Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Largest known scenario in Command history?

 
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] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Largest known scenario in Command history? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Largest known scenario in Command history? - 4/30/2018 8:06:37 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline 		I am planning to edit the first four CoW scenarios to have the commerical traffic that clogs the Pacific in the skies and on the seas.

Salvo in particular is already a huge scenario, I was wondering what a good limit would be in terms of active unit count.

In terms of active unit count, what is the largest known scenario in CMANO?

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin
Post #: 1
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 4/30/2018 10:13:19 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline 		Red Dragon Descends on the Steam Workshop is a good place to start. Full OOBs for basically every nation in the Pacific.

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 2
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 12:51:55 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		Not sure on which scenario has the highest AU count but I try to cap my scenarios at around 2,500. Beyond that a lot of systems will struggle.

If you're adding a lot of merchant traffic make sure the Civilian side is set to 'blind'; that will save a lot of sensor calcs and spare the CPU

_____________________________


(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 3
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 5:47:48 AM   
Hongjian

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 1/2/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Red Dragon Descends on the Steam Workshop is a good place to start. Full OOBs for basically every nation in the Pacific.



This basically.

Smokes my PC every time I just try to load it.

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 4
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 6:10:09 AM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Red Dragon Descends on the Steam Workshop is a good place to start. Full OOBs for basically every nation in the Pacific.


Could you attach the file to a reply to this message? I don't have steam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

Not sure on which scenario has the highest AU count but I try to cap my scenarios at around 2,500. Beyond that a lot of systems will struggle.

If you're adding a lot of merchant traffic make sure the Civilian side is set to 'blind'; that will save a lot of sensor calcs and spare the CPU


One interesting aspect is to have certain ships be on their own side and share information with China, sort of like spy trawlers, but spread out to include other types of ships, specifically ones operating around places like Okinawa, Seoul, and Yokohama.

But yeah, for the majority of civilian units as well as the nature side, they will all be set to blind.

< Message edited by FlyForLenin -- 5/1/2018 6:13:11 AM >

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 5
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 6:40:06 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Isn't there a new Desert Storm scenario with 12.5K units?

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 5/1/2018 6:41:56 AM >

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 6
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 3:59:55 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2428
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris
Isn't there a new Desert Storm scenario with 12.5K units?


Sweet Savannah! That is unreal.

Here I try to go out of my way to limit the number of units for speed reasons...
That is cool though: whoever did that generates a lot of work!


_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 7
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 5:02:45 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Red Dragon Descends on the Steam Workshop is a good place to start. Full OOBs for basically every nation in the Pacific.


Could you attach the file to a reply to this message? I don't have steam.



Here it is.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 8
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 11:07:13 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Isn't there a new Desert Storm scenario with 12.5K units?


Yes, but the general consensus seems to be that that amount is far to big. Depending on the size of the Pacific scenario mentioned before, I will try to find a compromise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3


quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Excroat3

Red Dragon Descends on the Steam Workshop is a good place to start. Full OOBs for basically every nation in the Pacific.


Could you attach the file to a reply to this message? I don't have steam.



Here it is.


Thanks!

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 9
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/1/2018 11:54:45 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline 		Northern Fury #34 - The Longest Battle

Trans Atlantic convoy ops, runs about 3-3500 units. Used to be the largest but has been surpassed by several mentioned.

B

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 10
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/2/2018 7:08:38 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline 		Yes. Nobody play if too slow.

Perhaps someone finds limit where there lots of unit and run ok?

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 11
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/3/2018 12:06:22 AM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes

Yes. Nobody play if too slow.

Perhaps someone finds limit where there lots of unit and run ok?


Alright, based on what has been said here, the average maximum (runnable) AU count in scenarios seems to be around 2500-3000. This does not take into account the complexity of the scenario (sides, sensors, etc.).

12000 in the new Desert Storm scenario seems to be far to big for most people, 4000ish is also too much in the Red Dragon Descends scenario.

This a problem as Salvo, for example, already has around 2700 AUs.

Therefore, I have decided to ignore AU count and build to my liking.

Thanks for the replies!

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to BDukes)
Post #: 12
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/8/2018 3:39:30 PM   
VFA41_Lion


Posts: 228
Joined: 1/30/2014
Status: offline 		I'm making a scenario that starts off (currently) at 3000 AU and jumps to 4300, which is taxing my i5-6600k at 3.5ghz a decent bit.

_____________________________


(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 13
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/9/2018 7:40:29 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion

I'm making a scenario that starts off (currently) at 3000 AU and jumps to 4300, which is taxing my i5-6600k at 3.5ghz a decent bit.


