Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

“Information delay” implementation

 
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] >> Armored Brigade >> “Information delay” implementation Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
“Information delay” implementation - 8/7/2020 5:31:48 AM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
How feasible would it be to mod in an “information delay” (similar to command delay, but in the opposite direction)? As I understand it, the game currently displays all information as soon as it is received by any unit; however, realistically this would not be the case.
Post #: 1
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/7/2020 1:01:19 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 538
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
We are working on that feature for the sequel. It goes with a new spotting system and command hierarchy, which implied a new database as well.

Being work in progress, we are open to suggestions. Particularly to studies on command cycles and statistical times.

_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 2
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/7/2020 5:42:24 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Will this include both a delay in displaying the spotted locations of enemy units to the player, as well as a delay in displaying the locations of friendly units? That is, the positions of units displayed at the current time would reflect the situation “x” minutes before the current game time?

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 3
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/7/2020 9:56:35 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1233
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elmo_Zumwalt

Will this include both a delay in displaying the spotted locations of enemy units to the player, as well as a delay in displaying the locations of friendly units? That is, the positions of units displayed at the current time would reflect the situation “x” minutes before the current game time?


What has been planned is that the player always has perfect knowledge of all his units. The information delay steps in when individual units are sending reports to other friendly units. We don't have this implemented yet, but I think when the player doesn't have any unit selected he sees the most fresh information that's the combination of all what his units see at the moment, and when he selects an individual unit then he sees the viewpoint of that unit.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 4
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/8/2020 1:44:45 PM   
varangy


Posts: 139
Joined: 11/1/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
I think when the player doesn't have any unit selected he sees the most fresh information that's the combination of all what his units see at the moment, and when he selects an individual unit then he sees the viewpoint of that unit.



Perfect!

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 5
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/9/2020 12:29:24 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi Veitikka,

Sounds good. How are you planning on handling ECM?

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to varangy)
Post #: 6
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/9/2020 6:03:06 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Does this mean that if the player designates a “player avatar” unit on the map, they will have the viewpoint of that unit? That is, that the “player unit” designation will count as “selecting” a unit, and the viewpoint would be fixed to that unit regardless of any other units being selected.

If not, I would like to suggest this feature.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 7
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/10/2020 11:01:19 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 538
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Local electronic warfare should be formulated with different levels of hindrance values (None, Light, Medium, and Strong), each having a different impact of jamming on friendly or hostile communications/radar networks, or muting GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou signals. A degree of performance degradation might be expected on certain weapon systems, if we succeed in implementing it.

The EW interference levels should be adjustable for each side individually and pre-set before the battle. Force training value should have an influence on the level of communication degradation.


_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 8
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/10/2020 10:47:45 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi nikolas,

Thanks for the info. Sounds good.

How is jamming going to effect on non-weapon areas such as the speed of information flow or the issuing of commands?

I take it that ECM will be abstracted and there won't be an EW unit sitting behind a hill at the rear, on-map?

Cheers,
Plugger

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 9
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/11/2020 1:51:31 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 538
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Indeed, there won't be EW units on map (except eventually for ground radars, as those fall under electronic warfare units in some armies) . They are outside the scope of the game, and they usually tend to be stay well behind the front-lines.

Jamming and other countermeasures will chiefly influence spotting report speed and command delay (for example, with strong EW units must rely on maintaining C3 connection either visually or using static communications like field telephones and runners), but also might delay air/artillery and/or UAV support. Side employing strong EW might also receive random reports on possible enemy locations.

_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 10
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/11/2020 5:41:30 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi nikolas,

O.K, that also sounds good.

Would the ECM effect for a given game be constant for the prescribed level or would, for example, a Medium ECM give varying amounts of hindrance during the game based on it's base strength (Medium) and intermittement probability rolls?

Cheers,
Plugger

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 11
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/11/2020 6:18:28 AM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Copied from earlier:

Does this mean that if the player designates a “player avatar” unit on the map, they will have the viewpoint of that unit? That is, that the “player unit” designation will count as “selecting” a unit, and the viewpoint would be fixed to that unit regardless of any other units being selected.

