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: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs

 
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: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/23/2019 8:50:52 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petertodd

Here is a dropbox link to a save at start of Soviet turn (I hope it works!)

Saved Game Link



I can see the file but I'm unable to download it.

edit: managed to download.

< Message edited by morvael -- 9/23/2019 8:51:35 PM >

(in reply to petertodd)
Post #: 31
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/23/2019 9:14:29 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: petertodd
The problem can be reproduced as follows:
- Load the saved game
- Move 9-14 unit from X89-Y46 to X88-Y48.
- Attack the 13=8 unit in X88-Y49 with the stack in X89-Y50.
The German unit retreats the wrong way every time I have tried it. In playing a couple of turns with the new version I have noticed several instances where German units preferred to retreat to an unoccupied hex in a Soviet ZOC over a German-occupied hex (less than 3 units) not in a Soviet ZOC. It appears to me it is avoiding retreating to German occupied hexes. If it matter, this is an ongoing game where I switched to the new version either this turn or the previous turn (can't remember which).


Thanks for the save. I was able to fix the problem quickly.

(in reply to petertodd)
Post #: 32
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/23/2019 9:28:58 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
petertodd, wasted a bit of time trying to find out why NBAD in your save has black icon

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 33
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/23/2019 9:47:57 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
As for the forts - I'll need hard data from longer running games (once critical issues will be ironed out), not opinions. There are only a few high level fortifications at scenario start (Odessa, Sevastopol) in places that should defend longer (or finally be made worthwhile to defend) than I have seen from my experience. To achieve high levels anywhere else (except level 3 in high urban) will require tremendous effort - lots of time, construction points, fort units, tens of thousands tons of supply. This should give something in return. I want to stress that tweaks are not out of the question.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 34
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 12:54:30 AM   
petertodd

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 2/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

petertodd, wasted a bit of time trying to find out why NBAD in your save has black icon

Sorry about that. I do set their color to black sometimes to make them easier to find when I want to do some night bombing. Glad to hear you were able to resolve the actual problem.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 35
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 2:54:35 AM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Also, is it WAD that airbases and HQ's appear to be surrendering rather than displacing? I've got several of them reorganizing on the east edge of the map.


Yes, they are now destroyed as other units (which means HQ SU are no longer rescued for free). But they rebuild for free (no AP cost).

It would be nice if, when they got killed, they came back as STAVKA armies. Reorganizing your fronts in this game is horribly difficult because of the outrageous cost in AP to reassign an HQ to a different HHQ. In fact, Soviet armies often came back in second reorganizations as parts of different fronts.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 36
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 4:41:36 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Sure, that needs to be fixed. They will return as STAVKA.

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 37
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 9:23:27 AM   
xhoel


Posts: 1086
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

As for the forts - I'll need hard data from longer running games (once critical issues will be ironed out), not opinions. There are only a few high level fortifications at scenario start (Odessa, Sevastopol) in places that should defend longer (or finally be made worthwhile to defend) than I have seen from my experience. To achieve high levels anywhere else (except level 3 in high urban) will require tremendous effort - lots of time, construction points, fort units, tens of thousands tons of supply. This should give something in return. I want to stress that tweaks are not out of the question.


I'm pointing you to where the data is and giving you arguments why the rule should be changed. Go and take a look. AFAIK my AAR is the first that showed a proper battle for Sevastopol like it was fought historically, since most of the time the Axis will simply ignore it and won't try to capture the city because of how hard it is to do so or the Soviets will decide to abandon it, because they don't deem the city to be important enough, not because it is hard to defend. So don't punish the offensive player because the game has no incentive for the Soviets to hold Sevastopol.

The whole point is that you can defend those places longer if you commit proper forces. They already have bonuses from terrain and fort level, not to mention the new rules that count fort level above 3.10 as double dense so any player that is reaching the 2:1 odds is already commiting a lot of forces to get those kind of odds. Sevastopol in my game had a defensive CV of 5.000 (2 Mountain Divisions and 1 Guard Rifle Corps, defending a rough level 5 fort) for Christ sake. If you want to make such places worthwhile to defend, add an actual incentive for the Soviets to defend them eg VP and not some blank rule about no retreats even after you have reached the odds that are needed.

And since you talked about the historical campaign, the Germans took 90.000 prisoners from the Battle of Sevastopol. With the current displacement rules, Soviet units defending the port will simply rout and won't lose a single man if they are finally forced to retreat. Defending a high level port is every players dream. Maybe that should be fixed so that the Axis player has at least 1% interest in going for Sevastopol.