I apologize but I know practically nothing detailed about how computers work. Could you translate that into the real time it takes to play one second of the game? Or something along those lines.

I heard it takes around 1 minute or so for one in game second to pass in the new Iraq War scenario. Things like this are my primary concern at this moment in time.

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to VFA41_Lion)
Post #: 14
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/9/2018 8:04:05 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline 		I worry sometimes that people make scenarios too big and end up compromising their realism because after a certain point, you effectively end up having to wear too many hats, and someone in charge of a force that big wouldn't be making the same kinds of decisions as you make in Command. If it gets too big, the commander is essentially writing the victory conditions for many Command scenarios at once, and setting timelines dictating the order in which they need to be accomplished, as well as working with political leaders to translate their political goals into military goals which support them, and working with diplomats to shore up alliances. That's a whole separate game. It's probably a whole separate KIND of game as well, which would be interesting, but I'm not sure it lends itself to the kind of highly detailed simulation that Command is. It'd almost be like a role playing game or a card game, or maybe something like Diplomacy. I don't know...

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 15
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/9/2018 8:12:37 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		ah, one can wear many hats at once. in the same way that nudging a tanker to a new orbit requires being a mission planning man, a tanker man, a radio control tower man or what have you, you could play the diplomat and the commander at the same time.

when you are playing this sort of game, you are wearing many hats already considering you can nudge the planes around (pilot) nudge the missions around (planning) or nudge the objectives around (political guy) there is no reason to struggle for absolute realism in this way imo.

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 16
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/9/2018 8:17:30 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hi FlyForLenin
quote:

I heard it takes around 1 minute or so for one in game second to pass in the new Iraq War scenario. Things like this are my primary concern at this moment in time.


Unfortunately it´s not that simple.
Performance depends on a lot of variables, and AU count is only one of these (but a pretty important one).

I run command on an AMD FX-8350 octo core CPU @ 4GHz, and this is a three years old computer, and I can usually run a 3-4000 AU count scen pretty smooth at 15:1 time compression and at 5:1 with no problems.
Disabling range rings and other things can help alot.
You can tweek your setup quite a bit in the games menu, to be able to run quite big scens on slower computers, and the devs are continually improving the game, so performance should improve with each new build.

I haven´t run the 12500 AU monster yet, but this scen will max out most computers.

Depending on your computers specs, you shouldn´t be afraid to try scens running at 2500+ AU count.
If your computer is too slow to run it, you will know in the first few seconds, but I doubt that it will take a real world minute to run one game second.

Hope this helped.

Søren

< Message edited by Schr75 -- 5/9/2018 8:24:47 PM >

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 17
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/9/2018 9:21:35 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline 		It is true, one can wear many hats at once, but there are limits.

Unless you're President Johnson (which I don't encourage), the job of a diplomat, politician and military officer of sufficiently high rank is sufficiently different from the kinds of things portrayed in Command that they're really beyond the scope of the game. There's many levels of warfare, and they interact with one another. On the highest level, you might not really be concerned with striking targets at all. You're creating facts which shape the underlying conditions in which one might potentially strike targets if it comes to that, or reacting to the unanticipated consequences of the conflict.

Do you really think Command has an accurate portrayal of electoral politics or the kinds of behind the scenes negotiations that effect things like overflight rights, basing options? In Command, that's all an assumption. In Command you wouldn't care how Madeleine Albright convinced the Bulgarians, Romanians and Hungarians to close their airspace to Russian overflight, you'd just assume that she did, and draw a big red blob over them. Once you get to a high enough level, essentially you're not playing a Command scenario anymore so much as you're helping to create the facts around which one might write a Command scenario, only it's in an adversarial environment, your opponent gets to create facts too. In that sense, Command is just the game within a larger game.

Command also doesn't do stuff like answer questions about things like how does striking targets and moving things around (e.g. things Command portrays) interact with Dept. of Treasury officials freezing the financial assets of the opposing nation's leadership? Command does not, for example, have any way to represent what happens when Slobidan Milosevic's wife can't go shopping in Paris anymore. If the Israelis enter into a conflict will it fragment the alliance? What kinds of facts can one create in order to minimize that possibility? If I move an amphib over the horizon so the people in Monrovia can see it, do the rebels pull back because they don't want to fight or do they attack the embassy? In Command you might be clever and script a course of action, or even a few different ones, but you wouldn't really be able to make an argument why it'd go one way or the other. That has to come from somewhere else.

