ANW Fighter DATA question?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

ANW Fighter DATA question?

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.] >> [Modern] >> Larry Bond's Harpoon - Ultimate Edition >> ANW Fighter DATA question?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/6/2010 7:30:08 PM

Amono

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/15/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Hi,

I was playing HUD 3 database scenario Fish in a barrel, Cold War Battleset. Noticed that my Phoenix and Sparrow missiles had difficult time downing Russian Flankers, while their Alamos were splashing my Tomcats and Hornets easily. Flankers are tough enemies but I can't be that bad

so decided to check AALog and see what's going on. Noticed that Flankers were using unloaded DATA 4.5 when evading missiles while my fighters F14&18 used loaded DATA 2.0? Is this right? I'm still quite a newbie with ANW so maybe I haven't understand rules correctly

AALog included.

-Anssi

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Amono -- 12/6/2010 8:06:54 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/6/2010 8:28:15 PM

Amono

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/15/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Little manual and wiki reading solved the problem

RTFM!

(in reply to Amono)

Post #: 2

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/6/2010 9:16:26 PM

Little Beavers

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

:)

If you're having some trouble with how some weapons operate, it's always a good idea to look up the history of the weapon in question. The Phoneix for example, was always designed to take down large and not-so-nimble Soviet bombers. Naturally you're not going to see the weapon do as well against fighters....of course the Sparrow missile IRL wasn't all that hot to begin with so the trade off might not be worth it. The F-14 never was cleared for AMRAAM.

Likewise with Soviet era carriers. It's a common misconception to use them in a manner similar to US carriers. This is a mistake since Soviet carriers were never meant to be power projection tools but rather to enable local air superiority so they could launch missiles. Kuznetsov carrying SS-N-19s re-enforces this.

(in reply to Amono)

Post #: 3

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/7/2010 5:37:08 PM

cchiang

Posts: 33
Joined: 4/1/2009
Status: offline

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

(in reply to Little Beavers)

Post #: 4

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/7/2010 6:44:00 PM

Amono

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/15/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

cchiang,

I learned that aircraft DECM also affects missile evasion calculations and other things. There's so much happening behind the scenes so I decided to turn of the AALog and just concentrate improving my tacticts

Any tips how to defeat Flankers with Sparrows( and Phoenixs)?

(in reply to cchiang)

Post #: 5

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/7/2010 10:10:02 PM

Little Beavers

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

In that particular era? Jamming and SAM traps. Setting up a SAM equipped ship and drawing the fighters into it is a good idea. Unless you are going up against Backfires with AS-4s in which case you may want to save your SAMs.....
;
Of course, the ship you send out is going to be missile bait but that's a risk you have to be willing to take :)

Later
D

(in reply to Amono)

Post #: 6

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 1:28:46 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cchiang

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

If its the C variant of the Phoenix it may just be more capable against smaller more maneuverable targets. Was in real life and expect the Pok is higher in this db to reflect that.

Best tactic in harpoon is to hunt in pairs.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/8/2010 1:50:12 AM >

(in reply to cchiang)

Post #: 7

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 2:38:05 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amono

Hi,

I was playing HUD 3 database scenario Fish in a barrel, Cold War Battleset. Noticed that my Phoenix and Sparrow missiles had difficult time downing Russian Flankers, while their Alamos were splashing my Tomcats and Hornets easily. Flankers are tough enemies but I can't be that bad so decided to check AALog and see what's going on. Noticed that Flankers were using unloaded DATA 4.5 when evading missiles while my fighters F14&18 used loaded DATA 2.0? Is this right? I'm still quite a newbie with ANW so maybe I haven't understand rules correctly AALog included.

-Anssi

Anssi,

You've almost found the answer yourself in your description of what you've observed in the AALog.

The reason the Flankers are using a DATA of 4.5 and the USN fighters are only using a DATA of 2.0 is related to the aircraft's loadouts. Both USN fighters are loaded with drop tanks and these reduce the DATA value of the aircraft based on the reduction in performance of hanging several tonnes of fuel under a fighter aircraft, they are classed as "fully loaded".

The Flankers however are only carrying AAMs and no external fuel tanks. Therefore they are classed as "lightly loaded" and suffer no DATA penalty during combat.

Now how do you regain the missing DATA values for the USN fighters? Select the aircraft and use the "J" key and you'll suddenly get the missing DATA value back for the Tomcats and Hornets. Of course you also lose the fuel in the tanks you've just sent crashing to the sea/earth... I've attached the message you'll receive when you drop the tanks, which also displays the fuel each aircraft has lost with the relevant tanks jettisoned.

