Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Mission Impossible

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Mission Impossible Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Mission Impossible - 10/9/2011 9:36:35 PM   
vaspasian

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline
Dear Gamers,

After playing two games as the soviets against my brother, who is an expert player of the axis, I have to conclude that the present version 1.04.40 makes the axis players chance of victory impossible. There is absolutely no chance of the axis gaining a decent advantage, against a half decent player, that would allow, for instance, the 42 campaign to succeed - at all.

I've heard there are changes afoot - it certainly needs it.

V.
Post #: 1
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/9/2011 10:50:39 PM   
NotOneStepBack


Posts: 201
Joined: 6/17/2011
Status: offline
Play 1.05, it's way more balanced, imo.

(in reply to vaspasian)
Post #: 2
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/10/2011 6:51:51 AM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
The problem are the Victory conditions. In "Road to Leningrand", the German must conquer Leningrad to win, OK. In "Road to Moscow, to win, the German must conquer Moscow", OK. But in GC 41 the German must conquer not only Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov and Rostov, but too Stalingrad, Gorky, Tamboy, Saratov, Stalingrad.. ¡and even Baku!

Simply is not possible against an human (an human who knows how to play, of course).

The soviet, to reach a total win, only needs to conquer Berlin before 1945, is difficult but is possible.

It´s like playing chess with this rule: white side, to win, must kill the black king. Black side, to win, must kill the white king, and the queen, and the horses, and...

Who wrote the Victory conditions? Stalin?

And the fall of key cities as Leningrad, Moscow and Kharkov, means nothing in the war, there are not moral nor administrative penalities, only a little manpower and rail capacity less.

To balance a game, you can modify the history (doing stronger or weaker a side, that historically). I don´t like this, I like history even unbalanced. Or you can have a Victory conditions that will give to both sides the same chances of victory, more or less.

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)
Post #: 3
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/10/2011 12:59:35 PM   
Jajusha


Posts: 128
Joined: 12/21/2010
Status: offline
The current model does feel awkward. You can see it on current AARs, only thing that matters are arm factories destroyed in 41. There are several options for this:

- Major towns award victory points, and a scalling VP objective per year (example, as Axis, you would need X VPs in January 42 to win a game, X+Y in Jan 43, X+Y+Z in 44, and so on). Values would have to be carefully balanced of course.
- National Morale boosts/penalties for holding/losing major Towns, depending on the year. This would eventually snowball to one of the sides if major progress is made by Axis/soviet.
- Production multipliers tied to held towns. Maybe the most awkward option, but it would give a real benefit for holding major towns (Like getting 2% extra ARM/SUP/MAN while you hold town X).

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 4
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/10/2011 1:04:40 PM   
Northern Star


Posts: 1685
Joined: 2/17/2008
Status: offline
I agree with you, the small scenarios are much more balanced than the 41 GC.

_____________________________

Glauben. Kämpfen. Siegen! (from the movie “Battle of the Bulge”)

War in the East Alpha Tester


(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 5
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/10/2011 2:39:16 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32922
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Attack
The problem are the Victory conditions. In "Road to Leningrand", the German must conquer Leningrad to win, OK. In "Road to Moscow, to win, the German must conquer Moscow", OK. But in GC 41 the German must conquer not only Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov and Rostov, but too Stalingrad, Gorky, Tamboy, Saratov, Stalingrad.. ¡and even Baku!


Actually, in Road to Leningrad (for example) the German player can absolutely win if he doesn't take Leningrad, as long as he takes Rzhev, Tallinn, Novgorod, etc. That's a marginal victory though, Leningrad is required for the Decisive Victory and getting Leningrad is much harder in the small scenario as you have to work with the historical forces and can't make it a strategic priority to reinforce that attack from other sectors.

quote:

And the fall of key cities as Leningrad, Moscow and Kharkov, means nothing in the war, there are not moral nor administrative penalities, only a little manpower and rail capacity less.


