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: big concern about GG4.0

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> RE: big concern about GG4.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/18/2009 11:18:53 PM   
Forwarn45

 

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline 		I was going to play schury to check this out - but after he sent me the first turn and I saw the Axis position, I emailed him to say I agreed with him. The problem is the Allies can't reinforce South France before Mussolini attacks because it remains frozen (unless they declare war on Italy). With the Germans being able to paradrop into South France to help out the Italians - it will amost certainly be "game over" for France in Fall of '39. A couple units should be added to South France to counter this.

(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 31
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/18/2009 11:24:02 PM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks man for the back up, my respect.
So if anyone still think this is not a super strategy that totally change the way the game was, just give it a shot against me, you are more than welcome, too, lucky.


_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to Forwarn45)
Post #: 32
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 3:12:45 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45
I was going to play schury to check this out - but after he sent me the first turn and I saw the Axis position, I emailed him to say I agreed with him. The problem is the Allies can't reinforce South France before Mussolini attacks because it remains frozen (unless they declare war on Italy). With the Germans being able to paradrop into South France to help out the Italians - it will amost certainly be "game over" for France in Fall of '39. A couple units should be added to South France to counter this.


Thank you for the concise description of what the actual problem is.

I'll make the disposition of S France in Total War look the same as it is in Global Glory.

(in reply to Forwarn45)
Post #: 33
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 3:20:01 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		i mentioned this in the forth post. I wonder if that is a concise description......if you really wanna know what's going on, just spend several precious precious mins to play and seek for yourself, first turn try and error won't take you long, Like i said, talk can't solve everything. just after 3 mins' play. we come to an accord. and then you noticed what I mean earlier.

< Message edited by schury -- 1/19/2009 3:21:31 AM >

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 34
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 4:04:08 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		S France being frozen is a major hindrance! (WH - I would insert my usual refrain about the timing of political events). This additional bit of detail eluded me when the post was brought up (This whole debate would have been easier if Schury had said that he could guarantee the fall of France in September 39!).

1) On the subject of gamey strategies, I have noted that a WA attack on Norway can sometimes make Yugo pro-Axis (don't know the odds offhand). Insofar that Yugo seems to be the weak link, maybe it could have lower volatility and make a political event for the coup (a la Global Glory).

2) Although I don't really play stock AWD, I seem to recall that in Total War there is only one French troop in N Africa prior to surrender, but three subsequent to Vichy. Perhaps there should be three frozen troops in N Africa as well....

Question: what happens to the French fleets and possessions in the rest of the world when S France is taken?

Schury - I am still game to be a whipping boy for public demonstration of the strat. I can't say I have a lot of emotional investment in wins/losses (or I would not volunteer to be allies as often as I do), so it won't bother me to lose in public.... Plus, I think AARs keep interest in the community and are a good way to teach new players. It can be fun to dissect a game after the fact to identify critical issues etc. So, if you still have the time/interest in early Feb (when I am back from holiday), send me an email.





(in reply to schury)
Post #: 35
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 4:21:54 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		OK, you are right, i'll fight you, and hopefully you can devoted to the AAR to demonstrate to the others. The first turn sent.HF,GL

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 36
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 6:13:03 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: schury
i mentioned this in the forth post. I wonder if that is a concise description......if you really wanna know what's going on, just spend several precious precious mins to play and seek for yourself, first turn try and error won't take you long, Like i said, talk can't solve everything. just after 3 mins' play. we come to an accord. and then you noticed what I mean earlier.


It was concise to the point of terseness I'm afraid, and not clear. You didn't mention that it is still frozen and defenseless against the forces Germany can throw at it before the WA player can even react.

I do fire it up, but you could be more detailed and forthcoming. Try something like

0. Total War
1. Germany attacks Yugo
2. Italy joins Axis - pending next German turn
3. S France is frozen with 1 infantry, unable to reinforce
4. next turn, S France is defenseless against 2 mil and a para trooper

When I look at this, I tend to look at Global Glory, which was my downfall here. So far as I know there is no problem in Global Glory.

Clear concise detailed talk actually is the fastest way to resolve this, when forwarn45 explained I knew immediately exactly what he meant.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 37
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 6:35:21 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
1) On the subject of gamey strategies, I have noted that a WA attack on Norway can sometimes make Yugo pro-Axis (don't know the odds offhand). Insofar that Yugo seems to be the weak link, maybe it could have lower volatility and make a political event for the coup (a la Global Glory).


