Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [In Development] >> Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!) >> Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question - 5/2/2003 3:38:08 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
Firstly, my compliments. The game engine looks to be developing really well, and the inclusion and release of a scenario editor will really round it off. Everything I've seen from logistics to the orders and modes etc looks really impressive and My money is yours when you're ready.

My only (very mild) qualm would concern the combat engine. Could you tell us a little more about this? In particular, how the differences between armour types is reflected? I read in an earlier thread that armour values are set and then adjusted proportionally in line with the unit losses, but would this make it theoretically possible for two or three battalions of Stuarts to defeat a Tiger battalion? (On this note, the long range Anti-tank flag looks a real step forward, not all operational games have reflected this advantage).

You mention the values are assigned, do the scenario designers make the judgements about the comparitive firepower of German and Allied infantry units etc, or does the game come with a preset series of recommendations along the lines of "for every Panther in the unit add 3 to the Anti tank value, for every Sherman 75 add 2 etc"

If the game isn't hardcoded with the relative values, some sort of guide might allow standardisation in scenarios and prevent various models of weapon being more effective in some scenarions than others as a result.

Otherwise, I wish you all the best for the earliest possible release. :)

Regards,
John.
Post #: 1
Re: Question - 5/2/2003 4:35:44 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
John,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronDuke
[B]Firstly, my compliments. The game engine looks to be developing really well, and the inclusion and release of a scenario editor will really round it off. Everything I've seen from logistics to the orders and modes etc looks really impressive and My money is yours when you're ready.

Thanks for your interest and your kind words.

[QUOTE][B]My only (very mild) qualm would concern the combat engine. Could you tell us a little more about this? In particular, how the differences between armour types is reflected? I read in an earlier thread that armour values are set and then adjusted proportionally in line with the unit losses, but would this make it theoretically possible for two or three battalions of Stuarts to defeat a Tiger battalion? (On this note, the long range Anti-tank flag looks a real step forward, not all operational games have reflected this advantage).

Hopefully without getting too long-winded, I'll try to cover the key points in response to your questions. I'm trying to compress about forty pages of documentation into one reply, so take a deep breath and try to bear with me. :)

Let's use your example of a two or three battalions of Stuarts fighting a Tiger battalion.

Whenever such a battle is joined, there will be up to three combat "pulses" in each round. The first is the long-range anti-tank pulse, during which only units with the LRAT flag can participate. In this instance, we would have Tigers firing at Stuarts and the Stuarts trying to close in. At the end of each pulse, the involved units have to make a check to keep fighting or retreat/break-off, so units can possibly break off an attack after receiving LRAT fire. We then have the Armor pulse and finally the Assault pulse. The way to think about this is that each pulse represents a range band within which new weapon systems come into play. In fact, the LRAT pulse actually looks at terrain across into the sector of the adjacent hex that the attacking unit started from to calculate line of sight. Of course, indirect support such as air, naval and artillery support can happen throughout combat depending on the available targets and the coordination rolls.

Now, each time we have units firing at each other, we compare their strengths to determine the basic odds of the combat. The strength values are modified by a number of things, including mode, terrain, the difference in intel, coordination, situation, TO&E, supply/fuel, fatigue, etc. Once we've come up with a final strength value for each side, we come up with the odds and calculate losses and results. Off the cuff, let's assume the designer rated the Stuarts as Armor Attack 7 and the Tigers as Armor Defense 14. Assuming no other modifiers (we can say it's in open terrain, with equal intel, all attacks from one hex and everyone's in tactical mode... a meeting engagement) that would give us 21 : 14 or 2:1 odds (we round up from .5) and likely around 3% losses for the Stuarts and 5% for the Tigers. That's all well and good if Stuarts were fighting Stuarts, but there's more to it than that...

Now, beyond the base strength we also have a value called TTL (Tank Tech Level). This ranges from 1-10 and covers the effects of armor technology throughout the war. By our current scale, the Stuart is Level 4 while the Tiger is Level 8. This means the Stuarts will be taking 60% more than the base losses and the Tigers will be taking 60% less than the base losses (this would give us an adjusted 5% for the Stuarts against 2% for the Tigers).

In addition, we have Unit TQ (Total Quality), which is a mix of leadership, training and morale. A TQ difference between units in a battle can also have an effect on losses. Let's say the Stuarts are manned by well trained crews and give them a TQ of 5. We'll say the Tigers are a crack unit with a TQ of 7. If the Tigers pass a TQ check, they will be able to exploit that advantage, increasing the losses for the Stuarts by 2% and decreasing their own by 1% (we're now at 7% for the Stuarts against 1% for the Tigers).

