Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Scenario design and playtesting

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Scenario design and playtesting Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Scenario design and playtesting - 8/5/2000 1:56:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		What started out as making a singular, large scenario about a slice of the Kursk offensive in 1943 has turned into as many as seven medium to gigantic scenarios that I intend to make into a campaign. I'm asking for help playtesting scenarios. The big one's take a long time, and I don't have enough time what with work and all to play them through enough times. It took me almost 2 weeks to get through one of the scenarios once, due to my scedule. The scenarios/campaign revolve around the role of the 3rd SS Panzergrenadier Division in the Zitadelle operation. (disclaimer: I'm personally not much of a fan of the SS but I had good data.) It starts off on the right flank of the 2nd SS Panzer Corps attacking into the first soviet defensive belt. Then the next few scenarios deal with holding the flank along the Donetz river. At that point the division was moved north to cross the Psel river and that's where the next 2 scenarios after that take place. Campaign-wise I want to intersperse little tank on tank meeting engagements, and whatever else I can think of to keep things interesting. I'm thinking that I will wait until v3.0 comes out before I actually release them as done (that's likely to happen without my wanting it that way anyways) So if I can manage it I'll try and implement as much of the branching scenario tree stuff as possible, if only to reduce the units you get for the next scenario if you lose. Also, if people don't mind keeping a discussion alive I'd like to have a thread here that's revolves around scenario design issues. It's really hard, I know, since it only takes one day to get off the first page... Tomo

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 8/5/2000 8:50:00 AM   
BryanMelvin

 

Posts: 1555
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline 		Regarding scenario design and Campaign design, this is a hot topic. So many designers have their own style creating scenarios. No matter the style, one must learn to adjust the Morale, Experience,Unit Leader Rally-command rate for both sides. This is best learned from doing. As a rule of thumb, for green units morale is set in the 60 range, Normal trained in 70's, Vet in the 80's to low 90's. Fanatical 100 plus. As for experience, this is another subject. Do research and try to include this in experience rates. Example: Italian Infantry during a battle they performed well in. Morale 60-70 range: Experience 80 range. This is where I start. After a quick few turns of play I may need to adjust these. I may even need to Lower the opposing sides values for play balance. Well, I probably confused you so I'll stop for now. Ask me questions concerning what you need to know? ------------------ MarauderMel

