Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Invalid Surrenders

 
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.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Invalid Surrenders Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Invalid Surrenders - 2/12/2008 7:09:58 PM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
Using Version 1.01b.

When playing as Turkey, all countries refuse to surrender to you until Turkey holds their capital long enough that they have no money left. Then they surrender to everyone they are at war with and France. Even though they are not at war with France and have surrendered to France 4 of the last 5 diplomacy phases.

See attached Game. It is at the Diplomacy Phase. I have played it multiple times. Most of the time Russia surrenders to France. Once it a while, Prussia will declare war on Spain or England. However, Russia will not surrender to Turkey even though you hold Moscow. If you play it out and hold on to Moscow until October, Russia will surrender to France and Turkey unconditonally. {Through 2 economic phases.} And they will surrender to France every turn.

However, this is not just a Turkey bug. It affects all major powers I have played. When playing as France, I had Prussia surrender to me even though we were not at war.

I can confirm the Conf. of Rhine Morale dropped to 2/3 for corps that as free states have 3/4.

Also, when chosing Hard AI for Prussia, it gets 80 MP bonus. Other countries get about 3 excpet for France which gets 14. I think that might be too large.

Also, when capturing a port where enemy fleets are blockaded, the enemy flights often don't leave until the econ. phase. Sometimes the leave right away. Very noticable when taking londow while their fleets are blockaded there.

Additionaly, for supply through ports. You have to occupy the ports for two turns before you can place a depot there. IE, if you take a port city and have a corp there, the next land phase you can not place a depot there. But the next land phase you can. This makes it much harder ofr GB to storm ports and force ships out. It also makes putting garrisons in ports less important because you have an extra turn to get to them.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 211
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/13/2008 3:55:04 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
Version 1.01b

Playing GB. Invaded Sweden, took capital 1st turn. On next turn, during France's {Major Controlling Power of Sweden} Naval move, game locks up.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 212
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/13/2008 11:12:30 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

#102-LC5 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: Bresh
Problem: When one major power attacks another in a neutral minor country, there was no land combat phase.
File: No combat when in neutral minor.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending

Richard



Richard i dont think its because of the battle happening in a neutral minor. Since if Austria doesnt move there. France - Pr will have battle during their phase.

I belive it has more to do, on how the engine solves if something triggers a battle.
If you need to, though bit time consuming, I could produce the same elsewhere.
Im just using Austria/Prussia/France nations since its easier to test.
Say if all happend in Prussia controlled minor/prussia, and until the X-month, Prussia had allowed "France" & "Austrian" access, so that both nations could stack in the same area. (In this case Fr-Pr).
Then in the running diplomacy month, France/Prussia breaks alliance and dows. Ending with Fr-war vs Pr+Aus,
and moving in this order: Aus-Fr-Pr.

What could also be tested is if battle happens, if prussia had no leaders attached.

I added 2 saves from a testgame i created today, to prove my point.
This time the "no-battle" doesnt happen in a minor, but in Magdeburg province inside Prussia.
Scenario is still Moveorder Aus-Fr-Pr. With current phase Austrian land.



Save-A is with no Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian Force. When Austria sends troops(just use Mack corps) or Austrian corps in Saxen, to test, to engage France, battle will happen, as expected, both ways.
Save-B is with Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian force. No matter how Austria sends its troops into Magdeburg province, no battle will be triggered, and the Austrian turn ends, without any battle.

Note you do need to move the Austrian forces yourself :)
Hope this helps you more finding the bug.

Regards
Bresh


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/14/2008 11:47:28 PM >

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 213
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/15/2008 2:10:24 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
#102-D18 DIPLOMACY PHASE
From: Grapeshot Bob
Problem: Program changes the enforced peace period for the losing side several months after surrender
No file available
Status: Not Confirmed Yet – Pending further action


This happened to me while playing France.

Cause, surrender bug where Prussia surrendered to France while France was not at war with them which reset the enforced peace period. Since you are not currently at war, it is easy to miss the extra surrender message.


< Message edited by BruceSinger -- 2/15/2008 2:12:32 AM >

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 214
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 2:15:24 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
#102-L4 LAND PHASE
From: Grollub
Problem: Poland’s cavalry corps is reported to have a MA of [6] when controlled by France.
No file available
Status: Not Confirmed Yet - Pending


I can confirm this with a 1.01b game. Can upload file if needed.