There is also a chance for an outstanding tactical success or disaster, but those are fairly rare so we won't worry about it.

In the end, there's a good chance that the pulses will unfold as follows:

LRAT: (21:14, 2:1 Odds) Stuarts take 7% losses vs. Tiger's 0% (Stuarts are not LRAT capable). Stuarts check vs. TQ 7 (first round bonus of 1), one unit breaks off. Tiger has an easy check vs. TQ 8 and stays.

Armor: (14:14, 1:1 Odds) Stuarts take 8% losses vs. Tiger's 1% (Odds dropping to 1:1 increased losses for Stuarts). Stuarts check vs. TQ 7 and stay around. Tiger checks (additional bonus for the attacker having only 1:1 odds now) and stays.

Assault: (14:14, 1:1 Odds) Stuarts take 6% losses vs. Tiger's 2% (we'll say the Tiger unit failed the TQ differential check to increase/decrease losses this pulse). Stuarts check vs. TQ 7, one unit breaks off.

End result, 2 of 3 Stuarts break off. Stuart 1 takes 7% losses. Stuarts 2 and 3 take 21% losses. Tiger takes 3% losses. Of course, if the rolls went against the probabilities, the results could vary. The TTL effect hower is not based on chance so the worst the Tigers would do is likely 2% losses per pulse while the Stuarts lose 5% per pulse. On the other extreme, if the Tigers did everything right and the Stuarts suffered a rare Tactical Disaster, their losses could in theory double. The results shown above are likely to be pretty much the norm though.

Clearly, a lot does depend on the designer assigning reasonable values, but that's the case in every wargame. For example, if the Stuarts had US Tactical Fighter Bombers supporting them and we place this scenario in 1944/45 when air support is more effective and coordinated (instead of in 1943 in North Africa or some such), then the Tigers would likely be in more trouble.

Now, these results are a bit bloody but each combat round does represent an hour of combat and if the combat continued to the next round, we would have supply and fatigue effects to consider as well as TO&E loss effects, etc. Units that break-off can also re-join the combat if it continues on long enough and so on.

I hope this helps make it clear that there is a lot more going on in combat than I can quickly explain here and that we are definitely considering certain effects beyond the straightforward strength values. For combat against armor in particular, TTL values are quite important and unit TQ is important in more situations than I can mention. :)

quote:

You mention the values are assigned, do the scenario designers make the judgements about the comparitive firepower of German and Allied infantry units etc, or does the game come with a preset series of recommendations along the lines of "for every Panther in the unit add 3 to the Anti tank value, for every Sherman 75 add 2 etc"


We actually had a long discussion on this in the design team and the end result was that we decided to not do a full standardized list in favor of certain guidelines that keep all designers in the same ballpark. Those same guidelines as well as a bunch of official scenarios spanning quite a few of the war's theaters and time period, should give players/designers an excellent reference for their own work.

quote:

If the game isn't hardcoded with the relative values, some sort of guide might allow standardisation in scenarios and prevent various models of weapon being more effective in some scenarions than others as a result.


Well, for example, here's a summary of the suggested TTL values. This should promote some discussion... :)

Battlefields Suggested TTL Values

TTL1: Late WWI, post-WWI light tanks, light (4 wheels) armored cars Molotov Cocktails, Grenades

TTL2: PzI, PzII, British light MkII-VII, T-26A,BT-1, armored cars, Anti-Tank rifles

TTL3: Pz 35-38, Luchs,PzJg I, M11-39, HA-GO,OTSU, CHI-HA,Turan I-II Cruiser serie ,R/H 35-39, T26B,T-60, Puma, heavy Anti-Tank rifles, Inf Light Anti-Tank guns

TTL4: PzIIIE/F, PzIVE, Stug III A-F, M13-40,Semovente, SHINTO CHI-HA, Turan III, M3/5 Stuart, Crusader Mk II, Char D serie,T-50, T-70, BT-5, BT-7 Inf AT Guns

TTL5: PzIIIH,, Marder serie,M15-42, Semovente M41-42, Grant, Crusader Mk III, Matilda, Valentine, Churchill MKI-V, Cromwell MkI-III, Somua, Char B1bis,SU 76 Motor towed AT Guns, early Bazooka/Panzerfaust

