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: Boring Opening Moves

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Boring Opening Moves Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/6/2011 6:24:02 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
2 things:

The above pictures I do not think represent what a normal German advance is, Pelton understands the most important thing for Germany in 1941: the tempo of attack. I won't say one way or the other the most current version is weighted one way or the other without more AARs. Btw, I cannot do what Pelton can do, I am still good at making any Russian look really powerful.

This second part is about panzers and supply. Please read Erhaud Raus' memoirs, especially the 1st part on the drive on Leningrad. There are times when the supply route is cut, but in the scope of week long turns, there is a route pretty much open all the time. The biggest problem from reading Raus' book is the Russians had to find the supply route 1st to attack it, whereas even with fog of war we have a pretty good idea where to go to cut those supplies.

I don't think we have reached a finalized value yet on Build-Up yet. Keep playing and lets see what we can come up with as a middle ground.

(in reply to Arstavidios)
Post #: 121
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/6/2011 9:08:27 PM   
Kel


Posts: 152
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

I'm finding the whole thing predictable, which is not an association you want with a game. Now, I never bought WitP because my understanding of history was that the Japanese industrially had no hope of knocking the US out of the war, ever, and I couldn't envision a see-saw game of 1941 and then 1942+.

Maybe my being disheartened is simply my understanding of history of the Eastern front being corrected, others may be the judge. I do think the game as it currently exists cheats both players out of excitement and the feeling that their actions really matter against the context of history.

Peace out. I don't regret my purchase at all. Just wondering if I've reached the end of the bottle.


I share this very same perception

(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 122
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/6/2011 10:26:44 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

What Pelton does isn't rocket science: he screens where he isn't attacking and arrives with overwhelming force where he is. He then exploits deeply to unhinge the defense. His best attribute is that he times and executes them very well.



_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Kel)
Post #: 123
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/6/2011 10:59:59 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 28560
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arstavidios

i also would like to see some tweeaking about attrition losses.  You often lose several times more men from attrition than actual fighting, even when when most of your units spend their turn mostly fighting. that's somewhat weird :)



There are two kinds of attrition losses. Front line attrition from being in contact with the enemy, and attrition losses during the logistics phase when damaged units are sent back to the pool and/or are destroyed. The fact that they got damaged in the first place is very often due to combat, although can also be due to movement and bad supply. Let's say during a combat phase a squad of 12 men is damaged. This will show up as a loss of 6 men in the casualty totals, but 0 in the permanent losses. In a future logistics phase, this squad may be sent back to the pool, in which case some of these men will be converted to disabled, which is considered a permanent loss (serious wounds). Or, if the supply situation and possibly troop quality is poor enough, then the damaged element will become destroyed with the resulting permanent losses. So the system in place in the game causes some combat related casualties to be incurred later during the logistics phase and be considered "attrition". We realize this is a confusing system, and some of the names of things add to the confusion. In theory you could have a combat where a division takes 5000 casualties but no permanent losses (all items damaged, none destroyed). In the following logistics phases, as the damaged elements that were not fixed are sent back to the pool or destroyed, you will probably see both casualties and permanent losses, all related in some way to the original combat where the elements were damaged.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Arstavidios)
Post #: 124
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 6:55:31 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
One could argue that the first turn surprise rules that hammers the soviet units by setting very low morale and experience levels and damaging many of the elements is doing what you want. These low values will slowly come up over time, but in the meantime the units are very weak. Also, many of the damaged elements will end up rotating to the pool and eventually returning, but will leave the units in the early turns very weak. Soviet motorized units have lousy MPs for the first few months of the war, Soviet railroads in the first two turns are halved in capacity. Soviet early war leaders are generally lousy which impacts everything. How many ways do we need to make the Soviets bad? One could argue that all of these factors taken together get the effects you are looking for.


You could be correct Joel, and for the most part I think it does. With one particular exception.

quote:


Soviet railroads in the first two turns are halved in capacity.


Its not actually the railroads that concern me here, its the supply.

The reduction in the network capacity may be an okay net effect, but I don't think it has the correct result on supply to the forward units, as - to my knowledge - the capacity of the network has no effect on whether a unit near a rail head is in supply. Which means the forward units get supplies at too fast a rate, and in my opinion end up with too high a movement rate overall, particularly when combined with the clogging of the roads with civilian and units trying to go different directions, interdiction of the roads by the Luftwaffe (which is a pretty minor effect in the game right now) and so on.