(in reply to BruceSinger)
Post #: 215
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 2:28:31 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
#102-LC3 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: larrywrose
Problem: Program did not take any militia factors as casualties when there was nothing but militia to take
File Not taking militia in battle.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending


I have seen this bug in every game I have played. You see it almost all the time if your opponet's army is mostly milita with a cav or infantry present and you outflank. The first round of the outflank you normally do just minor morale. Once the outflanking force arrives, you major casulalties and more than 2.0 morale and the opponet's army breaks. The opponet takes the one cav or infantry as a casuality and none of the milita even if you do enough casualties to wipe out the entire force.

The problem is in the implementation of not taking milita if more than 2.0 morale is taken rule. An exception needs to be added that if more casualities are caused than regular infantry, gds, and cav exists, the remaining casualities can be taken off the milita.

If it wasn't for the pursuit rules, you could stop someone forever by placing one infantry with a stack of milita. You take the one infantry as casuality and the rest of the milita escape for the next battle.

(in reply to BruceSinger)
Post #: 216
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/15/2008 2:34:25 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
Bug.

You have a fleet in a unblockaded home nation city with a depot.  You use sea transport to unload a corp next to an enemy city.  Your corp attackes the garrision, destroys it, and moves into the city.  The next naval phase, you move your fleet into the city you now control.  During the land phase, you can not build a depot.  You have to wait until the next land phase to build a depot in the city.


(in reply to Naxias)
Post #: 217
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/15/2008 2:44:39 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

Bug.

You have a fleet in a unblockaded home nation city with a depot.  You use sea transport to unload a corp next to an enemy city.  Your corp attackes the garrision, destroys it, and moves into the city.  The next naval phase, you move your fleet into the city you now control.  During the land phase, you can not build a depot.  You have to wait until the next land phase to build a depot in the city.




I beleive this possibly is a known bug, your post does not specify that the fleet and depot in the home area is still valid for sea supply but I assume they still are. If so, note that there should according to the EiA rules not be necisary to move any fleet in to the new city to make it viable for sea supply.

_____________________________

An Elephant

(in reply to BruceSinger)
Post #: 218
RE: Piracy - 2/15/2008 9:57:15 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
This human-vs-AIs game appears to hang in reinforcement phase (after 'Russia playing reinforcement phase' shows up in log). No error messages.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 219
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/15/2008 1:40:20 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline
Correcting myself. THIS IS NOT A GAME-BUG !
It is a feature of G-Mail. I'll leave the original post to the benefit of other G-mailers
Sorry to bother you all
/eske

quote:

LAND COMBAT PHASE
Problem: In PBeM game when nonphasing player returns battlefile to phasing player, blanks in the gamename have been replaced with underscores.

Example:
'pbembattle_TGHQ GAME ONE_Munich0.battle' turns into
'pbembattle_TGHQ_GAME_ONE_Munich0.battle'

Game will not accept file with changed name.
Manually changing the filename back solves problem.


< Message edited by eske -- 2/15/2008 2:02:08 PM >


_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Naxias)
Post #: 220
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/15/2008 3:53:32 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

#102-LC5 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: Bresh
Problem: When one major power attacks another in a neutral minor country, there was no land combat phase.
File: No combat when in neutral minor.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending

Richard



Richard i dont think its because of the battle happening in a neutral minor. Since if Austria doesnt move there. France - Pr will have battle during their phase.

I belive it has more to do, on how the engine solves if something triggers a battle.
If you need to, though bit time consuming, I could produce the same elsewhere.
Im just using Austria/Prussia/France nations since its easier to test.
Say if all happend in Prussia controlled minor/prussia, and until the X-month, Prussia had allowed "France" & "Austrian" access, so that both nations could stack in the same area. (In this case Fr-Pr).
Then in the running diplomacy month, France/Prussia breaks alliance and dows. Ending with Fr-war vs Pr+Aus,
and moving in this order: Aus-Fr-Pr.

What could also be tested is if battle happens, if prussia had no leaders attached.

I added 2 saves from a testgame i created today, to prove my point.
This time the "no-battle" doesnt happen in a minor, but in Magdeburg province inside Prussia.
Scenario is still Moveorder Aus-Fr-Pr. With current phase Austrian land.



Save-A is with no Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian Force. When Austria sends troops(just use Mack corps) or Austrian corps in Saxen, to test, to engage France, battle will happen, as expected, both ways.
Save-B is with Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian force. No matter how Austria sends its troops into Magdeburg province, no battle will be triggered, and the Austrian turn ends, without any battle.

Note you do need to move the Austrian forces yourself :)
Hope this helps you more finding the bug.