Hmm, in Total War that would work nicely to the Allied advantage. I changed the Yugo coup event a little.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
2) Although I don't really play stock AWD, I seem to recall that in Total War there is only one French troop in N Africa prior to surrender, but three subsequent to Vichy. Perhaps there should be three frozen troops in N Africa as well....

Question: what happens to the French fleets and possessions in the rest of the world when S France is taken?


All French units disappear regardless of location, except naval units which have a 20% chance of moving to England (strictly speaking, they are reincarnated in England, something noone would never if I hadn't added the unit data view, which will not reflect their earlier life).

(in reply to Lucky1)
Post #: 38
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 6:36:29 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		yes, i got your point. But as a responsible staff, I would double check every problem myself instead of just the statement given by particular player. I just try to give you a hint. i didn't know you need all details.

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 39
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 8:19:49 AM   
Lucky1

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		WH - might it be possible to make Yugo's volatility 0 (or make the volatility 0 for the first two turns)? My reasoning would be that given the crucial nature of Yugo and the diplomatic domino effect she causes, this would eliminate most of the benefit of this exploit.  If I understand diplomacy correctly (not a sure thing), the Balkans would only have a chance of swinging if Yugo were pro-allied. Would this not be the case for Italy as well? Too, it would protect against a Yugo pro-axis swing if the WA invade Norway on the first turn (as was historically contemplated)....

< Message edited by Lucky1 -- 1/19/2009 8:26:40 AM >

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 40
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 8:26:08 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: schury
i mentioned this in the forth post. I wonder if that is a concise description......if you really wanna know what's going on, just spend several precious precious mins to play and seek for yourself, first turn try and error won't take you long, Like i said, talk can't solve everything. just after 3 mins' play. we come to an accord. and then you noticed what I mean earlier.


It was concise to the point of terseness I'm afraid, and not clear. You didn't mention that it is still frozen and defenseless against the forces Germany can throw at it before the WA player can even react.

I do fire it up, but you could be more detailed and forthcoming. Try something like

0. Total War
1. Germany attacks Yugo
2. Italy joins Axis - pending next German turn
3. S France is frozen with 1 infantry, unable to reinforce
4. next turn, S France is defenseless against 2 mil and a para trooper

When I look at this, I tend to look at Global Glory, which was my downfall here. So far as I know there is no problem in Global Glory.

Clear concise detailed talk actually is the fastest way to resolve this, when forwarn45 explained I knew immediately exactly what he meant.


you thoughts are limited, which means 3 and 4 are not due to happen. hard to explain if you don't play. I said many times it depends on what aliies react, plz understand what I said. Maybe you should read LUCKY1's AAR, then you woould not so sure about 3 and 4. Man be serious and don't mislead the others, plz. Sometimes you should try what you think, cause what you think is just what you imagine, again, see Lucky's AAR. Finally no offense, just wanna you be more responsible to what really happens rather than what you think "should" happen.

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 41
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 2:02:57 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline 		There's no need to talk down to anyone, understanding depends on what and how people write. I don't assume WH has the time to double- and triple-check everything someone posts on the forums.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 42
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/19/2009 6:47:50 PM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		I am not a master of english, so don't read between the lines. Having tons of time talking but out of several minutes trying in months? It does not sound reasonable to me.
I think it's ok to be objective and frank, like I still hold the opinion who modefy this code should double check the problem themselves, instead of just the statements of other players. That's the responsibility they should carry. 

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 43
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 4:15:29 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
0. Total War
1. Germany attacks Yugo
2. Italy joins Axis - pending next German turn
3. S France is frozen with 1 infantry, unable to reinforce
4. next turn, S France is defenseless against 2 mil and a para trooper
quote:

ORIGINAL: schury
you thoughts are limited, which means 3 and 4 are not due to happen. hard to explain if you don't play. I said many times it depends on what aliies react, plz understand what I said.


The *problem* is not a function of what the Allied player does. In Total War S France is (i) frozen and (ii) under-garrisoned. There is nothing reasonable that the WA can do. The WA can preemptively attack Italy to unfreeze S France, but at huge and unreasonable cost. Otherwise, 3 and 4 are entirely up to the German.

