Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS

 
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] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 6:34:27 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2422
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.


Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters. This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.

However, TOAW goes a long way to imposing realistic real world timelines on unit action and movement, which is a big improvement on most other games and I am very grateful that this game is developing further.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 5/8/2017 6:51:49 AM >


_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 91
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 12:42:12 PM   
r6kunz

 

Posts: 956
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa



However, TOAW goes a long way to imposing realistic real world timelines on unit action and movement, which is a big improvement on most other games and I am very grateful that this game is developing further.

Well put, Mud Man.

I think this thread has drifted a bit. While it is interesting to discuss the relative merits of various simulation systems, I think those who have played Operational Art of War III will find the new graphic display in IV much more helpful in planning battles. Bob, can you do a screen shot of this? I has greatly improved my game play.
And those that are not familiar with TOAW III will probably find this all a bit confusing, despite Bob Cross' excellent tutorial. Just be patient.


_____________________________

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 92
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 2:47:20 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11000
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.


Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters.


TOAW IV allows you to hand over control of as many of your formations to the PO as you like - you just set the locations of their objectives. That would be something similar, though not WEGO. Not my cup-of-tea, though.

quote:

This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.


For normal wargaming (like in TOAW), you're not functioning as just the supreme commander. You're functioning as all the sub-commanders, too. A perfectly legitimate paradigm.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 93
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 6:00:28 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Thanks Bob for your patience. And forgive me being a dumbass - I still couldn't understand, why "No human gets to intervene in the units' movements"? Is it because there are some considerations that make it impractical, or because the game designer wouldn't design it that way? In my simple mind the human can and should get to intervene in the units' movements when certain things happen, e.g. unexpected enemy enounter, original attack plan gets cancelled because enemy is knocked out by other units, etc. And it should not be difficult to achieve - the player turn just needs to automatically pause on the round when such things happen, as if it now pauses on the round when the median battle completes. So simply speaking the player turn will have more stopping conditions than just finishing combats.


OK, I misunderstood what you were proposing. I suppose that would be possible. I would question its practicality. You don't know when or even if such a stoppage will occur, so you have to plot out the entire turn. Then it stops almost immediately and you have to practically start all over again. This would especially seem impractical for WEGO, since each stoppage would require a new email sequence.


Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? ). Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.
And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops. First of all, the mechnism can be designed in the way that all pre-plotted orders (both movements and combats) will continue to be executed other than those are affected by the above, e.g. only units completed combats or encountered unexpected enemies can change their orders. However, even the game is not designed with such restrictions, players most likely won't reissue orders to the non-affected units anyway, or if he doesn't mind having the trouble then that's his own thing -- as long as the pre-plotted orders can remain on the map and continue to be executed after each stoppage.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 94
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 6:18:54 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Now here's the question:
If the target unit is not destroyed - i.e. the blocking unit is too weak to block the way - would the BTS be increased the same way as the case above? You didn't mention, but I would assume yes, given the blocking unit would have effectively participated in the combat in this case as well (though not successful).


No. Only if the defender was destroyed because of blocking units. (Be aware this isn't implemented yet, so I'm sort of describing castles in the sky at the moment - but this is how I anticipate it will work).


This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future? And what would be the BTS value for the hex where the enemy retreat to, and the hex where the blocking units retreat to?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 95
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 7:41:31 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2422
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Command Ops 2 does an interesting job of WEGO.


Agreed and I would like to see an Operational/Strategic game working on a similar system. The Eastern Front for example, with a realistic command system, without having to individually move hundreds of counters.


TOAW IV allows you to hand over control of as many of your formations to the PO as you like - you just set the locations of their objectives. That would be something similar, though not WEGO. Not my cup-of-tea, though.

quote:

This is not brainless idleness, it's just that historically no commander ever got to individually place each unit and sub-unit and claim brilliant strategy, just because you get to choose where every unit goes.