TTL6: PzIIIJ, PzIVF2,Stug III-G-H, Nashorn, Hetzer, M4 Sherman 75mm, M10, Churchill MkVI-VII, Cromwell MkIV-VII, Achilles, T-34/76, KV-1, SU-85 ~70mm Anti-Tank guns and very high velocity ~50mm Anti-Tank guns, mid-range Bazooka/Panzerfaust

TTL7: PzIVH, Panther D-1-A, Jagdpanzer IV, Elefant, M4/76 Sherman, M-18, M-36, Archer, T-34/85, KV-85, SU-100, SU-152~70mm high velocity Anti-Tank guns, late war Bazooka/Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck

TTL8: Tiger, Panther G, Jagdpanther, Challenger, Sherman Firefly, M4 Sherman Jumbo, JSU-122, JSU-152 ~80mm Anti-Tank guns

TTL9: Jagdtiger, Comet, Pershing, JS-II, ~90mm Anti-Tank guns

TTL10: King Tiger, JS-III (hypothetical), ~100mm Anti-Tank guns

quote:

Otherwise, I wish you all the best for the earliest possible release. :)


Thanks again.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 2
- 5/6/2003 1:41:01 AM   
Pippin


Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline
This is great stuff. I"m going to print it out now for future reference. if there's one thing I like to know most, it's the actual algorithms behind the visuals.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 3
- 5/6/2003 2:03:21 AM   
Ludovic Coval

 

Posts: 2154
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Toulon, France
Status: offline
Pippin,

[QUOTE]if there's one thing I like to know most, it's the actual algorithms behind the visuals.[/QUOTE]

Prepare a HUGE amount of dollars for this :D

LC

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 4
Response... - 5/6/2003 2:30:58 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Dream on, Ludo. ;) Well, anyway, prepare enough dough to buy the game as the manual will include more in the way of system documentation than most wargames do. We want players to understand rather than be confused by the system.

If there is enough demand after release, an even more detailed system/strategy guide may be worthwhile as there are certainly hundreds more pages that could be filled with this stuff but we're trying to keep the manual to 200 pages or less.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 5
- 5/6/2003 7:04:07 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
Erik,
Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

The TTL does seem to answer the issue I had. To try and quantify this, if we assume 50 tanks per battalion from the example we've used, we'd be talking around 2 Tigers and 25 Stuarts knocked out, which seems very reasonable given the circumstances. Mild qualm, over!

Re the TTL, I'd have to take some time with this. One thing I'd ask, though, is is the TTL designed to allow better armed AFVs to achieve better results with their larger calibre weapons(suggested by the inclusion of Anti tank guns as well as AFVs) or is it also designed to improve the survivability of well armoured AFVs. If both, there might be one or two minor points of debate in the list you provided. A bigger gun often went hand in hand with thicker armour but some of the early British tanks for example, (EG Matilda) were maybe better armoured than level two but only had a relatively light armament. Indeed, this fairly well armoured, but undergunned approach characteruised British Tanks for most of the war (counting the sherman as an American design).

Conversley, some of the Tank destroyers displayed later in the list always struck me as relatively well gunned, but not as survivable as some of the AFVs that carried similiar main armament. Are you able to tell us any more about the TTL and how it works and what it is measuring?

Regards,
John.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 6
Response... - 5/6/2003 11:30:13 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
IronDuke,

Glad the example helped. The questions you raise regarding TTL were discussed among developers and designers and the answer is that the TTL considers all factors but other values can be used to adjust the unit's performance outside the TTL value. The TTL value is a technology modifier, but the other values really help to flesh out the unit. When TTL is compared between fighting units, the unit on the lower end gets a loss increase while the higher end unit gets a loss reduction.

Recall that we also have Armor Attack/Defense and Infantry Attack/Defense, Unit TQ and the LRAT Flag to use in combination to model a particular unit's strengths and weaknesses. It's also key to think of it as a unit rather than strictly considering the equipment itself (although TTL is strictly equipment-based). I've included below some excerpts from the discussion below. They're semi-organized but hopefully will be helpful.

Doctrinal advantages can be modeled in Strength, with communication advantages reflected there as well as somewhat in TQ. That leaves the technical details of mobility, armor, reliability and gun/ammo effectivess to TTL.

Keep in mind that TTL is one part of the equation. There are adjustments that can be made in Attack vs. Defense strength to model the suitability/training of a unit. A unit of Hetzers might be a TTL6, but with a better defense than attack. Units with larger low-velocity guns may not be high in TTL or Armor Attack/Defense, but should have a higher Infantry Attack/Defense, generally. A unit of Pershings might be a TTL8, but with an LRAT flag and a slightly higher Attack and Defense than a unit of M4 Sherman Jumbos to reflect their 90mm gun, mobility, etc.