Understand what happened here. You observed a problem, did not explain exactly what it was but insisted on a game with an "expert". Your opponent explained the problem *in words* and I understood. I still have not played this scenario against you or anyone else, yet I understand the problem. (At least, I assume I do )

Hence, communication does indeed work!

Mind you, if I am missing something and there really is a lot of dependence on how the Allies react, then you ought to enumerate them for discussion. Doing what you suggest, playing, is useless. By definition we will only see one course in one game, and would not observe the subtleties you imply.


quote:

ORIGINAL: schury
I am not a master of english, so don't read between the lines. Having tons of time talking but out of several minutes trying in months? It does not sound reasonable to me.
I think it's ok to be objective and frank, like I still hold the opinion who modefy this code should double check the problem themselves, instead of just the statements of other players. That's the responsibility they should carry. 


I understand English is not your first language, but you rather steadfastly refused to answer some specific questions which would have helped a lot.

At any rate, with the addition of some units to S France to bring all other scenarios up to the same S France garrison as Global Glory, I will consider the matter closed. Let me know if that does not solve everything.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 44
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 4:29:20 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		what I would still be conservative is that "The WA can preemptively attack Italy to unfreeze S France, but at huge and unreasonable cost. " I don't know How you get that. Is there a statistic report or experiment to support this? What if this balance the game to be better given the situation the allies are stronger?(I always beat axis as allies in total war. and I still remember some guys never lose as the allies)
The above is the reason I wanna fight I good player like forwarn, in order to test it. You can't get the answer by talking, unless you pre-arrange an answer without any proof.


_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 45
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 7:15:41 AM   
SGT Rice

 

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline 		The "huge and unreasonable cost" is what happens if Italy is preemptively attacked by the Allies before Italy enters the war on its own. This is clearly and explicitly outlined on page 97 of the Game Manual, rule section 10.6, Italian Neutrality Violation:

Italy and her possessions become part ot the German player's territory.
Five infantry units are mobilized in Northern Italy.
Two infantry units are mobilized in Southern Italy.
US War Readiness Level is reduced by 10.

This requires no proof, statistics or experiments; its' in plain black and white where anyone can see the implications. The Allies don't have the strength in 1939 to storm ashore in Italy because infantry units are instantly added to the defense of the beaches. With a single CAG, they don't have aircraft capable of damaging anything ashore. About all they can do is sink an Italian transport and pick of some remote militia garrisons. And pursuing this course of action delays US gearups and entry into the war by at least 3 turns.

The exploit into Southern France has been around for awhile; it's already been fixed in Global Glory and will also be fixed in Total War with the next patch. This should be a dead issue; while you're waiting for the next patch just ask your Axis opponents for a gentlemen's agreement; don't use the gamey exploit of replaying your turn until the attack on Denmark shifts Yugo to Allied Leaning, then attack Yugo to trigger Italian entry, etc., etc.

There should be lots of other interesting things to discuss about this great game. Next topic?

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 46
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 7:28:35 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		why do you think it needs a fix? Why are you so sure adding more troops is the best way? Don't you realize you are killing the not-many-left probabilities this game gives us? What if I pointed out that If you add enough troops in France that stops this strategy, the allies become stronger than Axis? Without giving an answer to these questions, don't you think it's too harsh to go for next topic? 
You guys said this strategy had never come to your mind before, so plz think about it carefully. You know, balance a game is very difficult, you take it so harsh RICE. Did you ever played such situation? What makes you so confident that you know everything about it and you can definitely take care of it? To be frank, I researched this issue for long, probably much longer than you do, and I dare not to give such harsh answer until I really fight those guys a bit. So it seems like you are quite talented

< Message edited by schury -- 1/20/2009 7:34:02 AM >

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 47
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 7:34:54 AM   
SGT Rice

 

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline 		The troops that are added in France are frozen in Southern France (the garrison there is increased to 2 infantry, 1 militia, 1 artillery and 1 flak);

These units have no impact on Germany's attack (which falls on Eastern or Western France) and they disappear immediately when France falls. Therefore they don't make the Allies stronger in any way; they just prevent the exploit.