Those manpower losses can add up quickly. Take Leningrad and Moscow and calculate how much of a difference in manpower that adds up to for the Soviets over the course of the war. It opened my eyes when I looked at it that way and it can make a big difference in the resilience of the Red Army in 1942.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 6
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/10/2011 2:39:24 PM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

National Morale boosts/penalties for holding/losing major Towns, depending on the year. This would eventually snowball to one of the sides if major progress is made by Axis/soviet.


Good idea. I.e: If Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov AND Stalino (the four key cities of Soviet Union) fall in the German´s hands, then the administrative system and the soviet moral collapses. The soviet administration and soviet morale fall. Every week with the four main cities in German´s hands, the weekly soviet´s administrative points and the soviet national moral falls i.e. 0,5 points. When national moral is less than 20, then the soviet union surrenders. If any of these cities are retaken, then the administrative and moral points should be "normal".

Then, as Soviet, I´ll fight heavily trying to defend the terrain, I´d don´t fly as now. And in winter I´ll try to retake the key cities, not only to push the Germans.

In any case, I think that the fall of Moscow should have any penalitation to the soviet side, in administrative and moral.

As is the game now, the Soviet can win simply flying during all the 41 summer, waiting to be strong the 42 and attacking the 43.

(in reply to Northern Star)
Post #: 7
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/11/2011 4:44:10 PM   
vaspasian

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline
I think the fort update will help alot. It will make the '42 campaign a much more even battle otherwise it's just Kursk in 42!

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)
Post #: 8
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/12/2011 11:34:29 PM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
It is tougher as SOV now, believe me. However, as soon as I read enough about the Air Base attack tactic, I stopped attacking Axis air bases voluntarily. If they were stacked withanother unit I wanted to Ground Attack, I would still conduct the ground attack(s). The gradual weakening of the LW will happen anyway, so no need to accelerate it and unbalance things.

(in reply to vaspasian)
Post #: 9
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 12:03:30 AM   
vaspasian

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline
1.05 will definately help - social logs could be better.

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 10
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 12:06:21 AM   
vaspasian

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline
and a more robust stalin multiplier would be helpful.

(in reply to vaspasian)
Post #: 11
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 2:09:04 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5938
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Yes thats basicly the problem. Russians just run during 41 and 42 because they can't lose arm pts because of over rated rail sytem, they lose little to nothing in manpower if they lose all the major citys.

They just have no reason to fight until 43.

Game cant follow historical lines until the russians or for that matter the Germans have a reason to fight.

Pelton

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 12
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 4:18:30 AM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

lose little to nothing in manpower if they lose all the major citys.


These are the numbers:

In Leningrad area: 76 manpower.
In Moscow area: 94 manpower
In Donbass area: 31 manpower.

Manpower at the begin of Barbarossa: 3.936
Manpower in november, 41, without been conquered Leningrad, Moscow an Donbass: 2.660 (more or less). So if the 3 key cities fall, it is only a lose of 200 manpower

Production:

At the begin:
Vehic: 140
HI: 236
Armament: 370

Menaced by German advance (including Moscow, Leningrad and Donbass):
Vehic: 51
HI: 88
Armament: 191

That´s why the German can´t really hurt the soviet manpower or production system.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 13
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 8:17:43 AM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Yes thats basicly the problem. Russians just run during 41 and 42 because they can't lose arm pts because of over rated rail sytem, they lose little to nothing in manpower if they lose all the major citys.

They just have no reason to fight until 43.

Game cant follow historical lines until the russians or for that matter the Germans have a reason to fight.

Pelton



Agree completely with Pelton. I have been saying for quite some time now that capturing cities must have more effect for the good of the game. To force the Germans to take them and the Soviets to defend them.

Unfortunately no developers ever comment on this issue and continue to proceed like there is no problem. Just once I would like to hear what the devs think on this issue.

I absolutely love this game. I have been waiting for it for decades, but to see such a major aspect of the game that could be improved upon greatly go uncommented on time after time by the devs really frustrates me.

MAKE CITIES MORE IMPORTANT. Heavy industry,oil,resources etc. must count for more.

Sorry for the rant.



