Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Prospective buyer question

 
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 >> Prospective buyer question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 9:14:49 PM   
marjur


Posts: 101
Joined: 10/29/2008
Status: offline
Hello,

Is there some sort of demo version of this game somewhere so that I could test it out a bit and see if I like it before actually purchasing it?

Regards
Post #: 1
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 10:03:42 PM   
Fänrik Stål


Posts: 108
Joined: 1/4/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline
No demo that I'm aware of. But if you liked that old gem of a game War in Russia, and you like Operational Art of War, this game could be for you. You could also have a look in the AAR section to get an idea of the game.

_____________________________

"Släpp ingen djävul över bron!"

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 2
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 10:27:10 PM   
marjur


Posts: 101
Joined: 10/29/2008
Status: offline
OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?
Do they respond to players' constructive criticism? I mean, I've looked around a bit and read something about some problems with late-war TOEs and designers' unwillingness to sort that out... I don't know too much about it 'cause I'm new on this forum, though. Are they willing to patch the game? You know, it sometimes happens that a game comes out and then the producer "forgets" about it in spite of the fact that lots of things could be improved... (Master of Orion III comes to my mind here, although it's a totally different genre)



< Message edited by marjur -- 4/5/2012 10:30:08 PM >

(in reply to Fänrik Stål)
Post #: 3
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 10:44:40 PM   
sajer

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

There is always someone that doesn't like this or that. The truth is that there is no perfect wargame. But this comes damn close. I have played this game non-stop (at least a turn a day - since purchasing it last July!).

Just this year they have come out with two new beta's and a whole new offical patch version 1.06.20. Plus there is ample support here - not only from other gamers but from designers and moderators.

My advice is to buy the game, you won't regret it.

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 4
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 10:45:32 PM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
I, for one, would say yes and respond in a positive way to all your concerns; support is very good and better than that from the big game companies and their titles I feel. A patch just came out today for example.

There are still debates about some game mechanics and rules, this is true. You get both passionate and dispassionate commentary back and forth on these things.

< Message edited by entwood -- 4/5/2012 10:50:20 PM >

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 5
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/5/2012 11:58:48 PM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
I think support is good. Its a very complex game, its really very good, and has continued support as witnessed by regular patches.
If you want a game that you play in an afternoon, this is not it. Each turn will take about an hour.

As far as late war TOEs, its not that the designers are unwilling to sort it out. What you have is a difference of opinion (for lack of better way of describing it) as to how this game should be designed. My opinion might be different from you or the devs- but that does not mean I am right (nor wrong).

They have actually been responsive to suggestions (for example, optional victory conditions in upcoming patch).

(in reply to entwood)
Post #: 6
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 6:49:50 AM   
Wild


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

ORIGINAL: marjur

OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?
Do they respond to players' constructive criticism? I mean, I've looked around a bit and read something about some problems with late-war TOEs and designers' unwillingness to sort that out... I don't know too much about it 'cause I'm new on this forum, though. Are they willing to patch the game? You know, it sometimes happens that a game comes out and then the producer "forgets" about it in spite of the fact that lots of things could be improved... (Master of Orion III comes to my mind here, although it's a totally different genre)




If you prefer to play the Russians then you will most likely love this game, but if your choice is to play the Axis then i would not buy this game as playing them grows old and loses it's fun fairly quickly.
The axis are simply not given many of the fun options that the russians get and their game is to a great extent predetermined. The devs have made it clear that they do not intend to fix the axis no matter how many complaints they get, so buy at your own risk.

Since the Devs have become so anti axis i have noticed a large decline in posts on this forum.And i expect there next game WitW to be a flop. It's really heart wrenching to watch. If only they would have listend to there customers this could have been the best series ever.As evidenced by the huge following the game got after release. But when people realized the fix was in and the devs were not going to be responsive,then it died out pretty quickly.

I think they still could turn it around by giving the Germans more options i mean the market is still there. Unfortunatly i have come to the conclusion that they would rather see the series go under then change their political views. It's a dam shame, i will not be buying anymore of 2by3 games, and i had owned them all previously.

< Message edited by Wild -- 4/6/2012 6:50:55 AM >

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 7
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 7:47:14 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1842
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: marjur

OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?
Do they respond to players' constructive criticism? I mean, I've looked around a bit and read something about some problems with late-war TOEs and designers' unwillingness to sort that out... I don't know too much about it 'cause I'm new on this forum, though. Are they willing to patch the game? You know, it sometimes happens that a game comes out and then the producer "forgets" about it in spite of the fact that lots of things could be improved... (Master of Orion III comes to my mind here, although it's a totally different genre)




If you prefer to play the Russians then you will most likely love this game, but if your choice is to play the Axis then i would not buy this game as playing them grows old and loses it's fun fairly quickly.
The axis are simply not given many of the fun options that the russians get and their game is to a great extent predetermined. The devs have made it clear that they do not intend to fix the axis no matter how many complaints they get, so buy at your own risk.

Since the Devs have become so anti axis i have noticed a large decline in posts on this forum.And i expect there next game WitW to be a flop. It's really heart wrenching to watch. If only they would have listend to there customers this could have been the best series ever.As evidenced by the huge following the game got after release. But when people realized the fix was in and the devs were not going to be responsive,then it died out pretty quickly.

I think they still could turn it around by giving the Germans more options i mean the market is still there. Unfortunatly i have come to the conclusion that they would rather see the series go under then change their political views. It's a dam shame, i will not be buying anymore of 2by3 games, and i had owned them all previously.


