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: Directive 21 playtesters thread

 
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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 12:56:02 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		partially duplicate message deleted



< Message edited by wmorris -- 2/7/2009 1:03:19 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 241
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 1:02:15 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks, gents.

I got the files from Mr. Fulkerson yesterday and loaded these; all OK. Today I saw your email and replaced the appropriate files. Now I get a message that I am playing with the wrong .eqp files, but the scenario loads and runs OK thereafter.

Is this a prob or do I just have a jealous .sce file?



< Message edited by wmorris -- 2/7/2009 1:09:53 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 242
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 1:11:22 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Does your file structure look like this picture below ( with "Directive 21" directory inside "graphics" and the two files inside the directive 21 directory? Is everything spelled correctly?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 243
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 1:13:33 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		If everything is working correctly you should see the new equipment at the bottom of the inventory and replacements screen like below in the picture:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 244
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 1:21:00 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Thats the trick. Changed stuff typed "Directive_21.eqp" to "Directive 21" and its all good.

Thanks. Now off to look at the insides of the design. woowoo.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 245
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/7/2009 10:30:22 PM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		You gentlemen are having trouble with the Red Air force right off the bat, I imagine. The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war, and this is without the increases to production (the "gear ups"). I have greatly decreased the USSR aircraft production numbers in my FITE mod.

The later war antitank capability of infantry on the Axis side has also gotten a lot of discussion in the threads. I was leaning toward the transition of squads originally, but now I like your concept in D21 of using AT teams. This is attractive because it actually goes along more with the paper TOE of infantry for '44 to sub two "projector" platoons in the AT companies for AT guns, leaving just 3 7.5cm guns organic to the regiments. It also provides a little bit of additional infantry to the formations which will have their squad strength waning, which was the intention of the rewrite of the '43-44 KstN's: more firepower with less personnel. It also works well with the minors; giving them AT teams later in the war (thinking mostly about the Finns here) reflects the transfers of Panzerfausts and 'schrecks from the Germans, and therefore the replacement cost comes at the German's expense. I prefer this to designing a "Rifle AT- Sqd Finn" (although I have finally been successful with the ACOW editor!).

Im not in agreement with distributing the german tanks among the KG assignements, though; Klotzen, nicht kleckern. Still, the IDEA of KG distribution is great, I just favor a different distribution, at least early in the war. I'm also clinging to separate German infantry regiments, though the proficiency argument is sobering.

Your map mod is visually easier on the eyes, I cant imagine the work involved.

I have so much time invested in my FITE mod that I'm sticking with it, but Im getting a lot of ideas from looking at D21.

Back to work. I have been putting off my mod of all those Auf and Krad Battalions...

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 246
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 12:25:45 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war


Some of them represent several types of aircraft not represented in the scenario. But even at that the 'on hand' numbers grow like crazy. We knocked the rates down a little recently, and we also have the Soviet Air Shock not reaching 100 until turn 178.

I came up with an early and late version for the recon elements this week, but before I got into modifying the replacements and events, I checked the unit strengths and combat numbers. They were sadly close enough to each other to not make a differance. As Stefan, Doc and Kristen had already been thru this, I decided to leave it as one unit. I did make a few adjustments based on what I had done, and what you had posted here earlier. Here's what I ended up with:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 247
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 12:38:42 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Klotzen, nicht kleckern


I tried several different variations of the KG organisation in another scenario I am working on, and if one KG is heavy in tanks, it makes it weaker against most targets except those also heavy in tanks. So when I came back to making changes for D21, I went right to three basically even KG's. I understand all the objections to this idea, but from the standpoint of how the units actually function with respect to combat in the scenario, I believe this works best.

That said, I am still not convinced that it is the proper combination of realism and fun. This is why I left the SS formations with my second choice as to how these units should be organised, to see what everybody else thinks. If most of the time those units are being broken down, that's not good. It's just annoying that with the SS units, the recon and pioneer elements don't fit.

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 248
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 2:47:41 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wmorris

You gentlemen are having trouble with the Red Air force right off the bat, I imagine. The replacement rates in the original FITE give the USSR 3 to 4x the number of aircraft actually built during the war, and this is without the increases to production (the "gear ups"). I have greatly decreased the USSR aircraft production numbers in my FITE mod.