(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 14
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 11:18:11 AM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
When I play as soviet, I offer this home rule to the German player:

"If the Germans hold on Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov AND Stalino at the first week of march of any year, then they reach a Decisive victory." The comunist governement collapses.

This makes the game much more interesting, and will be great battles.

< Message edited by Attack -- 10/15/2011 11:19:57 AM >

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 15
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 12:40:14 PM   
vaspasian

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline
"hold on to Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov AND Stalino" - that is just it - playing a half decent soviet player the axis have no chance of doing that.

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 16
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 2:04:09 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
Attack, thanks for those numbers. Interesting that losing those three big cities accounts for only about 5% of Sov manpower. While i guess that they form a larger portion of the population, I guess large parts of the population would migrate east before the panzers got there...

Right or wrong, it doesn't seem that capturing these (or any other) cities really does much to Sov manpower.

I have to say that it feels pretty odd as Sov to be almost completely indifferent if cities fall, or if I retake them. The argument that my rail capacity goes down if I lose cities is not very compelling, since by the end of 1941 I have more rail capacity than I need anyway.

One interesting idea might be to allow players to designate "objective cities": players can pick a city as an especially important target, and if they take/defend it within several weeks, the relevant army/front would have a chance to get a morale boost, or if they fail to take/hold it, a morale drop (and maybe the commander would be promoted/shot). The morale effect could be especially significant if both sides select a city as an objective (ala Stalingrad).

< Message edited by 76mm -- 10/15/2011 2:10:01 PM >

(in reply to vaspasian)
Post #: 17
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/15/2011 3:45:39 PM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

playing a half decent soviet player the axis have no chance of doing that.


At least, the axis have a little chance to reach total victory. More than conquer all that and Stalingrad and Baku (needed to reach 290 VP). And this way the soviet must fight, not only run and wait till 43.

Of course, still the German can reach a minor Victory holding on Berlin, or a drawn.

quote:

I guess large parts of the population would migrate east before the panzers got there


¡Ah! And the population can migrate when the cities are attacked, so the loss of manpower is still more little that my numbers.

(by the way, in the isolated cities, when attacked, the population migrate too. I doubt that Germans should allow the pass of population in military age)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 18
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/17/2011 9:28:45 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Attack

quote:

lose little to nothing in manpower if they lose all the major citys.


These are the numbers:

In Leningrad area: 76 manpower.
In Moscow area: 94 manpower
In Donbass area: 31 manpower.

Manpower at the begin of Barbarossa: 3.936
Manpower in november, 41, without been conquered Leningrad, Moscow an Donbass: 2.660 (more or less). So if the 3 key cities fall, it is only a lose of 200 manpower

Production:

At the begin:
Vehic: 140
HI: 236
Armament: 370

Menaced by German advance (including Moscow, Leningrad and Donbass):
Vehic: 51
HI: 88
Armament: 191

That´s why the German can´t really hurt the soviet manpower or production system.


Hi Attack:

Those manpower figures don't reflect everything within the particular regions of the map you are talking about. Just about every little dot town on the map has a manpower rating -- click on the town names and you'll to see the associated manpower figures. Typically, towns range between 1 and 5 manpower factors -- sometimes a bit more. If you count up all the little dot towns in the Don Base Region, as well as adding in the bigger manpower factors from cannon fodder suppliers such as Stalino, Gorlovka, Vorshilovgrad, you actually end up in the 125 to 130 range. The same again is somewhat true for the Leningrad region – although not the same dramatic magnitude as the Don Base. I posted several screen captures a few months back that show manpower counts of these areas -- including manpower from town hexes.

