Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

COG2?

 
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.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> COG2? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
COG2? - 6/9/2007 12:20:12 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		jimwinsors loose reference in the wishlist thread about COG2 got me thinking... what would it take to justify a rerelease? Would adding the economic enhancements from FoF plud detailed naval combat justify a new release? What would it take?

After giving the matter a little thought, I would pay for a new product. It would definitely need to have the economic improvements and remove having to deal with waste. I love the diplomatic engine as is, so no changes needed there. I'd want the AI improvements from FoF and a few UI upgrades. Naval detailed combat would be a nice to have, but I could live without it. And support for higher resolutions would be a big big plus that would definitely seal the deal for me.

I wouldn't pay the new product $50 price for that content, but I'd gladly shell out another $30 - $35 that seem to be common with repackaged releases.

So I wanted to run the question by the broader group. What would a COG2 need to include for you to buy it?
Post #: 1
RE: COG2? - 6/9/2007 2:40:02 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		Detailed naval battles would be enough for me.  That would be the big change IMO.  And actually, I prefer the COG economic/trade system to the FoF one, so I'd hope that stay basically the same, with maybe only some minor tweaks.

Other minor enhancement ideas would be better strategic naval rules (more realistic blockades, fleet movements influenced by prevailing winds, etc...), streamlining the mysterious protectorate rules (let any region be made into a protectorate, for golly's sake!), maybe some enhanced diplomacy/peace treaty options (ie, something to discourage/prevent countries from being ceded to pieces), and most important of all...let us rename units to names longer than 8 characters! 

Also, avoid the temptation of going to brigade scale on land, as in FoF.  I think division scale is perfect for this period.  Navies however should go down to 1 unit = 1 ship, to faciliate the new naval battles that will take place.  And then, you can expand the various ship types (ie, 64 SOLs, 74 SOLs, 44 Frigates, etc...) giving the naval units more variety.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 2
RE: COG2? - 6/9/2007 7:00:16 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		I'm not sure which is less encouraging... the fact that only the two of us took an interest or the fact that we disagreed about what we'd want so that they would only be able to appeal to one or the other of us. 

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 3
RE: COG2? - 6/9/2007 9:05:18 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		I think interest in COG 2 will pick up once FoF gets finalized. 

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 4
RE: COG2? - 6/10/2007 2:09:48 AM   
Mr. Z


Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline 		Improving the protectorate situation would definitely be on the list.  It's certainly near or at the top of mine :)

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 5
RE: COG2? - 6/12/2007 4:40:19 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline 		I'm looking forward to them reworking CoG also.

(in reply to Mr. Z)
Post #: 6
RE: COG2? - 6/12/2007 10:40:58 PM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
As am I.

The Protectorates issue is a needling one, for sure.

I do hope they implement the detailed battle (hex war) improvements from FoF to CoG, namely, more set-up options based upon opposing commander die rolls and possibly the superior graphics (unit sprites) as well.

I agree with another who said "leave the unit scale at Division" and I doubt that's an issue anyway since to change to Brigade scale would require massive changes, methinks.









(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 7
RE: COG2? - 6/13/2007 12:26:59 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, we wouldn't go to brigade level. That would be a whole new game in many respects.

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 8
RE: COG2? - 7/4/2007 8:05:59 AM   
Khornish

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline 		I'd like to see a country's economy suffer much more significantly once a threshold of percentage of population in the army is reached. The biggest issue I had with CoG, aside from how prisoners were handled, is the massive armies a player could get. Once the threshold is reached (say 8-10%) the output for each resource should start to fall. As more troops are brought into the army out of the population, the resource shortfall should increase.

Upgrades to a nation could even play a part in this calculation so as to increase the threshold percentage slightly.

Another thing I'd like to see is the ability to order a general to train his troops, instead of leaving it to random chance (I may be mixing CoG and FoF here...see below). The Grand Armee of 1805 was the result of the camps of Boulogne. Later constraints brought on by the various coalitions prevented the French from encamping for training once again, but it may very well have been done were the given the chance (Prussia not declaring war in 1806 - or at least not preparing to do so).