For normal wargaming (like in TOAW), you're not functioning as just the supreme commander. You're functioning as all the sub-commanders, too. A perfectly legitimate paradigm.


Absolutely legitimate, there's no right, or wrong, I had some great games playing WEGO, but some of the most memorable games have been with TOAW making use of the PO features, which is even more remarkable considering when the first release was issued and still going strong. So many good games have died, it's good to see this one alive and kicking.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 5/8/2017 7:42:50 PM >


_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 96
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 9:43:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11000
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? ).


No. It can stop every time an unknown enemy unit is revealed, and that can happen each time a friendly moves one hex - which can be as much as 10x the MPs of the highest MP friendly unit. (See the new "Improved Road Motorized Movement Rate" thingy).

quote:

Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.


Since unknown enemies can be encountered immediately, the stops can happen immediately.

quote:

And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops.


So long as they don't mind losing. If there is advantage to doing so, everyone will have to do so or be disadvantaged.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/8/2017 9:44:12 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 97
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/8/2017 9:55:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11000
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.


There are four possibilities:

1. The defenders hold - they don't have to retreat. This is the only case where they stay in the hex.
2. The defenders are forced to retreat, but can't force any blockers out of the way. They are destroyed.
3. The defenders are forced to retreat, and force a path via an RBC. They survive in another hex.
4. The defenders are destroyed by the attackers - no retreat was incurred.

Only case 2 requires the BTS to incorporate the timestamps of non-participating blocking units.

quote:

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future?


So, you're saying it was case 3 above? The defenders escaped by forcing non-participating friendlies to RBC? Then, yes, the battle happened in round 2, and the retreat happened in round 2. What happened between the blockers and the defenders doesn't matter. In effect, the blockers never got there, or their interaction occurred after the battle.

quote:

And what would be the BTS value for the hex where the enemy retreat to, and the hex where the blocking units retreat to?


Neither would generate a BTS.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 5/8/2017 10:01:23 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 98
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/9/2017 11:19:19 AM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

This doesn't make sense to me then: If the blocking units presented but enemy units were not destroyed after the combat, there should be two possible outcome: a. The enemy units don't have the strength to breakout from where the blocking units are, so it stayed at current position; or b. The enemy units knocked the blocking units away (or even destroyed them) and sucessfully retreated out of the target hex.


There are four possibilities:

1. The defenders hold - they don't have to retreat. This is the only case where they stay in the hex.
2. The defenders are forced to retreat, but can't force any blockers out of the way. They are destroyed.
3. The defenders are forced to retreat, and force a path via an RBC. They survive in another hex.
4. The defenders are destroyed by the attackers - no retreat was incurred.

Only case 2 requires the BTS to incorporate the timestamps of non-participating blocking units.

quote:

Let's say the battle happened in round 2 and blocking units arrived in round 8. So the BTS for the target hex remains at round 2 after this battle, based on what you said above, but the enemy units already interacted with something in the future?


So, you're saying it was case 3 above? The defenders escaped by forcing non-participating friendlies to RBC? Then, yes, the battle happened in round 2, and the retreat happened in round 2. What happened between the blockers and the defenders doesn't matter. In effect, the blockers never got there, or their interaction occurred after the battle.


Well, I can see how you rationalize this, but I have to say - this is quite quick and dirty!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 99
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/9/2017 12:02:04 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Correct. This will not work for a real WEGO game, but TOAW is not a WEGO game and this all happens in one player's turn, so administravely it should not really be a big trouble (you have only 10 rounds in total in a turn so max 10 stops, right? ).


No. It can stop every time an unknown enemy unit is revealed, and that can happen each time a friendly moves one hex - which can be as much as 10x the MPs of the highest MP friendly unit. (See the new "Improved Road Motorized Movement Rate" thingy).

