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: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/12/2018 9:38:52 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9414
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

My point is not about rader v Greyjoy.

I don’t think the IJA could have taken all of China historically.

Also, I do think the Japanese in game can take it quickly enough without SL (which make a massive difference defending China as the Allies) to then have a chance to still move on India, Russia or Australia if they would want to extend that far and burn that supply/fuel.


I don't think so either. It was a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation. The Japanese advanced in 1944 because they just had to to prevent the forward placement of American air assets. Although successful on the ground it was at a cost in men and resources that they could already not afford and had an ultimate effect on her capacity to fight elsewhere. I got no problem with a Japanese player that wants to take out China. It is expensive and time consuming and really the one theater the Allied player can lose and still easily win the game. I think I can hold out in China well into 1944. That is good enough. In fact, I really think that the Japanese player has to neutralize China to have any chance.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 121
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/12/2018 9:43:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9414
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus



If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.


Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.



Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.


I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.


Actually, I think it does. It allows Japan to clog a hex and stall for time. Also, I am a good Allied player but terribly unorganized. In stock, I just jammed all my troops for offensive operations in one hex and proceeded from there. Now if Japan holds bases that allow large stacks it is harder for me to coordinate. I bypassed the PI last campaign but think I really need it this game to build up units for my late war offensives. So for some, stacking limits are tough..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 122
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/13/2018 1:32:32 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7586
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus



If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.


Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.



Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.


I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.


Actually, I think it does. It allows Japan to clog a hex and stall for time. Also, I am a good Allied player but terribly unorganized. In stock, I just jammed all my troops for offensive operations in one hex and proceeded from there. Now if Japan holds bases that allow large stacks it is harder for me to coordinate. I bypassed the PI last campaign but think I really need it this game to build up units for my late war offensives. So for some, stacking limits are tough..


I have a tendency to do the same thing, but I also know that if I really wanted to I could still just land overwhelming force and take the place. Probably. The risks involved are not minor and require many more supplies (and possibly more support, and probably a lot more bombing than I usually do).

But I think this is counterbalanced by stacking limits slowing down Japan in China in the same way - and she doesn't have the supplies to burn like the USA does.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 123
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/14/2018 4:58:19 AM   
Kull


Posts: 1255
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Moving the industry would not really change strat VPs that much - they would become harder to hit if the hypothesis that "smaller" factories are harder to hit, which would slow things if that's true... but other than that, you'd have to most almost everything out and that would fundamentally change the game so is off the table, IMO.

I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.


On page 264 of the manual there's a discussion of victory points associated with strategic bombing, including this sentence - "Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan". Assuming that is still true, then (another assumption) it seems reasonable that the game is hardcoded to assign VPs ONLY for industry destroyed/damaged in specific base hexes. If that is true, you could add NEW base hexes in mainland Japan, situating them in hexes which are currently just terrain. If you then move industry into these new base hexes, then strat bombing of these hexes will still damage the Japanese economy, but it will NOT generate Allied VPs, since the game code does not "know" that these new hexes are "mainland Japan".

Which means the total number of industry points in Japan can remain EXACTLY the same, but only the industry located in the original game hexes will still generate Allied VPs.

Accordingly, if the crux of the "late game problem" comes down to "valuation of strat bombing points", this can fix that in a manner that is very easy to mod and yet will have little or no effect on any other aspects of the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 124
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/14/2018 7:35:17 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 9785
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Moving the industry would not really change strat VPs that much - they would become harder to hit if the hypothesis that "smaller" factories are harder to hit, which would slow things if that's true... but other than that, you'd have to most almost everything out and that would fundamentally change the game so is off the table, IMO.

I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.


On page 264 of the manual there's a discussion of victory points associated with strategic bombing, including this sentence - "Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan". Assuming that is still true, then (another assumption) it seems reasonable that the game is hardcoded to assign VPs ONLY for industry destroyed/damaged in specific base hexes. If that is true, you could add NEW base hexes in mainland Japan, situating them in hexes which are currently just terrain. If you then move industry into these new base hexes, then strat bombing of these hexes will still damage the Japanese economy, but it will NOT generate Allied VPs, since the game code does not "know" that these new hexes are "mainland Japan".

Which means the total number of industry points in Japan can remain EXACTLY the same, but only the industry located in the original game hexes will still generate Allied VPs.

Accordingly, if the crux of the "late game problem" comes down to "valuation of strat bombing points", this can fix that in a manner that is very easy to mod and yet will have little or no effect on any other aspects of the game.

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 125
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/14/2018 3:55:13 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1255
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.


That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 126
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/14/2018 4:12:29 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 9785
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.