Another example are early Pz II / III because they were inferior in both armour and guns to many contemporary allied tanks. German success in the first years of war was the result of superior doctrine, training and command & control structure, and those parameters are already taken into account by other parameters in the game.

I would hesitate to give anything below a high velocity 75+mm weapon with decent optics LRAT ability.

The difference between an Inf AT gun and a Motor towed is that the first one is a fairly simple weapon,delivered to AT Coy in every Inf regiment, served usually by a crew of 2, and that could be manhandled in tactical movement to keep pace with infantry, while the other was served by a much larger crew (7 to 9 usually), had to be moved into position by truck, and was usually delivered only to Divisional AT battalions or to Regimental HQs as AT platoons.That is the difference between a Skoda vz36 47mm AT gun and the PAK 38 50mm AT gun. Ballistic data doesn´t fully take into account the real difference between the 2 weapons performance.

We have rated Tank destroyers and assault guns at least 1 level behind their respective gun performance, Tank destroyers with fixed open “towers” have been rated even lower. Combined with their likely higher Armor Defense than Attack and in some cases LRAT capability, this should be fine.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 7
- 5/27/2003 5:05:13 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
What is the scale that this is running at? I presume that obviously plays a critical role in your pulse splitting.

Do slower units find themselves in a situation were they can not close within the alloted time period/distance and not get other then the LRAT pulse? ie: a 88 FLAK is not exactly going to pack up and charge the tank ... not that many tanks are going to charge an 88 for that matter ...

How does ambush factor into this? ie: my well hidden 88's open up and start picking off your armor. You have yet to even sight where the shots came from.

Will you have the similar bleed through into adjoining hexes which affect moral, movement, etc that V4V had?

So many questions :D

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 8
- 5/27/2003 5:47:50 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 845
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
Echoing Mr.Frag, I too have questions about scale. The combat per se sounds rational, but much depends on the scale and how it is handled.

For example, will the same number of units/SP's/vehicles (however the engine looks at the combat elements) be able to fight in in any hex? For example, in a city, so much of the hex is taken up by buildings, and constricted by streets, that vehicular units could not engage as many vehicles as in an "open" terrain hex. Other types of hexes, too, might call for restricting how many vehicular units could engage in "one round" of combat. Or for that matter infantry units (mountain-like terrain?).

Many engagements throughout history were fought at "choke points" that enabled much fewer defenders/attackers to take on overwhelming numbers b/c not all the overwhelming numbers could engage at the same time (look as far back as Thermopylae; as recent as Normandy hedgerows).

There are some wargames that do account for this scale issue. And at a scale where large units are depicted but combat is determined in terms of individual vehicles, etc., this seems much more important.

Any comment? :)

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 9
Response... - 6/3/2003 3:28:25 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Mr. Frag,

Thanks for your interest in Battlefields!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]What is the scale that this is running at? I presume that obviously plays a critical role in your pulse splitting.

The scale for the game is 8 Hours per turn and 1 km per hex. A combat round, which includes the three pulses (LRAT, Armor, Assault) takes 1 Hour to execute. LRAT combat is assumed to take place at or across a hex boundary. Armor combat takes place within the defending hex at <1km ranges and Assault combat is around 300m down to melee.

quote:

Do slower units find themselves in a situation were they can not close within the alloted time period/distance and not get other then the LRAT pulse? ie: a 88 FLAK is not exactly going to pack up and charge the tank ... not that many tanks are going to charge an 88 for that matter ...


Because execution is simultaneous, the disadvantages of some units and modes only become apparent in the overall context of the game system. For example, a unit of 88s that moved up in Administrative mode, needed to unload and then deploy to Hasty Attack may prove to be too slow for your attack plan or might themselves be counter-attacked in Administrative mode with only 1 in 10 88s effectively deployed or capable of engaging. With that said, in the context of the 1 Hour turn it's assumed that there is enough time for anti-tank guns on the attack to be re-deployed if necessary.

quote:

How does ambush factor into this? ie: my well hidden 88's open up and start picking off your armor. You have yet to even sight where the shots came from.