I can only speak from my own experiences in PBEM with the following...but having played in a game in which I lost Moscow and Leningrad, I can definitely say that the manpower hit is felt pretty harshly by the Soviets. I still launched a reasonably effective winter offensive and killed a lot of German units as a result of my opponents "no retreat" approach to the blizzard. It wasn’t till the middle of this particular blizzard that I began noticing the manpower hit that was racking my army. It's a slow creeping death that you feel four five months after you actually lose the cities. You'll find half your army is in unfit status as a result of low TO&E -- grinding attrition and regular combat drains your manpower surplus. It takes time for this effect to really become noticeable to the Soviet Player. It takes even longer -- due to FoW -- for the Axis player to begin to realize the awkward position his opponent is in. In the latter case Axis Players seem to be coming to the mistaken conclusion that the loss of several major manpower regions has little effect on the Russian Army. There are no – or very few -- instant gratification effects in WiTE. The reality is if you continue games beyond the winter of 1942 the manpower shortage has a very important and long term effect on the average combat strength of Russian combat units.

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 19
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/17/2011 11:41:34 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5938
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I have played allot of 41-45 and got feed back from other side.

Generally the Russian manpower is 120,000 new troops per turn.

The lowest I have ever gotten anyone is 100,000 a turn. I took all above citys and then some.

The ONLY area that can effect the red machine is armerment points. Before 1.05 no one really tryed to save them and I won 9 out of 10 games 41-45 campiagns, because I bagged more then 100 arm pts. The only game I lost was because I only bagged 74.

So the only area of production that can effect russian output is armerment points.

Now with 1.05 lower russian output of arm pts from 190 to 135, every Russian player evacs them asap.

If you advance as fast as I do vs a very good or good Russian player you bag about 30 to 35 tops. If you don't advance as fast as me ( I am still looking for someone, Stalino turn 7 in 12 of 15 41-45 games) you probably only pocket 12 if your really lucky vs a good russian player.

The only reason they are evaced is because of an exploit.

The reason 99% of Germans will never get close to historical in armerment pts destoryed (64) is becauce hvy means nothing and the Russian rail system is way over rated. They ecav only arm pts and leave the hvy because they are meaningless.

Read this thread for historical data ect.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2928392

Now if this one issue was corrected then Germans would have a chance of hitting historical levels of industy destoried.

Problem is every russian fanboy is defedning this out right exploit to the grave.

It is an exploit that ALL russian players now use and are happy to tell you about it.

This exploit if nerfed will bring some balance back to the game.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/17/2011 11:46:13 PM >

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 20
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/17/2011 11:52:54 PM   
sveint


Posts: 1378
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
The mission is to hold Berlin until the end of the war. Not to conquer all of Russia.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 21
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 12:34:12 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5938
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Wow 4 stars and you just figured that out, grats man

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 22
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 1:08:44 AM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 4/26/2010
From: Mannheim, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I have played allot of 41-45 and got feed back from other side.

Generally the Russian manpower is 120,000 new troops per turn.

The lowest I have ever gotten anyone is 100,000 a turn. I took all above citys and then some.


Ok, just wait a second right here. Lets take this 20,000 a turn. That is 1 million a year. That is 4 million over the course of the game.

That is far from irrelevant.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 23
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 1:49:53 AM   
sveint


Posts: 1378
Joined: 1/19/2001
Status: offline
My point being that it's ok if it's all but impossible for the Axis to win the war outright (against an equally skilled opponent).

We still have to little data to decide wether the victory conditions favor the Axis or the Soviets.

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 24
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 8:31:43 AM   
Attack

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Those manpower figures don't reflect everything within the particular regions of the map you are talking about. Just about every little dot town on the map has a manpower rating -- click on the town names and you'll to see the associated manpower figures. Typically, towns range between 1 and 5 manpower factors -- sometimes a bit more. If you count up all the little dot towns in the Don Base Region, as well as adding in the bigger manpower factors from cannon fodder suppliers such as Stalino, Gorlovka, Vorshilovgrad, you actually end up in the 125 to 130 range. The same again is somewhat true for the Leningrad region – although not the same dramatic magnitude as the Don Base. I posted several screen captures a few months back that show manpower counts of these areas -- including manpower from town hexes.


I know it, that´s because I said: "Manpower in november, 41, without been conquered Leningrad, Moscow an Donbass: 2.660 (more or less)". The Germans are at the gates, so the nearest towns are german, but the main cities hold on.