Critiscm is one thing, but making it "political"... Thats a bit unfair don't you think?

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 8
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 8:13:21 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: marjur

OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?
Do they respond to players' constructive criticism? I mean, I've looked around a bit and read something about some problems with late-war TOEs and designers' unwillingness to sort that out... I don't know too much about it 'cause I'm new on this forum, though. Are they willing to patch the game? You know, it sometimes happens that a game comes out and then the producer "forgets" about it in spite of the fact that lots of things could be improved... (Master of Orion III comes to my mind here, although it's a totally different genre)




If you prefer to play the Russians then you will most likely love this game, but if your choice is to play the Axis then i would not buy this game as playing them grows old and loses it's fun fairly quickly.
The axis are simply not given many of the fun options that the russians get and their game is to a great extent predetermined. The devs have made it clear that they do not intend to fix the axis no matter how many complaints they get, so buy at your own risk.

Since the Devs have become so anti axis i have noticed a large decline in posts on this forum.And i expect there next game WitW to be a flop. It's really heart wrenching to watch. If only they would have listend to there customers this could have been the best series ever.As evidenced by the huge following the game got after release. But when people realized the fix was in and the devs were not going to be responsive,then it died out pretty quickly.

I think they still could turn it around by giving the Germans more options i mean the market is still there. Unfortunatly i have come to the conclusion that they would rather see the series go under then change their political views. It's a dam shame, i will not be buying anymore of 2by3 games, and i had owned them all previously.


Critiscm is one thing, but making it "political"... Thats a bit unfair don't you think?


More than unfair. Blatantly false.

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 9
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 9:08:30 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 986
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
I bought this game in Dec 2010, and played it continuously until about two months ago. I only stopped because I've had to concentrate a lot more on RL for a variety of reasons.

The only game that comes close to the amount of time I have spent on this is the Football Manager series (which are effectively a new game every year).

Its well worth the money, but you have to put in a certian amount of effort to get the best out of the game.

Its very disappointing that a very tiny minority of posters on here appear to think its borked. They have explained their reasons at length, but its still not enough to convince the vast majority.


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 10
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 10:50:27 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1220
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marjur
OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?


No demo, it is something I would wish Matrix/G&G would consider in the future. I bet for a ~$80 product, quite a few people may be held back by the lack of being able to test it prior to buying. And just relying on game magazines to publish their opinion, or to rely on the opinion of forummites, may not look to inviting to some with tight wallets, too. After all, a game is like a movie or book (or food), includes individual design decisions: it may be to your liking, or simply not.

For WitE I can say that I certainly had and still have a lot of fun with it. From my point, this is one of the few titles I bought in the last decade, and it really fills out any leisure time I spent at home. Lots of hours, and hardly enough to play this monster besides WitE-AE or keeping on with my AI modding in ARMA2. My personal opinion is that if you did like old War in Russia and can put up with the differences (no production, no equipment control, fixed withdrawals), you will not be disappointed by WitE.

As for the designers, Matrix and G&G are usually among better companies with regard to customer services. They are around here, listening, explaining, commenting, and occasionally picking up ideas or wishes from the community if a majority asks for changes. WitE is a huge game, thus also complex, and it won't be perfect immediately. The issues that are surfacing now, like the somewhat crude supply system, or the issue with the ToE, will hopefully be learning points for the next titles in the series. Some smaller changes may be ported back to WitE, it was said, but the large marjority will have to wait to incoporate all the new details picke up along the development of WitW 43-45, WitW 39-40 or whatever specific titles they plan before a WitE2, and a full-blown War in Europe.
Some of the problems discussed here are, however, also only occuring in rare instances, and may not be the norm. Many players may or may never notice them, and in the pre-internet time, wouldn't ever have known about them.

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 11
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 2:51:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I bought this game in Dec 2010, and played it continuously until about two months ago. I only stopped because I've had to concentrate a lot more on RL for a variety of reasons.

The only game that comes close to the amount of time I have spent on this is the Football Manager series (which are effectively a new game every year).

Its well worth the money, but you have to put in a certian amount of effort to get the best out of the game.

Its very disappointing that a very tiny minority of posters on here appear to think its borked. They have explained their reasons at length, but its still not enough to convince the vast majority.



As the self-proclaimed champion of this so-called 'tiny minority' I can tell the original poster that there is a wide swath of players who wanted a competitive game from the German perspective that simply quit and moved on.

I can give you a couple of examples of the borked nature of the German army:

The German pays 500 percent to 750 percent more, at a minimum, to move divisions between commands compared to the Soviet.

The Soviet morale setting (and consequently the formula for gaining unit morale, which is the single most important factor in combat effectiveness) automatically goes up at certain points on the calendar regardless of what's happening in the game.

The German morale setting automatically goes down every January, regardless of casualties.

The German player is forced to remove specific divisions (often based on historic timetables that reflect actual world war 2 combats that may not have happened in game, such as Totenkopf being withdrawn after Demjansk when the latter probably won't happen). The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.

The German army starts out Barbarossa horribly over-burdened in command in Army Group South and Army Group Center, and there is literally no chance to sort that out even if you use every Admin Point the game gives you. Compare this to the Soviet side, which can change every division's HQ for 1 Admin Point (Germany's average is 5 to 7 points). Bear in mind that based on the fixed leadership values of the game, Germany only has a 20% superiority in command ratings than the Soviet (that's not a complaint - just explaining that the AP costs do not 'wash' with the command superiority of the Germans).