Btw Thanks for the post, I just double checked the Decoys on the Su-27S Flanker B and I've just reduced the Decoy generation from 3 back to 2. That makes the Flanker's 5% easier to kill. That edit will be available in the next HUD3 release.

Note: The "J" - Jettison hotkey is only functional when applied to individual aircraft.

Cheers

Darren

Note difference in lost fuel. This is based on the launch order of the aircraft. Unit 10 has burnt 60kg of fuel waiting for Unit 11 to launch.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bucks -- 12/8/2010 2:43:07 AM >

_____________________________

*******************************************
Editor HUD-II/HUD3 Harpoon Databases

http://www.taitennek.com/hud3-db/hud3-index.htm

Development Team H3ANW v3.8, v3.9, v3.10 & v3.10.1
*******************************************

(in reply to Amono)

Post #: 8

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 3:33:30 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cchiang

Amono, what did you find out from the manual?

Also, how does one evade a Phoenix missile (or 2)?
I found myself having a hard time evading one, especially in darkness (not sure if ANW calculate darkness with missiles into it).
I know that Phoenix is intended for Bombers, like Little Beavers had mentioned, but it is shooting down my Su-30s like flies on the wall.

This is how I evade a Phoenix missile (maybe I did it wrong the whole time), fly the same direction as the missile, afterburner (re-heat), and change altitude : )

cchiang,

Harpoon3 ANW does take the light level into account when resolving combat. For example an aircraft/pilot who is unaware of an incoming SAM, will lose the DATA value of the platform concerned. You might also want to check your fighters for drop tanks as well.

Example from AALog:

----------------------
Weapon W324 S-300PMU [SA-10b Grumble] is resolving its attack against F141 Super Hornet [2007+]
Attacking aircraft with base pK: 90%
Incoming Missile wasn't detected. Plane lost DATA evasion bonus.
Plane evading with a DATA of 0.0
Countermeasure effectiveness halved due to suprise
Total countermeasures: -10%
Final pH: 80%
Roll: 88 (Miss)
----------------------

Bad or good luck saved the Hornet in this case depending on your perspective. From memory the night/darkness visual range is approximately 25% of daylight visual range.

When it comes to avoiding missiles with I/TARH guidance, the method you've described will reduce the missile's chance of gaining/maintaining a lock on your aircraft. Attack geometry is modeled to some degree as the TARH missiles have a limited seeker range and a low power rating when compared to airborne search sets. SARH missiles present a different problem and the best way to survive these is kill the launching aircraft before his incoming missiles reach your aircraft.

By running toward the missile you're also presenting its seeker with almost the smallest radar cross section. That, combined with a sudden change in altitude will provide an increased chance of survival. In the case of a Su-27S Flanker B when being attacked by an AIM-54C, presenting a frontal aspect to the Phoenix rather than a side aspect, will reduce the detection range of the Phoenix's seeker from 9.7nm back to 7.8nm, almost a 2nm difference on a radar with a 12nm seeker range. Rear aspect is even better, however in the case of IR homing missiles, presenting the rear aspect of your evading fighters is a big no no...

Hope that helps explain the mechanics of whats happening a little better.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to cchiang)

Post #: 9

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 5:41:29 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

If its the C variant of the Phoenix it may just be more capable against smaller more maneuverable targets. Was in real life and expect the Pok is higher in this db to reflect that.

Best tactic in harpoon is to hunt in pairs.

Correct,

The AIM-54 is a much more capable weapon.

HUD3 AIM-54s

AIM-54A
- ATA = 4.0 (70%), Rate of Climb = 897m/sec, Range 48.3nm, Speed 2467kts

AIM-54C
- ATA = 5.5 (85%), Rate of Climb = 1043m/sec, Range 80.0nm, Speed 2869kts

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 10

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 7:14:41 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Ralf,

There was a follow-on to the AIM-54C. The AIM-54C++ Phoenix ECCM/SEALED was intended to enter production/service in 1990, although it was seemingly more of a electronics update as the missile's flight characteristics and combat capability were the same as the AIM-54C.

The "unique flight profile" you mentioned was a characteristic of the AIM-54A model. The Phoenix's raison d'etre was basically as a long range bomber killer (Tu-16 Badgers, Tu-20 Blinders & Tu-22 Backfires). The AIM-54A would climb to 103,500 (31547m) feet on launch. The "look down" geometry this presents, provides the missile's seeker with a planform view/cross section of the target and hence increased "lock on" capability.

