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: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Angeldust2, Oberost, Courtenay
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:30:44 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 1. Sep/Oct (fd). Victory Points & Score.

A still neutral Italy has the lead with a score of 6. The Japanese player is a distance second with 2 and brining up the rear is the Soviet & French player with -5 and the USA & Nationalist Chinese player with -6.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 31
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/27/2021 9:50:25 PM   
Oberost


Posts: 17
Joined: 12/17/2019
Status: online
Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 32
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 1:33:15 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.

Well I guess I'll abandoned using powerpoint then and just do the best I can with screencaps and Gimp2.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Oberost)
Post #: 33
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 5:16:53 AM   
Mayhemizer_slith


Posts: 7586
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline
Looks very interesting, specially the start in the east.

_____________________________

If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.

-Murphy's war law

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 34
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 6:50:12 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Transport & Trade Rules Discussion (1/2).

So maybe the Soviet/French player did get the best of the axis (Japan & German players) by effectively trading the 4 RPs in Soviet Asia for the 3 oil in Persia and getting a ceasefire agreement with the Japanese player in lieu of forcing a peace.

There was a bit of discussion back and forth on two related topics:

(1) Since the USSR was still at war with Japan could CW CPs be used to transport through the Persian Gulf the 2 oil on the coast but not connected by rail? The Soviet player was confident that they could and it turns out that MWiF as coded agrees. That is, I edited in a number of CW CPs in a sandbox copy of our game and confirmed that MWiF allows CW CPs to transport these 2 oil through the Persian Gulf. Apparently there's still some contention with the axis players whether or not this is correct. We'd appreciate any confirmation or contradiction of this for you rules experts wrt/FE rules as written. Otherwise we'll go with how MWiF is coded.

(2) Concerns US entry and trade, which I'll cover in the next post.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 35
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:00:20 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Transport & Trade Rules Discussion (2/2).

(2) Trade to and from the USSR. What I found in the sandbox edit surprised all of us.

So, last turn the US player elected option 9, "Resources to China". Not surprisingly, the CW, France and USSR can now give resources to China. What's a bit interesting is that both the CW and France are limited to a max of 5 but the Soviets aren't limited. I can increase the Soviet resources counter to 40, 50 or even higher. Not that any player in their right mind would send more that 1 or 2 RPs to China. So this finding I would classify as minor. That is, the number of resources the Soviets can lend to China in unlimited.

The next finding; however, isn't and we're wondering if it's correct. The USSR is now able to lend up to 1 RP and 1 BP to the France and the CW. And both France and the CW is also now able to lend 1 RP and 1 BP to the Soviets. Of course, subject to this lending only going one-way. That is, for example, if the USSR sent 1 RP to France then while this agreement is in effect France couldn't send 1 RP back to the USSR. Anyway, the question is since Option 19, "Resources to the USSR" hasn't been chosen is this correct? Again the Soviet player feels this is indeed correct the the axis players (especially Germany & Japan) are feeling a little dupe.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 36
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:01:34 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
By the way, how's my picture size now?


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Oberost)
Post #: 37
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:19:08 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22602
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

The next finding; however, isn't and we're wondering if it's correct. The USSR is now able to lend up to 1 RP and 1 BP to the France and the CW. And both France and the CW is also now able to lend 1 RP and 1 BP to the Soviets. Of course, subject to this lending only going one-way. That is, for example, if the USSR sent 1 RP to France then while this agreement is in effect France couldn't send 1 RP back to the USSR. Anyway, the question is since Option 19, "Resources to the USSR" hasn't been chosen is this correct? Again the Soviet player feels this is indeed correct the the axis players (especially Germany & Japan) are feeling a little dupe.


Since USSR is no longer neutral they can indeed give, or receive, 1 RP, and 1 BP. More can be given if option 19 is played.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 38
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:20:07 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22602
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
By the way, how's my picture size now?