I suppose my concern here is dual. First the front line units are showing as way too mobile even still, their ability to just evacuate the front line 'poof' (seen several times in AARs) seems to be way too good for the circumstances.

Also the impression that was given that the Soviets can start throwing the Germans back and completely derailing their offensive right from the start (although that may be just trash talk and not reality) seems wrong. With the state of the Red Army in 1941 - partially due to the efforts of the Luftwaffe, partially due to bad luck and timing, but largely due to Stalin - they did as well as they could with falling back and their delaying attacks that started a few weeks in (they weren't meant as delaying attacks, but that was what they turned out to be).


Still, the supply limitations of the Germans were their biggest problem, as long as the Soviets kept them spending ammunition and supplies, they probably couldn't have gotten any further than they did. With that thought - and what most games result in - the Soviets shouldn't have wasted their troops in attacks when stiff defence was all that was necessary.

Of course, that is with the benefit of hindsight, and I'm sure some would debate that.


I suppose my biggest complaint is with the supply system overall. The Soviet units on the front lines should start at varying degrees of low supply, while the Germans should start at more than maximum (I think they do start at 100% currently). As I have said here, I think troops with a reasonable stock of supplies on hand should still fight at full - or at least reasonable - strength, instead of the massive reduction that simply being cut off brings (I find it odd that I break that encirclement, and poof, the unit magically improves dramatically despite not actually getting one iota of new supply). Yes, this would benefit both sides at both times.

With that in mind, a unit forced to retreat shouldn't be able to magically teleport to the other side of an enemy formation. They should be forced to surrender if they have nowhere to retreat to. Certainly there would be escapes, but the system already accounts for that.

Yes, surrounding and cutting off a unit and immediately being able to make it surrender with an attack would speed up the advance, but reducing large pockets would be made more difficult if they could fight as long as they retained supply (of course they would consume supply on their own, and as they defend, but that's a given). And some units if supplied by air might just be able to hold out a while (as happened, heck, sometimes they held out even without resupply), and stronger units could extract themselves instead of needing rescue (again as sometimes happened).

And finally, I think both sides may be getting too much supply in the early parts of the war. The Soviets had significant supply issues through much of 41 and 42, and the Germans always had them after the first month.

I read several times that Hitler was given a choice between Food, Ammunition, and Winter Clothing for the men, and told to pick one. He choose ammunition. I'm not sure if that is literally true (it might be) but does give a good feel of the overall situation rather well.


< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/7/2011 7:35:22 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 125
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 7:06:48 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Until the Axis community can start "proving" it is a bad idea to do that (and there are signs that it is starting to happen with Tarhunnas AAR against Q-Ball as an example), then its going to happen. After that, the Russians will have to change their tactics when they know "Sir Robin" tactics mean they will likely lose. We then may see a more "historic" game in terms of geographic gains and losses.


Personally I think that historically the 'Sir Robin' tactic may well have worked for the Russians. To a point. They couldn't avoid combat over all, they had to make the Germans spend troops and equipment, and they definitely had to make the Germans spend supply. A slow fighting retreat would likely have been the best option.

But there is a definite impression that - as I said - the German's advance was limited as much by logistics as anything. They simply may not have been able to move much further east than they did in '41 and still keep their front line supplied at all - and they had a lot of difficulty keeping the front line supplied as it was.

However, that may not make for an interesting game, and it doesn't appear that the supply rules make as solid maximum line of advance in the current game engine anyway.


< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/7/2011 7:36:13 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 126
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 7:21:34 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
Ok, we have the "The Germans are nerfed and don't have a chance" - brigade, and then we have the "The Soviets are beaten whatever they do" - brigade. Since we have both sides, it sounds like a pretty well balanced game I would say .


Nice theory, but in reality, people will complain no matter what. A person with everything will often ask for more just because it is human nature.

Here its a question of trying to determine what is most accurate among the various claims. You need to be somewhat objective to do that, which most people aren't.

I personally try to seek historical plausibility, not the superiority of one side or the other. As I've stated, the biggest concern I see on that front so far is that the supply and isolation system seems a little wacky. And the possibility that the Soviets may be too strong in the early game, although as some of the concern behind that may have been a over-reaction on my part to some trash talk (that then escalated into a debate about what the two sides could or couldn't do in the first few weeks) that may not be a real issue.