_____________________________

MarauderMel

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/Steelpanthers/index.asp

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 2
- 8/5/2000 9:06:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		OK, had a buddy of mine as me 3 good questions about scenario design the other day that may hilp other people. 1) What does it mean to make a unit AUX? AUX is for when your making a campaign scenario and you want to add forces to the human players side. When a unit dont have AUX next to it, the unit wount show up on the human players side when that battle takes place in the campaign. 2) When you make a unit a reinforcement, the screen always says "UNIT WILL TRY TO INFILTRATE"--does this mean anything, and if so is there a way to turn it off? It just means the unit is infiltrateing, just like Spec-Ops forces do. The only deffrince is that the unit will show up at the time it was ment to, onlike Spec-Ops forces. Not 100% sure if this is the right answer. 3) When you reduce a unit to 0 men, it becomes destroyed and makes a wreck on the map. If you change your mind, is there a way to either bring the unit back to life or move the wreck? Their is no way to get read of the wreck or move it, so dont add one onless you really want one their. I did find out that you can bring back the unit itself by useing the "N" key to scroll the units ontill you get to that unit. Then click on a empty hex and you will see a unit that you can select but it still says it is destroyed. To fix this, in deploy their is a botton that you can use to change a unit to a deffrent type of unit. Use this botton and pick the unit from the list that is the same or that you want and when you go back to the main screen the unit will be fixed like it would be if you were at the campaign fix screen. So doing this you can have wrecks without haveing destroyed units in the unit list. Just watch out for one thing, the unit will be fixed but whatever you changed the destroyed unit to is what the wreck that is still on the board is going to change to. So if you did this 10 times and made 10 wrecks with the same unit, whatever that unit is, is what all 10 wrecks will be on the map. Have not done any testing to find if this makes for any bugs in the scenario, but from what I have seen it dose not.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 3
- 8/5/2000 9:14:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Cool. I have noticed that unless the computer is defending (not delaying) he will tend to mill around and gather around objective hexes (even if I put them in a defend stance) Is there any way to get them to behave if not defending? Also, does anyone have tricks they use to get guys to dynamically adjust to the player's movements?? (Playtesters? Any takers?) Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 4
- 8/5/2000 9:24:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		I have noticed that unless the computer is defending (not delaying) he will tend to mill around and gather around objective hexes (even if I put them in a defend stance) Is there any way to get them to behave if not defending? I will often sent some of the computer units to have 0 speed, that way the computer cant move all of his units. [This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited August 04, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 5
- 8/5/2000 11:29:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		There is a lot of stuff mentioned here, guys; And certainly food for thought. I'll be happy to help if I can. The idea of this subject is a very good one, Tombstone. You speak of defending units milling about objectives. How do you avoid it? Depends. Is it a designed scenario or generated battle? In a designed scenario there is a way to plant units firmly so that they will not move unless routed, or move after a certain number of turns, or with the new version, move after a certain # of turns to a specific objective. The secret to hold in place for units is the reaction turn. You'll find that on the HQ page in the deploy section of the editor. Go to editor>Deploy> click on HQ. In the center, you'll see three buttons for each unit. Furthest to the right is the stance button (attack-defend). In the center is control, human-computer. That is misleading. If this side is already going to be played by the AI, it STILL must be programmed. To do so, you change the human head to a computer by left clicking on it. TO the left are waypoints. You use this to map out a direction for the unit to follow. You still need, however, to set reaction turn. You do that on the left side of the screen. Choose a formation, click the human head to computer. Notice that the reaction turn is set instantly to 99 (in advance-delay, assault defend scenarios). Now if you leave it at 99, those units will not move throughout the game, unless routed. You can set reaction turn (the turn the unit begins moving) to 10. This means on turn 10 the units are released and go about their business. But where do they go? Depends. We'll do that chapter next time. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 6
- 8/5/2000 11:31:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Good luck with your campaign, Tombstone! Sounds like a good one!...WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 7
- 8/5/2000 1:27:00 PM   
Fabio Prado

 

Posts: 503
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline 		I would like to say that Marauder Melvin touched what I think is perhaps the basis for a good scenario:
quote:

No matter the style, one must learn to adjust the Morale, Experience,Unit Leader Rally-command rate for both sides. This is best learned from doing. As a rule of thumb, for green units morale is set in the 60 range, Normal trained in 70's, Vet in the 80's to low 90's. Fanatical 100 plus.
Foe experience, I've found the values above are the best. After that, I think that one should playtest a lot to get a balanced and playable scenario. Play both sides. Watch the AI playing computer vs. computer. Send the scenario to a friend to playtest. Just my two cents... FAP ------------------ Fabio Prado [email]fprado@fprado.com[/email] Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 8
- 8/5/2000 2:46:00 PM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		Good Luck with your scenarios, Tombstone! I haven't even had the time to make it through that first one yet! My biggest problems have been trying to make meeting engagements. In my first scenario I finally gave up and made it a computer-defend. In my second one I was trying to have some computer units attack initially while the rest defend, but it just wasn't working out so I've decided to wait for V3.0 and the new features. Wild Bill, most of the time I've had units defend I've done just what you said and had no problem. But in this battle I've been working on, some of the units farther out towards the enemy just wont stay! I've got computer control on, reaction turn at 99, and the objective flag planted right where they are initially located. When I get to them (playing the human side) they are heading back to the motherland! The only problem is there's a river there so they're on the bank of the river with thier butts facing my guns! Not good! I even tried setting "speed" to "0" but it didn't make any difference - they want thier home cooking! Most of this stuff is trial and error learning, and I've been lucky enough to have alot of help from Wild Bill and Redleg. But some of the buttons are still a mystery, so thanks Drake for the "AUX" explanation. I was wondering what the hell that was for! Drake, I've also had the same problem with troops "milling around" at the objectives and I just extended thier waypoints so they would keep moving toward the enemy forces. Maybe WB will have more "nuggets" for us on this! Great discussion, guys! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 9
- 8/6/2000 12:54:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Ask away, fellas! We are here to help! WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 10
- 8/6/2000 12:57:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		On the subject of unit values, morale, experience, here is a small guide I wrote up on what those numbers mean. Wild Bill Adjusting Infantry Units By Wild Bill Wilder A unit's ability to fight is dependent upon two factors: Morale and Experience. Morale is durability of a unit. Experience is the fighting ability of a unit, its hit/kill ability. The whole scenario and the way it plays is largely dependent upon these factors. Here is the rule of thumb I use to prepare my scenarios. Infantry Squads Standard Settings for Units Morale/Experience Green: 60-70 Regular: 70-80 Veteran: 80-90 Elite units (USMC, AB, SNLF, SS, Bersaglieri, etc.) should add 5-10 points to these standards in both morale and experience. Anything lower and the battle becomes quite dull, units having to be constantly rallied, and very little fighting going on. Below 40, forget it! Anything higher and you begin having John Wayne/Sgt Rock units that know no fear and never miss. You vary these slightly, of course, but the general area for each type of unit should fall within these numbers. One important factor to remember is the leader of each unit/formation. I always set a leader's morale and experience using this same table. Now of course, there are exceptions to the rule. You may be designing a scenario where only by high settings does one side have a chance of winning. Juggling these numbers is a key to making a balanced and successful scenario. The other two elements are the location of objective hexes and the terrain in the map. I would like to strongly recommend that these be used as a standard for their scenario design. You don't have to, of course. It is a recommendation. But it works well for me and I think it will for you. Machine Guns Machine gun units have to be treated differently from infantry squads. If you put them into the front line, you are deliberately placing them in danger. Their strength realistically is as a defensive weapon, set up in a location where they can do the most damage with a minimal amount of risk. My other problem with MGs is they are not lethal enough. Not at all. For three machine guns to fire on a unit in the open and get none or only one casualty is totally unrealistic. Since they are vulnerable, they should be more powerful. The results of their firing should be higher than what it is. This is how I handle it. I remove all the ammo for two of the MGs. I increase the experience number for any MG to a minimum of 80-90. Remember, increasing experience also increases a unit's killing ability. It is terribly frustrating to see a rifle squad much more effective in firing than a machine gun. That does not seem right to me. And remember to reset the experience of the leader of the MG team also. He has a direct influence on the performance of the unit. MGs moving slower than the rifle units works well in ASL. It does not work well in SP. For that reason, I change the move factors. A light or medium MG should have the same movement factors as the rifle squad. Unlimbered, an MG team moves right along with the squad/platoon. It is already penalized in the game by losing a turn after stopping to reflect setting up the MG. HMG teams should have 1 movement point less than the rifle unit it is accompanying, because of size, weight and the setting up process. LMGs should have a team of three, MMGs four to six and HMGs six to eight. My personal opinion, of course. Mortars I follow the same rule with mortars as I do with MGs. ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited August 05, 2000).]