Regards
Bresh



Thanks again Bresh. Just trying to work thru a few problems associated with the new temp access function before releasing 1.02. After that release, we will refocus our attention on this issue and all the others on the list.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 221
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 3:56:44 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

#102-L4 LAND PHASE
From: Grollub
Problem: Poland’s cavalry corps is reported to have a MA of [6] when controlled by France.
No file available
Status: Not Confirmed Yet - Pending


I can confirm this with a 1.01b game. Can upload file if needed.



No need to ever ask Bruce, just post what files you can. Thanks for all the other files you already uploaded.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to BruceSinger)
Post #: 222
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 7:22:00 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline
Would it be possible to restore Russian OoB to either original EiA or EiH 5 in patch 1.02
It should be a really easy fix.

or could it be pointed out how to change it?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 223
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 7:24:30 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

Would it be possible to restore Russian OoB to either original EiA or EiH 5 in patch 1.02
It should be a really easy fix.

or could it be pointed out how to change it?



Dont, use time on enhancements !

But include it once you guys get time to upload the game editor.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Grimrod42)
Post #: 224
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 10:09:59 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline
I would argue that this is an enhancement
I would argue that using EiH 3.0 is a major bug esp when it weakens Russia and makes the others stronger

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 225
RE: Invalid Surrenders - 2/15/2008 10:44:44 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

I would argue that this is an enhancement
I would argue that using EiH 3.0 is a major bug esp when it weakens Russia and makes the others stronger



This is a bug thread though.
If you want rule changes about russian corps.
Not that I do agree, Russia is hurt. But oob is in my eyes the most minor part.

Changing oob wont help as much as fixing some kind of combined movement.
Also the PP gain/loss for "lend" forces.

OoB in the game is about the playability for some nations, such as Russia. So not really a bug.

About the OoB, You might wanna post comments in this thread, for better relevance.
Though you already posted it there, so i wonder why I show you ;)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1672204



Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/15/2008 10:49:37 PM >

(in reply to Grimrod42)
Post #: 226
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/15/2008 10:54:43 PM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline
new question/bug..

Program allows committing guard on day 1 round 1.  Rules state this should be after round 1.  Which is correct and can you fix whichever is not correct?

ALSO, can you PLEASE tell us if 1.02 will remedy the loaning corp political point problem?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 227
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/15/2008 10:56:12 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

#102-LC5 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: Bresh
Problem: When one major power attacks another in a neutral minor country, there was no land combat phase.
File: No combat when in neutral minor.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending

Richard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bresh
Richard i dont think its because of the battle happening in a neutral minor. Since if Austria doesnt move there. France - Pr will have battle during their phase.

I belive it has more to do, on how the engine solves if something triggers a battle.
If you need to, though bit time consuming, I could produce the same elsewhere.
Im just using Austria/Prussia/France nations since its easier to test.
Say if all happend in Prussia controlled minor/prussia, and until the X-month, Prussia had allowed "France" & "Austrian" access, so that both nations could stack in the same area. (In this case Fr-Pr).
Then in the running diplomacy month, France/Prussia breaks alliance and dows. Ending with Fr-war vs Pr+Aus,
and moving in this order: Aus-Fr-Pr.

What could also be tested is if battle happens, if prussia had no leaders attached.



Thanks again Bresh. Just trying to work thru a few problems associated with the new temp access function before releasing 1.02. After that release, we will refocus our attention on this issue and all the others on the list.

Richard



Nice, I actually belive, fixing this. Could be a little step toward combined movement :) (*Daydreams*)

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 228
John, all alone... - 2/17/2008 6:36:37 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
In the attached saved game (PBEM, GB and FR human), at Linz, Austria --

My French stack is in 'ER' (besieging, rural), and
AI Austria's John is in 'AR' (rural) -- without any corps. I'm seeing this in an economic phase, not a land phase or land combat phase.


Attachment (1)

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 229
Mr. Depot-Head is still around... - 2/17/2008 9:30:57 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Mr. Depot-Head, as seen in a PR/AU PBEM.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 230
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/17/2008 10:43:17 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

new question/bug..

Program allows committing guard on day 1 round 1.  Rules state this should be after round 1.  Which is correct and can you fix whichever is not correct?

ALSO, can you PLEASE tell us if 1.02 will remedy the loaning corp political point problem?



Ah, thanks dodod– I see what happened and have changed the first paragraph (not the bullets) in section 11.2.8 to read:

Before the resolution of a combat round, a player with a guard or grenadier corps may choose to "commit the guard". A player may do this only once per day of combat.
Note: the choice to commit the guard for the second or third round is actually done after the resolution of the combat round immediately preceding the second and third round (e.g. to commit the guard for the second round, click the “Guard” button after the first round concludes).