The thing is, its distinctly possible that if the Germans didn't get the four million casualties, they would have been SOL sooner than they were. The Soviet Union was really big. They had an immense pool of manpower to draw from, and with their industry moved to the other side of the Urals - plus the help of Lend-Lease - they could likely afford to lose even Moscow and Leningrad (which for practical purposes was out of the loop for three years anyway) and still raise a strong army.

As with Japan versus the US, there was never a chance of outright defeat, it was only about trying to hurt the other guy enough that they would negotiate a peace. Of course considering how completely pissed off the US and USSR were against their respective enemies, there is some debate about whether it was possible that the US or the USSR could have been realistically hurt enough to cause them to negotiate a peace.


< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/7/2011 7:37:41 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 127
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 7:30:46 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scook_99
The biggest problem from reading Raus' book is the Russians had to find the supply route 1st to attack it, whereas even with fog of war we have a pretty good idea where to go to cut those supplies.


That is a huge issue in games like this. We have far too much knowledge and control, thus we can send attacks with great accuracy, and coordinate attacks far too efficiently. In reality there was a degree of stumbling around in the dark looking for the enemy.

This knowledge and control gives each side the ability to perform better than they did historically. In the early war when the Germans are strong and the Soviets relatively weak, that gives a significant advantage to the Germans, allowing for significant advances.

(in reply to Scook_99)
Post #: 128
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 9:52:06 PM   
saygame

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 1/23/2002
From: Albuquerque, NM
Status: offline
Except when the flames suck you up, Neuro, I like your style: Balanced, open, passionate tho receptive is my perception of your writings.

WiTe is state of the art and a wondrous advancement to the top of its class in its field. Yet advanced as it is, with plenty of chrome and detail, it cannot, as of yet, claim to simulate history for players. At this point, no game can. We players, as students of history, always know too much for it to be so. We know about rasputitsa coming, we know about factories and how many were evac'd. We know about massive pockets at Kiev, Smolensk, Gomel etc. We know about Siberians coming. We know how many casualties to expect and we know where the Germans should be in Nov '41. We have total strategic geographical and unit location knowledge and have pretty much complete command and control, We can move to eliminate logistics bottle necks quickly. Our knowledge of what happened is pretty much complete. And we tend to like it that way even as we may decry in some parts, its lack of historicity. I do.

As we game, we anticipate and eliminate, where possible, mistakes the original participants made. And we make our moves in the anticpation of that which can and cannot not be eliminated by the game design with the certainty that it will occur (blizzard). Moving to winter quarters early to ensure three deep German 3 forts? Only a soothsayer could indeed be that prescient to see their need and where.

I endorse your concept of historical plausibility. With the mindset of an investigator/engineer. You dare proponents of either side by questioning the validity of some design components of WiTe. And others have joined such a quest. I commend that courage as you dare challenge the advocates of fandom that preferred players of both sides have created: both the name-calling and reasonable debates that can ensue.

Big Picture, the urge to win in people and myself is strong. It interferes with objectivity, whatever that is and with listening without formulating immediate and emotinal reactive response. As best I can fathom, winning gets tied into a survival instinct, I suspect, as winning validates, unconsciously, an ego's survival protection mechanisms. And to protect winning advantage, advocacy or non-advocacy of rule changes that favor a player's style becomes the camouflaged issue for many, not authenticity, not plausibility. That seem nigh impossible to detect in others with certainty.

Future developments into creating more realism in games like WiTe will take us to a complex computer coding world of more and more "semi blindings" and loss of full control that move us in the direction of simulating reality: having quite limited or even erroneous intelligence and only slight control, I believe. When one can't locate 4th Pz Army, fear may start to creep in.

Many players will rue the loss of control we have today as not fun and it may doom those games as economic enterprises. Dunno. Even as one experiences the stark terror that commanders at all levels in reality encounter as he tries to boil down all the known and unknown variables in the midst of limited information that lack of total sight, command and control mandate. The historical rear view mirror issue, is one I have yet to forsee a solution to.

WiTe is fun for me, in part, because I do have so much information and knowing that, skill plays a heavy role in the determination of victory or defeat. So while I want to experience the challenge and hopefully validation of my skill as a player, I also want blinders firmly in place for me and my opponent. The two sometimes (maybe often) conflict. So where do I go with all that?