Odessa was a Rumanian operation and you can easily recreate it in game by prohibiting German forces from taking part in the attack. Leningrad was never properly assaulted and was not even properly cut off since the Soviets could still get supplies in the city. You still have given no reason why this new no retreat rule applies to mountain and rough hexes even though I directly asked you to.






_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 38
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 9:35:29 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I'm not sure they will rout with the new code, it won't pick offset move path over water :)

It's possible I'll tie bonus engineer strength multiplier to final odds multiplier (so forts will drop faster with very high odds, which will solve the problem of placing very weak defenders inside).

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 39
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 9:36:30 AM   
xhoel


Posts: 1086
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
Here is the best unit in the Soviet Army, outnumbered 42:1 in men and they still hold the port. Look at the odds 470:1. Engineers at 184 and Arty at 72. Look at the fort drop, only 0.06 drop.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by xhoel -- 9/24/2019 10:06:54 AM >


_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 40
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 9:38:56 AM   
xhoel


Posts: 1086
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm not sure they will rout with the new code, it won't pick offset move path over water :)



I sure hope they don't rout. It is very gamey and unrealistic and this goes for both sides, even for Germans defending East Prussia in the later war years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

It's possible I'll tie bonus engineer strength multiplier to final odds multiplier (so forts will drop faster with very high odds, which will solve the problem of placing very weak defenders inside).



Good, that seems like a change that might help. Add the unit cap too and remove the bonus for rough and mountain hexes and we might have something to work with.



_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 41
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 10:43:58 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1756
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Will wait for the must fix stuff to be fixed before I delve any time into this patch.

Of note, hopefully the additional permanent loss of soviet manpower from losing all the HQ/support units is being factored in the new balance. This is predominantly a very large Soviet nerf for all of 1941. As well it gives the German player even more Hiwis to replace losses with in 1942. As usually you could save about 40% give or take of support unit and HQ manpower from the border HQs....this also will compound as typically additional german encirclements in 1941 will snag more HQ units so longer term this is a huge soviet nerf and wont really bother the Germans until probably 1943 or later. As not only is this more Soviet manpower gone...this is all more new units with no training that will have to be re-trained to be useful.

Not complaining about it yet, just hoping it was considered in the balancing of this patch as its a bit of a big deal as far as CV loss goes for 1941 for soviets, and a bonus to German manpower in 1942+.

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 42
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 2:39:29 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel
Here is the best unit in the Soviet Army, outnumbered 42:1 in men and they still hold the port. Look at the odds 470:1. Engineers at 184 and Arty at 72. Look at the fort drop, only 0.06 drop.


Made some changes for the hotfix. However, I would like to point out that levels other than 4/5 should drop pretty fast, the drop will not be as slow for all levels. Remember the build cost.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 43
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 4:09:23 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
Weather doesn't seem to be working, or at least random weather. In one game, we've had two turns where the prediction was for mud in one or more regions and when my opponent opened the game, there was clear across the whole front. I can email a save file if anybody wants.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 44
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 4:58:13 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Weather and forecasts haven't changed for years. Bear in mind it may be deliberately misleading. Especially in periods of very variable weather (mud season).

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 45
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/24/2019 5:04:38 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Weather and forecasts haven't changed for years. Bear in mind it may be deliberately misleading. Especially in periods of very variable weather (mud season).

Twice in a row? And I might add, only the second time in a long history of playing this game when I've encountered false predictions? Might be worth checking.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 46
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/25/2019 3:19:30 AM   
chuckfourth

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
Hi Morveal thank you for your reply, Yes that would help to solve that issue but more precisely being able to attach Artillery, Mortar and Rocket units directly to CU in the same way as other SU types attach, so they participate in every assault or defense of that CU unit, the same way as other attached units do, is what is needed. On the same topic It would also be very useful to be able to exclude some units from being randomly selected from the SU pool. In particular the AT and SPGun category of SU units. These units often get committed to attacks on infantry elements and so get worn out unnecessarily, they need to be, and were, preserved for use against armour. Random selection of these units favors the Soviets as these quality German assets are squandered in attacks where they make little difference. Exclusion would also allow the hoarding of German AA assets for when they are actually needed, when Soviets have air supremacy, rather than being slowly ground away participating in infantry assaults. AT, SPGun (Stugs excluded) and AA are fundamentally defensive assets and shouldn't be randomly wasted participating in attacks. AA is expensive and wherever possible was kept to its correct role as largely defending rear area assets form air attack.