Anyway, after an all-out winter offensive, the soviet player always will be short of manpower. In my limited experience, not short of armament (at the end of the winter, holding-on Leningrad-Moscow-Donbass, but losing 40 arm points, I had 0 manpower pool but 500.000 armament pool).

About the Pelton´s strategy, I try to destroy the Red Army, not to destroy the armaments points. The winter, as German, will be more survivable. And because esthetic and historical reasons, too. But may be at long term the Pelton´s strategy will be better.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 25
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 11:31:49 AM   
Oskkar

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Wow 4 stars and you just figured that out, grats man


Well, I also thought you did not know that...

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 26
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 11:43:36 AM   
Oskkar

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/18/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Attack, thanks for those numbers. Interesting that losing those three big cities accounts for only about 5% of Sov manpower. While i guess that they form a larger portion of the population, I guess large parts of the population would migrate east before the panzers got there...



The population of the USSR in 1941 was 197 million aprox. Moscow in 1939 had 4 million aprox. Therefore the capture of Moscow itself should have a maximum impact of 2% in manpower (and probably less because, as you say, obviously many possible recruits would fly before the arrival of the Germans).

Added: Leningrad 1941, 3 million (1.5% of the total)

< Message edited by Oskkar -- 10/18/2011 11:49:10 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 27
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 3:48:43 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
I posted on another thread that the Sovs supposedly evacced 25 million people through 1943, 17 million by December 1941.

It is interesting that Moscow accounted for such a small part of the population back then; now it is almost 10% of Russia's population, although of course the USSR also included many sizable now-independent countries (Ukraine, Uzekistan, etc.).

(in reply to Oskkar)
Post #: 28
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 3:57:35 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The ONLY area that can effect the red machine is armerment points. Before 1.05 no one really tryed to save them and I won 9 out of 10 games 41-45 campiagns, because I bagged more then 100 arm pts. The only game I lost was because I only bagged 74.

So the only area of production that can effect russian output is armerment points.

Now with 1.05 lower russian output of arm pts from 190 to 135, every Russian player evacs them asap.

If you advance as fast as I do vs a very good or good Russian player you bag about 30 to 35 tops. If you don't advance as fast as me ( I am still looking for someone, Stalino turn 7 in 12 of 15 41-45 games) you probably only pocket 12 if your really lucky vs a good russian player.

The only reason they are evaced is because of an exploit.

The reason 99% of Germans will never get close to historical in armerment pts destoryed (64) is becauce hvy means nothing and the Russian rail system is way over rated. They ecav only arm pts and leave the hvy because they are meaningless.

Read this thread for historical data ect.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2928392

Now if this one issue was corrected then Germans would have a chance of hitting historical levels of industy destoried.

Problem is every russian fanboy is defedning this out right exploit to the grave.

It is an exploit that ALL russian players now use and are happy to tell you about it.

This exploit if nerfed will bring some balance back to the game.


Whew, you are prolific, but at least you raise the same points in every post so it is not too hard to rebut...

1) Congratulations for winning 9 of 10 games with your trademark tactic. Given all of the various patches, everyone else is adapting their play-styles, maybe it is time for you to do so as well rather than complaining about exploits and game imbalances?

2) If there is an exploit here, it is the Germans reaching Stalino by Turn 7.

3) No reason to refer to the other thread, there is no "historical data" there, just a bunch of blah blah blah.

4) haha, no one has made it into the blizzard under the new patch and you are already whining about balance, could you please give it a rest?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 29
RE: Mission Impossible - 10/18/2011 4:26:05 PM   
Oskkar

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Attack

The problem are the Victory conditions. In "Road to Leningrand", the German must conquer Leningrad to win, OK. In "Road to Moscow, to win, the German must conquer Moscow", OK. But in GC 41 the German must conquer not only Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov and Rostov, but too Stalingrad, Gorky, Tamboy, Saratov, Stalingrad.. ¡and even Baku!



That is not true. The Axis wins the GC41 if he has 142 or more VP on ending turn. At the beginning of the GC41 he already has 142.

(in reply to Attack)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Mission Impossible Page: [1] 2   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

0.102