First I talk myself down from having to win. I try and enjoy the ride and savor each detail and reduce the emphasis on winning at all cost. Every morsel of III/JG53 as it rides to glory with 200 air victories and 99 morale. Model getting promoted to OberstGerneral. Vlasov making Hero of the SU. I track morale and experinence decrease/increase. I throw more BK-534's onto the fire......by using them. I certainly shoot for the massive envelopments but I accept that I may have those pockets reoppened or not closed. I can also accept that my days awaiting massed artillery on the Vistula are waiting.

All in all, it is a joyous, thrilling and captivating ride through a historical timeframe I relish. I am thankful I live to read about it and play it and not really live it.

I guess a summary of all this is the issuance of a hearty "well done" and keep drivin on with airing your thoughts. I applaud respectful debate and difference of opinion alongside renewed efforts to state multiple perceptions while the final product continues to take form through distillation. It seems it is a process of two steps forward and one backwards. And each of us gets to opine and weigh in with which is which.


saygame



(in reply to neuromancer)
Post #: 129
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/7/2011 10:53:42 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: saygame
Except when the flames suck you up


I'm human, I can get my back up like anyone else. I especially get riled if I am dealing with someone who I think is stuck in their position and simply won't listen to any statement that doesn't fit their view. It frustrates me, I become irritated, and say so.

And I usually regret letting my anger get away like that. Not for bashing the other person - I probably still feel they deserved it - just that it isn't constructive, and only serves to weaken my position.

In actual fact - as you likely know - the subset of the internet community known as trolls work hard to get people to lash out at them. They get their kicks out of getting other people angry, and if the person gets banned or suspended because the trolls got under their skin and got them to lash out, its even better for them.

So I try to keep it civil, but despite starting on BBS forums back on dial up (1200 bps!) nearly 25 years ago, I still lose it every now and then.

quote:


Big Picture, the urge to win in people and myself is strong. It interferes with objectivity, whatever that is and with listening without formulating immediate and emotinal reactive response. As best I can fathom, winning gets tied into a survival instinct


By our natures humans are competitive. Its why we are the dominant macro life form on the planet (others have argued that micro-organisms and perhaps insects are more successful than humans, so I make a point to include 'macro' in that term). Like you, I suspect its tied into our survival instinct, our competitive nature gets the best of us, we sometimes lose perspective due to a part of our brain concludes "winning is LIFE!" and we start getting silly.

Some people try to keep a lid on that - they know it looks silly and is ultimately embarrassing - but some people forget "Its just a game".

quote:


Future developments into creating more realism in games like WiTe will take us to a complex computer coding world of more and more "semi blindings" and loss of full control that move us in the direction of simulating reality: having quite limited or even erroneous intelligence and only slight control, I believe. When one can't locate 4th Pz Army, fear may start to creep in.


While I think there will be some desire for that, and organizations like the military would dearly love that (although paradoxically, with modern communications and GPS, keeping track of units is probably closer to what we have in WitE than not) I wonder - and apparently so do you - if gamers would ever really want that?

While I do note that we have too much information and control, and feel that the game should be programmed to do some things to take into account that the people involved didn't have that much info and clarity of perception (for example, simply driving behind a unit shouldn't cut its supply line, the unit isn't everywhere at once and likely never actually encountered the supply convoy - like in board games you should have to have the unit and the ZOC to block all those hexes, not just one unit that happened to pass by), but I mostly say it to point out that A. its a game, and not a 'simulation', and B. we can do more than happened historically,

In the case of B. some people have complained that it is possible for the Germans to advance more quickly than they did historically, and this is why.

quote:


Many players will rue the loss of control we have today as not fun and it may doom those games as economic enterprises. Dunno.


Could we even handle it, or just find it frustrating and thus go off to do something else? FOW was the cause of a number of strange decisions and assumptions in history - especially by people who weren't trained military officers (like Stalin and Hitler) - and in a gaming environment might just be annoying for the majority of people.

Part of games like this is to be an armchair general and thus pretend to be Rommel or Patton or whoever, but without actually having to spend a lifetime in military service, or risk all the nastiness like being killed in an artillery barrage. And as long as none of us conclude "Hey, I'm really good at 'war-game X', I bet I could have beat Rommel!" it's okay to pretend that.

Its when us armchair generals conclude that we are in the same league as the real generals that we are in danger of losing touch with reality.