Now, meanwhile, the Soviet gets all sorts of new units and new HQs that always start attached to Stavka, so they can be switched around for free the first time (and 1 AP thereafter for the divisions). The result is that the Soviet army gets to reorganize in 1941 for free and will be organizationally superior to Germany by the middle of the summer of 1941.

This is to say nothing of the fact that no cities are worth holding for the Soviets. All that matters is the evacuation of Armament factories and tank factories. All the other factories don't matter, and Soviet players know this, so they abandon the other factories, evacuate all armaments, and then have tons of excess rail capacity (that historically would have been used by real Soviets to evacuate real factories - they didn't have the hindsight to know the US would make up for all their supply issues).

The Soviets have the ability to air-drop brigades with perfect efficiency in such a way that they can easily cut an entire army group's supply line for two weeks at a time. Partisans also have the ability to destroy an entire army group's supply based on how the rail system works.

Over and over again, this game design results in a fantastical Soviet ability to organize and fight in a way that is 50 years ahead of the tactics of the time. Meanwhile Germany is literally tied down to history in ways that defy reason. There is literally no way for a German player to improve substantially on the performance of his game army over the performance of the historical Wehrmacht. Meanwhile, with the failsafes and the gimmicks that the Soviets have, there is no way for the Soviet player to play worse than his historical predecessor.

The game is at its essence, a canned-hunt of Germany with the Soviet given free-reign to stomp the fascists and the Germans tied into a cage that shrinks every turn. I never had a German opponent (when I played Soviet) get past 1942, and I never got past that myself playing as a German. If you'd like to know more, feel free to message me, and I can put you in contact with others like myself, who think the game was a technical marvel, and a competitive mess.

This is to say nothing of the combat engine, which everyone agrees is flawed heavily. The combat engine is way over-specified, and the end result is that all types of combatants are in a rush to get to close range. This results in SMG squads out-performing MG-34 teams, and mortars slaughtering 5 times the enemy force as 150mm howitzers. In this system, where the Soviet has a fairly free ability to create support units, divisions, brigades, and corps, the Soviet player always has the ability to exploit army design. Germany has no such ability.

Those of us who felt that these decisions resulted in an anti-competitive game brought our math and our eloquence and our historical precedents of the actual war. And then we were called names by people, including the alpha and beta testers who were the de facto spokespeople for the game.

The result, as you can see and observe by yourself, is a forum that is growing quiet and increasingly more homogenous. Since I paid $90 for the game at release, I felt entitled to demand changes that reflected the actual capabilities of the armies at the time (I was really big about the admin point problem Germany faced versus the Soviet, and the morale changes being fixed on a timeline for Germany, rather than a casualty loss rate).

I'm not sure whether there will be another propaganda campaign designed to bully and intimidate people like me. Watch the tone of people who respond to me, and the absence of factual counterpoints. The last campaign succeeded, for the most part, and the community is now a closed group of people who love the Soviet game and don't recognize the biased design and anti-competitive force. You'll see there are fewer forum posts, and fewer requests for games (and everyone is looking for 'experienced' German players for some reason! Go figure!) What does that tell you?

Support for War in the East is OVER, and the developers have said that no major changes will occur. They expect to release other games now. They've gotten all the money they needed from War in the East.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy War in the East because of the problems now permanent in the game. Maybe 2by3 will in fact release a better War in the West and other products in the future, but I'll be damned if I'm an early adopter of one of their way-over-priced products again. In a world where you have a lot of options for your entertainment dollar, I would recommend you go to another product.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 12
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 3:18:17 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
I think it is well worth the money, even if it isn't everyone's cup of tea. If you every played the board games, Fire in the East, etc., it is the closest computer game to playing that. If you play vs. the computer, you can adjust things to set up a fun experience. Playing vs. others is almost like playing a different version, as people almost always play to the rules.

Is playing German tougher than playing USSR?
Yes

Is there fair and unfair criticism of the system?
Yes

If you go and look in the AAR section, do you notice that Germany is romping over the USSR about half the time?
Yes

So....I recommend it, it will be something I will play until they come out with another Eastern Front game at this scale. It has a really steep learning curve, and will take a while just to get the basics down. If you also look over the Matrix forums, this one is still one of the most active, 16 months after game launch. I do wish they would put out a demo of the game, I think that would be fair, even just a 10-12 turn affair.

Don't buy it if you have no interest in the War in Russia, that's about it.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 13
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 6:00:23 PM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The result, as you can see and observe by yourself, is a forum that is growing quiet


I have noticed this myself...depressing!



quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Support for War in the East is OVER, and the developers have said that no major changes will occur. They expect to release other games now. They've gotten all the money they needed from War in the East.


Is this true? More depressing.
Other games will take a very long time in coming to market


I really hope there is still an eager willingness and the drive to improve this game in a significant manner.
The scenario pack came out, now make Major changes into small purchase Download Content, fine with me, make everybody happy.
I really would like to see getting over the last humps, if possible.


< Message edited by entwood -- 4/6/2012 6:18:16 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 14
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 6:33:05 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 2203
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Support for WitE is not over although you'll only see bugfix or data update releases in the near future (unless a major problem pops up).

(in reply to entwood)
Post #: 15
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 7:17:46 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
For the benefit of the OP, I do not believe either Wild or Heliodorus played as the Soviets with the more recent rules against a highly competent Axis player. To that extent their opinions on how heavily favored the game is in favor of the Axis is to be taken with a grain of salt.

