Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets Updated
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Belgian surrenders event not tested

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Tech Support >> Belgian surrenders event not tested Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 2:35:20 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
This is incredible that it wasn't even found during testing time

So basically I start playing with the French just to get the feel of it knowing Germans will beat me by sheer numbers but not the issue, just wanted to see what France was all about.

First of all I did make sure the Maginot Line would last till Summer 1940 and replaced weak troops by Level 2 INF Corps. That give troops with a defense of 8 to 12 pts. Well enough to defend and destroy Kamikaze German INF Division coming next to it... silly enough as the Maginot line was for defense not offense so that another minor BUG.

Then when the German attacked the Low Countries I went to help and defend Belgium.

I had to retreat which is fair enough under pressure till Brussels was about to fall then I created a new defense line... that disappeared (beamed into space and back) with the even "Belgium surrenders".

I was FLABBERGASTED... and couldn't believe my eyes for a few minutes... SHOCKING that this even go to production. See by yourself.

Defense in Belgium before surrender event:




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 2:36:01 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
After surrender event




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 2
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 2:36:54 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
and fair enough those troops are beamed into my force pool




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 3
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 2:37:45 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
What is the logic behind this? none of course. Just not tested, really a shame.

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 4
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 5:07:30 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2520
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
all game do this even Paradox does this. IT is WAD

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 5
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 8:21:21 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

all game do this even Paradox does this. IT is WAD

Well first time ever I met this and I could understand loss of efficiency, retreat or whatever but not the "beam me up Scotty" back to force pool.

Anyway I'm done playing this game, worst load of crap I ever put on my computer.

First time ever I wrote to get a refund.

The ones that did program this have no clue on what they did besides building a beautifully looking game with tons of graphics option but frankly I would rather play an ugly but good game than this.

I had Wargames on Amiga 30 years ago that were light years above this "thing".

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 6
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 8:21:50 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5306
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
This is WAD. And has nothing to do with any of the events in the game.
I've got no idea what Paradox is doing.

However as soon as country is defeated, it's whole territory is seceded to the victor, and all units of countries allied with the loser, are moved into the force pool.

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 7
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 8:27:32 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5306
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
I'm sorry Polonthi that you don't like the game, but this is not a reason to get the refund.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 8
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 8:37:01 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
In any game design some things will be done for simplification and the developer has a 'budget' to work with. This may not be a top priority (I would not rank it as a 'top' issue) but it may not be too complex to fix (perhaps only the events need to be modified).

It all boils down to a simplified handling of 'ownership' and 'control' of hexes. The same thing happens in any country upon 'collapse'. In France British could 'hold' a port or evacuate at their option instead of surrendering or as happened to me French had Narvik surrounded and teleported home when Norway surrenders. (the result would have either been 1. French retake Narvik., or 2 French fail to retake Narvik and are trapped) teleporting home is just a shortcut. Its either unrealistic to extract units which may have been trapped. Or it is unrealistic when in this case breaks a viable defensive line.

One relatively simple fix which may introduce some minor issues but IMO less disruptive is this:

When a country surrenders nothing need be done at all regarding any 3rd party units present. Just have the 'defeated' national units 'vanish' grant 'ownership' of all hexes in the country to winner and revert 'control' of all hexes not already under the control of the 'conquering nation' to nearest allied nation or perhaps the alliance leader (if alliance leader is used no 'logic' need be built into the event, just take 'control' from country x and give to country y). I can't think of a situation where this would not be a better option than the current implementation.

At some point if may be a good idea to revise the 'ownership' and 'control' of hexes. Practically speaking 'ownership' means nothing except for economics and can be left as it is (ownership changes with conquest events. 'Control' on the other hand should be held at the 'alliance' for 'faction' level rather than at the national level. This is simpler than the current system and avoids anachronistic situations which crop up like Romania controlling most of a conquered USSR because the leading Axis units 'came from there'.