That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

There are other consequences to doing this. Changing to code 101 means there would be no reinforcement trigger for an invasion of the four main islands or Paramushiro Jima. I think country code is also used to define where squadrons belonging to various Air HQs can go. Likely the same for LCUs.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 127
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/14/2018 4:40:22 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1255
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.


That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

There are other consequences to doing this. Changing to code 101 means there would be no reinforcement trigger for an invasion of the four main islands or Paramushiro Jima. I think country code is also used to define where squadrons belonging to various Air HQs can go. Likely the same for LCUs.


The idea isn't to entirely remove code 100, but to change several existing hexes from 100 to 101 so they do not generate strat bombing VPs. You could even restrict the change to inland hexes (such as Maebashi and Yamagata) to avoid any issue with the invasion trigger. As for the restricted air units, that's not a problem as (by default) they have access to the Japan Island hexes. Ground units are even less of a problem, as there's no code in AE to keep restricted ground units from marching elsewhere.

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 128
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/16/2018 5:50:35 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2882
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
My thoughts:
VP is an abstraction of each side’s willingness and/or ability to stay in the war. That is the rationale I see for autovictory, the discrepancy in vps represent the loss of willingness in one side to stay in the fight. I think this makes sense and has a reasonable base in reality.

Why do nations surrender in war? We can look at the nations who actually did surrender in ww2 and realize that there is some complex mechanism at work with a LOT of influencing factors. Size of army, size of nation, will of nation to fight, number of allies, number of enemies. How well is the war going, how many dead. How many civilist deaths, how much the leadership cares about civilist deaths. Is it a struggle for national survival or is it a struggle over colonies? Etc etc. Hundreds of factors really. And it boils down to philosophical or metaphysical questions really.

Why did Denmark surrender immideately and Norway not? Why did Finland not surrender? Why did it accept a cease-fire? Why did France surrender and not England? Why did Germany surrender, or rather, why did they not surrender sooner? Why did russia not surrender? Why did no-one accept a cease-fire? I can go on, But you get my point.

Thousands of questions, which needs to be boiled down to a vp-system that can handle all possible outcomes of the war in the pacific. So, Im not complaining. The vp-system is close enough.

If I could wish for something, it would be to have some sort of separate peace-mechanism. Or the ability to wage war on separate nations. It would make for one hell of an interesting game if you could declare war on England But not the US for example. And after some threshold, you could declare war on japan as the US. There would still be two sides and two players, but resteicted units for those at peace like with the soviets.



_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 129
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/16/2018 6:49:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 15004
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The easiest solution to this is to simply come up with a table of victory ratios. That would be done outside the game and thus wouldn't require any changes to the game whatsoever. We appoint a willing committee who looks into it, comes up with the table of ratios, and then we try them on for size.


(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 130
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/16/2018 7:35:58 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2882
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
Agreed. Then we could also have more nuanced levels than major or minor victory and draw if we wanted.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 131
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/17/2018 11:00:35 AM   
Macclan5


Posts: 615
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The easiest solution to this is to simply come up with a table of victory ratios. That would be done outside the game and thus wouldn't require any changes to the game whatsoever. We appoint a willing committee who looks into it, comes up with the table of ratios, and then we try them on for size.




Exactly my point succinctly stated.

I equated it to a golfers handicap score adjustment.





_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 132
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/17/2018 4:28:58 PM   
wneumann


Posts: 3723
Joined: 11/1/2005
From: just beyond the outskirts of Margaritaville
Status: offline
I’m in a late-war PBEM (Mar 1945 as Allied) that has been in progress since 2010. At this point there is little question as to the projected outcome of this campaign – what’s at stake is mainly the margin of victory (or defeat). From my view, VP in this campaign is largely irrelevant (46K to 34K, Japanese favor), I’m playing the game now with the intent of creating the best possible Allied strategic position with the “cards” I still have left to play before calling it a day. .

Overall, play balance in AE is pretty good on many levels and I think the game works pretty well. My discussion is addressing one area in the game that heavily tilts play balance to a point where no amount of historical Allied late-war superiority can counter Japanese advantage(s) this creates. Tweaking VP does not alter this imbalance.

quote:


The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.


What happens (or doesn’t) in China has a huge effect on play balance in AE. The issue here isn’t whether or not China is too easy to completely eliminate. A well planned and executed Japanese strategy in China with a significant level of effort should be able to bring on the fall of China. What’s key here is the overall situation AE represents in China should require the Japanese player to commit a significant level of effort, if necessary at the expense of other theatres (which does not appear to be true).

quote:


Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India.