Another thing I've not seen done, or done well, in a wargame for this period is the proper utilization and affect of the cavalry screen. Although it would be difficult to do on the strategic map, because fog of war is already handled abstractly from province to province, I do think it could properly come to play in the detailed battles.

Cavalry should (when set to screen) simply blook LOS to hexes behind it for any LOS drawn on the same elevation. Breaking up cavalry divisions into their component brigades (split the unit function) or pairs of brigades would then become a useful tactic. I mean for heaven's sake, cavalry screens were a huge part of the mission of light cavalry and many dragoon regiments as well.

I'd really like to see cavalry units (either divisions or split divisions) affect a screen in each hex surrounding them for LOS purposes. So you can then have two hexes between each cavalry unit for the purposes of screening. This would certainly add an element to the multiplayer battles that was missing before; the, "oh crap, I hope there's not an infantry corps coming up behind those screening cav units" moment.


I've not played the game in well over a year (the xxxxx of an exwife took that particular computer) so I don't know what changes were made with later patches. So forgive me if any of this has been addressed already since I last played.


< Message edited by Khornish -- 7/5/2007 7:43:28 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 9
RE: COG2? - 7/4/2007 10:03:19 PM   
Khornish

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline 		Oh.! I forgot to put my vote down for the detailed naval combat. I do want to see that in CoG.


Another thing I'd like to see, for detailed combat, is the ability for the player to determine the hexes the reinforcements will enter the map and perhaps the formation or order in which they enter.

A corps commander of the period would have been able to tell his subordinates, "get your infantry here fast, let the guns fall behind and arrive as they can." or "get your cavalry here quickly and tell your infantry to double time."

Perhaps a pre-battle option for corps/army commanders (or maybe for a general with a high enough rating) would be a selection list (as we see for the various pre-battle options in FoF) for various Cavalry, Infantry and Artillery orders of march.

For example,

Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery (100% and 0% fatigue)
Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry (60% and 35% fatigue)
Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery (40% and 50% fatigue)
etc..etc.


Getting back to choosing the reinforcement hex...

The armies of the period used roads whenever practicable. In CoG, being able to use a road to arrive on the battlefield is a miracle of no small order. So, I'd like to be able to have the option of getting a little closer to historial realities and choose (within certain parameters) a hex (or possible hexes) where the reinforcements should be expected to show up.

I'm not asking for the ability to do something unrealistic; like in having the French 3rd Corps arriving SE of the Austrians at Austerlitz. I'd rather be able to select the road hex south west of my battle line, nearest my map edge. Instead of having it smack in the middle of a damn swamp/dense forest or for heaven's sake between two or rivers or tributaries.

Nothing was more frustrating to me than having my artillery arrive tangled and then stuck having to cross a swamp hex and then two river hexes before it could even move in the general direction of the rest of the army.




(in reply to Khornish)
Post #: 10
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 1:50:33 AM   
solops

 

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline 		CoG mainly needs some of the nigling bugs worked out, not a facelift. I much prefer it to FoF in general, though FoF is more polished, benefitng from being a second generation game. One place where CoG is far superior to FoF is the economic engine. I would consider it a catastrophe to retrofit the oversimplifed FoF model on to the nations of Europe. Indeed, the development of my nation's economic and political engine so as to leverage my military power projection was one of my favorite parts of that game. Where FoF shines is in the way it cleaned up containers (and applied leaders), better tactical battles, a good concept and implementation of naval power and more personable units.

KEEP the CoG economic engine!

< Message edited by solops -- 7/5/2007 1:55:42 AM >

(in reply to Khornish)
Post #: 11
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 5:18:48 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

...

KEEP the CoG economic engine!


I concur.


_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to solops)
Post #: 12
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 5:12:10 PM   
jkBluesman


Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor


quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

...

KEEP the CoG economic engine!


I concur.



I do as well.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 13
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 6:59:05 PM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
And I make it 3.




(in reply to jkBluesman)
Post #: 14
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 7:06:24 PM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
eerrr, 4 - sorry can't count

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 15
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 8:07:13 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		I agree too so that makes 5. Surprisingly as many votes have currently been put for the opposite view on the FOF forum COG questionnaire.

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 16
RE: COG2? - 7/5/2007 11:38:01 PM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
Oh and maybe this isn't the place to mention this, but -

PLEASE put the ability to handicap or strengthen nations (+3 to -3) back into the interface when setting up a new campaign.

