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: Update v1.16.03

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Update v1.16.03 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 8/30/2019 3:03:41 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

So a worked example - could also be done with pictures :)

An Italian HQ is on a 5-value resource on the North African coast. The Italian HQ has an effective supply of 8.

A German HQ is in the next hex. This has a "raw" supply value of 4 from the resource. The German HQ is boosted to 5, because of the Italian HQ, and now gives effective supply of 8.

The German HQ can move further away from the Italian HQ, and is still boosted, so long as it is in a position to receive any supply from the Italian HQ.


Correct

quote:

If the original resource loses 1 or 2 Supply points (down to 3 or 4) due to e.g. strategic bombing, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 6. This reduces the distance at which the German HQ will receive boosting and if the German HQ is now out of the reach of the Italian HQ then the German HQ will revert to its natural supply level (very likely 0 (3)).


Correct

quote:

If the original resource loses 3 Supply points down to 2, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 5. Regardless of the location of the German HQ, it can no longer be boosted by the Italian HQ. If the German HQ is next to the resource, it will be 1(5). If it is any further away it will be 0(3).

Is that all correct?


Indeed, correct

quote:

Also, can an HQ provide a boost when its own supply value is down to an amphibious landing?


Potentially yes as there is no restriction on the source of supply, it is just a matter of general functionality for the boosting rules.



_____________________________


(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 31
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 8/30/2019 3:09:48 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

quote:

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.


That could be tactically... challenging.
We will have to be careful when advancing (and possibly retreating) to keep in mind which HQ is the booster and which the boostie.
Also have to keep in mind what might happen if a 3rd (or more HQ) comes into range. Things can get screwy or at least hard to figure out.

If/since there is no way to manually pick booster/boostie;
Would it be possible to add boosting information to either the hover text, and/or the unit information box at the bottom of the UI?
Something along the lines of:
"Boosting Eisenhower"
"Receiving boost from Patton


-----
Observations for fellow gamers to be aware of:

Be careful the Next Turn Supply function/calculator may not be accurate as while it could/might take into account current Booster/Boostie status, if that status changes by introduction of additional HQ within range it could be wrong.
For example, You are relying on HQ#1 to boost HQ#2, but HQ#1 might suddenly switch to boosting a 3rd HQ that just comes into range (or if it's own booster/boostie status changes by moving a 4th HQ). This might deprive HQ#2 of a boost.

I also presume that Booster/Boostie status could also possibly flip-flop between turns.
For example: If HQ#1 is higher rated but further in the back (say linked with air units), and HQ#2 is more forward (linked to ground units). Due to Supply values HQ#1 is currently boosting HQ#2.
HQ#2 might suddenly reverse status with HQ#1
Possibly due to movement; or the change in intrinsic supply if it is increased by a nearby supply source repairing/getting damaged; or by damage to one HQ or the other.


The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.

Perhaps as an option or as mentioned above more intuitive highlights so that a player at least knows an HQ is being boosted and by whom in a move obvious way. Something to think about for sure.


_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 32
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 8/30/2019 3:37:20 PM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

quote:

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.


That could be tactically... challenging.
We will have to be careful when advancing (and possibly retreating) to keep in mind which HQ is the booster and which the boostie.
Also have to keep in mind what might happen if a 3rd (or more HQ) comes into range. Things can get screwy or at least hard to figure out.

If/since there is no way to manually pick booster/boostie;
Would it be possible to add boosting information to either the hover text, and/or the unit information box at the bottom of the UI?
Something along the lines of:
"Boosting Eisenhower"
"Receiving boost from Patton


-----
Observations for fellow gamers to be aware of:

Be careful the Next Turn Supply function/calculator may not be accurate as while it could/might take into account current Booster/Boostie status, if that status changes by introduction of additional HQ within range it could be wrong.
For example, You are relying on HQ#1 to boost HQ#2, but HQ#1 might suddenly switch to boosting a 3rd HQ that just comes into range (or if it's own booster/boostie status changes by moving a 4th HQ). This might deprive HQ#2 of a boost.

I also presume that Booster/Boostie status could also possibly flip-flop between turns.
For example: If HQ#1 is higher rated but further in the back (say linked with air units), and HQ#2 is more forward (linked to ground units). Due to Supply values HQ#1 is currently boosting HQ#2.
HQ#2 might suddenly reverse status with HQ#1
Possibly due to movement; or the change in intrinsic supply if it is increased by a nearby supply source repairing/getting damaged; or by damage to one HQ or the other.


The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.

Perhaps as an option or as mentioned above more intuitive highlights so that a player at least knows an HQ is being boosted and by whom in a move obvious way. Something to think about for sure.