To Wild's point on giving the Axis more options, I think that's understandable. Having large pools of combat vehicles sitting idle is certainly not historical. But fixing that does seem to be something that would require a major game change which doesn't seem to be on the horizon.

As far as what Heliodorus writes, he will forever comment on how unfair this game is with regards to the ability of the Soviets to organize like NATO. My counter to that arguement is it hardly matters in 1941 as the Axis units regularly stomp the Soviet ones no matter how well organized the latter is. The city of Leningrad is almost always taken, and with recent rule changes Moscow is also falling much more regularly than it ever did. Don't take my word for it, read some of the recent AARs. So while he may have a point as it pertains to the early game, it is largely immaterial. Later in the game the Soviet player regularly will pay penalties attacking because their army structures are capped and Soviet attacks require a large # of units to participate. The Soviet player also requires large number of admin points to rebuild the army in the latter war years. Otherwise, the Soviet player has no hope whatsoever of winning or at least tying the game against a good Axis player.

The Soviet player also suffers from an air war that really has a marginal impact to the game at best. The Soviet ratio of aircraft vs. Axis can go from almost even at the start of the game to 4:1 or more, but the impact on the game is hard to see- the Soviet player simply loses more aircraft in each battle.

And the comment on people only looking for experienced German players? Here are the most recent 10 PBEM requests on who people are looking for- right off the Opponents wanted forum page.

Looking for:
1st time Soviet
Soviet for alt 41-45 CG
Experienced Soviet
Experienced German alt 41-45
2 Soviets- intermediate to advanced
Soviet for Drama on the Danube
Axis opponent wanted alt 41-45
Axis opponent wanted
Experienced German
New player for either side

That's people looking for 5 Soviet, 4 Axis and 1 either side. Hardly an imbalance.

Finally, the forum is growing quiet not just because Axis players are abandoning the game. Stalemate is what is in the winds right now for the GC. Not that many games posted in the AARs have been runaway Soviet victories. If anything, skilled Axis players like Pelton and MichaelT have shown the Soviets can be beaten if you know what you are doing and stick with it. So where I see things going is a game where the 41-45 GC ends in a lot of cases with the Axis outlasting the Soviets. The Axis recipe is basically take Leningrad and Moscow north and center, capture the Donbas in the south during 1941. Retreat during blizzard months and when good weather of 1942 returns, surround and destroy a larger but still underweight Red Army and destroy their manpower centers. Then if you haven't won a victory, dig in and since your army remains largely intact fight the defensive battles which will frequently finish somewhere east of what was the historical outcome.

(in reply to entwood)
Post #: 16
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 8:23:42 PM   
comsolut

 

Posts: 351
Joined: 5/30/2004
Status: offline
+1

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 17
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 8:45:26 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4608
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: marjur

OK, thanks.

What about the designers' support?
Do they respond to players' constructive criticism? I mean, I've looked around a bit and read something about some problems with late-war TOEs and designers' unwillingness to sort that out... I don't know too much about it 'cause I'm new on this forum, though. Are they willing to patch the game? You know, it sometimes happens that a game comes out and then the producer "forgets" about it in spite of the fact that lots of things could be improved... (Master of Orion III comes to my mind here, although it's a totally different genre)




If you prefer to play the Russians then you will most likely love this game, but if your choice is to play the Axis then i would not buy this game as playing them grows old and loses it's fun fairly quickly.
The axis are simply not given many of the fun options that the russians get and their game is to a great extent predetermined. The devs have made it clear that they do not intend to fix the axis no matter how many complaints they get, so buy at your own risk.

Since the Devs have become so anti axis i have noticed a large decline in posts on this forum.And i expect there next game WitW to be a flop. It's really heart wrenching to watch. If only they would have listend to there customers this could have been the best series ever.As evidenced by the huge following the game got after release. But when people realized the fix was in and the devs were not going to be responsive,then it died out pretty quickly.

I think they still could turn it around by giving the Germans more options i mean the market is still there. Unfortunatly i have come to the conclusion that they would rather see the series go under then change their political views. It's a dam shame, i will not be buying anymore of 2by3 games, and i had owned them all previously.


Critiscm is one thing, but making it "political"... Thats a bit unfair don't you think?

quote:

If you prefer to play the Russians then you will most likely love this game, but if your choice is to play the Axis then i would not buy this game as playing them grows old and loses it's fun fairly quickly.
The axis are simply not given many of the fun options that the russians get and their game is to a great extent predetermined. The devs have made it clear that they do not intend to fix the axis no matter how many complaints they get, so buy at your own risk.


Well, the Germans tired of the war rather quickly in real life and I seem to recall all the fun went out of Barbarossa just as fast. No need for an in depth analysis from me, I just tire of those complaints.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 18
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/6/2012 10:16:45 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I bought this game in Dec 2010, and played it continuously until about two months ago. I only stopped because I've had to concentrate a lot more on RL for a variety of reasons.

The only game that comes close to the amount of time I have spent on this is the Football Manager series (which are effectively a new game every year).

Its well worth the money, but you have to put in a certian amount of effort to get the best out of the game.

Its very disappointing that a very tiny minority of posters on here appear to think its borked. They have explained their reasons at length, but its still not enough to convince the vast majority.



As the self-proclaimed champion of this so-called 'tiny minority' I can tell the original poster that there is a wide swath of players who wanted a competitive game from the German perspective that simply quit and moved on.