Its like was suggested for Guitar Hero - Just because you can beat every Guitar Hero game at the highest level doesn't mean you are ready to start a band and make your fortune (actual guitar players have noted that the Guitar hero controller is much different than a real guitar, and its hard to go from a real guitar to the controller).

Or - gods forbid - become good at some First Person Shooter and think you're ready to become a SEAL. Contrary to what some people think, FPS games aren't very good trainers for using a firearm in combat.

And wargames are far enough from reality that we are not ready to take command of troops in the field. We might have the basics of strategy and so forth down, but we are still miles away from being at the level of the generals we represent in these games.

So I'm not sure we'd actually want these games to be that good, even if the ability to code them existed (I think the hardware could handle it, the coding is the hard part).

quote:


First I talk myself down from having to win. I try and enjoy the ride and savor each detail and reduce the emphasis on winning at all cost.


Good plan, and we should all aim for that. One of the most enjoyable East Front games I ever played was a Barbarossa to Berlin game (GMT games) that ended in a narrow allied victory. I lost by one point, but it was a close game and was in question right to the end. For that reason I felt it was a good game and I made a good fight of it, thus had no reason to feel bad about it.

Similarly a recent game of Normandy '44 (also GMT games) ended with a German defeat to an Allied auto victory. But again, I had made a good fight of it and held the Allies back so the game was down to only three or four turns left (if the allies hadn't won by then, they lose, so as the German your main job is to just slow the allies down). Again, nothing to be ashamed of.

On the other hand, I've lost my last several tries at Bitter Woods (AH) playing as the Americans. Oy vey, that game is supposed to be really hard for the Germans to win, and yet... I decided that I suck at that game.

I lose far more games than I win, I am no master strategist, I acknowledge this. Makes one humble - although I remember being soooo happy when I won a game at a convention once that I imagine my opponent thought I was gloating. In fact it was relief after a real nail biter of a game, and so I was just glad I pulled out the other side on top.

I think though that is why I often prefer to play the AI. You can't get personal with the AI (if you do, seek help ) and you don't risk running into an ass of a player that makes you want to strangle him.

quote:


I guess a summary of all this is the issuance of a hearty "well done" and keep driven on with airing your thoughts.


Thank you. Appreciate that.


< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/7/2011 10:59:01 PM >

(in reply to saygame)
Post #: 130
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/8/2011 12:46:09 AM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
Wait, I have been on vacation. Recap for me please. Is this game fun yet?

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to neuromancer)
Post #: 131
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/8/2011 1:09:32 AM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
Smart-ass.

Nope, sorry.  Come back in a few months.


(I'm just trying for refinements, I still put a turn or two in every night - mind you, I played World of Warcraft LONG after it stopped being fun, so I may just be stupid)

< Message edited by neuromancer -- 6/8/2011 1:11:45 AM >

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 132
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/8/2011 2:01:20 AM   
saygame

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 1/23/2002
From: Albuquerque, NM
Status: offline
Fun???????

Game????????

Hey, this is real life. BigA said so.

Besides
My name is Halder.
And I keep a diary.

PS- Yes, I am going for help to my appointment in just a very few minutes. Today's session promises to be a good one on more interesting, non boring, opening moves.




(in reply to neuromancer)
Post #: 133
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/8/2011 6:29:17 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2048
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Wait, I have been on vacation. Recap for me please. Is this game fun yet?


You can always have fun by taking more screenshots and adding bunches of multicolored arrows.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 134
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/8/2011 1:30:34 PM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
Arrows are fun. People getting mad and typing in ALL CAPS (with bold) is fun. Trying to figure out how to reach Vitebsk in 2 turns is fun. Getting rained on 2 inches worth when at a relative's wedding is not fun.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 135
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/9/2011 11:44:05 PM   
neuromancer


Posts: 536
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
This thread has run its course I think.  But there was some fun to be had.

Nothing was decided, but I think it was a useful conversation none the less.  At the least it did help me refine what exactly I feel could still use work in the game (supply system, and some sort of objectives for the campaign game other than "take all the cities").  Obviously other people disagree, but that is to be expected.


Well, I'm going to go see if I can get through the blizzards relatively intact.  I ended up in a position darned similar to historical so its gonna be interesting.

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 136
RE: Boring Opening Moves - 6/10/2011 2:17:18 AM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline
This thread is over when I say it is over, dammit.

Okay, whatever. It's over.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to neuromancer)
Post #: 137
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Boring Opening Moves 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

0.238