Please - some sort of visual and/or textual indicator of which HQ is boosting which would be enormously helpful!

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 33
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/5/2019 9:57:14 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 732
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
quote:

The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.


Especially considering the separate treatment of air units, which usually will be attached to the "first" HQ, this change will probably lead to more of a guessing. Compare this mechanic to WWI Breakthrough: 1 supply required to provide 8, 6 to provide 10 supply; very forgiving especially for new players, and with a completely workable supply prediction.

If you compare the theatres, in which these new rules will lead to issues, only one side will be affected negatively: North Africa and Middle East same issues for both sides, Russia with "Scorched Earth" will only affect the Axis; Allied landings in France won`t be affected very much due to the improved supply of landing units and no Scorched Earth (in fact landing units will mostly have better supply than defending units); and China for WaW also one sided for the Japanese. And of course every player will feel the need to apply at least 2 HQs on every theatre.

Attachements of air units to the "first" HQ will lead to reduced supply, unless the newly occupied town reaches 5 supply, which under bad circumstances can take 5 turns. And you better pray as Axis that no strat. bomber will ever occurr on the russian front, otherwise bombing the supply source will have devastating outcomes.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 34
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/6/2019 2:24:19 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
To go back to some of the logic behind the changes, and especially supply as much has changed over time since the original WiE release, the initial inspiration for the changes were that the Axis generally had too much supply, and especially in the USSR, where they could press forward at maximum supply via HQ linking/boosting, giving little chance to the Soviet player to ever mount a reasonable comeback. A tipping point was rare in the earlier versions of the release.

Thus the change from WWI Breakthrough: 1 supply required to provide 8, 6 to provide 10 supply, to what we have now.

Generally speaking, the mechanism for how HQs are linked for boosting has not changed at all, i.e. a low supply HQ can be boosted by another HQ etc., just the supply rules and what constitutes the minimum thresholds and so on.

With that in mind, once we amended the supply distribution chart, it then made sense to change some of the thresholds. For example, if a previously boosted HQ was at one time able to distribute 10 supply (which was found to be too high as mentioned above), and we wanted to lower it to 8, then we just needed to make sure all the other values continued to make sense.

This is why at one time we lowered HQ distribution supply to 5 for any HQ with its own supply < 3, and why an HQ to be boosted needed to have a supply < 5, as otherwise it made no sense when considering we wanted to lower distribution supply of a boosted HQ and so on.

So what did this get us for War in Europe?

Earlier on it much improved the situation in the USSR, resulted in North Africa and the Middle East feeling more realistic as the Axis arguably had a bit of an edge there as well due to higher supply and seemingly much improved the balance of the game overall, including when we take into account the attachment rules/changes for air units as well.

However, due to some of the perceived issues with World at War, as well as continued concerns regarding pockets still having seemingly higher supply than what would be expected, and because we would like to have consistent rules between both games, we've made a few further changes. Key being these ones here:

- HQ supply = 0 will have a distribution supply value of 3 (previously it was 5).
- HQ supply 1 or 2 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
- HQ supply 3 or 4 will have a distribution supply value of 6 (previously it was 8).

The first change helps to deal with out of supply pockets making them easier to destroy, while the last change helps to address higher than expected supply on overstretched advances. To compensate we did make adjustments for HQs that have recently amphibiously landed which mimics mulberry supply, and scorched earth was amended for War in Europe to slightly lower the impact.

Essentially we didn't want it to have any change on the overall balance of War in Europe (despite some supply changes for both sides) while at the same time it could greatly address the perceived issues in World at War.

As Sugar has mentioned, for War in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East should for the most part feel the same as there will be supply issues for both sides, in the USSR the Axis player will feel a bit of a supply distribution difference but this is compensated by reduced effects from scorched earth and should more or less be mitigated so long as HQ boosting is still employed. While D-Day, Torch or Italian landings by the Allies will potentially be more effective with the HQ mulberry supply effect.

For World at War, Axis supply in the USSR will be a bit more challenging under the new supply rules, which is what we were after, and Japanese supply in China should be more challenging as well as we were definitely after this there too. The Strategic Bomber strategy in the USSR will also be less effective since we made a change to the cooperative status of the USSR in World at War and amended cooperative supply to now a max value of 3.

Hope this helps,
Hubert


_____________________________


(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 35
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/6/2019 6:44:49 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1431
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
quote:

While D-Day, Torch or Italian landings by the Allies will potentially be more effective with the HQ mulberry supply effect.