Defeated nations would not 'block' allied access supply or retreat routes. And if the conquering army is present it can move in and take control the old fashioned way by moving in the troops. Practically speaking an invader is going to need boots on the ground to exercise control of territory. Even with the creation of Vichy the British actually needed to get home somehow but not like the French would do anything to block them quite the contrary I am sure the French evacuation trains would run until the Germans show up. This would delay the actual 'control' of conquered France only a little unless the UK forces were in a position to defend.


< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/7/2012 8:48:00 AM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 9
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 8:56:47 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
When a country surrenders nothing need be done at all regarding any 3rd party units present. Just have the 'defeated' national units 'vanish' grant 'ownership' of all hexes in the country to winner and revert 'control' of all hexes not already under the control of the 'conquering nation' to nearest allied nation or perhaps the alliance leader (if alliance leader is used no 'logic' need be built into the event, just take 'control' from country x and give to country y). I can't think of a situation where this would not be a better option than the current implementation.

I totally agree with your statement and it's usually the situation I see happening in Wargames. Now this game could even have gone into more details as some events even grants troops joining back the Allies after a country is defeated.

So you could even run randomly Belgian troops that would keep retreating with the Allies instead of surrendering to Germany. I didn't quite read much on how the Belgium surrendering was handled but I don't think every Belgian soldiers did drop their weapons like that and disappeared in POW or back home. Being a week by week game something with some flavor could be done but anyway your suggestion would be a great step forward in my sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
At some point if may be a good idea to revise the 'ownership' and 'control' of hexes. Practically speaking 'ownership' means nothing except for economics and can be left as it is (ownership changes with conquest events. 'Control' on the other hand should be held at the 'alliance' for 'faction' level rather than at the national level. This is simpler than the current system and avoids anachronistic situations which crop up like Romania controlling most of a conquered USSR because the leading Axis units 'came from there'.

Agreed as well, and I did use Paradrops to avoid this in my game with the Italian to make sure Turkey went Italian and not Bulgarian. It works fine... not logical but works out fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
Defeated nations would not 'block' allied access supply or retreat routes. And if the conquering army is present it can move in and take control the old fashioned way by moving in the troops. Practically speaking an invader is going to need boots on the ground to exercise control of territory. Even with the creation of Vichy the British actually needed to get home somehow but not like the French would do anything to block them quite the contrary I am sure the French evacuation trains would run until the Germans show up. This would delay the actual 'control' of conquered France only a little unless the UK forces were in a position to defend.

Agreed as well, not mentioning the thousands of French that did evacuate to England and create the Free French forces with De Gaule. Didn't play that long enough to see if this event is there but wouldn't be surprised as in terms of events the designers did a nice enough job.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 10
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/7/2012 3:49:52 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3210
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: online
That event has been tested countless times and experienced by players countless times. Quit saying unfounded things.

I don't like the effect of the event either. I want the units in that country at the time of surrender to continue on in their position. However, the developers made that design decision.

It's amazing to me that all you new guys come in playing the game, and every thing is ASTONISHING! SILLY! COMPLETELY AHISTORICAL! WHY WASN'T IT TESTED!?????

You say you have played games for 30 years. Every game design has tradeoffs.

This is an incredibly well done and fun game. I've played it hundreds of hours. I've modded the game when I see something I just hate.

How about instead of dumping on the game, you just go into the event file and take out that Belgian surrender event. You've played 30 years. You ought to be able to edit a text or csv file.

And now you're going to say, 'I paid x number of dollars for the game, I shouldn't have to mod it!'

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 4/7/2012 3:52:09 PM >

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 11
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/8/2012 2:45:14 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

That event has been tested countless times and experienced by players countless times. Quit saying unfounded things.

I don't like the effect of the event either. I want the units in that country at the time of surrender to continue on in their position. However, the developers made that design decision.

It's amazing to me that all you new guys come in playing the game, and every thing is ASTONISHING! SILLY! COMPLETELY AHISTORICAL! WHY WASN'T IT TESTED!?????

You say you have played games for 30 years. Every game design has tradeoffs.

This is an incredibly well done and fun game. I've played it hundreds of hours. I've modded the game when I see something I just hate.

How about instead of dumping on the game, you just go into the event file and take out that Belgian surrender event. You've played 30 years. You ought to be able to edit a text or csv file.