Ok so forts, once again there is a fundamental element missing. Where is Gustav and Dora? Gustav destroyed Sevastopol pretty much singlehandedly. Destroying forts is exactly what it was designed for. In fact all the German railway guns are missing. why I hear you ask? A cynic would say railway guns aren't in the game because the Soviets didn't have any.
Anyway that brings me back to railways, So in my thread "How to fix the game" I provide references that clearly show the game has a German rail repair rate less than half what was achieved historically. I notice that even though rail is now cosmetic in the new 1.12.00 beta the rail repair rate remains less than half what it historically was. Obviously in relation to fortresses that halves the time it takes for Gustav to get to Sevastopol. That is of course if the Germans are allowed to have there railway guns back again at some stage.
Have you read this article
https://www.allworldwars.com/Comments-on-Russian-Roads-and-Higways-by-Max-Bork.html
in this article
Gen. Lt. a.D, Max Bork a Branch Chief in the Transportation Division of the German Army General Staff says
"As a result of this planning and the measures taken the Germans succeeded in maintaining that part of the road net which was vital for their operations and in improving it sufficiently to meet all demands." referring to Army group north in the Baltic states. I would point out that no one has been able to show that this is wrong when it was raised in my "How to fix the game thread".
In light of this isn't it important that the historical (correct) Baltic boundary is used rather than just a rough approximation. Not surprisingly the boundary favors the Soviets. Narva is incorrectly excluded, the line between Vilnius and Daugavpils is straight not bent into the Baltic, From Vilnius the boundary runs west should be southwest. Vilnius and Daugavpils are about 3 hexes in from the border not on it. All in all the Baltic looses about 100 hexes of its area.
The article also says this
"Rail traffic was not disrupted at any time in the area of Army Group South since there were no partisans there"
I would suggest that if no one can supply any information confirming partisan activity (in particular rail disruption) in Army Group South's area then this comment should be taken seriously and implemented.
Ethnically German populations existed in the Ukraine at this time and many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans.

Despite all the detail this game continues to have holes in it as big as barn doors. All you need to do is get the details right in the first place and the holes will disappear. For example the "Surprise" rule. The Germans were clearly not twice as effective in week one than in week two. So this rule is a fantasy. It's had to be created because the basic detail is wrong in the first place. So lets fix the detail and we don't need the rule anymore. So what do we do? we replace the Surprise rule with weaker Soviet units (or Stronger German units). How weak I hear you ask? well that is simplicity itself, You just run the game without the surprise rule and with the now weaker Soviet units until the Germans are able to get where they got historically in the first few weeks or so. So you have now got rid of a Bogus rule that has no basis in reality and have used the initial German assault to CORRECTLY CALIBRATE the Soviet unit strengths vis a vis the Germans, because we know how far the Germans got in the first few weeks.

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol124lw.html
Gustav destroyed Sevastopol on its own.

< Message edited by chuckfourth -- 9/25/2019 5:36:55 AM >

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 47
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/25/2019 4:17:21 AM   
chuckfourth

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
PS the obvious way to make the Soviet units weaker is to make fortification strength multiplication factors less OR engineer and Artillery effects greater on Fortifications.

< Message edited by chuckfourth -- 9/25/2019 4:20:11 AM >

(in reply to chuckfourth)
Post #: 48
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/25/2019 6:00:38 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
chuckfourth, I believe 600mm Karl mortar is in the game as a support unit of two guns. I spent some time in the past and this time as well to make them effective against forts.

(in reply to chuckfourth)
Post #: 49
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/25/2019 7:07:05 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

On turn 2 of a 41GC, as the Soviets, I'm seeing a lot of German units with -1 Supply Path reported even though they are clearly within 100 movement points of an Axis rail head. Is this WAD? It's a server game, against Model, so I don't think I can send a save file, but maybe you can look at it from your end.


Please provide a screenshot or even better a save. I can't confirm this on my end.

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 50
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/25/2019 10:30:14 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1756
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
The germans have a bunch of siege gun battalions an such....if you want to take forts concentrate them in a siege HQ...this has been done to good effect in the game for a long time. Pelton even talks about doing it in his games from way back to take Leningrad an such.....you have to go far back in batreps like 5 years ago.

As to the current new fort rules....idea in principle sounds good just not sure how its going to play out since everything in the game is odds dependent.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 51
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/27/2019 2:58:33 AM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
Soviet rail capacity is much lower in 1941 than before. I don't know if this is intentional, but it makes it pretty much impossible to evacuate factories. Just opened the July 3rd turn and my rail cap, before any movement, is 25955. That means that if I don't move anybody by rail, I can evacuate 5 armaments factories.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 52
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/27/2019 6:17:17 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Yes, I have to do something about it. Aside from ignoring the fact that some lines had single tracks, so movement in any direction was using common "rail capacity", factories were evacuated by trains going in opposite direction than trains moving supplies. Currently there is one rail capacity measured used mostly by movement towards the front. Perhaps another capacity will have to be introduced, for factory evacuations.