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 11
- 8/6/2000 1:09:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		In time past I have been able to restore armored units by putting men back in them. Infantry, however, is a lost cause. They seem to be gone forever...WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 12
- 8/6/2000 3:38:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Single player meeting engagements are really hard to do. Since the player can do almost anything he wants to trying to make the AI do something reasonably intelligent is much more difficult. I have this tendancy to make the situation really difficult so any 'slop' due to AI deficiency is made up by extra forces. In the scenarios I'm making now I've noticed that a few tanks can take out about 3 times their numbers in tanks with 25-30 visibility against a mad computer rush. I try to make multiple groups of tanks and give them way points that puts them in a position to get flank shots. Of course, that only makes players withdraw... which isn't a bad thing. Its my feeling that once you got the game down it's really hard to lose tank battles unless it's really close broken terrain and you were surprised. Otherwise you can fall back and repeatedly cut the tip off almost any sized tank wad. It's really hard to make the player feel fear. I'm resorting to overwhelming odds, which is ok for now considering what Kursk was like. Something I really like about SPWW2 is the reinforcements from anywhere feature. I can see that as really useful. Another thing I find myself doing is putting some objectives WAY beyond what is reasonable to achieve so that the player feels that tension in his brain about which way to go. I also try and provide a primary objective axis to follow so people know where to go, but we all know how much players want to get EVERY objective hex and kill EVERY enemy unit. I spend a fair amount of effort making that impossible. That way players *might* be forced into uncomfortable situations whose only answer is maneuver. But all this easier said than done. Anyways, enough with my unfocused babble. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 13
- 8/6/2000 6:33:00 AM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		I've found that my favorite scenario beginnings are the ones that give you "choices" on where to go, therefore really making you think about what you're doing and what you're objectives are. Of course this isn't always possible, and it's fun to rush right on in to a hellacious fire fight too! I think Tomo's ideas about victory hexes are right on, too. There should be a few of them that are pretty much unreachable, UNLESS the player wants to commit units to achieving them very early on. Then he might find them undefended, or run into a nice little ambush! Thanks for the tips, WB! I hadn't thought about movement factors for MG's, but I will now! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 14
- 8/6/2000 6:37:00 AM   
Don

 

Posts: 810
Joined: 7/12/2000
From: Elk Grove, CA (near Sacramento)
Status: offline 		I notice there's something wrong with the forum where topics with new replies aren't being moved to the top. It's wierd, I haven't seen that before! At least this thread isn't moving down either! Don

_____________________________

Don "Sapper" Llewellyn

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 15
- 8/6/2000 1:42:00 PM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline 		Well I guess this is the right thread for my problem so here goes. I am trying to design a hypothetical scenario for a hypothetical campaign. Time is September 1945, and its Allies vs Ruskies, with the player as the allies. The first scenario is supposed to be an evacuation of key figures in Berlin, because the Soviets are invading the Allied sectors of Berlin. The scenario is supposed to start the player on one side, with a small corridor that the Soviets don't have total control of, yet. The map is a medium map, though I know it really should be a pretty big map. I just don't have the patience to redraw the entire map of Berlin, even if I had one to look off of. Anyways, the scenario calls for setting point values for the important figures very high, and because of the nature of the scenario, I also want to set the auxiliary forces to very low costs, since a good portion of them are supposed to be knocked out by the prebombardment. This would also represent the mission orders that you must get these guys out at any cost, without regard to your aux forces. They are just there to delay the Soviets. Theoretically, if you were to stay and fight the AI, you would get completely wiped out. That is the idea anyway. I set all the aux forces to 1 point each. I set the special units to very high values. The highest value was 1000, and the lowest was 500. I also set the point multiplier to 2x to make these special units extra important, as well as making the core units important to keep in one piece. And of course, any Soviet equipment you destroy would be very valuable to the war effort. However, while I set the points for these units using the 'D' key to change the unit's attributes, when I save and reload the scenario to test it, everyones points are back at normal levels. Why? Is it a bug or something I am doing wrong? Or is it because of the extreme point values? I also have another odd problem. Because the corridor is the only way to get the units off the map(the exit hexes from V3 should be very helpful), I set up some Soviet forces to wreak havoc on the corridor, but they are supposed to wait a few turns before moving to block the corridor. They are JS1s and JS3s, and I set their reaction turns to 3 and 4 respectively. I also enabled computer control in the unit list, and set waypoints. However, when I save and play the game, they are moving and screwing up the suprise on turn 1. Again, am I doing something wrong? Now for the final problem. I originally bought the Soviet forces, deployed them, bought Allied forces, deployed them, then plotted Soviet artillery and air strikes. I made a test run to see how the artillery and air strikes play out, and decide that I completely forgot anti aircraft weapons for both sides, and I also forgot to buy katyushas for the Soviets. So I went back, bought the AAA and katyushas for the Soviets, deployed the AAA, but then when I tried to plot the katyushas, they were all out of contact. I did change a number of trucks into AAA for the allies, since the trucks were not needed, but I don't have a clue why I can't plot the katyushas. Any ideas?