Note this is an observation, not (yet) a complaint:

The 'Mulberry' change also makes Sea Lion a lot easier as well.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 36
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/7/2019 11:59:26 AM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Definitely fair enough as it can potentially go both ways as you've noted. It's another necessary change since once we reduced HQ supply in a pocket, we needed an adjustment for Amphibious landings as otherwise any HQ that lands and doesn't immediately connect to a captured resource, would have reduced supply from previous builds, and essentially be in a trapped pocket as well, i.e. game logic wise, which would be a significant penalty. It's an improvement of supply, but we also felt an improvement for game play as well in order to be able to simulate Mulberry type effects for landings.

One other area it will help is in the Pacific theater for Allied island hopping and landings in the World at War game, but we will also be making a change in a future patch whereby a unit that has been loaded onto an Amphibious Transport will no longer be able to unload on the same turn... which helps to address one of the exploits that makes Sealion a little bit easier than it should be for those that take advantage of this.

_____________________________


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 37
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/7/2019 1:46:52 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1431
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I seem to recall making that suggestion some time ago

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 38
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/10/2019 2:37:23 PM   
witpaemail

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/2/2015
Status: offline
Dont know if it was because of starting the game in .02 and updating to .03 or just a bug in .03, but Rommel didnt appear with the Afrika corps.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 39
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/10/2019 4:21:12 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpaemail

Dont know if it was because of starting the game in .02 and updating to .03 or just a bug in .03, but Rommel didnt appear with the Afrika corps.


That does sound odd, particularly as I haven't touched any scripts related to the Afrika Korps in sometime. Did the Decision fire?

It would be good to know if anyone else experiences this.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to witpaemail)
Post #: 40
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/10/2019 7:16:45 PM   
witpaemail

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/2/2015
Status: offline
I have no idea about what fired and what didnt or even what that means. The Africa corps appeared minus Rommel. I checked the builds and Rommel was there available for builds.

Come to think of it, the tac air unit may have been missing as well. Could it have been because Brit units were west of el Agheila? If so, then this is a bug that may have never cropped up before.

< Message edited by witpaemail -- 9/10/2019 7:22:13 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 41
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/11/2019 1:34:20 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
We did add alternative deployment locations to the Afrika Korps scripts with the recent v1.16.00 patch, which should mean that if there isn't enough space at one location then they would deploy at another on the list, working downwards.

The alternative locations are as follows (although there might be slight variations as there are multiple different scripts for the Afrika Korps):

#DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 184,126
#DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 179,124
#DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 172,121
#DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 174,92

So hopefully the game was started with a version prior to that one, as I can understand this issue happening when there weren't any alternative deployment locations (these were introduced to stop this issue). Now, all of these locations would have to have been in Allied hands when the script fired to stop the whole force deploying, which hopefully wasn't the case.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to witpaemail)
Post #: 42
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/12/2019 3:28:56 AM   
witpaemail

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/2/2015
Status: offline
I had Tripoli and the city east of it. About 6 Italian units in the area, 4 infantry in and near that eastern city a HQ in Trilopi and an air unit right next to it. It seemed like the Germans deployed around Tripoli and that other city up to 2 hexes out and when they filled them all, the rest were lost. The Brits had the hex adjacent to that other city on the coast.

Unfortunately the game is over and closed so I cant go back and look now. But it seems to me any excess units should deploy SOMEWHERE, be it Africa, Sicily, or even in Germany, but they should appear SOMEWHERE...

< Message edited by witpaemail -- 9/12/2019 3:30:09 AM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 43
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/12/2019 6:49:34 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
I totally agree, and that's why all the extra potential destinations were added with that patch, as if the engine cannot deploy them all at the first then it will move down the list.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to witpaemail)
Post #: 44
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/12/2019 10:59:34 PM   
witpaemail

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/2/2015
Status: offline
Im using the latest patch

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 45
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 9/16/2019 5:50:23 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks for the report and it looks to be a rare error when the next unit to arrive in the event, after the previous 6 arrived correctly, was an air unit.

This then threw off the routine that was supposed to handle this, as Bill had suggested, as it incorrectly thought it could place the air unit anywhere (even though in this case it couldn't) which then told the routine not to consider the other placement arrival areas, and in the end did not place the last 2 units which were the air unit and the HQ.

Your accurate description of the issue and pre-existing unit placements in the arrival areas really helped me to properly track this down.

Consider this fixed for the next update.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpaemail)
Post #: 46
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/3/2019 2:31:13 PM   
Hartmann301

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 12/7/2016
From: Upstate NY (USA)
Status: offline
It has happened to me now. I received the Africa Korp without my HQ. I had lost Benghazi and the next town west...but that's it. Still plenty of space.