And now you're going to say, 'I paid x number of dollars for the game, I shouldn't have to mod it!'

Well I'm thrilled that you love this game but what you are asking me isn't a solution.

So to avoid this effect now Belgium shouldn't surrender anymore? How does that help to make it a good simulation of WW2?

Again I'm buying a product to play it, not to mod it myself to make it playable. I have played many games with players coming with new mods that should change this or that part of the game but none so far that would correct basic flaws in a game.

It's great that you are ready to do this to play this game but you should respect the fact that I'm not and will not.

I buy a product based on a description that promise me to deliver an in depth simulation of WW2 and I expect it to deliver.

By the way this is the map of the advance of Germany troops on the 16th of May and Belgium surrenders on the 28th of May which is more than 2 weeks after the fall of Antwerp and Brussels so don't tell me that this rule of having the French army beamed back to the force pool is a well thought rule. It has no historical basis what so ever.

The best the designers could do is create a Belgium event surrender at the fall of Antwerp and Brussels and have the Belgium troops frozen and start to loose 1/3 of their strength each turn with no chance to rebuild them. Basically after 3 turns they would have disappeared from the map and give enough time for the Allies to face the issue like they did in reality.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Polonthi -- 4/8/2012 2:49:48 AM >

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 12
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/8/2012 2:05:56 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5306
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
Who says this game is a simulation of anything?

I think that both, the developer and the description at the store never claimed anything like that.
What is more, in some threads I have written that Time of Fury is a game lighter than for example War in the East.


(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 13
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/9/2012 3:27:00 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Re Polonthi's comments I am on your side Doom. The game lives up to amy reasonable expectation. Better than most in fact.

But despite any claims or disclaimers made to the contrary we are looking at a WWII simulation here. Great effort (largely successful and mostly accurate)has been made to recreate the historical OOB, geopolitical conditions, interactions of units, and even weather. It may be lighter less detailed simulattion than perhaps World In Flames or the like but a simulation it is.

If it walks, quacks, and sheds water like a duck it it is at least a simulation of a duck...

BTW I haven't mentioned this (usually I look at things needing fixing) but I congratulate you on how well weather is simulated in ToF....



quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Who says this game is a simulation of anything?

I think that both, the developer and the description at the store never claimed anything like that.
What is more, in some threads I have written that Time of Fury is a game lighter than for example War in the East.





_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 14
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/9/2012 3:36:55 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Another point worth mentioning is that a simulation is NOT reality. And a simulation does not need to be complex in order to be good. Often simple is better. One of the best 'simulations' I know of is ridiculously simple.

Take a bunch of mousetraps set them....
Put two ping pong balls on each ...

Tell the simulation audience the ping pong balls are neutrons and that the dense group of mousetraps is a simulates a tiny quantity of a near critical mass of a fissile material.

Toss in a ping pong ball and you have an at least educationally useful simulation.

Fun too, simulations are not required to be fun but it helps...













< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/9/2012 3:37:23 AM >


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 15
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 4/10/2012 6:53:52 AM   
Polonthi

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
Re Polonthi's comments I am on your side Doom. The game lives up to amy reasonable expectation. Better than most in fact.

Well I guess I'm going to have to beg to differ

I'll post something about Naval Battles later on as it's a total disaster.

So far it's the first game I played that doesn't give me any feel of being related to WW2 besides as you said it has the looks... and beautiful are those. Maybe it's just an AI problem but it is sold with an AI and it's far from living to any expectation.

I thought the comments of this game to be played against players to be good would be right but even so the naval design doesn't make that possible.

Again I'm sorry if my comments hurt anyone but you really need to read a full account of WW2 to understand that.

Now if the idea was just to do a fun, fast pace game loosely related to WW2 but without any intend to simulate any part of it then it needs to be advertised as such. Please read Matrix description to see that it is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
But despite any claims or disclaimers made to the contrary we are looking at a WWII simulation here. Great effort (largely successful and mostly accurate)has been made to recreate the historical OOB, geopolitical conditions, interactions of units, and even weather. It may be lighter less detailed simulattion than perhaps World In Flames or the like but a simulation it is.

