RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

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: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:11:33 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Another fix to this problem would be to not allow surrenders, unless the unit has zero supply and there is no valid retreat path.

Allied troops surrender the very moment that 2-1 odds come up. That's the crap part of the whole equation. Japanese troops with no retreat path require many days of attacks to destroy completely.

Have any of you PBEM players actually had the philipines last until may 42?

I highly doubt that you'll see many Japan players crying about bad land combat in 44. Their units don't get eliminated very quickly. There's usually enough time to open a retreat path.

bc

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 31

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:11:56 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

A retreat is a retreat, it is not an organized attack into another enemy filled hex.

Much as I hate to ask with the leader bugs, but what was the skills of the leaders involved? A wimp is going to surrender the first time he gets a scratch I would think.

Expecting a retreat to run into another occupied hex makes zero sense. You don't drop your weapons and run away *INTO* a bunch of machine guns.

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 32

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:29:32 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

Saying "change opponants" is stupid

If you enjoy playing someone who insists on using gamey b.s. tactics, then yeah, I guess my suggestion is stupid. But if my opponent would not agree not to use such tactics after I pointed out that it was gamey, I would indeed look for someone else to play with. Fortunately I don't have to worry about that; my opponent is quite reasonable.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 1/31/2005 3:57:34 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 33

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:34:16 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?

No

People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat.

That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability.

The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want.

It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate.

Sorry Admiral, gotta disagree with you (about the game mechanics).

Saying, "Well, you should have just marched out first, before being forced to retreat!" is not a solution.

Considering the speed/ferocity of most ground combat, simply marching out is rarely an option. On a good day, it takes you 4 turns to march out of a rail hex. If you've been fighting for a while, and your fatigue/disruption is hight, it will take you 6 - 8 turns to clear the hex.

Even in the example above, the battle only lasted 2 turns. The defender couldn't have stopped the surrender even if he wanted to. If for some reason he actually wanted to retreat from the IJA ghost-paras, he couldn't have vacated the hex in time to begin with.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 34

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:37:46 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A retreat is a retreat, it is not an organized attack into another enemy filled hex.

Much as I hate to ask with the leader bugs, but what was the skills of the leaders involved? A wimp is going to surrender the first time he gets a scratch I would think.

Expecting a retreat to run into another occupied hex makes zero sense. You don't drop your weapons and run away *INTO* a bunch of machine guns.

Frag, I know this is old hash, but if you're army of 60,000 guys, fatigued and/or demoralized, you're still not going to surrender to 100 guys and 5 machine guns (even if the rumor is that there's 200 guys and 10 machine guns!).

Now, for all I care, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander." I don't like it, and it can annoy me, but that's the current constraints of the game system; and I'll play within it until/if it gets fixed.

(* shrug *)
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 35

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:09:01 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A retreat is a retreat, it is not an organized attack into another enemy filled hex.

Much as I hate to ask with the leader bugs, but what was the skills of the leaders involved? A wimp is going to surrender the first time he gets a scratch I would think.

Expecting a retreat to run into another occupied hex makes zero sense. You don't drop your weapons and run away *INTO* a bunch of machine guns.

This is why the 60 mile hex BS pees me off. The hex size is either claimed as too big or too small, depending on which design flaw is being discussed or more to the point, defended by the brass.

First. This is a bad land combat model, primarily due to the failure of translating it to the hex scale we are using. Agreed?

Thank you.

Second. How can it be assumed that the unit is retreating into machine guns? The hex is so large that in reality nobody is transiting from one hex to the other during a retreat, it is physically impossible to do IRL and during many aspects of normal game movement assuming we start and end in the centre of the hexes. Retreating into another hex is simply an aspect of the game design we need to live with. An abstraction.

But let's not forget that this IS an abstraction and suddenly say the unit is retreating into the guns of another unit when we allow enemy units to coexist in other instances. Do units entering a hex on the mainland occuppied by the enemy IMMEDIATELY undergo defensive fire from the enemy unit present? No. Why? Game mechanics and the need for abstraction.

We need to allow supply, movement, and retreat through co-occupied hexes and retreats and movement into enemy hexes because of the hex scale. Simple. Some way of determining surrender other than ZOC has to be devised. No supply path, lingering "A"s or "J"s in empty hexes etc just don't cut it guys.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 36

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:23:44 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

My leaders were all top notch Alexander commanded in the south and I had corps and command HQ in range.

The reason I didn not try to retreat was that 3rd Aus Div was 2 days out and would have stopped me losing the base.

Also I had total air superiority over the battlefied and had launched many raids against his ground forces.

We are playing three day turns which increase the risk oif this happening as I cannot order an attack to clear my lines for three turns but that is a game situation I have to live with.

I took a risk re the retreat by trying to hold which fair play to my opponent I lost.

Absoulutley no complaints on that score its the bullshit retreat/ surrneder code on what I thought was a stable front that pissed me off.