If not, I would like to suggest this feature

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 12
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/11/2020 9:11:54 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1233
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elmo_Zumwalt

Copied from earlier:

Does this mean that if the player designates a “player avatar” unit on the map, they will have the viewpoint of that unit? That is, that the “player unit” designation will count as “selecting” a unit, and the viewpoint would be fixed to that unit regardless of any other units being selected.

If not, I would like to suggest this feature


A very interesting idea, but how would the player be able to command his units if he didn't have the high level overview of the situation available?


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 13
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 3:12:10 AM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Well, in my concept, the player would have a “high level” overview; however, this would be out of date by various times depending on the unit (e.g. a single tank’s location would update less frequently/be more out of date than the tank’s commander, and so on up the chain of command). This would reflect a realistic operational environment, in which the location of units is only intermittently (rather than continuously) updated, and the latency of the updates changes depending on the unit’s status (engaged/maneuvering/emplaced).

So for instance, a unit could show as being in one location to the player, but its actual position might be out of date significantly if they had moved without communicating an update. This would further reduce the effectiveness of micromanaging units, as the combined latency of command delay (commander -> subordinates) and information delay (subordinates -> commander) would incentivize planning well in advance.

The macroscopic situation would be available to the player (at least over a suitable time scale), but they would still need to pay attention to trends and plan accordingly (e.g. proactively moving reserves to halt an impending breakthrough before it occurs). In most cases, the course of a battle does not swing instantaneously (rather, it does so over time, enabling trends to be observed and acted upon); and if it does in some cases, such is war .

< Message edited by Elmo_Zumwalt -- 8/12/2020 3:18:52 AM >

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 14
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 4:12:25 PM   
22sec

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/11/2004
From: Jackson, MS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elmo_Zumwalt

Well, in my concept, the player would have a “high level” overview; however, this would be out of date by various times depending on the unit (e.g. a single tank’s location would update less frequently/be more out of date than the tank’s commander, and so on up the chain of command). This would reflect a realistic operational environment, in which the location of units is only intermittently (rather than continuously) updated, and the latency of the updates changes depending on the unit’s status (engaged/maneuvering/emplaced).

So for instance, a unit could show as being in one location to the player, but its actual position might be out of date significantly if they had moved without communicating an update. This would further reduce the effectiveness of micromanaging units, as the combined latency of command delay (commander -> subordinates) and information delay (subordinates -> commander) would incentivize planning well in advance.

The macroscopic situation would be available to the player (at least over a suitable time scale), but they would still need to pay attention to trends and plan accordingly (e.g. proactively moving reserves to halt an impending breakthrough before it occurs). In most cases, the course of a battle does not swing instantaneously (rather, it does so over time, enabling trends to be observed and acted upon); and if it does in some cases, such is war .


That's all well in theory, but your units' AI needs to be able to then function correctly with no control. I don't know how to do that without scripting behaviors, which while I am assuming doable is something we haven't seen implemented. Maybe someday? Veitikka, Nik???


_____________________________


(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 15
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 5:10:05 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Not “no control”; the control scheme would be the same as it is currently (however, real-time information on unit status would not be available continuously, only updating as units report changes). That would probably require modifying the way in which this information is fed to the AI commander, to account for the delay on the AI-controlled side as well as on the player-controlled side.

But I suspect this would be very similar to whatever logic would be used to time the display of status updates on the player’s screen.

(in reply to 22sec)
Post #: 16
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 5:19:18 PM   
22sec

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/11/2004
From: Jackson, MS
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elmo_Zumwalt

Not “no control”; the control scheme would be the same as it is currently (however, real-time information on unit status would not be available continuously, only updating as units report changes). That would probably require modifying the way in which this information is fed to the AI commander, to account for the delay on the AI-controlled side as well as on the player-controlled side.

But I suspect this would be very similar to whatever logic would be used to time the display of status updates on the player’s screen.


Gotcha, I am just wondering from a coding standpoint how feasible that would be?

_____________________________


(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 17
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 5:28:55 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Well, I imagine that a time delay on feeding unit positions/status to either the AI or the player’s screen would be relatively straightforward; that is, the position/status of a certain unit at time (x) would be cached and then sent at time (x + info delay) to the screen/AI. Of course, the AI might have issues operating on out-of-date information, depending on its capacity to observe trends/predict further events based on delayed data relative to a human player.