The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54. It reaches out to 60nm has a 9.5 (125%) ATA rating, two way datalink and I&GPS/M/TARH - Inertial&GPS/Mid-Course Updates/Terminal Active Radar guidance. The Tomcat couldn't carry 10 Phoenixes, the Super Hornet can get aloft with 10 AMRAAMs. AMRAAM wins on weight as well; AIM-54 comes in at 463kg (1021 lbs) while the AIM-120 is "lightweight" at 152kg (335 lbs).

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

Post #: 11

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 7:26:26 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

<<EDIT>>

Likewise with Soviet era carriers.� It's a common misconception to use them in a manner similar to US carriers.� This is a mistake since Soviet carriers were never meant to be power projection tools but rather to enable local air superiority so they could launch missiles.� Kuznetsov carrying SS-N-19s re-enforces this.

I hate playing Devil's Advocate (Not!)

Of course if you blindly tie yourself to the flagpole of Doctrine, you may find yourself hoisted on your own petard...

I always point to the Japanese failure at Midway. The USN's victory was more a case of individuals displaying initiative rather than following their doctrine. This works both ways of course, as a side following a given doctrine or operating procedure leaves itself open to tactics exploiting that doctrine and a side that, "throws the book away" becomes an unknown quantity in combat.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to Little Beavers)

Post #: 12

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 2:39:49 PM

Amono

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/15/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Thanks Bucks. Very informative posts! I still have so much to learn(more manual reading

) Keep up the great work!

-Anssi

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 13

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 2:48:29 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 14

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/8/2010 6:32:15 PM

TonyE

Posts: 1551
Joined: 5/23/2006
From: MN, USA
Status: offline

110nm loft all the way FTW baby!

_____________________________

Sincerely,
Tony Eischens
Harpoon (HC, HCE, HUCE, Classic) programmer
HarpGamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 15

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/9/2010 2:50:21 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here.

Brad,

I haven't seen anybody named "Pappy" around here lately; I thought I was safe... Then Tony chimes in, maybe it's time for a F-14 appreciation thread?

I must admit that, recently working on current timeline scenarios has really made me appreciate the massive change the retirement of the F-14 has "inflicted" on the USN's Carrier Air Wings. I suppose the one way we'll have to examine the issue is through HC/ANW as soon as I start releasing some of the scenarios I've been developing.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 16

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/10/2010 1:06:24 AM

Little Beavers

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

I was talking to Jedi Master Paffhausen last week about the Su-27 family. He is lacking a proper computer/connection [figures] and has to communicate through his phone. This thread will be reported to the proper authorities and you will be presently 'pwned.....maybe.....sometime next week....hopefully....I think ;)

Post #: 17

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/10/2010 2:05:06 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

iPh y0U'r3 N0T c4refUl y0u'LL 83 pWN3D L1kE +He Re5T...

CH33R5

DaRr3n

_____________________________

(in reply to Little Beavers)

Post #: 18

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/10/2010 6:20:15 PM

TonyE

Posts: 1551
Joined: 5/23/2006
From: MN, USA
Status: offline

Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

_____________________________

Sincerely,
Tony Eischens
Harpoon (HC, HCE, HUCE, Classic) programmer
HarpGamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 19

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 3:58:21 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE
Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

Tony,

Already taken care of mate. Harold Hutchison (of Strike Group Reagan fame) provided a very updated version of the Iowa Class.

She keeps the three triple 16" mounts, loses the twin 5" for Mk45 single 5" and gains Mk41 VLS, ESSM & RAM. Hypothetical of course although I think I've covered your request with Harold's assistance.

I was just thinking of a possible scenario/discussion idea, based on the BB 61 Iowa [VLS 21+] from the HUD3 running the strait of Hormuz and performing NGFS in the form of clearing the defences on the Northern shore of the Strait. Assume it's pre-emptive, so the Iranians haven't been able to mine the Strait and rather than Seahawks she's carrying Firescouts to provide aerial spotting for the 16" guns. Standing 15 - 20nm off shore, anything within 5nm/9.26km of the waterline's in trouble... Add the banks of T'hawks and a reasonable AAW self-defence capability in the form of 256 x ESSM & 84 RAM and say a couple of the latest Burke DDGs as escorts and you have to wonder if they could run the gauntlet?

< Message edited by Bucks -- 12/11/2010 7:17:44 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to TonyE)

Post #: 20

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 1:52:04 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Harold's book was pretty good. Lots of great fights and thought the Tunisian background story was great. Goes to show there are lot of talented people involved in Harpoon that have gone on to do some great things outside of it.

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 21

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 2:06:36 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks
The AIM-120D is starting to give the AMRAAM the range capability of the AIM-54.

Careful, Darren. (While I agree with you) You just might turn this into a "Long Live the F-14" thread. Some of those folks lurk around here.