If it walks, quacks, and sheds water like a duck it it is at least a simulation of a duck...

I couldn't have make a better comment

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
BTW I haven't mentioned this (usually I look at things needing fixing) but I congratulate you on how well weather is simulated in ToF....

Yes that is gorgeous indeed.

Overall this is also too bad as this game is absolutely gorgeous. From the maps, the counters, the weather, the details, the ships and with a bit more depth this would be a total winner. Everything is there to make this game THE best simulation of WW2 on a strategic level ever.

It's fast enough to play the full war, it's detailed enough to be able to do tactics and not only strategies.

I was so excited starting to play, thought that Germany against the AI was too strong but ok not a first. Then when I started playing the Allies and USSR I started to see the flaws.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 16
RE: Belgian surrenders event not tested - 1/24/2013 8:50:01 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1386
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
I was surprised as well when this happened in my human.v.human solitaire game. I addressed this by taking my time machine back and putting a city in 101,92 and moving the VP from Brussels to it. That replaces a forest hex with a city (that should be well defended!). I suspect that most issues of this type can be addressed by clever scenario design.

I'll be interested to see what happens when Italy surrenders.

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 17
A Better Way - 1/29/2013 6:24:05 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 374
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

This is WAD. And has nothing to do with any of the events in the game.
I've got no idea what Paradox is doing.

However as soon as country is defeated, it's whole territory is seceded to the victor, and all units of countries allied with the loser, are moved into the force pool.


doomtrader,
The instant "beam me up Scotty" routine where all units not belonging to the conquering alliance get beamed back to the force pool on the same turn the country surrenders seems a bit premature to me. I've seen some games handle this by giving the player a one turn grace period to retrieve his units. For a case like Belguim surrendering it would give an Allied player a turn to pull back out of Belguim to avoid the big beam up. In a case like France surrendering that becomes more problematic since bugging out involves being able to load up units onto transports and that takes a whole turn in which if the port has become vacant those loaded troops could be in harm's way and get wiped out by advancing enemy units into the port.

I doubt there is a solution that would pelase all players. Knowing that units in countries that just become conquered by the enemy get beamed out to the force pool does help one make decisions that cover that contingency. Nothing like a little Premature Evacuation to keep your forces on the map when you know time's up in some country about to be conquered.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 18
Credibility Lost - 1/29/2013 6:38:26 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 374
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Who says this game is a simulation of anything?

I think that both, the developer and the description at the store never claimed anything like that.
What is more, in some threads I have written that Time of Fury is a game lighter than for example War in the East.




doomtrader,
Pretending this game or any war game isn't a simulation of something just makes you sound like a corrupt lawyer. To say you somehow never said that this game simulates WW2 when everything you show us from maps, to pictures to units to everything in the game that screams WW2 is being dishonest in the extreme.

Do you expect us to read every thread for every one of your comments? While you may have mentioned that ToF is lighter than War in the East, or Computer War in Europe as a better example is not a disclaimer that the game does not simulate WW2 in the slightest. That's not at issue here.

Some games are more intricate than others and I've found that some games do some things better than others while doing other things not as well. I like the basic concept of ToF and SWiE and the basic game system. Yes I think that you could do a better job here and there making the game simulate WW2 better in some ways, and I have to admit that in some respects I like the way you handle some ways of simulating things. I really like what you've done with events in some cases, in other cases like the Soviet/Finland War which you said was sophisticated I just don't see it as it appears to be broken. I am glad you're listening to feedback and trying to make the game better.

Please do not lie to us about these games not being simulations or that you don't know why we'd think so, like some corrupt lawyer. You've lost tremendlous credibility with me and unless you admit to being in error then I'll simulate being a non-customer of Wasteland products from now on. Drop the corrupt lawyer routine and just be honest, that's what I have to do in my business and my business needs me to be much more accurate since I do accounting and tax work which I have to get right the first time and don't get chances to make patches after the fact.
Omnius

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 19
Reasonable Expectations - 1/29/2013 6:50:56 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 374
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Polonthi

Well I'm thrilled that you love this game but what you are asking me isn't a solution.