1.2.26 (maybe it was 1.2.25, and .26 didn't fix it) eliminated that feature, and I suspect it wasn't intentional...I used that feature to set up what I considered "historical" parameters, weakening Sweden (-3), Turkey and Spain (-2), and Prussia (-1), while giving France a +1.

(And no, I didn't always play France under these conditions, usually Russia )







(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 17
RE: COG2? - 8/8/2007 8:17:00 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		Really?  I didn't know the power thing was missing in V1.2.26.  I'll look it over.

I too like the economics of COG, and we definitely won't remove it, but we will very likely offer the option of using a much simpler system.

There's no strict need to have 1 detailed combat unit for every 1 strategic unit -- what I mean is that we could easily have 1 strategic "ship" split into several units in detailed battle.  I did use cavalry screens in my multiplayer games by splitting my light cavalry into two groups -- perhaps we could allow cavalry to split into more than 2 groups?


_____________________________



(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 18
RE: COG2? - 8/8/2007 10:32:15 PM   
Khornish

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I did use cavalry screens in my multiplayer games by splitting my light cavalry into two groups -- perhaps we could allow cavalry to split into more than 2 groups?




How about a toggled action instead? Toggling gives a screen to adjacent hexes. Splitting would be nice, but the way the combat mechanics work, it would add several degrees of frustration to a player as well.


(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 19
RE: COG2? - 8/8/2007 10:44:40 PM   
Khornish

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline 		Another thing that annoys the heck out of me is the % to change formation.

In 1805 scenario a number of French divisions have a 50% or less chance of changing into a line. WTF!

Sure, we need some friction in the game so the player can't get everything he wants, but come on, the best Armee the French ever fielded was during 1805-1807.

I just played a battle from the standard scenario, my French vs Austro-Russian force. During my first turn, I advanced each infantry unit and artillery unit one to two hexes (to create a physical line of units ) and hit the "line" command button for each. The end result of 8 infantry and 2 artillery units was 2 divisions in line and the rest shaken.

Since the % for forming line was the same before I moved and after I moved, it wasn't the movement that screwed up my plan for a battle line, it was the damn % to carry out the order.

Now, I could understand this, somewhat, if my units had been standing in difficult ground, but as they were all in open terrain, this is just plain silly.

I'd much rather the % chance to form start at 95-100% and then become modified down based on various factors (adjacent enemy, shaken/disordered, terrain, unit quality).

Hell, when my Imperial Guard refuses, two turns in a row, to form line and instead becomes shaken and then disordered, when the enemy is STILL out of sight, I'm not too keen on fighting the battle.

Needless to say, but I will anyway, my "battle line" ended up getting smashed by Austrian Cavalry as the shaken/disordered units were easily shattered in charges that started from 6 or more hexes away.

(in reply to Khornish)
Post #: 20
RE: COG2? - 8/14/2007 2:36:59 AM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
Eric,

Yes I am certain of this. In fact, I reloaded version 1.18 so that I could play with this feature. Also, although others have mentioned this issue as well, making it very unlikely that I had a bad file, I re-downloaded the 2.26 patch from the members area in case my original had become somehow corrupt, and it was still missing.

CoG is a great game, I'm looking forward to the coming enhancements.

Please consider including some work on the TCP/IP stability issues, of which were discussed at length some time ago in various threads.





(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 21
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 12:30:53 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		I havent played COG recently enough to recall how the economy worked as compared to FOF, but I really think the reinforcement system in COG was superior. Selecting how many of what age of men to conscript to determine the number and quality, modified by whatever upgrades such as levee en masse, as opposed to the FOF Camp system. Thats a superior system in my opinion and makes the number of reinforcements more dependent on the size of the country involved and less of an exploitable infrastructure problem like it is in FOF where you can invest a great deal of resource to attain an unrealistic amount of reinforcements every turn.

I also like jwindsors ideas about expanding on naval strategies, diversifying types, adding detailed naval combat. Not sure about changing the scale to be one unit one ship though. What was the number of ships engaged in the decisive battles of the period?