I'm pretty sure the production rates are set so that the Sov's produce the right number if the historical cities are lost aren't they?

The Sov's DID have a massive number of a/c, but lacked some sophistication in deploying them - air intercept across most of the Eastern front was a matter of patrolling and luck rather than radar and direction....for both sides. The Sov's did get some portable radar from the allies late on, and I think the germans deployed some, but C^3 isn't a factor in the air war as perhaps it needs to be in a game of this scale?



(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 249
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 4:44:21 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I tried several different variations of the KG organisation in another scenario I am working on, and if one KG is heavy in tanks, it makes it weaker against most targets except those also heavy in tanks. So when I came back to making changes for D21, I went right to three basically even KG's. I understand all the objections to this idea, but from the standpoint of how the units actually function with respect to combat in the scenario, I believe this works best.


Thinking back to gameplay experience, I think you are right, especially in '41-'42. I still prefer tank concentration in one KG and support it as needed with other arms. I agree that in game terms it is (sadly) probably a matter of taste.

I too have been fooling around with mods to the Auf and and our concepts would roughly agree (and be otherwise undistinguishable in game terms) except that I note that attachment of assault guns was usual, so my Auf transition includes some of the AT Bn's equipment (StuGs and 75 ATG). A common late war usage was for rearguards to draw the bad guys onto Stug/88 ambushments, so I redistribute a couple of the division's 88's as well. I think of this unit as the base of the fourth divisional KG, a recce/screen/economy of force unit. This also has organizational validity since the Auf Bn had a relatively large command/comms capability for a battalion.

quote:

I'm pretty sure the production rates are set so that the Sov's produce the right number if the historical cities are lost aren't they?


I have not rigorously crunched the numbers on this, but... The USSR player's air production is initially low and gets kicked down further from city losses. Even this level of production, continued to the end of the war, would produce nearly the historically produced number of aircraft. Not long afterward, the two early gear up will put him ahead of historical production with 300+ turns left to go. IMO it results in much larger than historical aircraft production fairly early in the war, and will increase even more with city recovery and the final gear up.

I also took into account the breakout of various types. I counted the Il-10 production as Il-2 in game terms, but all La-5 got counted as La-5FN in compensation. I think I folded in everything but the Pe-8's but allowed a few more Il-4 as compensation for these. I dont believe I left unaccounted any reasonably major combat type. And hey, the Germans have no HE 177's or FW-200's...

I prefer limiting the production of aircraft to jiggering shock, etc.

< Message edited by wmorris -- 2/8/2009 5:27:28 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 250
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 7:46:26 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		If production is correct and the Sov's are too strong then "jiggering shock" is the right approach IMO - I suspect that few people have a good understanding of just how badly outnumbered the LW was in Russia after 1942.

As long as you're getting figures along these lines then production is "accurate" - 35,000 IL-2's + some IL-10's means an average production of 90 per turn, 63,000 or so fighters means 150 or so fighters/turn (total all types), 21,000 other bombers = 50/turn.

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 251
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/8/2009 7:20:21 PM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

As long as you're getting figures along these lines then production is "accurate" - 35,000 IL-2's + some IL-10's means an average production of 90 per turn, 63,000 or so fighters means 150 or so fighters/turn (total all types), 21,000 other bombers = 50/turn.


Yes.

EX: For IL-2+ IL-10, using my present rate of 120, this will mean that in some early war turns there will be production of 30-ish per turn (maybe even falling into the 20's or teens with city losses), 100-ish after the early "gear ups", and 160+ in the last quarter of the game (using 150, 200, and 150 as the three replacement increases). If you use the original game # of 304 airframes per turn, you will make well over 100,000 airframes during the war.

My revision is based on a compromise of sources that put combined IL-2/IL-10 production at about 51K. that would require an average of about 125/turn. So my 120 might be a shade low, but I dont think I would go above 130.

The low early war # seems correct to me; I recall an episode where Stalin personally got on the phone (or teletype, I forget) to bully some manager into increasing IL-2 production to what seemed to me a very modest number.

I think that an attempt to get production numbers and therefore unit strengths right is preferable to using shock, assuming that proficiencies and combat sim are accurate (wink). I think this will result in the Russians being swept away initially, and then able to mount some challenge in the air locally late in '41.