What happens after the fall of China in AE is my major issue. This event in AE triggers a huge opportunity for large parts of the IJ Army to transfer to other theatres, notably the Pacific. The end result as experienced in my campaign is a carpet of heavily garrisoned, maximum fortified Japanese strongholds that historical Allied ground forces in AE are insufficient (in numbers) to overcome. In my campaign I’m now rebuilding half the Allied combat ground force in the Pacific after eliminating 30+ Japanese LCU’s at Buna in 12/44 (Verdun in the Pacific). Now looking at a 50+ LCU Japanese garrison in Rabaul. You can’t island hop around everything. US late-war air and naval superiority doesn’t even touch this. Strategic bombing of anything in my campaign is currently a fantasy.

No matter how “friendly” warlords in China are with Japan after a complete Japanese conquest of China, there are hundreds of millions of peasants with pitchforks to keep in line not to mention the urban population. This would appear (at least in RL) to require the IJ Army to maintain a considerable garrison in China instead of allowing a virtually unrestricted transfer of Japanese divisions from China. Nothing gamey or cheating on the part of my opponent, he simply made best and most effective use of his opportunity inside the game.

Although I do have some specific thoughts on how to remedy this inside of AE, my intent here is not to suggest or promote any particular solution. This can be handled by a separate discussion. On one hand, I risk a head-on collision with a JFB firestorm. On the other hand, I break my silence.


(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 133
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/17/2018 5:39:01 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1255
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Your opponent put 30 LCUs in Buna (which you attacked) and has another 50 LCUs in Rabaul (which you plan to attack). The problem isn't China, but the solution can be found there - read Sun Tzu.

_____________________________


(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 134
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitive... - 1/18/2018 3:43:20 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wneumann

I’m in a late-war PBEM (Mar 1945 as Allied) that has been in progress since 2010. At this point there is little question as to the projected outcome of this campaign – what’s at stake is mainly the margin of victory (or defeat). From my view, VP in this campaign is largely irrelevant (46K to 34K, Japanese favor), I’m playing the game now with the intent of creating the best possible Allied strategic position with the “cards” I still have left to play before calling it a day. .

Overall, play balance in AE is pretty good on many levels and I think the game works pretty well. My discussion is addressing one area in the game that heavily tilts play balance to a point where no amount of historical Allied late-war superiority can counter Japanese advantage(s) this creates. Tweaking VP does not alter this imbalance.

quote:


The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.


What happens (or doesn’t) in China has a huge effect on play balance in AE. The issue here isn’t whether or not China is too easy to completely eliminate. A well planned and executed Japanese strategy in China with a significant level of effort should be able to bring on the fall of China. What’s key here is the overall situation AE represents in China should require the Japanese player to commit a significant level of effort, if necessary at the expense of other theatres (which does not appear to be true).

quote:


Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India.


What happens after the fall of China in AE is my major issue. This event in AE triggers a huge opportunity for large parts of the IJ Army to transfer to other theatres, notably the Pacific. The end result as experienced in my campaign is a carpet of heavily garrisoned, maximum fortified Japanese strongholds that historical Allied ground forces in AE are insufficient (in numbers) to overcome. In my campaign I’m now rebuilding half the Allied combat ground force in the Pacific after eliminating 30+ Japanese LCU’s at Buna in 12/44 (Verdun in the Pacific). Now looking at a 50+ LCU Japanese garrison in Rabaul. You can’t island hop around everything. US late-war air and naval superiority doesn’t even touch this. Strategic bombing of anything in my campaign is currently a fantasy.

No matter how “friendly” warlords in China are with Japan after a complete Japanese conquest of China, there are hundreds of millions of peasants with pitchforks to keep in line not to mention the urban population. This would appear (at least in RL) to require the IJ Army to maintain a considerable garrison in China instead of allowing a virtually unrestricted transfer of Japanese divisions from China. Nothing gamey or cheating on the part of my opponent, he simply made best and most effective use of his opportunity inside the game.

Although I do have some specific thoughts on how to remedy this inside of AE, my intent here is not to suggest or promote any particular solution. This can be handled by a separate discussion. On one hand, I risk a head-on collision with a JFB firestorm. On the other hand, I break my silence.




Kull has the right of it, so I'll leave that aspect as dealt with.

Regarding Japanese moves in to China, the Allies have a suitable strategic response in the form of funneling supplies and material in to China to prolong the resistance and fighting for Burma to keep supplies flowing down the Burma Road. With enough investment, the Allies can seriously bulk up Chinese strength and tie down a great deal of Japanese fighting power. Skimping on this dooms the Chinese in-game, as it would have in real life.

(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 135
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
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

0.164