It's not that hard to conceive, I think, of the USN having fully functional torpedoes by Dec 7, 1941. Rather than go through all the work of trying to set up new torpedo devices, why not just design the mod to be played with the USN torpedo dud switch set to off, and adjust Japanese upgrades and platforms with that assumption in mind?

If I recall correctly, doesn't turning that switch off set the dud rate to the same as everybody else's?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 238
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 7:33:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As to the TT Question, I am more then happy to do some changing here. Just got past the 'fixes' to the issue in Silent Victory. AMAZING! If possible I would like to improve TT performance in August 1942 (instead of Jan 43) and then again in Jan 43. Should be a good, historical change.

No can do, my friend. Hard wired, with dates. And dud rate is hard wired by date, too. Been that way since WiTP.

Only way you can tweak it is with a series of torpedoes in the Device file, with different availability dates and dud rates. Then change all the subs in the Class file to get the different torpedoes as upgrades. Sorry 'bout that, but thought I would save you doing a lot of tweaking and testing for nothing.

Ciao, John


Thanks for the head's up John.

I might be willing to try this idea. The SS snafu is so integral to the story that I really don't want to give them full operational ability on Dec 7th.

Sorry about that Carny.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 239
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/27/2011 8:02:51 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7038
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
One class of at start subs can get different torpedoes that are like the S-boats and have working torpedoes, have them change to another type that doesn't have a dud rate with 4/42 upgrades, or have a later in 42 upgrade that changes torpedoes. Simple solution.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
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

0.113