Pictures are now good. Before they were a pain on my eyes. (Although I can not speak for the original poster)

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 39
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:22:36 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22602
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

(1) Since the USSR was still at war with Japan could CW CPs be used to transport through the Persian Gulf the 2 oil on the coast but not connected by rail? The Soviet player was confident that they could and it turns out that MWiF as coded agrees. That is, I edited in a number of CW CPs in a sandbox copy of our game and confirmed that MWiF allows CW CPs to transport these 2 oil through the Persian Gulf. Apparently there's still some contention with the axis players whether or not this is correct. We'd appreciate any confirmation or contradiction of this for you rules experts wrt/FE rules as written. Otherwise we'll go with how MWiF is coded.


MWIF, and the Soviet player, are correct in my humble opinion. The CW CPs can indeed be used to transport the Soviet oil in Persia.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 40
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:28:19 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22602
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958




Can the Soviet player surrender any time during the ceasefire? For example if Japan build up a force to renew the war when the ceasefire is about to be renewed? Or the ceasefire ends, USSR advance into garrisonless Japanese area, captures couple of resources, and then surrenders since Vladivostok is still in enemy hands?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 41
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:29:54 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22602
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Do you want comments on the game, or do you prefer to limit it to questions asked?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 42
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:40:14 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Can the Soviet player surrender any time during the ceasefire? For example if Japan build up a force to renew the war when the ceasefire is about to be renewed? Or the ceasefire ends, USSR advance into garrison less Japanese area, captures couple of resources, and then surrenders since Vladivostok is still in enemy hands?
Well, that's my understanding of the situation. That is, that's the trump card he holds as Japan isn't in position to exploit continuation of the war. In effect, as I understand the situation, if Japan did mobilize forces either in Asia or for an invasion into Persia, the Soviet player could "hold the Japanese player off" during such a turn and then force a peace during the end of turn phase.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Do you want comments on the game, or do you prefer to limit it to questions asked?
As far as I'm concerned all comments are welcomed. For some reason, in addition to being our game's "war correspondent", I've also been "elected" to be the "go between" between our game and this community via this AAR. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm retired and the other five still have jobs.

Anyway ... any and all are welcomed to fire at will ...

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 43
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 7:40:56 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3978
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: online
The bit about splitting an Italian corps into two, moving them by sea, and then recombining them is one of the reasons I hate the unlimited breakdown rule. Later in the war it really helps the Allies move INF class corps around the map.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 44
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 8:51:34 PM   
Oberost


Posts: 17
Joined: 12/17/2019
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberost

Could you please make the pictures a bit bigger?

Thank you.
By the way, how's my picture size now?



Much better, thank you very much.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 45
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 9:16:25 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8759
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The bit about splitting an Italian corps into two, moving them by sea, and then recombining them is one of the reasons I hate the unlimited breakdown rule. Later in the war it really helps the Allies move INF class corps around the map.


I agree. That rule should only be used, if the rule which allows SCS to transport INF divisions isn't used.

Otherwise the number of divisions which can be used by Japan for invasions in the surprise impulse is going to be very, very high.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 46
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 6/28/2021 9:21:48 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Resource Lending.

Allied discretionary trade. New: (1) USSR to France, 1 oil (2) USSR to CW, 1 oil, (3) CW to France, 3 RPs & (4) USA to China, 1 RP. Existing: None.

Axis discretionary trade. None.

I've been ensured that all these trade agreements work "on paper". It'll be up to me to to make MWiF agree!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 47
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 7:12:40 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Weather & Actions.

(1) A surprisingly long Nov/Dec turn, which went for 9 impulses.
(2) The axis who moved first and last got 5 impulses and the allies 4.
(3) As will be covered in more detail later, Germany played an O-chit on the first impulse of the turn.
(4) Even given the early winter weather there was a lot of action in the West and in the Med.
(5) Italy entered the war on the 2nd axis impulse of the turn.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 48
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 7:19:15 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. War Log Summary.