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 252
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 12:00:05 AM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline 		Looks good. For what year is this? 42-43?

Why is the Sdkfz 251/16 in the TOE. This is the flamethrower variant. Is this supposed to represent something else?




(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 253
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 4:07:42 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Looks good. For what year is this? 42-43?

Why is the Sdkfz 251/16 in the TOE. This is the flamethrower variant. Is this supposed to represent something else?





Turn 132 is October 1942, if that's what you are asking.

I would guess that the 251/16 is included in order to represent all the various infantry support vehicles that were used by the Germans.

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 254
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 4:17:36 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 255
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 4:22:34 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		I dont think the 251/16 version was authorized in large numbers and I doubt that many units ever had as many as authorized, even the Pion battalions where you would expect to see more of them. I think that using the 251/16 may be an attempt to give support weapons with less AT capability than the 251/9, for whatever reason (or to standardize, as 653 has indicated).

The 251/9 was the version with the short 7.5cm gun originally on the early Pz Mk IV. This vehicle was included in some numbers in the later war AufKl battalion TOE and may be more correct, although they also were seldom available in the numbers authorized.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 256
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 4:48:00 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.





About Dora. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/lab/1167/edora.html

About German railway artillery http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/k5_hist03.htm


_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 257
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 5:25:03 AM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Back to the aircraft production numbers-

Replacement of 130 for IL-2 (IL-10 added in) provides almost exactly the # of historical units produced:

Turn 1-47: 44 per turn- 2068 (replacements x.34 starting turn 1)
Turn 48-77: 88 per turn - 2640 (replacements x2 strating turn 48)
Turn 78-351: 132 per turn - 36036 (replacements x1.5 starting turn 78)
Turn 352-end: 199 per turn- 10291 (replacements x 1.5 staring turn 352)
Total 51291 (my research numbers yielded 52K and 48K so I'm all right with this)

This does not take into account any city losses, nor the '42 increase in production of 15% when the Moscow militia goes back to work. Im wondering if this more or less equals out, but I think I will increase the replacement number to about 135. Note that this is still less than half of the original FITE replacement number of 304. The production of fighters is also overstated- some very badly so, some not, due to interaction between model start/stop dates and the dates of change in production multipliers. No wonder the sky is black with Russki airplanes by '42.

Dont shock it, fix the numbers. Bubi will get tired.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 258
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 6:23:03 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Does anybody have any info or links about these railroad artillery units? I'd like to organise them a little differently, but I haven't been able to find a list of them anywhere.





Do you speak deutsch?

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/eisenbahngeschutze.htm


_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 259
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 1:12:47 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

About German railway artillery http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/k5_hist03.htm


NICE! Thank you very much!

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 260
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 1:15:52 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Do you speak deutsch?

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/eisenbahngeschutze.htm


Niene. But if you could tell me what the two charts represent, that might be a big help, as they have easy numbers that us Amis can understand!

Danke

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 261
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 1:24:58 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wmorris

Back to the aircraft production numbers-

This does not take into account any city losses


But don't you have to factor in the city losses? They are there and they will happen. The FitE numbers were based on this, and doing some quick reckoning, it brings them into line with the numbers you have reported.

(in reply to wmorris)
Post #: 262
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 9:08:47 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline 		Well. there's technical info (ranges, shell weight) and organisational info in the text, but it seems it is not complete. Nevertheless:

In Service: 1941 (Ostfront):
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterie 701(2 Guns), 2./Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Abteilung 725 (1 Gun, AG South)
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterien 710, 712, 713, 765 (each 2 guns, AG Center)
all these units were equipped with some version of the 28cm K5


EDIT: I messed up cell format.. Aug-18 should read 8 - 18

On the lexikon-der wehrmacht site, the first table shows production numbers per year, the second table shows production of ammunition per gun type and year.

A copy of the latest directive 21 version to cariundel at yahoo de would be appreciated. :) Keep it going, been following this thread from the very beginning.