First, there is a modifier based on the relative TQ (Total Quality) difference between the units. Second, there is a chance for Tactical Success or Tactical Disaster. The net effect is that an experienced 88 unit is more likely to properly spring that ambush and cause more losses while suffering fewer in return. In any case, even an inept 88 unit will get some shots off without return fire unless its opponents are also capable of shooting at LRAT ranges.

quote:

Will you have the similar bleed through into adjoining hexes which affect moral, movement, etc that V4V had?


I don't recall entirely how this worked in V4V. However, we do have friction caused by nearby enemy units and when in the concentrations normally seen in significant combat, that friction can become quite significant leading to slowdowns or aborted moves.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 10
Response... - 6/3/2003 9:20:07 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Capitaine,

Thanks for your inquiry.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Echoing Mr.Frag, I too have questions about scale. The combat per se sounds rational, but much depends on the scale and how it is handled.

For example, will the same number of units/SP's/vehicles (however the engine looks at the combat elements) be able to fight in in any hex? For example, in a city, so much of the hex is taken up by buildings, and constricted by streets, that vehicular units could not engage as many vehicles as in an "open" terrain hex. Other types of hexes, too, might call for restricting how many vehicular units could engage in "one round" of combat. Or for that matter infantry units (mountain-like terrain?).

Battlefields! does include stacking limits that are dependent on terrain and vary based on sector (each hex has six sectors). So, for example, it may not be possible to move/attack two battalions at a time through one sector but quite feasible through another. Stacking is evaluated based on defined unit size (i.e. company, battalion). In addition, some kinds of terrain (and thus some sectors) are impassable to motorized/mechanized units and would only be passable by units on foot. Let me know if this addresses your concerns.

quote:

Many engagements throughout history were fought at "choke points" that enabled much fewer defenders/attackers to take on overwhelming numbers b/c not all the overwhelming numbers could engage at the same time (look as far back as Thermopylae; as recent as Normandy hedgerows).


Yes, there are definitely choke points. :) When you try to push an armored battalion through a heavily wooded area on a dirt road, only to find you have to put it into Administrative mode to allow it to pass through (which essentially strings it out on the road and reduces its offensive strength to 10% of normal), you'll be cursing our choke points. ;)

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 11
- 6/4/2003 5:18:39 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 845
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]When you try to push an armored battalion through a heavily wooded area on a dirt road, only to find you have to put it into Administrative mode to allow it to pass through (which essentially strings it out on the road and reduces its offensive strength to 10% of normal), you'll be cursing our choke points.[/QUOTE] Thank you Erik. That was what I was looking for. That seems to be a fairly significant strength reduction for a full size unit in the terrain and at the scale you cite.

One concern, though, would be smaller units. I don't know what the range of unit scale you would have, but obviously a single platoon (or its equivalent in a reduced larger echelon unit) should not be subject to the same degree of strength decrease, right?

E.g., if you have, theoretically, an armored platoon of say 5 AFV's, and they meet -- in a hex as you describe -- a battalion subject to the 10% offensive reduction rule, it would appear to me that also reducing the platoon to 10% would not be consistent with the logic you posit. The platoon would likely be/should be at 100% of its strength. And perhaps 50% if we're talking a company, and so on...

However, if "administrative mode" is something that represents a large formation set up in travel mode, perhaps there should be a maximum size for a unit to have to make use of that mode (meaning small/reduced units would not have to enter that mode).

Can you see what I'm getting at here? :)

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 12
Response... - 6/6/2003 10:15:07 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33827
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Capitaine,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Thank you Erik. That was what I was looking for.

Good to hear. :)

quote:

One concern, though, would be smaller units. I don't know what the range of unit scale you would have, but obviously a single platoon (or its equivalent in a reduced larger echelon unit) should not be subject to the same degree of strength decrease, right?


Battlefields! doesn't model platoons - our combat units are Companies and Battalions (and Battalions can detach Companies as well). There are modifications to many rules to account for the size difference, for example it costs roughly three times more to supply a battalion than a company. However, they do behave the same in terms of modes and movement. I don't have a problem applying the same penalty to both units in these instances. I agree that if we went down to platoons or squads, that would need to be reconsidered.

quote:

However, if "administrative mode" is something that represents a large formation set up in travel mode, perhaps there should be a maximum size for a unit to have to make use of that mode (meaning small/reduced units would not have to enter that mode).


That is indeed mainly what "administrative mode" is and if we went below companies, I would agree. :)

We had to do a lot of similar thinking and design for the company / battalion difference. I believe it works well at present but we'll certainly keep looking at it and watching playtest and designer feedback until release. We do want to make sure company size units get fair treatment.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [In Development] >> Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!) >> Question 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

0.132