< Message edited by Hartmann301 -- 10/3/2019 3:32:29 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 47
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/4/2019 11:44:47 AM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
Are there any changes to the mobilization scrips for USSR?

Opponent did an early invasion of France followed by a June 1940 Sea Lion. All low countries were DoWed. Denmark & Norway decision taken as normal. Allies did normal things as not banning the French communist party, rejecting the peace and friendship proposal, annexing the Baltic states and avoid sending the expedition to Finland

I noticed USSR mobilization being on 53% during the first phase of Sea Lion. From then on USSR gained 2-5% per turn, as if it was post June 22 1941. For the duration of winter 1940-41 mob was on about 84-88%, and then finally USSR entered the war on April.

(in reply to Hartmann301)
Post #: 48
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/4/2019 6:38:23 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
I'd check with your opponent that they've got the right number of units in the east, as nothing has changed in this area.

They can open up the Strategy Guide from the top right of the screen while playing, and it contains the details needed on this.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 49
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/4/2019 8:42:00 PM   
Fafnir

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/20/2016
Status: offline
Will the axis get a message at the beginning of each turn if too less units are present on the Soviet border?

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 50
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/4/2019 11:08:25 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
There never was such a message in the past. It is 18 units cap within 10 hexes from Warsaw or USSR has a 50% to mobilize by +5 per turn

(in reply to Fafnir)
Post #: 51
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/5/2019 8:27:29 AM   
Fafnir

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/20/2016
Status: offline
Was not there a message if you have too less units on the eastern border?

(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 52
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/5/2019 1:56:43 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
I have never seen such a message, but Bill can confirm this as I might be wrong. I know the unit limits from the manual.
As I remember it is:
a minimum of 2 units within 10 hexes from Warsaw until Jan 1941
a minimum of 4 units within 10 hexes from Warsaw post Jan 1941
A maximum of 18 units within 10 hexes from Warsaw at any time

Any of the above being violated leads to a mob boost for ussr

This is what makes the peace and friendship deal so good for the Axis; Latvia is outside the 10 hex range of Warsaw, meaning that axis player can amass units there and be ready without ticking the soviet mobilization

< Message edited by Ktonos -- 10/5/2019 1:57:52 PM >

(in reply to Fafnir)
Post #: 53
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/5/2019 9:38:19 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 3244
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
There would be reports in game warning you if you have insufficient units along the border, but of course the in game Messages/Popups option would have to be enabled.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ktonos)
Post #: 54
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/5/2019 11:00:19 PM   
El Condoro

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

This is what makes the peace and friendship deal so good for the Axis; Latvia is outside the 10 hex range of Warsaw, meaning that axis player can amass units there and be ready without ticking the soviet mobilization


Should another #CONDITION= be added to the script to account for this. They use OR logic, so it would make it easy to 'correct'. I think the Soviets would have spies in the Baltic States! :)

< Message edited by El Condoro -- 10/5/2019 11:01:12 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 55
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/5/2019 11:37:30 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
Well, in fact, in real life the Soviets failed to acknowledge that the Germans amassed close to 4 million personnel along the borders. The units they spotted they regarded them as German defensive measures against possible attack by themselves.
Having said that, I agree that the cap ought to include the Baltic states.

(in reply to El Condoro)
Post #: 56
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/7/2019 4:35:24 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: El Condoro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

This is what makes the peace and friendship deal so good for the Axis; Latvia is outside the 10 hex range of Warsaw, meaning that axis player can amass units there and be ready without ticking the soviet mobilization


Should another #CONDITION= be added to the script to account for this. They use OR logic, so it would make it easy to 'correct'. I think the Soviets would have spies in the Baltic States! :)


The trouble is that there could be lots of units in Latvia outside of the 10 hex range of Warsaw, and others within that range, making far more than the 18 but without the CONDITION= being able to pick that up properly.

This isn't an easy thing to script and make easy to explain/remember.

Also, how likely is it that the Axis can get Latvia before going to war with the USSR? That must either be invaded - triggering Soviet mobilization in return - or a lot of diplomacy has to be invested in it. Do players do this on a frequent basis?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to El Condoro)
Post #: 57
RE: Update v1.16.03 - 10/7/2019 4:53:29 PM   
Ktonos

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: online
My bad. I meant Lithuania. Anything below the line Vilnius-Kaunas is within the Warsaw-10-hex range, everything above outside.

It isn't a big thing, at least not for me - plus you would need the Allied player to actually accept the proposition to take advantage of it, so everything is cool in my opinion.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 58
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Update v1.16.03 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.148