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 16
- 8/6/2000 8:02:00 PM   
Moonwolf

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 6/6/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: In a designed scenario there is a way to plant units firmly so that they will not move unless routed, or move after a certain number of turns, or with the new version, move after a certain # of turns to a specific objective. The secret to hold in place for units is the reaction turn.
In my experience the Reaction Turn is not a complete failsafe, that units might move even if not routed -- that they might move if engaged, or they engage in battle. There seems to be a host of contributing factors, primarily closeness of objective flags and ownership of same, terrain, closeness of enemy troops: position and amount of same, closeness of friendly troops: position and amount of same. Example in a scenario I am designing right now: troops on both sides of a road under computer control with Reaction Turn set for a turn far past these combat turns, ambushes units on the road. The ambushed units break and rout (but not before taking an objective), the troops in the hills on the sides of the road come down and finish the enemy off and retake the objective -- even though their Reaction turn has not yet arrived. Thereafter they move normally, seeking out the enemy and protecting objectives -- but they *have* disobeyed orders and abandoned their post. In another part of the map the troops where the forces are much more even in numbers and terrain/position, the Reaction-Turn-inhibited troops will sit tight even as objectives are taken right in front of them, not moving until the Reaction turn has come. Just relating my experience. ------------------ Ed Mortimer Meglio un Giorno da Leone

_____________________________

Ed Mortimer Meglio un Giorno da Leone

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 17
- 8/8/2000 4:00:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Yah, I know what you mean Moonwolf. A problem I'm running into right now is when some of the formations dont have the lit up hexes toward their objectives and have to pay orders to move no matter what. It's making command and control really difficult. The scenario has around 300+ units on either side, and I feel like the number of units is what's causing the problem. Does anyone else get this and does anyone know how to fix it?? Or is this why the big scenarios usually say "play with command and control off" Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 18
- 8/9/2000 10:26:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		I've been doing a lot of reading these last few years. A lot of it has been about soviet development of operational warfare. I bet with the new long map format you could make some interesting scenarios where you have an assault force attacking a fortified line and have paratroopers land way in the backfield to actually stop or impede mobile reinforcements from getting to the front. That could be a lot of fun. As I make more large scenarios I find that I wish I had the capability to have the engine support the bottom vs. top map configuration better. If a map could be told that units retreat up or down instead of left or right. I'm finding that the element of depth is really interesting to play with in the game. 240 hexes is enough distance to have 2 distinct defensive belts and have the attacking force feel the pain of having to do it again in the same scenario. The battles are intense enough to validate the inclusion of ammo trucks with the attacking force. You even get situations where its worth it to have units held back who aren't shooting so you have fresh troops... it creates a context for a lot of the military challenges that dont come up all that often in a game on this scale. I really like it. Oh, BTW... super wish list would be a 'theatre options' ability so that the scenario designer could provide the player with options during the game like in TOAW... Yah right... I know. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 19
- 8/9/2000 12:17:00 PM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: I've been doing a lot of reading these last few years. A lot of it has been about soviet development of operational warfare. I bet with the new long map format you could make some interesting scenarios where you have an assault force attacking a fortified line and have paratroopers land way in the backfield to actually stop or impede mobile reinforcements from getting to the front. That could be a lot of fun. Tomo
Oooh, I like that idea. I will have to put that into my campaign somewhere. However, right now, I would just be happy if those 1000 point units would stay 1000 point units. I do wonder how the AI would to in attacking up the map instead of side to side. It definitely would not be able to use ammo trucks effectively, though.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 20
- 8/9/2000 12:44:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: Oh, BTW... super wish list would be a 'theatre options' ability so that the scenario designer could provide the player with options during the game like in TOAW... Yah right... I know. Tomo
It was my gut feeling that's the way the series was headed, when Mr. Grigsby was in command. ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 21
- 8/10/2000 6:44:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Yah, it would be awesome. I've been working on TOAW scenarios for a while now too.. but they're a lot harder to get right. The system is so difficult to get the kind of grasp of, that you need to make scenarios. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Tombstone)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Scenario design and playtesting 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

0.953