There's other kinds of wargaming that deals with that kind of stuff. Effectively the end state of those kinds of wargames would be a set of facts which might shape a Command type scenario. Depending on what your interests are, there might be reasons to struggle for realism. For me, the entertainment value of the game lies in the way I can use it to think through real problems and gain some insight into some of the things which shape international security, either historically or in the near future. Because of that, realism is important to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

ah, one can wear many hats at once. in the same way that nudging a tanker to a new orbit requires being a mission planning man, a tanker man, a radio control tower man or what have you, you could play the diplomat and the commander at the same time.

when you are playing this sort of game, you are wearing many hats already considering you can nudge the planes around (pilot) nudge the missions around (planning) or nudge the objectives around (political guy) there is no reason to struggle for absolute realism in this way imo.


(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 18
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/10/2018 2:04:25 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline 		As far as I know in this game, you are the commander who abide objectives to do damages in scenarios, not the way around. The end of scenario will write "let the politicians do the clean up.", which isn't you.

Anything above this part is an excessity to complicate the whole game, not all players are willing to study politics to decide what to do militarily, especially the side he is playing is not in his country. This is what I understand to separate multiple small scenarios and pack them in one campaign. Not only to avoid explosive reactions on multiple sides in a big scenario, but also trimming down the unit size for processing performance.

Make no mistake, I really love grand campaign style of real-time modern strategy games to be real at someday -- I would love to see every single assets and units to be shown all around planet earth, with economical and political buildups like in Total War Series. But this will be a whole different discussion point. And like I said, not every players want to involve with politics in a middle of battle.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 5/10/2018 2:27:28 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 19
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/10/2018 7:18:38 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schr75

Hi FlyForLenin
quote:

I heard it takes around 1 minute or so for one in game second to pass in the new Iraq War scenario. Things like this are my primary concern at this moment in time.


Unfortunately it´s not that simple.
Performance depends on a lot of variables, and AU count is only one of these (but a pretty important one).

I run command on an AMD FX-8350 octo core CPU @ 4GHz, and this is a three years old computer, and I can usually run a 3-4000 AU count scen pretty smooth at 15:1 time compression and at 5:1 with no problems.
Disabling range rings and other things can help alot.
You can tweek your setup quite a bit in the games menu, to be able to run quite big scens on slower computers, and the devs are continually improving the game, so performance should improve with each new build.

I haven´t run the 12500 AU monster yet, but this scen will max out most computers.

Depending on your computers specs, you shouldn´t be afraid to try scens running at 2500+ AU count.
If your computer is too slow to run it, you will know in the first few seconds, but I doubt that it will take a real world minute to run one game second.

Hope this helped.

Søren


Thanks!

@SeaQueen , @Dysta , I currently don't have any plans on making a scenario that large for public consumption, or for myself- I have done something like that with small fictional nations before and it is pretty boring in my opinion.

I will say one thing though- logic wise, if we are already playing as high ranking officers on the one hand, and soldiers (pilots, captains) on the other hand, within one scenario, I don't see how expanding the scope is bad.

Fun wise though, I don't think it is a good idea, at least not for one player alone.

Having a multiplayer version, with say, 12 people on each team, with 1 person as the "leader", and the other eleven controlling theaters/fronts/divisions/whatever, could be pretty interesting. Definitely not possible with current technology, but it could be interesting in the future, for those willing to do it.

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 20
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/10/2018 8:14:59 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin
Having a multiplayer version, with say, 12 people on each team, with 1 person as the "leader", and the other eleven controlling theaters/fronts/divisions/whatever, could be pretty interesting. Definitely not possible with current technology, but it could be interesting in the future, for those willing to do it.


It's possible if you can get people all in the same room and divvy up responsibilities. It's actually a very fun thing to do if you have a bunch of geeky people who want to get together and play through a scenario as a team, negotiate a course of action among themselves input it, and execute it. It's also a fairly realistic representation of how things work.

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 21
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/10/2018 8:41:28 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		I would imagine the folks lucky enough to have access to the Pro version might just conduct some of their exercises in this manner.

Kevin

FYI, if guys have not seen these:
https://usnwc.edu/Research-and-Wargaming/Wargaming
http://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/WarGamersHandbook.pdf

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 22
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/10/2018 9:17:29 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

It's also a fairly realistic representation of how things work

Only if you turn the lights off and communicate exclusively using heavily abbreviated IRC messages.

All sarcasm aside, I think the struggle would be how to effectively divide the effort among a team once you'd determined a COA/ATO. Would you break it down like unit-level MPCs, or by more functional/geographic AOR?