(1) 66 events across 7 theaters/fronts were logged.
(2) 47 of these were combat events.
(3) There were 26 naval, 13 air and 8 land combats logged.
(4) There's no passivity, or Sitzkrieg, among our group of 6-players. We'll none of that I've seen yet.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2021 7:20:02 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 49
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 7:29:11 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. War Logs. Non-Theater Specific.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 50
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 7:30:50 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. War Logs.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2021 7:35:04 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 51
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 7:40:19 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #1. Germany DOWs Belgium.

(1) No Sitzkrieg for this Wehrmacht or German player.
(2) With snow in the West (i.e., north temperate), Germany declares war on Belgium.
(3) The setup by the CW player, to whom Belgium is aligned, immediately presents a minor headache to German player, or maybe a major one.
(4) Either way, lots of discussion ensues between the 3 axis player and even with the allied players.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 52
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 8:25:37 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #1. German Land and O-Chit w/Rundstedt.

(1) Being a friendly game the discussion and analysis among the entire team (including the allied players) was frank and open as to what might be the best course for the German player. We also viewed all this as a teaching opportunity for the less experienced players as well as the experienced ones too.
(2) The German player stated as his objectives for the surprise invasion impulse were the capture of Antwerp, Liege, Maas and Luxemburg. This ensure that no allied units could get into Brussels before the Germans could captured the city next axis impulse. Liege, Mass & Luxemburg were all given. Antwerp; however wasn't, with 9 combat factors defending and with snow's -4 2D10 modifier.
(3) Using my 2D10 CRT Excel based calculator we, I mean I, helped the German player analyze 4 different land combat options for Antwerp. The first two options assumed no O-chit and the last two assumed all attackers doubled using an O-chit played with Rundstedt. By the way, Rundstedt was the only German HQ in the West. von Bock and von Leeb were still in Poland. Also, Germany had 4 planes with TAC factors of 2,2,2,1 in normal range and 1 plane with TAC factor of 3 in extended range of Antwerp. TAC factors in normal range would be halved due to snow and that in extended ranged quartered due to snow & extended range. Since this was the surprise impulse, any factors used in ground support would be doubled and any factors used in a ground strike would get two chances.
(4) The 4 Antwerp land combat options considered were: (I) No O-chit, +2 HQ support (Rundstedt) and 8 factors in ground support (i.e., [2/2 + 2/2 + 2/2 + 3/4] x 2 = 3.75 x 2 = 7.5 rounded off to 8). (II) No O-chit, +2 HQ support and ground strike by 4 planes each with 1 factor x 2 (i.e., 8 ground strikes per unit each with a 10% chance of flipping). (III) O-chit, land factors doubled, and 8 factors in ground support. (IV) O-chit, land factors doubled and 8 ground strikes per defender each with 10% chance of flipping.
(5) Note III & IV, which uses an O-chit, included no HQ support. The through there was that Rundstedt, who would reorg land units at half cost, would be used first to reorg any attackers flipped and then any planes (at double the cost).
(6) If the 4 planes were used for ground support their 8 factors would increase the land combat odds by 8/9 x 2 = +1.778. If used for a ground strike the 4 places would get a total of 8 chances to flip each unit at odds of 10% each chance. This translated to a 18.53% chance of missing both defenders, 49.03% chance of flipping 1 (+2), 32.44% chance of flipping both (+4). Factoring all this in the land combat odds and expected values were calculated for all 4 options, including the subcases for the two ground strike options.
(7) Though we as a team presented the numbers and discussed the pros & cons of the 4 options it was the German player that made the final decision based on his own risk/reward calculus.
(8) The German player went with option III. That is, O-chit and planes used for ground support.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 53
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 8:36:29 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #1. Germany's Invasion of Belgium.

(1) Germany's land combat on Antwerp was successful though they did lose a infantry corps and see 2 of the 5 surviving attackers flipped.
(2) Rundstedt, who was flipping anyway from being used with the O-chit, was able to reorganized the 2 flipped attackers, a MIL that was railed and a F/B plane.
(3) In turns out that the decision to play the O-chit was the correct one. Without the O-chit the rolls obtained would have produced a modified assault roll of 16. This would not have been good enough to take Antwerp. Only 1 defender would have been eliminated and the Germans would have lost 2 attackers. Also the 4 surviving attackers including Rundstedt would have been flipped. More significantly the German player would not have been able to prevent the CW players from marching into Brussels and reinforcing Antwerp and would have not way of expelling them this turn. In my opinion and I believe the German player agrees, this would have been at best a minor disaster.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 54
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 8:44:48 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #5.