< Message edited by Mus -- 8/15/2007 12:38:06 AM >

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 22
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 1:57:50 AM   
Russian Guard


Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

I also like jwindsors ideas about expanding on naval strategies, diversifying types, adding detailed naval combat. Not sure about changing the scale to be one unit one ship though. What was the number of ships engaged in the decisive battles of the period?


There were few decisive large engagements of the period 1790 thru 1815. Trafalgar was, I believe, the largest, with 33 Spanish/French SOL's and 27 British SOL's. These numbers do not include Frigates and smaller vessels, since they had little impact on the outcome of the battle.

The 4 battles that come to mind are:

Trafalgar (1805) - (see above)
Nile (1798) - 15 British SOL vs. 13 French SOL
Copenhagen (1801) - 20 British SOL vs. a smattering of various Danish ships of differing smaller sizes and 10 SOL
Cape Finisterre (1805) - 15 British SOL vs. 20 French/Spanish SOL

And a number of other engagements, all under 10 SOL total for either side.

edit: The type of naval battles you see in CoG, with sometimes 80 or 100 ships on a side, never happened during the period. In part, it was near impossible to organize a fleet that large and keep it together over time, due to weather, communications, repairs and general organizational problems - not to mention the small number of ports capable of supporting a fleet that size.

But it's fun










< Message edited by Russian Guard -- 8/15/2007 2:18:54 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 23
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 6:14:00 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

There were few decisive large engagements of the period 1790 thru 1815. Trafalgar was, I believe, the largest, with 33 Spanish/French SOL's and 27 British SOL's. These numbers do not include Frigates and smaller vessels, since they had little impact on the outcome of the battle.

The 4 battles that come to mind are:

Trafalgar (1805) - (see above)
Nile (1798) - 15 British SOL vs. 13 French SOL
Copenhagen (1801) - 20 British SOL vs. a smattering of various Danish ships of differing smaller sizes and 10 SOL
Cape Finisterre (1805) - 15 British SOL vs. 20 French/Spanish SOL

And a number of other engagements, all under 10 SOL total for either side.


Cool. Maybe it should be scaled down in size and given an appropriate unit cost then.

Detailed naval combat would be the best improvement I think, just maybe a bit trickier to pull off well. You would need weather to be going on that would dictate movement abilities to some degree, not sure how that would work with the detailed combat engine they have right now. Also would need a system where structural damage and crew casualties would have effects on the performance of the ship.

Complicated but if they did it right really awesome potential.

< Message edited by Mus -- 8/15/2007 6:17:34 AM >

(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 24
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 8:40:03 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish
Another thing that annoys the heck out of me is the % to change formation.

In 1805 scenario a number of French divisions have a 50% or less chance of changing into a line. WTF!


Napoleon first started fighting with a combination of raw recruits and well-trained regular units. The raw recruits were unable to form lines during battle. Napoleon's solution was to have the regular units pound the enemy with fire and then when their morale was shaken to have the recruits march to close while remaining in column formation. According to Part 6 of Chandler's "Campaigns of Napoleon", the French army was still using these techniques in September of 1805. COG considers experienced regular units to be units with a morale of at least 5; units below morale 5 have only half the base level of assuming line formation as do units with morale of 5 or more.

_____________________________



(in reply to Khornish)
Post #: 25
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 8:44:22 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
CoG is a great game, I'm looking forward to the coming enhancements.

Please consider including some work on the TCP/IP stability issues, of which were discussed at length some time ago in various threads.


Thanks!

There's not a lot we can do directly about TCP/IP stability, unfortunately. The Microsoft libraries we are using have some known issues and it would be quite a bit of work to replace them with other libraries as subsequent versions of Direct Play have a very different architecture. I spent a month working on this last year and didn't get very far. With FOF I'm working on some methods of writing my own dropped-packet detection routines, and if these work then hopefully I can port them back to COG.


_____________________________



(in reply to Russian Guard)
Post #: 26
RE: COG2? - 8/15/2007 8:46:51 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish
How about a toggled action instead? Toggling gives a screen to adjacent hexes. Splitting would be nice, but the way the combat mechanics work, it would add several degrees of frustration to a player as well.


That might be a very interesting way to do it. It would almost be analogous to infantries' deploying skirmishers.