< Message edited by Telumar -- 2/9/2009 9:14:21 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 263
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 11:01:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

there's technical info (ranges, shell weight)


The technical stuuf isn't as important as trying to match the battery #'s with the guns attached, and then to try and find out where they were and when. So this info looks pretty good.

quote:

A copy of the latest directive 21 version


File sent.

Thanks!

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 264
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 11:05:10 PM   
wmorris

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

But don't you have to factor in the city losses? They are there and they will happen. The FitE numbers were based on this, and doing some quick reckoning, it brings them into line with the numbers you have reported.


Yes, but how many do you assume....and how much is this offset by the city workers production increase? This is what Im back and forth about.

Also have to keep in mind that fully 20% of Russian production FOR THE ENTIRE GAME occurs in the last 53 turns, and I dont think this unreasonable.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 265
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 11:06:49 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Well. there's technical info (ranges, shell weight) and organisational info in the text, but it seems it is not complete. Nevertheless:

In Service: 1941 (Ostfront):
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterie 701(2 Guns), 2./Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Abteilung 725 (1 Gun, AG South)
Eisenbahn-Artillerie-Batterien 710, 712, 713, 765 (each 2 guns, AG Center)
all these units were equipped with some version of the 28cm K5


EDIT: I messed up cell format.. Aug-18 should read 8 - 18

On the lexikon-der wehrmacht site, the first table shows production numbers per year, the second table shows production of ammunition per gun type and year.

A copy of the latest directive 21 version to cariundel at yahoo de would be appreciated. :) Keep it going, been following this thread from the very beginning.



Some errata (my commments)

15cm : all produced pre war, 4 active in 1940 (no information on the others but probably in reserve)
17cm : 6 produced pre war, 3 each in 717, 718
20cm: 8 total; 4 each in 42 and 43 (no indication in which units they served)
24cm, both models: 9 total, 2 each in 664,674,721,722 (doesn't specify which model in which unit, 1 in reserve?)
28cm, all Bruno models: 12 , 2 each in 689, 690, 694, 695 and 696 (doesn't specify which model in which unit or what happened to the other 2 produced)
28cm, T7,K5: available beginning Barbarossa 2 each in 710, 712, 713, 765, 1 each in 701 and 725 (according to OKH 22 produced by 28.09.1944; 3? prewar, 2 1939, 3 1940, 2 1941, 8 1942, 2 1943; 14 others ordered)
38cm: one each in service 09.1942; 12.1942; 10.1943; 12.1943 (2 each in 698 and 686)

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/9/2009 11:20:57 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 266
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/9/2009 11:59:39 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Some errata (my commments)


More good stuff, thanks!

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 267
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/10/2009 1:40:52 AM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline 		Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 268
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/10/2009 5:31:11 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.



Well, we could change everybody to Rifle Squads and readjust all the proficiencies.

quote:

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?


There is a real nice WWII Equipment database that includes all the various weapons. I'd love to use it, but it's really for a time when a new scenario is being created, not for refitting an existing one.

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 269
RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread - 2/10/2009 10:31:00 AM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Based on what criteria are Rifle or Hvy Rifle Squads given? I ask because the Romanians gave every Squad a 60 mortar in 1942, in addition to the normal Squad LMG's this doesn't look very different from German Squads firepower wise. I assume the lower overall proficiency of Romanian units is covered by the proficiency setting.



Well, we could change everybody to Rifle Squads and readjust all the proficiencies.


I think having a differentiation is sensible. The Soviets seemed to be a step a behind in Squad Weapons until 44/45 and Mech/Tank Corps already have Assault Squads so I think the present set up makes sense.

However I do think one could justify giving the Rumanian Regular Divisions (Inf and Arm) Hvy Rifle Squads, since they had considerable fire power at Squad level from late 41/early 42 onward. The alternative is to give them massive amounts of 60mm mortars which I think is more distorting.

Rumanian Reserve and Mountain Divisions are a different matter. There Rifle Squads seem to be appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
quote:

Also what do MMG's present? Are these supposed to be the integral Squad LMG's, listed separately?


There is a real nice WWII Equipment database that includes all the various weapons. I'd love to use it, but it's really for a time when a new scenario is being created, not for refitting an existing one.


I'm not advocating changing it, just asking what they represent in Real World terms. They show up all over the place and I was wondering how they were counted.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Directive 21 playtesters thread Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.672