Anyway we are redoing the last few turns in total so I am happier now.

Regards

Andy

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 37

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:24:05 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Ron, the whole point behind adding the zones of control stuff was that people were bitching about units retreating through units. Problem solved. Now they don't like it. You want to go back the other way where everything retreats no matter what through anything?

You can't just keep inventing rules just because you don't like the way something happens to work. Everyone has the same game in front of them, people need to adapt to changes and live within them instead of constantly fighting up river about the magic change that cures the world of woe.

War gaming has been going on as long as I have been around and debating the rules has been going on ever since the very first rule was written. You can play within the rules or you can invent your own and agree to them. What you can not do is pretend that they don't exist just because you don't like them.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 38

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:32:22 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, the whole point behind adding the zones of control stuff was that people were bitching about units retreating through units. Problem solved. Now they don't like it. You want to go back the other way where everything retreats no matter what through anything?

You can't just keep inventing rules just because you don't like the way something happens to work. Everyone has the same game in front of them, people need to adapt to changes and live within them instead of constantly fighting up river about the magic change that cures the world of woe.

War gaming has been going on as long as I have been around and debating the rules has been going on ever since the very first rule was written. You can play within the rules or you can invent your own and agree to them. What you can not do is pretend that they don't exist just because you don't like them.

They were retreating through them, in effect OVER them. Now no movement is possible at all and units surrender at the drop of a hat. We have bracketed the target! Now we have to FFE and make it work to an acceptable degree. Let the unit retreat "into" (remember abstratcion) enemy zone of control and if enemy units are present, attack next turn, and if a retreat is again achieved, eliminate the units. If not, unit remains. Only way I think this will work acceptably. That and maybe make it harder to achieve a retreat result because of the hex size (abstraction again) as the Allies are getting bounced about like poofs in a men's locker room.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/31/2005 3:32:56 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 39

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:39:29 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Only way I think this will work acceptably.

After all this time, you still don't get it ... this is a turn based game, not a multiple turn transactional database where you can go look up what happened last turn and use it to make up what happens.

You go on and on about what would be great yet you are completely dreaming because you are thinking that what happened last turn is tracked magically.

It isn't.

It *once* again would be a completely rewrite from the ground up to have access to the results of the previous turn to allow that type of a system. Not going to happen.

Deal with the realities of what is available and you'll start to understand why the ZoC system is exactly the way it is. You have 1 round with all the data in front of you to make the choice of the outcome. Period.

If you have a idea that fits within *this* framework of possibilities, I'm all ears.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 40

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:46:04 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

Don't play someone who is as gamey as this.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 41

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:49:17 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

We have had a great game so far and I am so glad we have resolved the issue.

My main concern is that I genuinely think the current implementation is wrong but I cannot think or a workable implemenatable solution within the constraints outlined by Frag without just moving the problem to another situation

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 42

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:51:50 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you have a idea that fits within *this* framework of possibilities, I'm all ears.

It has been suggested before that some sort of AV threshold for generating ZOC's would do the trick. It's an idea that definitely fits within the "framework of possibilities" you put forth. How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 43

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:54:31 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

Don't know, the list is really long and this just changes the threshold ... ie: so he has to use 2 paras instead of 1? Same end effect really.

(in reply to von Murrin)

Post #: 44

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 10:56:02 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Don't play someone who is as gamey as this.

Seeing as both folks have opted to replay the turn, it was obviously not an *intended* result.

It's only gamey when someone does it deliberately.

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 45

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:07:56 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

Don't know, the list is really long and this just changes the threshold ... ie: so he has to use 2 paras instead of 1? Same end effect really.

What if the threshold was in the area of brigade strength? I think most people would be okay with that, and getting even a full third of two para units past CAP such as was present wouldn't be easy.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 46

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:12:03 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

What if the threshold was in the area of brigade strength? I think most people would be okay with that, and getting even a full third of two para units past CAP such as was present wouldn't be easy.

Who's Brigade? What shape it in? pick an assault value, thats something tangible. I think a Japan Para would kick the snot out of an India Brigade

(in reply to von Murrin)

Post #: 47

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:18:36 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Heh, no argument there.

Say 60 to start with. Most units can come close to that while still being combat effective. Even better, how about using a hex total for the factor? Say 90 from any combination of units gives ZOC effects? Can that even be done?

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 48

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:19:06 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Only way I think this will work acceptably.

After all this time, you still don't get it ... this is a turn based game, not a multiple turn transactional database where you can go look up what happened last turn and use it to make up what happens.

You go on and on about what would be great yet you are completely dreaming because you are thinking that what happened last turn is tracked magically.

It isn't.

It *once* again would be a completely rewrite from the ground up to have access to the results of the previous turn to allow that type of a system. Not going to happen.

Deal with the realities of what is available and you'll start to understand why the ZoC system is exactly the way it is. You have 1 round with all the data in front of you to make the choice of the outcome. Period.