I can give you a couple of examples of the borked nature of the German army:

The German pays 500 percent to 750 percent more, at a minimum, to move divisions between commands compared to the Soviet.

The Soviet morale setting (and consequently the formula for gaining unit morale, which is the single most important factor in combat effectiveness) automatically goes up at certain points on the calendar regardless of what's happening in the game.

The German morale setting automatically goes down every January, regardless of casualties.

The German player is forced to remove specific divisions (often based on historic timetables that reflect actual world war 2 combats that may not have happened in game, such as Totenkopf being withdrawn after Demjansk when the latter probably won't happen). The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.

The German army starts out Barbarossa horribly over-burdened in command in Army Group South and Army Group Center, and there is literally no chance to sort that out even if you use every Admin Point the game gives you. Compare this to the Soviet side, which can change every division's HQ for 1 Admin Point (Germany's average is 5 to 7 points). Bear in mind that based on the fixed leadership values of the game, Germany only has a 20% superiority in command ratings than the Soviet (that's not a complaint - just explaining that the AP costs do not 'wash' with the command superiority of the Germans).

Now, meanwhile, the Soviet gets all sorts of new units and new HQs that always start attached to Stavka, so they can be switched around for free the first time (and 1 AP thereafter for the divisions). The result is that the Soviet army gets to reorganize in 1941 for free and will be organizationally superior to Germany by the middle of the summer of 1941.

This is to say nothing of the fact that no cities are worth holding for the Soviets. All that matters is the evacuation of Armament factories and tank factories. All the other factories don't matter, and Soviet players know this, so they abandon the other factories, evacuate all armaments, and then have tons of excess rail capacity (that historically would have been used by real Soviets to evacuate real factories - they didn't have the hindsight to know the US would make up for all their supply issues).

The Soviets have the ability to air-drop brigades with perfect efficiency in such a way that they can easily cut an entire army group's supply line for two weeks at a time. Partisans also have the ability to destroy an entire army group's supply based on how the rail system works.

Over and over again, this game design results in a fantastical Soviet ability to organize and fight in a way that is 50 years ahead of the tactics of the time. Meanwhile Germany is literally tied down to history in ways that defy reason. There is literally no way for a German player to improve substantially on the performance of his game army over the performance of the historical Wehrmacht. Meanwhile, with the failsafes and the gimmicks that the Soviets have, there is no way for the Soviet player to play worse than his historical predecessor.

The game is at its essence, a canned-hunt of Germany with the Soviet given free-reign to stomp the fascists and the Germans tied into a cage that shrinks every turn. I never had a German opponent (when I played Soviet) get past 1942, and I never got past that myself playing as a German. If you'd like to know more, feel free to message me, and I can put you in contact with others like myself, who think the game was a technical marvel, and a competitive mess.

This is to say nothing of the combat engine, which everyone agrees is flawed heavily. The combat engine is way over-specified, and the end result is that all types of combatants are in a rush to get to close range. This results in SMG squads out-performing MG-34 teams, and mortars slaughtering 5 times the enemy force as 150mm howitzers. In this system, where the Soviet has a fairly free ability to create support units, divisions, brigades, and corps, the Soviet player always has the ability to exploit army design. Germany has no such ability.

Those of us who felt that these decisions resulted in an anti-competitive game brought our math and our eloquence and our historical precedents of the actual war. And then we were called names by people, including the alpha and beta testers who were the de facto spokespeople for the game.

The result, as you can see and observe by yourself, is a forum that is growing quiet and increasingly more homogenous. Since I paid $90 for the game at release, I felt entitled to demand changes that reflected the actual capabilities of the armies at the time (I was really big about the admin point problem Germany faced versus the Soviet, and the morale changes being fixed on a timeline for Germany, rather than a casualty loss rate).

I'm not sure whether there will be another propaganda campaign designed to bully and intimidate people like me. Watch the tone of people who respond to me, and the absence of factual counterpoints. The last campaign succeeded, for the most part, and the community is now a closed group of people who love the Soviet game and don't recognize the biased design and anti-competitive force. You'll see there are fewer forum posts, and fewer requests for games (and everyone is looking for 'experienced' German players for some reason! Go figure!) What does that tell you?

Support for War in the East is OVER, and the developers have said that no major changes will occur. They expect to release other games now. They've gotten all the money they needed from War in the East.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy War in the East because of the problems now permanent in the game. Maybe 2by3 will in fact release a better War in the West and other products in the future, but I'll be damned if I'm an early adopter of one of their way-over-priced products again. In a world where you have a lot of options for your entertainment dollar, I would recommend you go to another product.


I must say - I dont post a lot here and I bought and have never really started a game due to the frequency with which the patches come out - I had thought it would settle at some point but it hasnt.

I would only add that I was incredibly dissapointed in the air war implementation - for an such an expensive title it is unforgivable.

I have read a lot of what helio posts and the impression I have walked away with is that he speaks a lot of sense and his opinion of the game is largely correct. The counter arguments to his posts mostly seem to consist of people shouting but not proving him wrong.

Putting the air war aside - take just one thing he complains about - ie that the german player can have units withdrawn because they were historically, regardless of the current game situation - such as the withdrawals after bagration - seems to me from a game design point utter insanity. I have never seen anyone come up with an effective counter argument to just this one point. that a unit could be sitting in the crimea and it gets withdrawn because of a bagration offensive that happened historically just kills it for me as a game because it is indicative of a complex design that didnt see enough work squashing the anomolies certain design decisions led to.