So to avoid this effect now Belgium shouldn't surrender anymore? How does that help to make it a good simulation of WW2?

Again I'm buying a product to play it, not to mod it myself to make it playable. I have played many games with players coming with new mods that should change this or that part of the game but none so far that would correct basic flaws in a game.

It's great that you are ready to do this to play this game but you should respect the fact that I'm not and will not.

I buy a product based on a description that promise me to deliver an in depth simulation of WW2 and I expect it to deliver.


Polonthi,
Great Expectations lead to Great Disappointments, so best to keep expectations reasonable. Yes your situation with Belguim was annoying and frustrating, but now that you know how the game handles countries that are just conquered you'll know better in your next game to expect Scotty to beam up your laggard units in Belguim.

Like you I don't like to have to mod games, I just want them to be good enough to play out of the box. Unfortunately Time of Fury is no exception to being not quite ready for prime time. Yes the whole industry standard now of puking out substandard scenario designs then expecting customers to fix them is a bad trend. I find it sad that now we really can't expect good scenarios that have been properly tested to ensure that their features all work properly.

Take game descriptions with a grain of salt, well a whole lot of grains of salt. Remember that marketers are the most dishonest people you'll ever deal with and they'll say anything to get you to spend your money on their products. Keep your expectations reasonable and make sure to read the documentation thoroughly so you understand how things actually work. That way you'll avoid nasty surprises like you had in Belguim.
Omnius

(in reply to Polonthi)
Post #: 20
RE: Credibility Lost - 2/6/2013 1:12:56 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Overall the 'beam me up' switch control solution is the result of insufficient design resources. As this is presumably an attempt at a money making enterprise. The 'fix' would involve some logic programming to parse all hexes and units in a country when it surrenders then allocate hex ownership based on who is actually 'in control'. This would cost $$ (If I were to make a wild guess it would be in the wide range of $200 to $3000) [I do have some experience estimating this type of cost but have non of the specific information to make any kind of informed estimate])

All that said and as this usually has a minimal impact on the game I can see why it gets low priority. But to simply defend the obviously deficient WAD as 'ok' is not valid.

To say we 'can't model everything with the existing budget is the realistic and a more acceptable answer. This does not 'ruin' the game, but it does seriously detract in some instances (and of course is TOTALLY unrealistic) No one can surrender what they don't have control of. If there are 10 Allied corps holding a line in Belgium and the 'government of Belgium' surrenders nobody moves effectively nothing happens at all except presumably the Army and Navy of Belgium capitulates and practically speaking this would not happen either if intermixed with or near Allied units as they would likely (and did) defect to the allies.

The existing solution is a design 'shortcut' which any simulation must have many of if it is ever to be actually published. Less shortcuts may or may not mean a better game (usually less is better) but in any case it reflects the practical limitations any for profit organisation operates under. Even unlimited resources will never yield a perfect simulation. Even Blizzard with nearly bottomless pockets for example makes many trade offs in their game design to save money, and I expect they spend more on software implementation in a day than Wasteland has spent on all their games.

quote:

doomtrader,
The instant "beam me up Scotty" routine where all units not belonging to the conquering alliance get beamed back to the force pool on the same turn the country surrenders seems a bit premature to me. I've seen some games handle this by giving the player a one turn grace period to retrieve his units. For a case like Belguim surrendering it would give an Allied player a turn to pull back out of Belguim to avoid the big beam up. In a case like France surrendering that becomes more problematic since bugging out involves being able to load up units onto transports and that takes a whole turn in which if the port has become vacant those loaded troops could be in harm's way and get wiped out by advancing enemy units into the port.

I doubt there is a solution that would pelase all players. Knowing that units in countries that just become conquered by the enemy get beamed out to the force pool does help one make decisions that cover that contingency. Nothing like a little Premature Evacuation to keep your forces on the map when you know time's up in some country about to be conquered.
Omnius


_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Tech Support >> Belgian surrenders event not tested Page: [1]
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