(1) Snow continues and the German player presses on with a low odds Blitz attack.
(2) To me it looks like he's shooting for the 15% chance of achieving a breakthrough and driving a dagger into the heart of the French in 1939.
(3) He does win the Blitz (PWIN=36%) but loses a mot div, see his surviving attacker flipped and "only" forces the French stack, which is flipped, to retreat.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 55
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 8:50:25 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Allied #3.

(1) Well I get this out of order (sorry).
(2) I think the CW player caught the German player by surprise with this Naval Air mission. He flew a Blenheim (14-range) from Norwich to the 2-box of the Baltic. The German player had no fighters in position to react to cover his 4 CPs there.
(3) Fortunately for the German player, the Blenheim, which had a 20% chance, failed to find the vulnerable German CPs.
(4) Which didn't go unnoticed I think by the German player was that the CW player rebased a 7-range Hampden to Norwich at the end of their impulse. This 7-range Hampden can fly extended range (i.e., 14-hexes), which would allow it to reach the Baltic (2-box), join the Blenheim then which is now flipped, and be used to initiate search again for the German CPs if the German player doesn't get a fighter in position to react.
(5) Germany during their next impulse did rebase their He 112 FTR2 (3 air-to-air) that was covering Kiel, Berlin and other factories to a position to also cover the 0-box of the Baltic. And by cover, I mean within 3-hexes and the ability to intercept any allied air mission against such hexes.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2021 8:56:52 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 56
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 9:50:57 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Allied #7.

(1) Interesting ploy by the CW player I think. He uses his Harrow to carry out a port strike of the German ships in Kiel. The only German plane in position to intercept in the He 112, which is also the only German plane in position to react to the 0-box of the Baltic.
(2) If German does/did decide to intercept, the CW has a 3 air-to-air CVP to counter-intercept the He 112. More significantly, this would leave the Baltic open to another attempt to find and sink the German CPs there.
(3) Germany decides not to intercept; i.e., ride out, the port strike; thus maintaining the He 112 in position to react to another naval air in the Baltic. FYI: The CW player doesn't fly the Hampden to the Baltic.
(4) The CW port strike is effective. The CW manages to sink a CP, damage an obsolete BB and flip a second.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 57
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 9:55:00 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #9.

(1) The Italian player manages to breach the French border, push into France and capture Nice.
(2) Also, and this is really in the Med, an Italian division crosses from Sardinia into Corsica. This move causes the division to flip so it's done for this turn as the Italians have no way to reorganize it.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/3/2021 7:36:17 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 58
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 10:00:50 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #19. Germany.

(1) The turn continues beyond what both sides expected and the German player continues to push.
(2) Bolster by an excellent ground strike result the German player launches a Blitz against a French stack which he originally had better than +4.5. However; faced with French -1.5 defensive HQ support and 3 factors in defensive artillery ground support the resultant odds are +2.5.
(3) While the French stack holds, the German player trades a 8-4 mot corps for a French 5-4 inf corps. A trade that the German player isn't all that unhappy with.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 59
RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War - 7/2/2021 10:04:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23103
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Turn 2. Nov/Dec 1939. Western Front. Axis #19. Italy.

(1) Not to be outdone by the German player's aggressive play, the Italian player makes a more aggressive attack on a French division in the Italian Alps guarding the approach to Lyons.
(2) This assault, though at a reasonable +8.5 this late in the turn, puts Balbo as risk (4.5%). Never the less the Italian player takes the risk.
(3) The assault is costly with Italy losing a mot corps and an AT division but gains the hex and puts the French defense in the south in danger.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 7/2/2021 10:05:26 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report >> RE: 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.207