Ha! Very clever. They do but in a position to not have to talk trash on a web forum. Its a good spot to be in

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 22

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 3:34:12 PM

Little Beavers

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Whether it's about the F-14 or the Arsenal Ship, the nice thing about it is that people usually move on. I haven't seen a BB or F-14 thread in ages and the world is better off without them.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 23

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 5:42:20 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

I'm not sure the thread was in danger of degenerating into a Usenet flame war anytime soon, Hmmmm....

Surely looking at the "what if?" is part of the versatility of ANW and the database structure. Economic necessities mean Classic platforms are retired when some people can see a way of keeping them in service, "just in case".

I remember my first chance to look through a copy of Jane's in the early 1980's. I remember seeing the USN's Reserve Fleet listings from the 1976 Jane's Annual. It read like a history of WW2 as if, "just in case we need them - Cold War" the US was hanging on to large numbers of ships produced between 1940 & 1945. They were all scrapped eventually, although the USN must have spent an incredible amount of money keeping then in various states of readiness for in some cases 30 years or more.

I don't think anyone's here to stir things up and I'll apologise if this is stirring something up. I'd rather we attempt to build an atmosphere here that's conductive to everyone's enjoyment, interest in naval warfare and support with understanding the game. That IMHO extends from the "Newbie" who's just bought the game to the long term players who can help explain what might take a new player weeks or months to discover on his own. Let's not go down a path to anything but what we can do with ANW. If you don't like the fact a hypothetical Iowa class Battleship is in my DB, don't use that platform. Like Harold's Novel, it's a work of fiction, then again so are our scenarios.

Cheers

Darren

< Message edited by Bucks -- 12/12/2010 8:22:15 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Little Beavers)

Post #: 24

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 6:00:29 PM

CV32

Posts: 1046
Joined: 5/15/2006
From: The Rock, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE
Oh, and bring back the battleships, can't have the F-14 discussion without battleships.

There he is! Give him a Phoenix or two and he'll jump right to the battleships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks
Surely looking at the "what if?" is part of the versatility of ANW and the database structure. Economic necessities mean Classic platforms are retired when some people can see a way of keeping them in service, "just in case" ... I don't think anyone's here to stir things up and I'll apologies if this is stirring something up. I'd rather we attempt to build an atmosphere here that's conductive to everyone's enjoyment, interest in naval warfare and support with understanding the game. That IMHO extends from the "Newbie" who's just bought the game to the long term players who can help explain what might take a new player weeks or months to discover on his own. Let's not go down a path to anything but what we can do with ANW. If you don't like the fact a hypothetical Iowa class Battleship is in my DB, don't use that platform. Like Harold's Novel, it's a work of fiction, then again so are our scenarios.

There will be always be room in Harpoon for the hypothetical, even the outlandishly hypothetical scenario. Its part of the better enjoyment of the game. Folks who insist on absolute rabid realism for its own sake usually disappear down a rabbit hole of their own making, as time goes on. Those who still have an appreciation for enjoyment of the sim in all its forms will remain.

_____________________________

Brad Leyte
HC3 development group member for HCE
Author of HCDB official database for HCE
Harpgamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to TonyE)

Post #: 25

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 7:34:08 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV32
There will be always be room in Harpoon for the hypothetical, even the outlandishly hypothetical scenario. Its part of the better enjoyment of the game. Folks who insist on absolute rabid realism for its own sake usually disappear down a rabbit hole of their own making, as time goes on. Those who still have an appreciation for enjoyment of the sim in all its forms will remain.

For Harpoon I absolutely agree. +1 on all aspects

(in reply to CV32)

Post #: 26

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/11/2010 7:36:19 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Little Beavers

Whether it's about the F-14 or the Arsenal Ship, the nice thing about it is that people usually move on.� I haven't seen a BB or F-14 thread in ages and the world is better off without them.

So why not have 100 posts about it? Lots going on huh guys?

Like alot of projects of the era Dale..they never really panned out.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 12/12/2010 1:16:38 AM >

(in reply to Little Beavers)

Post #: 27

RE: ANW Fighter DATA question? - 12/12/2010 6:53:41 PM

TonyE

Posts: 1551
Joined: 5/23/2006
From: MN, USA
Status: offline

Yep Mike, literally thousands of code changes in the last month, special projects, the very limited Harpoon time is packed.

_____________________________

Sincerely,
Tony Eischens
Harpoon (HC, HCE, HUCE, Classic) programmer
HarpGamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 28

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Larry Bond's Harpoon - Ultimate Edition >> ANW Fighter DATA question?

Page: [1] 2 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

1.469

Slitherine

ANW Fighter DATA question?