(in reply to 22sec)
Post #: 18
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/12/2020 11:01:27 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi,

Riffing off the ideas above.

In a lot of tactically orientated games information on the enemy isn't given to the player in a 'god-like' manner. Instead there are delays in the information reaching the player (up through whatever chain of command is in the game) and enemy units are shown as 'possibles' rather than 'definites' if there is a chance they may have moved since.

The key point with Armoured Brigade is that it doesn't matter what situational awareness your subordinate unit elements have as they are handled by the AI and will automatically shoot or react to a known enemy presence regardless of what you, the Player, knows.

However it's the Player making the decisions and if you give the player God like abilities then you've completely defeated the purpose of having information delays in the first place. It's all back to front.

Game wise you could easily (?) handle this by simply showing the player every unit that has been spotted but have any enemy intel that has come via a time delay shown in a different manner, eg. there's an M1 tank over there but it's shown greyed out (hard to see?) or shown in a different colour tint or with an icon (time last seen?) or something.

This way the Player still has a God Like perspective of the battlefield but it's a hazy, way more realistic one, where they are having to make decisions based on imperfect information. Sure you know there were M1 tanks over there a minute ago but would they still be there now?

If you clicked on a subordinate element the view wouldn't change. You'd still get the hazy, time delayed, view. Your ATGM team that you're currently looking at may be firing at something that you can't see but that doesn't matter as it's still carrying out your orders and reacting to the battlefield situation as it knows it (which may well be different to your understanding). You've already implemented this in the way helicopters work.

If the game was set up like a lot of others where the player can directly take control of individual units and tell them what to do this approach wouldn't work. But AB is all about the Player having hands off control of their forces via the order delays mechanic. It's not a big leap to provide the Player with a view of the battlefield that reflects information arriving over time.

Of course you could do this via an option toggle for those that still want to be of a heavenly disposition.

If nothing else you would, with a 'hazy' view of the battlefield, elevate the game into a being a more realistic decision making experience.

Cheers,
Plugger

< Message edited by lancer -- 8/13/2020 2:05:26 AM >

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 19
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/16/2020 10:04:09 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Lancer,

You have a good idea of where I am going with this proposal. Essentially (in my view) all military-tactical games exist on a spectrum between an actual combat environment (most realistic) to a Wargame-esque setup with no information or command delay (most gamey, having both God's-eye view and God's-eye commands). But obviously a fully realistic game would not be engaging for more than a minority of enthusiasts (even Radio General has real-time updates on friendly unit positions, while this is obviously not the case in actual operations).

I am proposing a nudge in the more "realistic" direction of the scale; this could possibly be toggleable as you suggested. A further modification could be only enabling real-time updates for units within visual line-of-sight of the player, and implementing the information lag for all other units.

I think the biggest obstacle here is that the current AI is somewhat deterministic in nature (no offense meant to the developers, just an observation ), which could complicate adapting it for non-real-time information updates. But if this is not the case, I would be glad to be corrected on this.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 20
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/17/2020 10:57:07 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi Elmo,

The AI in AB is certainly not 'fully autonomous' as it requires constant input from the player in the form of orders.

The point of contention is whether you are giving those orders based on a god like perspective of the battlefield or one that incorporates information delays.

In both cases you're still issuing orders but you doing so with either perfect information or imperfect.

God like, perfect player information, appears to be the way the dev's are heading. Maybe the majority of people who buy a military sim like AB prefer it that way?

It could also be that the hassle of implementation outweighs the benefits.

Hard to say from the outside looking in.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 21
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/18/2020 7:17:16 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1233
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
We do have plans for improving the AI of individual units. They could have 'defensive' and 'aggressive' stances that can be selected in the SOP, and then they can use their initiative on their own, without the player intervening that much, hopefully increasing their chances to survive.

However, I think much more would be needed. Traffic jams in choke points would be frustrating to solve when the player doesn't even know where his units are. Pathfinding in general becomes more complex if we want to keep it realistic and every unit has only his own knowledge of minefields and other obstacles. So far our plan has been to keep that information global for the side.

I believe many (or most?) wargamers want to have a full control over their units, even if a fraction is talking about having limited friendly side information. Would it be any fun to play? Certainly it would confuse many players and make the game harder to approach. In the perfect world it would be included as an optional way to play, of course, but I'm not convinced it's worth the extra effort.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 22
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/18/2020 8:57:43 PM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
That makes sense, and I agree that the return on investment is likely to be negligible, if not negative, since only a small portion of players would be interested in this feature. Ultimately this is a game, and capturing every aspect of reality is not possible (nor should that be the goal).

For instance, an actual commander would have a dedicated combat staff, HQ infrastructure, etc. to synthesize and filter information, which the player in AB does not. This factor alone changes the game considerably, as the player must constantly scan the battlefield themselves to see the critical points at any time.

I (and no doubt many others) would agree that improved, more autonomous AI would be a much more significant QOL improvement than less tangible features such as this.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 23
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/18/2020 11:09:17 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi Veitikka,

We are talking at cross purposes here as I haven't explained myself very well.

I agree with you that the Player should have a god like view of his own forces for the reasons you've mentioned and full control.

What I was talking about, not very clearly, is having the disposition of the enemy forces shown on the map in a time delayed manner. For example a subordinate unit sees an enemy but the player receives that information after an appropriate time delay and what's shown on the map reflects the fact that the enemy position may not be current. The enemy unit icon is there but it's dimmed, etc.

The player is then making decisions and issuing orders based on the information about the enemy feeding up through the chain of command but at all times he knows exactly where his own forces are and has control over them in a normal manner.

Anyway, I'm sure whatever you do will work out fine, just thought I'd clear up the misunderstanding.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Elmo_Zumwalt)
Post #: 24
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/20/2020 1:41:17 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 538
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Oh, that is actually a very cool idea, but I am not sure how implementable it would be. For example player would still see his units engaging "unseen" enemy, and the game might require a much more robust semi-autonomous friendly AI (to the point of maybe even overriding player commands in emergency).

_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 25
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/21/2020 12:32:30 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2953
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi Nikolas,

The player seeing the enemy engaging 'unseen' enemy units is exactly how the helicopters work in the game at present.

The friendly AI wouldn't need to change (although any improvement would be welcome). The game and friendly A.I would work as it currently does with the only difference is that the player is issuing orders based on the map situation as they know it which may well be different to how one of their subordinate units sees things.

Here's an example that highlights the good and bad of the idea and the current implementation of how things work.

Say your platoon of APCs spots enemy armour ahead. They send that information up the chain of command to you, the player, at HQ. Because of the delay in pushing the information upwards and perhaps some interference from EW, the information arrives 15 seconds later (real time). In the meantime, you issue an order for the APC's to advance, unaware of the armour threat.

The map doesn't yet show the enemy armour because you haven't received the information. Your APC's know that the enemy armour is there in front of them but until their sit-rep update arrives at your HQ, nothing is shown on the map.

So now you've issued an order that is quite possibly suicidal for your APCs. What happens? Well there is an order delay before implementation and you may issue another order once your recieve the update and the map shows the armour. Either way there is going to be a measure of chaos as you APC's advance a bit then reverse.

The other possibility is that your APC's may have preset operational parameters (like those that can be set by the player and already exist) that give them a measure of self preservation, regardless of your orders. This opens up another discussion about what level of autonomy should your subordinate units possess? Should they do exactly as you tell them or be able to 'query' an order they might consider dangerous (and how would you code the limits of what's dangerous and not?)

Contrast the above with the game as it currently is. The player has godlike awareness of his own forces (no different) and your APC platoon is giving you instant updates of everything they see.

So the player looks at the map, see nothing in the vicinity of the APC platoon and issues an order for them to advance. Shortly after doing so the enemy armour appears in front of them. The player sees this instantly (no delay in the information moving up through chain of command, no radio drop outs, no EW).

What's changed? Your APC platoon will still advance into the face of the enemy armour because you, the player, has issued an order to do so. You can issue another order to countermand the advance and have them reverse but you'll end up with the same chaos as above.