I would only make it stop at encounter (by "encounter" I mean units actually bump into each other, in adjacent hexes, with the enemy sitting on the path that the friendly units are designated moving through, and neither side is forced to RBC), not at revealing. In the real world troops also won't stop and wait for new orders as soon as they see some enemy soldier shows up on the horizon 20kms away. And often in that case they don't even have much detail of the enemy yet.
As tactical round is the smallest unit of the clock in TOAW, the stop also can only happen at the end of the latest corresponding tactical round. For example, a unit with 100MP bumped into an enemy unit after moving 31MPs, then the clock should stop at the end of round 4, instead of round 3.1, which can't be measured. The friction of a round that is foregone for such particular units during this process, can be considered as C&C delays required to prepare for the new orders.
And the key is the clocks of all units are running simultaneously under this system, which means all units should show 40% of their MPs consumed at this moment. Of course the other units that didn't encounter an enemy would be able to fully utilize their 40% MPs before the stop. So, no time travel will ever happen

Well, I forgot you could set the # of tactical rounds in a turn to a very large # (999?). Hmmm.... if a scenario designer is crazy enough to give us 999 rounds to play with in a turn, I guess we will have to be prepared to make good use of it....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Also it shouldn't be stopping imediately after you hit the button because there should be only two things causing the stop: a. As a result of completed combats, which would lead to stops anyway under the current design; and b. Unexpected encounters due to fog of war or retreated enemy units as a result of combats, i.e. Moving units bump into enemies which they didn't see at the time of receiving movement orders. b is the only thing new.


Since unknown enemies can be encountered immediately, the stops can happen immediately.

Again, the turn should only be stopped at the end of a complete round, not a fraction of it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
And I don't think the player has to start all over again when it stops.


So long as they don't mind losing. If there is advantage to doing so, everyone will have to do so or be disadvantaged.

Either way is fine as long as it applies to both players. I do think committed battles shouldn't be allowed to change in any case, as committing a battle requires a great deal of efforts and preparation, and you can't easily cancel or change it just because your brother unit has some troubles on the hiking 200KMs away.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 100
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/9/2017 2:48:03 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11000
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

I would only make it stop at encounter (by "encounter" I mean units actually bump into each other, in adjacent hexes, with the enemy sitting on the path that the friendly units are designated moving through, and neither side is forced to RBC), not at revealing. In the real world troops also won't stop and wait for new orders as soon as they see some enemy soldier shows up on the horizon 20kms away. And often in that case they don't even have much detail of the enemy yet.
As tactical round is the smallest unit of the clock in TOAW, the stop also can only happen at the end of the latest corresponding tactical round. For example, a unit with 100MP bumped into an enemy unit after moving 31MPs, then the clock should stop at the end of round 4, instead of round 3.1, which can't be measured. The friction of a round that is foregone for such particular units during this process, can be considered as C&C delays required to prepare for the new orders.


OK, but note that there can be a bunch of brainless movement post new info between combat rounds. So, we're back to my original criticism.

quote:

And the key is the clocks of all units are running simultaneously under this system, which means all units should show 40% of their MPs consumed at this moment. Of course the other units that didn't encounter an enemy would be able to fully utilize their 40% MPs before the stop. So, no time travel will ever happen


Since this is not WEGO, that means the enemy units are not moving while this is going on. Remember from my posts #72, 75, & 77, that that requires the Force Proficiency check thingy. (Wouldn't be required by WEGO). So this is back to the criticism of that discussion: Units moving in rear areas and just maneuvering would risk not completing their movements. And this slices up the player-turn into the max # of slices - risky for crummy forces.

quote:

Well, I forgot you could set the # of tactical rounds in a turn to a very large # (999?). Hmmm.... if a scenario designer is crazy enough to give us 999 rounds to play with in a turn, I guess we will have to be prepared to make good use of it....


?? Maybe you misunderstood my Improved Road Motorized Movement thing. There are only 10 rounds per player-turn.

quote:

Either way is fine as long as it applies to both players. I do think committed battles shouldn't be allowed to change in any case, as committing a battle requires a great deal of efforts and preparation, and you can't easily cancel or change it just because your brother unit has some troubles on the hiking 200KMs away.