I am in fact grateful to him for pointing out things I wouldnt have the time to find myself. It always struck me that the code for this game hung in the back cupboard for a long time till someone said - lets release this thing - and then concentration was on getting it to a stage where it looked like a game rather than spending the time to revisit the design decisions taken years ago that werent thought through properly.



< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/6/2012 10:21:22 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 19
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 1:48:29 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I bought this game in Dec 2010, and played it continuously until about two months ago. I only stopped because I've had to concentrate a lot more on RL for a variety of reasons.

The only game that comes close to the amount of time I have spent on this is the Football Manager series (which are effectively a new game every year).

Its well worth the money, but you have to put in a certian amount of effort to get the best out of the game.

Its very disappointing that a very tiny minority of posters on here appear to think its borked. They have explained their reasons at length, but its still not enough to convince the vast majority.



As the self-proclaimed champion of this so-called 'tiny minority' I can tell the original poster that there is a wide swath of players who wanted a competitive game from the German perspective that simply quit and moved on.

I can give you a couple of examples of the borked nature of the German army:

The German pays 500 percent to 750 percent more, at a minimum, to move divisions between commands compared to the Soviet.

The Soviet morale setting (and consequently the formula for gaining unit morale, which is the single most important factor in combat effectiveness) automatically goes up at certain points on the calendar regardless of what's happening in the game.

The German morale setting automatically goes down every January, regardless of casualties.

The German player is forced to remove specific divisions (often based on historic timetables that reflect actual world war 2 combats that may not have happened in game, such as Totenkopf being withdrawn after Demjansk when the latter probably won't happen). The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.

The German army starts out Barbarossa horribly over-burdened in command in Army Group South and Army Group Center, and there is literally no chance to sort that out even if you use every Admin Point the game gives you. Compare this to the Soviet side, which can change every division's HQ for 1 Admin Point (Germany's average is 5 to 7 points). Bear in mind that based on the fixed leadership values of the game, Germany only has a 20% superiority in command ratings than the Soviet (that's not a complaint - just explaining that the AP costs do not 'wash' with the command superiority of the Germans).

Now, meanwhile, the Soviet gets all sorts of new units and new HQs that always start attached to Stavka, so they can be switched around for free the first time (and 1 AP thereafter for the divisions). The result is that the Soviet army gets to reorganize in 1941 for free and will be organizationally superior to Germany by the middle of the summer of 1941.

This is to say nothing of the fact that no cities are worth holding for the Soviets. All that matters is the evacuation of Armament factories and tank factories. All the other factories don't matter, and Soviet players know this, so they abandon the other factories, evacuate all armaments, and then have tons of excess rail capacity (that historically would have been used by real Soviets to evacuate real factories - they didn't have the hindsight to know the US would make up for all their supply issues).

The Soviets have the ability to air-drop brigades with perfect efficiency in such a way that they can easily cut an entire army group's supply line for two weeks at a time. Partisans also have the ability to destroy an entire army group's supply based on how the rail system works.

Over and over again, this game design results in a fantastical Soviet ability to organize and fight in a way that is 50 years ahead of the tactics of the time. Meanwhile Germany is literally tied down to history in ways that defy reason. There is literally no way for a German player to improve substantially on the performance of his game army over the performance of the historical Wehrmacht. Meanwhile, with the failsafes and the gimmicks that the Soviets have, there is no way for the Soviet player to play worse than his historical predecessor.

The game is at its essence, a canned-hunt of Germany with the Soviet given free-reign to stomp the fascists and the Germans tied into a cage that shrinks every turn. I never had a German opponent (when I played Soviet) get past 1942, and I never got past that myself playing as a German. If you'd like to know more, feel free to message me, and I can put you in contact with others like myself, who think the game was a technical marvel, and a competitive mess.

This is to say nothing of the combat engine, which everyone agrees is flawed heavily. The combat engine is way over-specified, and the end result is that all types of combatants are in a rush to get to close range. This results in SMG squads out-performing MG-34 teams, and mortars slaughtering 5 times the enemy force as 150mm howitzers. In this system, where the Soviet has a fairly free ability to create support units, divisions, brigades, and corps, the Soviet player always has the ability to exploit army design. Germany has no such ability.

Those of us who felt that these decisions resulted in an anti-competitive game brought our math and our eloquence and our historical precedents of the actual war. And then we were called names by people, including the alpha and beta testers who were the de facto spokespeople for the game.

The result, as you can see and observe by yourself, is a forum that is growing quiet and increasingly more homogenous. Since I paid $90 for the game at release, I felt entitled to demand changes that reflected the actual capabilities of the armies at the time (I was really big about the admin point problem Germany faced versus the Soviet, and the morale changes being fixed on a timeline for Germany, rather than a casualty loss rate).

I'm not sure whether there will be another propaganda campaign designed to bully and intimidate people like me. Watch the tone of people who respond to me, and the absence of factual counterpoints. The last campaign succeeded, for the most part, and the community is now a closed group of people who love the Soviet game and don't recognize the biased design and anti-competitive force. You'll see there are fewer forum posts, and fewer requests for games (and everyone is looking for 'experienced' German players for some reason! Go figure!) What does that tell you?

Support for War in the East is OVER, and the developers have said that no major changes will occur. They expect to release other games now. They've gotten all the money they needed from War in the East.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy War in the East because of the problems now permanent in the game. Maybe 2by3 will in fact release a better War in the West and other products in the future, but I'll be damned if I'm an early adopter of one of their way-over-priced products again. In a world where you have a lot of options for your entertainment dollar, I would recommend you go to another product.