Btw, 1.02 does not address the PP distribution when corps are loaned.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 231
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/18/2008 6:39:54 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
Version 1.01b. Playing Prussia. May of 1805 land phase. When I try to click on the III or 1G Prussia Corp, the gave gives a stack overflow.



Game attached.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 232
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/18/2008 2:41:06 PM   
mariom1au

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/6/2007
Status: offline
I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario




Attachment (1)

(in reply to BruceSinger)
Post #: 233
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/19/2008 11:13:09 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
In a two-player Russia/Prussia PBEM (Prussia host), the Prussian player needs to do some PBEM admin fiddiling to get past each land phase (PBEM_WHO_AM_I problem).

---
Grrr...that's the problem with the Pr/Ru game.  Everyone time I try to end
my land phase, it gives me the PBEM_WHO_AM_I error.  So what I do is
temporarily switch who is host and who is the client.  That works fine when
there isn't a back to back turn for one nation, such as my economic phase.
----

In the case of an economic phase, the AI then plays his -- and he's reporting that the AI is uselessly buying artillery factors that Prussia isn't even allowed to buy.  It may be worth checking whether the AI is also doing this even for nations which are completely AI, and not simply PBEM players being taken over by AI; to the human opposition, the bug would manifest subtly (fewer infantry factors than one might expect, but you don't have an omniscient view of its complete OOB).



(in reply to mariom1au)
Post #: 234
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/20/2008 5:27:48 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
you ARE at PSA 24. EST PSA is estimated PSA based on upcoming predicted changes due to minors being conquered, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariom1au

I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario





(in reply to mariom1au)
Post #: 235
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/20/2008 8:16:39 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline
Bug
In Sweden the Stockholm area are should be forage value of 3 not 2 as it is now.


< Message edited by Grimrod42 -- 2/20/2008 9:06:52 PM >

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 236
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/21/2008 7:57:29 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Another depot bug. Neither the depots in Holstein nor Denmark are new, yet the corps in Copenhagen are supposedly out of supply.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Grimrod42)
Post #: 237
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/21/2008 11:52:55 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Another depot bug. Neither the depots in Holstein nor Denmark are new, yet the corps in Copenhagen are supposedly out of supply.






The danish fleet is blocking supply over the straight !
Makes me wonder how you even got there :)

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/21/2008 11:53:29 AM >

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 238
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/21/2008 8:13:53 PM   
ecn1

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline
Okay, I think this is a bug or programming oversight regarding minor countries with secondary districts

Here are two scenarios we have seen occuer in our pbem games.

Scenario 1:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, Major Power B supports it and gains control of Denmark and conquered secondary district. In the econ phase, the secondary district contributes its manpower and income to the Danish Free State, NOT the controlling major power (major power B).

Scenario 2:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, conquers it, and then later makes it a free state. The secondary district (Norway) contributes its money and manpower in the econ phase to Major Power A, NOT the Free State Denmark

Now, why the difference? Since Denmark and the secondary district were conquered by the same major power, shouldnt they be reconstituted together when made a free state? Why is Norway split off from the parent district in scenario 2?

Also, in our current pbem game, GB conquered Denmark as in scenario 2. GB made it a free state, had a garrison in it. GB went into the instability zone and Norway went neutral, but Denmark did not. I argue this is wrong. It should not have gone neutral unless the PARENT Major Districy WENT NEUTRAL. But, I think the reason was that the game things Norway is a conquered minor of GB - it should not, it should think its a conquered minor of Denmark, and should contribute its income and manpower to Denmark, not GB as outlined in scenario 2.

Is this a programming error or rules oversight? Because the rules imply that if both districts are conquered by the SAME major power, that the country can be reformed. However, obviously as noted in scenario 2, this was not the case when GB made Denmark a free state.

Erik





(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 239
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/21/2008 8:34:12 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
What you have described is exactly how the computer game's rule book says it should be done. There are no multi-district minors in the computer game; Matrix couldn't figure out how to get it done in the time allotted, so multi-district minors don't exist.

There is one exception to this: Those which start as such from the first time they are declared war upon (Sweden, Denmark, and Naples). Once conquered, though, they never again can be paired up. NOTE: If both of them becomeg neutral again somehow, they MIGHT become paired up again, depending on how it is implemented. I'm not sure about that, and the manual doesn't really speak to the issue.


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to ecn1)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Invalid Surrenders Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.174