No. It's not fine if you have to do your turn plots over and over. This whole thing is completely impractical and doesn't even address a real problem.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 101
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 5/10/2017 3:17:02 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
Fantastic job. Really looking forward to starting a TOAW game again.

Is that the final UI style/colour? Preferred the classic look but I'm sure there will be mods in due time.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 5/10/2017 3:20:34 PM >

(in reply to larrybush)
Post #: 102
RE: TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 10/21/2017 2:58:21 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11000
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniele

In addition, if a defender was prevented from retreating from a combat by non-participating enemy units then the combat’s Battlefield Time Stamp is the greater of the time stamps of the blocking units and the time stamp of the last round of the combat. So, if the combat ended on round five, but there was a blocking unit that prevented the defenders from retreating and it had a time stamp of seven, then the Battlefield Time Stamp would be set to seven (and all participating units would have their time stamps increased to seven). Note that this ends the time-machine effect of blocking units that the game had endured up to this point (This part of the feature is still under development).


Note that this part of the BTS feature has now been implemented (as discussion elsewhere on this board implied).

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Daniele)
Post #: 103
RE: TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 11/16/2017 1:59:27 PM   
Titus

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
Just tried the new timestamp system, and I'm getting it almost instantly. Old system was never clear to me even in almost ten years, though haven't played long time. Planned combats menu is great help, overall excellent update!

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 104
RE: TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 11/16/2017 2:02:25 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 36619
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titus
Just tried the new timestamp system, and I'm getting it almost instantly. Old system was never clear to me even in almost ten years, though haven't played long time. Planned combats menu is great help, overall excellent update!

Wait until you see the combat results chart. It's fabulous.

(in reply to Titus)
Post #: 105
RE: TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 11/16/2017 3:09:58 PM   
Titus

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Wait until you see the combat results chart. It's fabulous.


You are right, I have gone to data heaven

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 106
RE: TOAW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 11/25/2017 11:46:24 AM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 1750
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I think it could use an addition of war theathers or zone that use a different timestamps for the larger scenarios. - Unless it's already there.
For a map like Kasserine, no problem.
For a map about PTO or ETO like? Well I'd like to get done my things in France, fully, and then move on to do things in Russia (maybe north russia first and then south russia), and be done entirely. Than to have to move everything at once, do the attack detour and start over to move again.
It's just about player friendlyness. (In a game that I feel needs a lot in that department)


(in reply to Titus)
Post #: 107
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 11/25/2017 5:58:15 PM   
RThorpe

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/13/2015
Status: offline
After having TOAOW III sitting on the shelf for years, I finally have time to play when I retired. I just started a couple of weeks ago in conjunction with a course at my college that focuses on WWI. The version III has not been that difficult to learn, just time consuming. But with the detailed course study it really takes on a new dimension.

I am still at a loss to understand how to manage time stamps, even after reading and watching a number of tutorials / explanations. Just too thick a skull. I think that understanding will come only as I play the game and keep an eye on that time ring.

Well, there I was, starting to work on this game and BANG along comes IV. So what's a man to do? Is there enough difference between III and IV to warrant buying it again? So far, I have not seen a conversation thread where the necessity for the upgrade is debated. If anyone can supply a link I would appreciate it.

_____________________________


(in reply to larrybush)
Post #: 108
RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS - 2/25/2018 10:02:36 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
I know this might be a little thread necromancy, but I got here a little late. Reading thru the Quick Answers thread got me directed here.

In addition to this BattleStamp idea, why not have an in-game player warning box (optionally enabled perhaps), that informs the player that an action he is about to take will exceed a (possibly player set) time impulse limit?

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/25/2018 11:24:25 PM >


_____________________________

Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)

(in reply to RThorpe)
Post #: 109
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: TOAOW IV In-depth Analysis - BATTLEFIELD TIMESTAMPS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.156