You can easily verify this for yourself; just start a solo game of Global Glory and try the exploit.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 48
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 7:43:58 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		I said allies are stronger once you stoped this strategy. Not the added force itself. Please don't misunderstand. Mind answer my other questions in my last post? You seem like overlooking them.

< Message edited by schury -- 1/20/2009 7:44:54 AM >

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 49
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 4:02:23 PM   
SGT Rice

 

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline 		Let's review ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 10/4/2008 6:11:53 AM

Some super strategies I found in this new version. A little bit extreme.
Do you guys believe it's too huge an advantage to the axis?[/size]



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/17/2009 5:21:53 PM

what I am trying to say is this strategy is so powerful and i pointed out to get some support that the senario should get some modification.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/17/2009 7:42:52 PM

south france should definitely be strenthened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 1/18/2009 11:18:53 PM

I was going to play schury to check this out - but after he sent me the first turn and I saw the Axis position, I emailed him to say I agreed with him. A couple units should be added to South France to counter this.



So you get what you asked for ...



quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead 1/20/2009 4:15:29 AM

At any rate, with the addition of some units to S France to bring all other scenarios up to the same S France garrison as Global Glory, I will consider the matter closed. Let me know if that does not solve everything.



But you're still not satisfied ... seems that now you disagree with everything you said previously.



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/20/2009 7:28:35 AM
why do you think it needs a fix? Why are you so sure adding more troops is the best way?



Why are you asking me? Why did YOU think it needed a fix? Why were YOU so sure more troops needed to be added? Perhaps because it was obvious.



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/20/2009 7:28:35 AM
Don't you realize you are killing the not-many-left probabilities this game gives us?



I doubt that. The only thing "killed" by adding units to Southern France was the exploit into Southern France. Every other Axis option is still available; hmmm, what might those be? Let me quote a well known expert:



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/18/2009 5:34:40 AM
Taking italy earlier is a great improvement. It wholely changed the stereotype opening. I believe this bring me the super advantage. We can do alot. Like take the whole africa, Attack russia early. Attack turkey and secure the whole balkan.



At the same time our expert seems to feel that these huge Axis advantages are all balanced on the edge of a knife ...



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury 1/20/2009 7:28:35 AM
What if I pointed out that If you add enough troops in France that stops this strategy, the allies become stronger than Axis?



Well ... if you pointed out that adding a few politically frozen French units that disappear in Spring 40 suddenly makes the Allies stronger than the Axis then I would again refer you to our expert ...



quote:

ORIGINAL: schury
game should be played not talked ... Sometimes you should try what you think, cause what you think is just what you imagine ...



It appears that one thing you want is to find opponents and post AARs. Word man; that's cool, very cool. Perhaps you could persuade one of your apprentices to help you with this.

But it also appears that you want to brag about what a great player you are, insult people who don't respond just the way you like it, and make demands on other people's time (the quotes are littered all over your threads; I can compile them for you if that helps). That's not very cool; many people get offended by it.

I would suggest you use the opponents wanted thread; maybe even try being humble & polite. Who knows; you might make some new friends.


< Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/23/2009 4:27:19 AM >

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 50
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 5:38:35 PM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		First of all, talk about the issue, not the ppl. Attacking ppl don't make you a siant. Even according to your theory, you are as bad as me. What gives you the feeling you are on the moral highland?
The reason I speak aggressive is that some guys are not professional. Not responsible to his duty, which need careful work and serious reasoning and practicing. It should not come to exist just with "obvious".
OK, I know the reason back you up is some "obvious" or "expert".
If you wanna talk about "obvious", I wanna say this is obvious lack of evidence.
according to your theory, the teachers are not very cool, they demands on other people's time to do homeworks. The reason I ask them to try is that they are not famailar what I said and kept asking without practice. If you are a teacher, you should know the importance of figure it out yourself. Cause you have experts and it is obvious. Since it is "obvious", why don't you find it until I pointed it out?
I have to say that you are really not good at this game. That's not an insult, but the truth, that's why you can't understand. What I said is the allies are always stronger than the axis in Total War until I found this strategy. If you don't agree, find those history, you may find far more ppl without lose a allies game than those of axis. If you wanna me to test it with those "experts" you refer to, I am sure I 'll beat them. I haven't lose a single battle as allies in Total war.(A way to make things clear, like what FORWARN and I do, very effective, But if you think this is brag about my skills,I do not dispute. It is said shady person think about shady stuff.)
I am not denying I am a good player, BUT I am not brag about it. Just because last time ppl here told me if you think about this, you should fight ppl to back your theory. I can still find the theard if you wanna see.
Finally dispute doesn't mean war, it's a way to make things clear. again, shady person think about shady stuff.