The APC platoon could have the ability to act in self preservation in accordance with some player determined operational doctrine but that is identical to the above and runs into the same issues of how much autonomy you would want your subordinate units to have.

The big difference between how the game currently is (all enemy activity shown instantly) and one where the map incorporates information delays on enemy activity is that the player will be able to react to having issued a bad set of orders faster (no information delay) with the current setup than with one which incorporates a delay. The friendly AI would act identically in both situations and would have the same issues.

So the question, perhaps, is what benefit would incorporating information delays have?

It'd make things more realistic. Whether it'd make it more fun is another question but if you were aiming the game such that a military audience was part of the deal it would be, I'd imagine, a big selling point.

It'd give you some scope to play around with things like EW and terrain in terms of their affect on information delay. I can't vouch for EW but I have a lot of experience in using radio equipment in various terrains and even high spec military equipment runs into 'drop outs' and 'low signal' once blocking terrain comes into play (eg. a hilly map). Sending units into difficult terrain and you're going to have issues with communications.

One aspect that the game doesn't model (and the competition does) is the amount of radio traffic inbound and outbound from an HQ. The enemy is actively searching for the high signal locations so they can drop artillery on them and hopefully take out HQ's. What you could do here is give the player an option for the level of traffic they are willing to live with. At low levels the information works it's way up the chain as described above but at high level perhaps it would represent the player at HQ issues lots of 'queries' to his subordinates, eg. 'what's going on? / are those tanks still there?, etc.' and this could be represented by a global reduction in the speed in which information travels up the chain of command.

You could tweak this further by having a global modifier to information delays that reduce them when the player's HQ unit is stationary and increase them when it's mobile. So a player then has to weigh up the benefits of improved communications and reduced information delays vs. the risk of being identified by the enemy signals surveillance and being targeted by an artillery strike. There's some potential for interesting and fun decisions here with the player having to hop his HQ around interspersed with short periods of stationary, high comms, activity when he really needs to know what's going on. What you would be doing, in effect, is giving the player a measure of control over their command cycle with a risk/reward game mechanic.

Lots of stuff you could do here with information delays to, perhaps, nudge the game towards a more interesting and realistic direction.

The big downside would be that it would highlight any friendly A.I issues even more so than currently as the player would not be able to react as quickly as they currently can with instant, on-map, enemy activity on the map. As highlighted above, there would be no difference in the reliance that the player would have on the friendly A.I but information delays would serve to bring any deficiences into a sharper focus.

The friendly A.I is already an issue (I can live with it but a lot of other people find it a concern) that, I'd suggest, you're going to have to address in some manner with the next version. It's an issue not because it's bad but because of how you've implemented the issuing of orders (with a delay) that requires friendly units to act autonomously and in a perceived sensible and logical manner during the intervals when you can't tell them what to do.

Whether putting another delay into the game mechanics around the reporting of enemy activity is something you'd want to do probably revolves around where you want the game to go. The broader your audience, the less 'sim' you're going to want and the fewer the delays the better.

If, on the other hand, you were aiming to 'conquer the niche' then increased realism that you can package up as gaming fun (no point doing anything if it's going to make the game less enjoyable) would be a better road to follow.

This has been a long winded post but, hey, you asked for ideas, so I thought I'd lay it out.

Cheers,
Lancer



< Message edited by lancer -- 8/21/2020 12:35:28 AM >

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 26
RE: “Information delay” implementation - 8/21/2020 12:49:47 AM   
Elmo_Zumwalt

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 8/25/2018
Status: offline
Wow, this topic has gotten a lot more traffic than I would have expected ... not that I’m complaining.

Lancer,

I think the AI autonomy would need to be greater with an info delay, since the possibility of a situation such as yours developing and resolving before the info delay + command delay has elapsed is greater than with only command delay. So your hypothetical APC platoon might need to be able to evaluate the situation on its own and possibly call of the attack/movement in favor of holding in place or retreating. Such behavior is found in Command Ops 2.

Another factor to consider is lateral information sharing (that is, info sharing between units at the same level in the hierarchy).

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> “Information delay” implementation Page: [1]
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

0.165