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 23
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/11/2018 1:35:15 PM   
terry1040

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 10/11/2000
From: The bright side of life
Status: offline 		While I am fascinated by BIG scenarios, I prefer to play small to mid-sized once.

Make it more complex, fine. But please stay reasonable with the unit count.

How many can a player really handle effectively? Even if you leave things to the AI and Missions.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers
Terry

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 24
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/11/2018 5:56:19 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

It's also a fairly realistic representation of how things work

Only if you turn the lights off and communicate exclusively using heavily abbreviated IRC messages.

All sarcasm aside, I think the struggle would be how to effectively divide the effort among a team once you'd determined a COA/ATO. Would you break it down like unit-level MPCs, or by more functional/geographic AOR?


In my opinion, it depends on the size of the scenario. Another option would be having one guy in command of air forces, one guy in command of naval forces, one guy in command of air defence forces, etc.

If you do that, and say, in a future version of CMANO, have each "force" be its own side, the players would have to transmit information between eachother (for example, the air defence guy directing a fighter to a target via radar), only they would have to do it by some sort of fixed messaging system with a realistically modelled delay, as you suggested. This would partially omit the somewhat unrealistic instantaneous communication there is currently, and making for interesting teamwork requirements. It also makes friendly fire a real possibility/problem. It could also be possible for the enemy team to "intercept" communications, and so, say, if the naval commander is telling the guy in charge of aerial ASW where his SSN last was at X time (in order to avoid friendly fire), the enemy ASW guy could receive the "intercepted" message, and get a better idea of where the SSN is.

You would have to find some really dedicated people to do that though.

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 25
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/11/2018 7:56:12 PM   
SeaQueen


Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: terry1040
Make it more complex, fine. But please stay reasonable with the unit count.

How many can a player really handle effectively? Even if you leave things to the AI and Missions.



I think the issue is less the number of units and geographic distribution of them so much as the scope of the scenario goals. Once a scenario becomes very large in terms of time frame, geographic distribution and number of units, the problem is less managing the units and more the amount of time it takes to effectively plan at the level of detail that Command simulates. Furthermore an actual commander in charge of a force that large wouldn't be concerned with the kinds of things that Command deal with. They'd be coordinating the efforts of subordinate commanders by identifying broad classes of targets and the rough time lines on which they should be struck, coordinating with allies to blend complimentary capabilities and coordinating with diplomats, politicians, and other government officials to shape the battlefield by non-violent means. Their subordinate commanders would then follow up and do the kinds of planning that Command simulates well (sensor-to-shooter kill chain stuff). If the scenario becomes too huge, realistically the job of the commander in charge of those forces is less about managing the kill chain and more about defining what success means, and the kinds of things around which a scenario would be designed.

(in reply to terry1040)
Post #: 26
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/13/2018 3:10:26 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Oh, I forgot to ask. When we are talking about thousands of units are we including all the ground facilities at say the airfields? I would imagine so. And what is meant by AU count?

Thanks,
Kevin

(in reply to SeaQueen)
Post #: 27
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/14/2018 1:18:10 AM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Oh, I forgot to ask. When we are talking about thousands of units are we including all the ground facilities at say the airfields? I would imagine so. And what is meant by AU count?

Thanks,
Kevin


We are including them, in fact, considering there can be hundreds of units within one airfield, and multiple airfields (especially in larger scenarios), airfield units probably make up the majority of the scenario's units.

AU means active unit count.

PS sorry for repetitive use of "unit" and "airfield".

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 28
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/14/2018 12:34:39 PM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		Airfields are usually the ‘killer’ for AU count. You can actually cut down a lot on AU by substituting multi-component airfields for single unit airfields. While single unit airfields aren’t destructible you can script in a change from single unit to mult-component and tie it to either a special action or regular triggered event (I wrote a quick tutorial on this in the Lua Legion subforum; it’s not nearly as complex as you might think). This keeps the AU count down as much as possible while also having the benefits of a multi-component airfield on demand.

_____________________________


(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 29
RE: Largest known scenario in Command history? - 5/16/2018 1:33:05 AM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		I have used single unit airfields and then placed some facilities for player to strike. Conversely, if you want to keep the runways/taxi ways, then place a multi-component A/F and then delete most of the facilities except leaving the facilities housing the needed aircraft and some strategic targets - a little tedious but doable. Separately, I wish the OOB listing could filter out all those facilities and then start in "collapsed" view. The listing would be a bit more usable. Can you imagine the listings in the types of scenarios that are the topic of this thread?

Kevin

< Message edited by kevinkin -- 5/16/2018 1:23:38 PM >

(in reply to Rory Noonan)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Largest known scenario in Command history? 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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.936