_____________________________



(in reply to Khornish)
Post #: 27
RE: COG2? - 8/26/2007 1:50:59 AM   
augustus

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/27/2004
Status: offline 		I meant to reply to this thread before, but never got around to it. I liked COG, but got tired of it partially because of some annoying things that should be fixed, and partly because it was close to being a GREAT game, but only (IMO) was a good game.

1. Get POW's off the map. Every game I played as France, and most other games as well, I'd capture enemy troops, only to have a lone cavalry division enter my country and free them. For example, as France I'd be busy fighting Austria and their Russian friends, when a cossack division will just go around my army and liberate the prisoners, and suddenly there are more Enemy troops in france than French troops! POW's should be kept track of, but not on the map.

2. As long as we're talking about POW's, an option to exchange prisoners with an enemy during hostilities would be good. POW's would naturally be freed when a peace is made. Freed POW's should not just show up as formed units again--the troops should have to be rebuilt in their home country (but with their experience and quality intact).

3. I never did get the hang of the naval side of the game, but I can't put my finger on what should be improved. Of course everyone wants tactical naval battles, I'd even like it if the tactical naval battles weren't very realistic.

4. How about giving us some more provinces on the map, and changing the time scale to half-months? Anyway, the look of the strategic map could be improved, and enlarged a bit so Spain doesn't get squashed (a minor thing, but it drove me nuts)

5. Land Tactical Battles needs to be tweaked, or maybe just remade altogether. The AI needs a lot of improvement for a start. It always seemed to come at me piecemeal, even when the AI was supposed to be defending against my attack, it still came at me.

6. In some ways it's nice to have no stacking in battles, because that simplifies things in a good way, but it does make it difficult to use artillery. I always thought it would be good if Artillery would be allowed to stack with one other unit, allowing it to participate without leaving it so bloody vulnerable to cavalry attacks (on a division scale, such a large section of front would not be just artillery).

7. This probably won't happen, but I was thinking about it when on another thread someone (gil, I think) mentioned that the game would remain division based. Does anyone remember a game called Napoleon: 1813? It was another strategic/tactical game, but wasn't very good because the strategy portion was not user-friendly (actually, I would describe it as user-hostile) and the tactical AI was practically nonexistant. But the tactical part of the game was good. You commanded divisions, but the divisions were made up of individual brigades. You could only give orders to the division, but you could choose formations for the brigades and the division as a whole, change direction, etc. I always thought it had the potential to be a great tactical game if it was just developed a little more, and the AI was given a brain. I think it would provide an interesting sort of balance between division and brigade level, and at the very least a much cooler Tactical experience. The other interesting thing was that it was played out on a hex grid, but was real-time. It was a very, very interesting battle simulator, and I can't recommend too highly that, should COG2 be made, that the creators look at that old game and see if the tactical portion is something they like. This would require very few changes to be made to the rest of the game (i.e. perhaps instead of building divisions you would build brigades and form divisions out of them).

8. I think COG 2 should be remade from scratch. A lot of good can be done by just modifying the existing game, but there are so many things that can be improved that it might be better to begin from the ground up. Although I agree with everyone who liked the economic system, and complaints about protectorates have already been aired.

< Message edited by augustus -- 8/26/2007 1:52:47 AM >

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 28
RE: COG2? - 8/27/2007 11:23:14 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I too like the economics of COG, and we definitely won't remove it, but we will very likely offer the option of using a much simpler system.



As I have thought about it, I cannot help but wonder if the right answer isn't the opposite of my initial reaction. This game appeals to those who appreciate complexity, not simplicity. And maybe that is the niche this game needs to focus on. Just as a grossly simplified version of WitP might be a weird hodepodge that appeals to no one, perhaps here too the right answer is to give the people more of what they love and actually make the economics more complex instead of more simplified.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 29
RE: COG2? - 8/29/2007 5:51:13 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		You might have the impression that COG players love complexity, but we did get a lot of complaints about the complexity level of the economy, moreso when the game was first released.  I'd say this forum was nearly evenly split on the economy overall, but outside this forum I'd say that opinions are clearly tilted against the complexity of the economy.



_____________________________



(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> COG2? Page: [1] 2 3   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

6.016