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 53
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/27/2019 5:25:49 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, I have to do something about it. Aside from ignoring the fact that some lines had single tracks, so movement in any direction was using common "rail capacity", factories were evacuated by trains going in opposite direction than trains moving supplies. Currently there is one rail capacity measured used mostly by movement towards the front. Perhaps another capacity will have to be introduced, for factory evacuations.

Maybe just create a historical script for factory evacuations, where factories move according to their historical time frames, and if a city gets overrun before it "should", or a city gets overrun that wasn't historically, the factory is automatically evacuated at a high level of damage? Or would that be too much of a code change?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 54
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/27/2019 10:43:24 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1756
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Historical script most likely wouldn't work as the Axis typically take more earlier than historical in just about every game. So unless this patch slowed the Axis down would very hard if not impossible for the soviet players to compensate for this. Not to mention if the axis take different main routes you usually evacuate those areas first as a priority.

So only historical option would be to slowly reduce soviet factories through 1941 by script then put them to historically what was left in 1942 by script. Would effectively remove factory destruction from the game though.

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 55
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/28/2019 2:39:40 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 1086
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
@morvael: I think there is no need to introduce so many new things to WitE since the game is in a very good condition now. New features means more bugs and problems. The main goal should be to squash all the current bugs and keep the game stable. There is no need to fix what isn't broken. What the game needs now is to be bug free and run properly thus enabling both sides to have a realistic campaign.

I am against the automatic factory evacuation since it removes an interesting part of the game but if rail capacity for the Soviets is so low it should be increased accordingly.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 56
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/28/2019 3:52:22 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Factory evacuation will remain as is, but as it was one of the Soviet successful operations during the 1941 debacle it must be possible to execute in the game as well. Indeed with the new setup there will be little rail capacity available to do it. There are a few choices: add more rail capacity (but it can be used by the Soviet player to shift units faster towards the front and have their forces better supplied), reduce factory evac cost (so that remaining capacity could be used to evacuate similar number of factories), or introduce special capacity just for factory evac (to better control the whole process without affecting unit movement and resupply at all).

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 57
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/28/2019 10:42:23 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11427
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Preview of some fixes I have been working on. I hope these address issues reported:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T8mV7l5wFloBjgCDWoD6AvwuXv0vA28cENhbzvLJ4Ms/edit?usp=sharing

As to whether German logistics penalties will need to lessen, we'll have to find out once this more stable version will allow you to play a few Barbarossas.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 58
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/30/2019 4:18:57 AM   
chuckfourth

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
Hello again
Morvael if you think it is a good idea to create lets call them "super forts" don't you think it would also be a good idea to give the Germans the weapons they specifically designed to destroy super forts, Super guns? Ok the heavy Mortars Karl etc are in the game but that doesn't justify leaving out all the German railway guns. And Chaos45 just because the Germans have been allowed to have a some of their larger guns doesn't justify not having all their siege weapons.
So have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941%E2%80%931942)
Here is a list of heavy artillery the Germans deployed at that siege and which doesn't even exist in the game.

One 80cm Gustav
Three 28cm railway guns
Two 42cm Howitzers
Fourteen 28cm howitzers

The Germans also had many captured French railway guns. A French 52cm railway gun was used at Leningrad. Needless to say this isn't in the Game either.

If Germans can't have super guns then the Russians shouldn't be allowed to have super forts. Its clearly unfair.
Railway guns need to be in the game. There is no substitute for a 80cm gun. This also means that the German railway repair rate needs to be historic rather than sacrificed on the alter of "play balance" so that railway guns can be moved about as needed.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 59
RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs - 9/30/2019 4:25:45 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1756
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Don't know why I was singled out on this lol...have never complained about historical forces being allowed for either side.

The only thing I would say is then you need to research dates on when they arrived and when they were withdrawn....as well as try to figure out the combat effects. Then the next game decision is are they new on-map siege unit like Soviet artillery BDEs or do they continue to be support units.

The RoF on many of the German siege guns is abit laughable but should have some effect if given enough weeks/months of shooting.

All for it just up to Morveal on how it could be implemented....as well if it works with the current game engine as I know some limit was reached awhile back either on unit or equipment types or some such. IF equipment limit was reached might be why they weren't added but could always add more of the other guns to siege units to make up for it as long as game effect is about the same as real life.

(in reply to chuckfourth)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.219