< Message edited by schury -- 1/20/2009 6:04:29 PM >

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to SGT Rice)
Post #: 51
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 6:03:29 PM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		Here let's talk about this question deep. I have an idea that South France should no longer totally frozen when Italy become axis, but should only be reinforced by british troop, which make this move more dangerous to the brits. What does this sound? Is it more complicated? Has it got more probabilities and choices? Is it save the new opening and also balanced it(well, not being tested thoroughly, I dare not to use "obvious" on new situation I am not so sure about.)Is it more to weigh than just kill a new strategy? How is your adding several troop to stop this strategy "obvious" compare to this?
I hope ppl discuss this problem with objective attitude and responsible to what you said, at least put 5 minutes try it in the game. I really wonder 5 minutes is a big concern to anyone playing this game.


_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 52
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 10:39:24 PM   
Marshall Art

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline 		After following the discussion without a real opinion as I do not play total war so much (Does not everybody play GG?? )

I felt compelled to put a few things into perspective:


As far as I know (correct me, plz) Wanderinghead is neither a developer of the game nor is he standing for this game. He is just a commited fan of this game who uses his spare time to enhance it – commonly referred to as MODDING. Yes, he might be sometimes biased by his own ideas (who is not) but that is his right as a modder.


While a problem might exist (or it might not – it doesn’t matter) there is no reason to post statements onto this board that the average reader can only understand as being OFFENSIVE and RUDE. I have seen poeple get thrown out on other forums so respect for the tolerance level on this one.


Even if one player might consider himself better he should demonstrate this in the games and not by trumpeting it over and over again. This is not how one makes himself FRIENDS – not here and not in real life. The responses speak for themselves.


If most others do not understand the statements of a single poster, it probably is because he has not made himself clear ENOUGH.


I admire Wanderinghead’s,  Lucky1’s and SGT Rice’s great PATIENCE and wish I had the same.


I sincerely hope that Wanderinghead will be willing to further develop the GG mod (and in necessary the basic game) so we all can ENJOY a game that has become much better than at initial release. I know it is not easy to hit the perfect middle of all suggestions.
Hoping for another - Global Glory 5.0


So let’s cut back on the nonsense and get back to serious and honest discussion of the GAME.

Let's have FUN, DAMMIT

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 53
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/20/2009 10:56:13 PM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		Great reply talking about anything but the topic. Good for you.
And since when explain a problem to you become my duty? I made himself clear ENOUGH(I really did in a game, and suppose to be an AAR) is the only key you have? Does that mean without my clarification, you can not even fix a bug I mentioned? So do you wanna hire me as your debuger?
I remember there was a GM engineer, Who can find the problem in the engine just from a single clue of what ice cream the family bought. I believe the family would be mad if the engineer insist on they telling him exact which part of engine goes wrong, instead of checking and reasoning himself. Who should be more professional and reliable when problem encounters? the producer or the user?
Fine, Let's just stop here, cause I don't see any responsible ppl discuss in details how to solve this problem except one "obvious" solution.
Lamentable!

< Message edited by schury -- 1/20/2009 11:06:58 PM >

_____________________________

contact me if you wanna a new game:)

(in reply to Marshall Art)
Post #: 54
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/21/2009 2:47:53 PM   
lkendter

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 5/20/2005
Status: offline 		This one has really gotten to tough to read.  To much feuding, and not enough facts. 

I am not reading any more replies.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 55
RE: big concern about GG4.0 - 1/22/2009 12:35:19 AM   
KyleK


Posts: 52
Joined: 1/3/2009
Status: offline 		best thread ever!


look at me, I'm sooo smart.
the game is broken, fix it !

hmmm, ok you fixed it, now he game has no options. yer dum!

i hate you all! come my pretties....lets play the first turn over and over again for ever and ever and ever and ever

(in reply to lkendter)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> RE: big concern about GG4.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

2.250