I must say - I dont post a lot here and I bought and have never really started a game due to the frequency with which the patches come out - I had thought it would settle at some point but it hasnt.

I would only add that I was incredibly dissapointed in the air war implementation - for an such an expensive title it is unforgivable.

I have read a lot of what helio posts and the impression I have walked away with is that he speaks a lot of sense and his opinion of the game is largely correct. The counter arguments to his posts mostly seem to consist of people shouting but not proving him wrong.

Putting the air war aside - take just one thing he complains about - ie that the german player can have units withdrawn because they were historically, regardless of the current game situation - such as the withdrawals after bagration - seems to me from a game design point utter insanity. I have never seen anyone come up with an effective counter argument to just this one point. that a unit could be sitting in the crimea and it gets withdrawn because of a bagration offensive that happened historically just kills it for me as a game because it is indicative of a complex design that didnt see enough work squashing the anomolies certain design decisions led to.

I am in fact grateful to him for pointing out things I wouldnt have the time to find myself. It always struck me that the code for this game hung in the back cupboard for a long time till someone said - lets release this thing - and then concentration was on getting it to a stage where it looked like a game rather than spending the time to revisit the design decisions taken years ago that werent thought through properly.




What an enormous load of cr*p. If the game will kill it for you with some withdrawels which are debatable, then by all means don't play. Just don't think, pretend or calim that you know anything of the game as you admit yourself that you haven't played. You don't even know, what the game is about.

< Message edited by glvaca -- 4/7/2012 2:04:00 AM >

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 20
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 1:52:05 AM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 428
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

I suggest you should start a 1941 grand campaign scenario as the Germans. And then go into the info screen and from there go to the reinforcement/withdrawal schedule screen. Go to Feb 43 and tell me what do you see.
I'll bet you see nothing about the 6th army withdrawing. Why… because it does not happen. Look at the summer of 44 do you see all of Army group center being withdrawing… nope you do not, because it does not happen. Only historical withdrawals happen like moving units to Italy because the Allies invaded.
As far as I can tell
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.

is a lie

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 21
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 2:40:20 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
Whatever its flaws, it's really quite hard to argue against WITE simply because there's nothing else like it on the market save the original War in Russia itself, and compared to that, WITE has far fewer balance issues and a much improved interface.

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 22
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 2:41:06 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


I suggest you should start a 1941 grand campaign scenario as the Germans. And then go into the info screen and from there go to the reinforcement/withdrawal schedule screen. Go to Feb 43 and tell me what do you see.
I'll bet you see nothing about the 6th army withdrawing. Why… because it does not happen. Look at the summer of 44 do you see all of Army group center being withdrawing… nope you do not, because it does not happen. Only historical withdrawals happen like moving units to Italy because the Allies invaded.
As far as I can tell
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.

is a lie



It is. IIRC, the developers already coverd that.

Doesn't stop the myth from popping up though.

But just to be sure, can he name the AAR in which the 6th Army disappeared even though Stalingrad didn't happen?

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 4/7/2012 2:53:29 AM >

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 23
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 3:11:40 AM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


The German player is forced to remove specific divisions (often based on historic timetables that reflect actual world war 2 combats that may not have happened in game, such as Totenkopf being withdrawn after Demjansk when the latter probably won't happen). The best examples are Stalingrad, of course - you lose those units whether or not Stalingrad happens.



I'm looking at the GC withdraw schedule and I dont see 6th Army being withdrawn.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 24
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 6:10:01 AM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
94th infantry destroyed Stalingrad--- withdrawn 4/8/43
305th infantry destroyed Stalingrad 1/43--- withdrawn 3/4/43
3rd Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad early 43--- withdrawn May 43
94th infantry destroyed Stalingrad--- withdrawn 4/43
XIV panzer corp destroyed Stalingrad--- withdrawn 4/43
29th Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 5/43
60th Motorized Infantry Division destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 5/43
297th infantry destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 6/10
295th infantry destroyed Stalingrad---- withdrawn 7/15
71st infantry destroyed Stalingrad ----withdrawn 8/5/43
LI corp destroyed Stalingrad -----withdrawn


These units were destroyed at Stalingrad and withdrawn from the game at the above dates. The issue is that these units were not historically withdrawn, but reconstituted (rebuilt using the number, but very few if any of the original troops).
These units are lost to the Axis player not because they were sent west, but because they were destroyed. Not one of the above units (and 2 HQs)was "withdrawn" historically from the eastern front. The issue is a bit technical, but represents the argument being made.

A number of German divisions destroyed at Stalingrad are not "withdrawn" from the game. This includes all the panzer divisions even though the 16th panzer was rebuilt and did serve some time in Italy before returning to the eastern front.

From the Axis side those 2 HQs can be huge. In 1943 who wants to lose divisions in the face of a growing enemy?

Some may think it is a non issue, others think that it is. For me the issue is a bit technical and not a real big deal to me. I think that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to what I would like to see changed. To each his own.

I wish they would allow the Axis player to construct certain HQs that would represent combat formations such as "Army Group Kempf". At times I feel quite constrained and would love to organize such a group for specific purposes. In dealing with my Soviet opponent my organization is all over the place dealing with all his threats and actual attacks.

< Message edited by RCH -- 4/7/2012 7:46:50 AM >

(in reply to usersatch)
Post #: 25
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 7:09:32 AM   
Meteor2

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
Heliodorus04: Good post !
I also think, that the forum is dying a little bit and maybe the reason for that is the expectation of the players, that no real impovement will
happened in this game any more. I was always a fan of 2by3 games from the very beginning, but with WitE (at the current stage) I am not very happy.
All the shortcomings, Heliodorus04 has mentioned, are often without plausibility. Again: The game sets the "history" for the game and not a scripted timelime deep
in the programm itself.

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 26
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 10:52:48 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1220
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH
These units were destroyed at Stalingrad and withdrawn from the game at the above dates. The issue is that these units were not historically withdrawn, but reconstituted (rebuilt using the number, but very few if any of the original troops).
These units are lost to the Axis player not because they were sent west, but because they were destroyed. Not one of the above units (and 2 HQs)was "withdrawn" historically from the eastern front. The issue is a bit technical, but represents the argument being made.

A number of German divisions destroyed at Stalingrad are not "withdrawn" from the game. This includes all the panzer divisions even though the 16th panzer was rebuilt and did serve some time in Italy before returning to the eastern front.

From the Axis side those 2 HQs can be huge. In 1943 who wants to lose divisions in the face of a growing enemy?

Some may think it is a non issue, others think that it is. For me the issue is a bit technical and not a real big deal to me. I think that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to what I would like to see changed. To each his own.

I wish they would allow the Axis player to construct certain HQs that would represent combat formations such as "Army Group Kempf". At times I feel quite constrained and would love to organize such a group for specific purposes. In dealing with my Soviet opponent my organization is all over the place dealing with all his threats and actual attacks.


You probably have some points there that are worth considering. The issue with the reconstituted divisions has popped up a few times in the past, and if you think it over strictly logically, both options may have happened:

If you are doing well enough East by winter 42 that you won't loose a whole army destroyed, not only the (not re-)constituted formations would probably get different numbers (or be forwarded as reinforcements element-wise for other units), but one could also argue that not only the latter divisions would perhaps be employed elsewhere, but also that part of your Eastern divisions may also be subject to withdrawal. However, similarly you could make a case for the Eastern divisions staying, while only the new units struggle elsewhere.

Ideally I would have wished that they had retained something like the "Western/Southern" Front boxes, or even refined them in smaller sub sectors, and the players be given control over the newly constituting divisions: i.e. whether to rename them to a free(d) number, and whether to send them East, South, or West.

Then this debate wouldn't exist, but probably another. Anyway, let's see what the come up with in the new WitW, and whether they will be willing to refit that to WitE (perhaps in the framework of another commercial addon?).

Incidentially, you could make the same argument about "excess material" in the East, such as the high number of tanks in IdahoNYer's case. Irrespective whether the supply and fuel infrastructure could be adapted or sustained better due to the more successful fighting East, how much of that material would have been send West, or how much of the replacement material normally supposed to go East, would go West instead? If player ToE's of tanks and APCs are say >=90% across the board, should the production rate be redirected to Western pools and not be available to the player instead?
If the Axis player closes on the sudden-death conditions, should the Soviet side receive some extra Lend-and-Lease goods, reasoning that the Allies would have boosted deliveries in case of possible disaster?

Anyway, I can certainly say that even with these small issues, I still have a lot of fun with this game, and I would buy it again. I don't think you will be disappointed if you buy it, knowing what to expect.

< Message edited by janh -- 4/7/2012 11:12:44 AM >

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 27
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 12:19:46 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

What an enormous load of cr*p. If the game will kill it for you with some withdrawels which are debatable, then by all means don't play. Just don't think, pretend or calim that you know anything of the game as you admit yourself that you haven't played. You don't even know, what the game is about.


And why dont you learn to read . I didnt say I havent played the game - I said I hadnt started a game proper - they are not the same thing at all which you would realize if you had at least one brain cell to call on. I picked on one example of an issue that isnt being addressed and is the result of a bad design decision - that is not the only issue I could point to. Even if you look at the people who support the game - there is a littany of issues even they admit to - which added as a whole make the game as poor as it is.

For 90 bucks - the air war alone is a disgrace and the game should never have been released with the state it was in. For 90 bucks I expected a game which simulated the war in the east in a proper way. this game fails to do so - your kind of mindless ignorant post does nothing to advance it to the point where it is.

< Message edited by DBeves -- 4/7/2012 12:31:47 PM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 28
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 12:39:59 PM   
sj80

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline
Hey majur,
you've started the usual discussion. I wouldn't give too much attention to the negative arguments.
I would give more attention to the fun of playing this game. WITE provides me very much fun. Playing against the AI is nice but the real fun is playing against a good human. The game is definitly worth the money.
Check out the AAR forum, this is the best way to get an impression of the game.

sj80

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 29
RE: Prospective buyer question - 4/7/2012 12:45:21 PM   
marjur


Posts: 101
Joined: 10/29/2008
Status: offline
Thanks for all your comments, guys. I think I'm getting the general picture... Sorry, I didn't realise my innocent question would open up Pandora's box.

I've got one more question, though--I've been playing TOAW so far and there are quite a lot of enthusiasts who make awesome unofficial scenarios for this game. How about this aspect of WitE? Is there a thriving user-made scenarios scene? Are there any user-made scenarios available at all, or is it just what comes with the game. Besides, I've been talking to some people on a different forum an they say that there are very few small scenarios included, good for beginners, most of them being rather big, campaign-like...? Is that true?


< Message edited by marjur -- 4/7/2012 12:47:35 PM >

(in reply to marjur)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Prospective buyer question 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

0.137