If you have a idea that fits within *this* framework of possibilities, I'm all ears.

Really? We track progressive flooding, morale, disruption, fires, fatigue, movement points...

Whatever.

Then have the retreating unit undergo a deliberate attack (not shock because we can't assume the attackers are ready for it) immediately upon retreating into enemy hex. If it does not get a retreat result, it stays.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/31/2005 4:24:52 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 49

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:29:50 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 50

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:34:51 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

Not sure of the question. We can't affect this now. But if it happens to retreat into an empty hex with only a ZOC "letter", it stays, if it retreats into hex occuppied by enemy unit, it get attacked, and if forced to retreat again, it surrenders. Possible?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 51

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:39:50 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Really? We track progressive flooding, morale, disruption, fires, fatigue, movement points... Whatever.

No, they just did a good job of making it look like it is. Those are all single events based on formulas.

All of those are single values. based on the value, *things* can happen.

Flooding for example ... if ship has flood damage, it gets a flood increase check for progressive flooding. The higher the level, the more likely it will get worse (the formula).

quote:

Then have the retreating unit undergo a deliberate attack (not shock because we can't assume the attackers are ready for it) immediately upon retreating into enemy hex. If it does not get a retreat result, it stays.

Trying to make sense of this ... you are saying unit looses, retreats into enemy hex. Enemy is now forced to fight it (and any other troops that might be there). Hardly fair ... that could result in the guy who just won the fight being forced to loose a fight in another hex that he was not ready to fight in.

Due to the size of a hex, any form of retreat is frankly bad. If the hexes were small enough that the attacker could follow the defender quickly, I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but if it happens to be a non-improved hex, it could be 30+ extra days just to deal with some little group that is destroyed really that you now have to chase all over the map for nothing.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 52

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:40:04 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

1. Into enemy ZOC that is closest to a friendly base with supply.
2. Same as above, but friendly base is contested.
3. Into enemy ZOC that is closest to a neutral or friendly controlled hex with a valid supply path.
4. If none of the above, unit is destroyed.

Or something like that.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 53

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:41:37 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

But if it happens to retreat into an empty hex with only a ZOC "letter", it stays, if it retreats into hex occuppied by enemy unit, it get attacked, and if forced to retreat again, it surrenders. Possible?

Ping Pong anyone?

So this unit is running around doing 240 miles a day due to multiple retreats and the end result is it still surrenders from fatigue instead of morale

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 54

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:45:29 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Von, I like the way you think it through ... now, let me throw the curveball.

At the very same time, it is reseting ZoC that the other guy worked hard to put in place by moving into one of these locations which has potential impacts to all of his units so we get back into a retreating unit that ends up screwing the guy who one because *his* supply path just got cut due to the retreating unit moving into a hex he *had* control of and now his units loose suddenly because they no longer have a supply path.

This whole thing can seriously drive you to drink when you start thinking it through end to end.

(in reply to von Murrin)

Post #: 55

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:45:33 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.

The whole concept predicates upon a flag being generated by the game so it understands to disallow a second retreat.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 56

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:49:24 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.

It still ping pongs, look at the other side ... not just the retreating unit.

Unit A fights B in hex 1

B looses and retreats to hex 2

B fights C in hex 2

C looses and retreats to hex 3

D happens to be in hex 3 and isn't happy

Now potentially, 3 hexes have had there supply chain messed with.

(in reply to von Murrin)

Post #: 57

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:51:07 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

Due to the size of a hex, any form of retreat is frankly bad. If the hexes were small enough that the attacker could follow the defender quickly, I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but if it happens to be a non-improved hex, it could be 30+ extra days just to deal with some little group that is destroyed really that you now have to chase all over the map for nothing.

I agree with this. So why must we have retreats at all....?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 58

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:52:55 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

So why must we have retreats at all.

Got me stumped

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 59

RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 11:54:28 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Von, I like the way you think it through ... now, let me throw the curveball.

At the very same time, it is reseting ZoC that the other guy worked hard to put in place by moving into one of these locations which has potential impacts to all of his units so we get back into a retreating unit that ends up screwing the guy who one because *his* supply path just got cut due to the retreating unit moving into a hex he *had* control of and now his units loose suddenly because they no longer have a supply path.

This whole thing can seriously drive you to drink when you start thinking it through end to end.

This game already drives me to drink.

I see your point, but if you put retreat priorities in, doesn't that force a logical front progression? IOW, the only way NOT to drive the enemy back upon his own resources is to land, march, or para into his rear, in which case you deserve to be surrounded. (I'd be very upset if you weren't.

)

So... you're really saying this simply shifts the creation of The Exceptional Situation to another set of rules? If so, okay.

Give me a bit to play with this, though I'm wondering if ZOC itself isn't the root cause in its simplicity. There's a solution to every problem; it's simply a question of how much you are willing to allow your head to hurt for said solution. Didn't we say something about drink?

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug