Next game, more questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Blackadar1 -> Next game, more questions (6/16/2007 5:40:42 PM)

My feeling of hope for this game is rapidly sinking.

I had a number of issues just getting the game working and then a bunch more (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1480608) after my first game. Some of these remain valid and some (as I explained on my very first post) were due to a lack of knowledge. For example, I've gotten much better about moving my troops in and out of river provinces.

So I'm playing my 2nd game with most everything turned on, but an easy difficulty level. Now there are a few more issues, as well as a few holdovers.

1. Two CTDs (Crash-to-Desktops), both in detailed battles with infantry charges. Most annoying to go back and play 30 minutes of a battle because the game crashes.

2. I'm still seeing a wild disparity between instant simming and then fast simming in detailed battles...always not in my favor on instant simming. I didn't buy the game to really play the detailed battles as much as I have been, but I've grown to enjoy them.

3. I still don't like supply, but that's the way it is. I think it drastically changes the way combat really works - very often armies are tied to supply lines - and reduces the manuever that can be so much of a part of winning the war. But so be it, it's not going to change.

4. This next one is my new frustration. I'm playing as union (again) and I'm concripting, mustering and doing everything I can. I've also managed to win almost every battle and have inflicted huge losses on the Rebels. I've already eliminated hundreds of thousands of Rebel troops. My highest is 32,000 troops killed in one battle.

Historically, that means I would have already eliminated about 1/3rd or 1/4th of the overall Rebel force (750,000 to 1,250,000). However, by 1863 I'm incredibly outnumbered. The Rebs are fielding an army that's close to 1,500,000 even after the losses. They're having zero problems getting reinforcements and building massive troop populations.

Not only is this unrealistic, but they can't have the economy to support those kinds of numbers! I've already taken Kentucky and Tennessee, but the Rebel war machine just plows on with ever increasing numbers. I have no idea where they're getting these guys from or how on God's green earth they're supporting them. The final straw is when I saw two new armies - one from Stuart and another - each with over 120,000 troops just appear out of thin air on the TN border. And yes, I tested the troop strength by engaging these armies, only to see my own troops vastly outnumbered. Any ideas how they're magically creating huge armies and where they're getting the money to support them?

At this point, I'm beyond discouraged with this game. It ain't worth the frustration.



sirduke_slith -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/16/2007 6:49:59 PM)

I also don't like the supply in detailed battles, so i just don't play them.  And with the large number of confederate forces there can be only one answer (that i know of): it is something i discovered on my own while playing the confederacy that if you conscript ever man and put supply and diplomacy to full then you have huge armies while good diplomacy with europe,  the setback is that they dont get money (except from runners) they will always be at zero. (since there is no negative money)  This means they will have numbers just not a good economy.  This strategy with the confederacy is a good one and i have pulled off many victories with it on high AI settings, i have never seen the AI implement this strategy though.  I think you should stick with the game and continue trying to get through the initial errors, it is really fun and if you think you don't like the game so much after that then just modify it to your liking [:)]!



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/16/2007 8:54:49 PM)

Blackadar1:

On the contrary, You are probably frustrated because this game has a steep learning curve even though it looks simple. Other than your CTDs (which I have never had, using 1.5 GBytes of Ram), I had the same difficulties and frustrations getting used to it. The AI is programmed to muster/conscript units like crazy and produce the camps to support them, you have to take the war to them and wear them out by attrition. (And you have to muster/conscript to keep up, especially the first year prior to April 1862 if playing as Union

Also, regarding 4) above, are you forcing units to surrender (they wave a white flag), or are the massive losses just kill numbers at the end of the battle without many units surrendering? If you're not forcing units to surrender, then their lossses are being replaced almost immediately the next turn (I recently saw a screen pic with the CSA having over 43000 replacements, admittedly unhistorical), so the answer is the destruction (surrender) of the unit itself. That fact in and of itself is key to winning the Stategic game while using Detailed Battles, otherwise as you said, by 1863 you will be badly outnumbered.

see: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1478751

pay particular attention to Walloc's answer and the threads he links in his reply, he's one of the best FoF players (especially in Detailed Combat).

If you continue to have CTDs, I'm sure WCS would be interested in your system specs. Also, from my experience, it is best to exit the game to desktop before starting a new game, rather than exiting back to the game menu. There is a known memory leak (buildup), whatever, if you don't exit to desktop to clear it.  In my case it causes severe lag, probably due to heavy virtual mem access. The game uses approx. 900k GBytes on initial startup, so if your system is only 1 GByte to start with, you may be running into this, also. It has never caused me a CTD, though, so that problem may be unrelated.



Yogi the Great -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/16/2007 10:15:46 PM)

I like the game - I would reccommend it to any civil war game buff without hesitation.

I do agree however that the Rebels are just too strong in numbers with the AI.  I wonder if this was intentional to help give a strong AI challenge?

I'm often dissappointed with computer game AI.  I use to hope that when you increased difficulty level you would get a smarter opponent in regard to strategy, tactics, moves etc.  I now know that Instead you may just get increased casualties, slower/faster build times, increased unit strength or numbers, etc.  I suppose that's a lot easier to program then strategy and tactics.

I know that a number of game players could care less about AI, because they will usually play via internet, e-mail or head to head in a few cases.  But for many of us, AI is far and away the way we play most.  I feel that there is a potential strong market out there for games with good AI's.  We have to acknowledge however that creating one, is costly, time-consuming and difficult.



Drex -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/17/2007 5:50:16 AM)

I love pbem but this game is great with the AI, even with the inequalities named above. I hesitate to join the complaints because I'm not sure that my difficulties aren't just inferior gameplay. If the AI can raise troops, then we should be able to raise troops. Also I do not know what level Blackadder is playing at. If he is at major or above, then the AI gets advantages so your gameplay has to be much better. I know I was winning up to Captain level but once I reached Major - I hit a Stonewall. At the moment I am watching the forum carefully for tips to better my play. Before I attack the game design, I need to feel better about my game skills.



ericbabe -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/17/2007 8:44:38 PM)

quote:


1. Two CTDs (Crash-to-Desktops), both in detailed battles with infantry charges. Most annoying to go back and play 30 minutes of a battle because the game crashes.


These are the first such ctd's in detailed battle I've heard about with FOF after release.  Did you report them on the support forum?

quote:


2. I'm still seeing a wild disparity between instant simming and then fast simming in detailed battles...always not in my favor on instant simming. I didn't buy the game to really play the detailed battles as much as I have been, but I've grown to enjoy them.


Instant resolve and regular combat were never intended to have parity of results -- this is simply impossible to achieve, I wouldn't know where to begin trying to make one very simple model able to emulate the other much more complicated model, in fact I suspect that by some of the theorems of complexity theory that this might be impossible to program.  The simple model could iterate the more complicated model, but then your computer would probably sit there for 10 minutes while combat resolution ran and then we wouldn't be able to call it "instant resolve" any more but would have to rename it "10 Minute Resolve" and some players might find the interval borning.

quote:


3. I still don't like supply, but that's the way it is. I think it drastically changes the way combat really works - very often armies are tied to supply lines - and reduces the manuever that can be so much of a part of winning the war. But so be it, it's not going to change.


Some players think supply is too much work to keep track of, other players would like the supply rules to be much more work to keep track of.  Some players think supply rules are too generous, others seem to think they're too restrictive.  Our game Crown of Glory had more difficult, more severe, supply rules, and based on the balance of feedback we received on that product, it seems the majority of players prefered simpler, less draconian supply rules, and so that's the direction we took things for Forge of Freedom.  Also based on our reviews, it seems most reviewers are daunted and intimidated by our currently existing supply rules already.

quote:


4. This next one is my new frustration. I'm playing as union (again) and I'm concripting, mustering and doing everything I can. I've also managed to win almost every battle and have inflicted huge losses on the Rebels. I've already eliminated hundreds of thousands of Rebel troops. My highest is 32,000 troops killed in one battle.


Are you playing on an easy difficulty level?  If you want the AI to have fewer troops, just play on a lower level.







ericbabe -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/17/2007 9:00:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

I like the game - I would reccommend it to any civil war game buff without hesitation.

I do agree however that the Rebels are just too strong in numbers with the AI. I wonder if this was intentional to help give a strong AI challenge?

I'm often dissappointed with computer game AI. I use to hope that when you increased difficulty level you would get a smarter opponent in regard to strategy, tactics, moves etc. I now know that Instead you may just get increased casualties, slower/faster build times, increased unit strength or numbers, etc. I suppose that's a lot easier to program then strategy and tactics.

I know that a number of game players could care less about AI, because they will usually play via internet, e-mail or head to head in a few cases. But for many of us, AI is far and away the way we play most. I feel that there is a potential strong market out there for games with good AI's. We have to acknowledge however that creating one, is costly, time-consuming and difficult.



Civilization IV -- which has more programmers on-staff than WCS has full-time beta testers -- uses even greater AI material bonus rules than Forge of Freedom. The reason that strategy games almost universally use material bonuses for AI difficulty is that there are hard mathematical limits to what AI can calculate in games with the sort of complexity of the typical strategy game. The complexity of a game is measured by something called the size of its "state space". AI algorithms work by using a variety of methods to search the state space for more favorable states; the larger the state space, the less likely these methods will be able to find favorable states. The typical state space for a simple wargame has more states than there are atoms in the Universe, so searching all of the states is not something that can be accomplished in, say, an amount of time shorter than the age of the Universe. AI algorithms, therefore, have to resort to making approximate searches of the state space. The larger and more branching the state space is, the less effective such approximation techniques will be.

By way of a benchmark, consider the game "Go". Computer scientists have devoted their entire careers to developing Go AI, and there are AI Go contests every year for the various Go algorithms that are being developed. Many more resources -- PhD manpower and grants -- have gone into the development of Go algorithms than would ever be possible to allocate toward a small budget game in a niche market. To date, the best Go algorithm in the world only ranks as "weak amateur" in the Japanese Go player ranking system, and this algorithm uses libraries of games recorded from Go masters to help the search of the state space. Now consider, a game like Forge of Freedom has a much, much larger state space than Go and there is no comparable resource of recorded games by FOF masters. As it is now, the AI already consumes a large part of our budget and development time. I do think our AI compares very favorably with the AI in other wargames on the market today, but we -- just like most other games out there -- also provide our AI with material bonuses in order to keep the game fun and challenging for more skilled players. These bonuses do mean that AI opponents may have larger armies than historical, but we'd rather have some players complain that -- on certain levels -- AI controlled nations have a-historical troop sizes than to have many players complain that the game is too easy and not very challenging.






Greyhunterlp -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/17/2007 10:02:09 PM)

at the end of the day its Artificial intelligance - trying to make complex plans via (relitivly) simple ideas. the AI is always going to do someting stupid, thats what moves it away from a real person (not that a real person won't do something stupid that is) an AI lacks the spark that a human has.

That said, FoF's AI is for the most part good, the Detailed battles seem a little to moral dependant, and it can seem like the AI makes up for tactics by doing more damage than you can (not sure if this is programmed, or just my own impression) but the AI does try those mad plans that a human would (see invasion of New Orleans in my current AAR) rather than continuing to hammer away in N. Virginia like it could.

also id just like to go back to the OP - armys are always bound by their supply lines - thats a tactical consideration and not a fault with the game.



Blackadar1 -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 4:50:16 AM)

Well, two points.

1.  I'm playing on a low difficulty level again, so seeing this massive Rebel army shouldn't happen because it shouldn't get huge bonuses.  Fog of war was engaged, so I cheated and engaged every military force the Rebs had to see their actual numbers.  So I'm not looking at 1.5m, but it's still in the neighborhood of 1.2m.  Given the losses I've already inflicted on them, this still shouldn't be anywhere remotely possible.

2.  Supply lines mean almost nothing in this game.  As long as you have a friendly adjacent territory, you're fine. 

I don't mean to belittle or slight anyone's work.  A lot of time, effort and love went into this game and it shows.  But for me, that makes some of these omissions and problems even more glaring.  I applaud the team that put this together, but if I had the option at this point (a la Stardock), I'd be asking for a refund.  Given the problems I had getting it working, compounded with the issues experienced in two games, that's not unreasonable.  Unfortunately, I don't have that option.  Buyer beware, I suppose...though Matrix has probably seen my last purchase ever.



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 4:54:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grey Hunter

<snip>

That said, FoF's AI is for the most part good, the Detailed battles seem a little to moral dependant, and it can seem like the AI makes up for tactics by doing more damage than you can (not sure if this is programmed, or just my own impression)...

<Snip>



This is only affected by the level you have chosen to play at. Sergeant is the most AI neutral in regards to adjusted casualties with very little AI damage adjustments. Above or below Sergeant level of play, you will see increasing/dcreasing AI adjustments respectively

edit: I believe the manual states First Sergeant is the most even AI, but that is incorrect.



Gil R. -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 8:11:45 AM)

Blackadar1,
As was discussed in another thread, another reason that a-historically large armies can form (in addition to choosing settings that make it possible, such as Greater Population or higher difficulty levels) is that it is up to the USA player to destroy CSA brigades and take over CSA territory. I don't know what your games have been like, but if you've been spending lots of time fighting armies in Fredericksburg and other areas but not taking cities, then you've left the CSA's economy mostly intact, and that means it can keep raising new units from those cities. It is essential that you take cities. If you can't take cities, try to plunder them -- maybe you'll destroy some Camps and remove them as a source of replacement troops. And build more cavalry, which is great at capturing enemy brigades.

I think that if you get to know the game better -- after all, you've played through just two campaigns -- you will find ways to keep the CSA on its heels, and prevent its armies from growing so large. As the North, you really need to be aggressive on many fronts. And pray that you get Kentucky...



Blackadar1 -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 4:01:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Blackadar1,
As was discussed in another thread, another reason that a-historically large armies can form (in addition to choosing settings that make it possible, such as Greater Population or higher difficulty levels) is that it is up to the USA player to destroy CSA brigades and take over CSA territory. I don't know what your games have been like, but if you've been spending lots of time fighting armies in Fredericksburg and other areas but not taking cities, then you've left the CSA's economy mostly intact, and that means it can keep raising new units from those cities. It is essential that you take cities. If you can't take cities, try to plunder them -- maybe you'll destroy some Camps and remove them as a source of replacement troops. And build more cavalry, which is great at capturing enemy brigades.

I think that if you get to know the game better -- after all, you've played through just two campaigns -- you will find ways to keep the CSA on its heels, and prevent its armies from growing so large. As the North, you really need to be aggressive on many fronts. And pray that you get Kentucky...


Here's the rub - at the lower difficulty level I'm playing on, even if I left the Confederacy economy totally intact (and I haven't), there's no way it should have the ability to sustain the kind of troop levels I'm seeing. At a higher difficulty level, when artificial bonuses kick in? Sure. But not where I'm playing. So that points to a fundamental problem somewhere in the program. Perhaps the developers and I disagree, but when I see the Confederacy massing these kinds of numbers, it just makes me want to shut off the game.

Thanks again for the advice Gil, but I'm shelving it for now. No offense, but the game is becoming a chore of looking for the specific "perfect winning combo", at least when it comes to the union side. I can't say anything about the Rebel side, but to win as the Union seems like it's much more of a formulaic equasion and not a game. After the hours (30, perhaps?) I've already spent on FOF, I don't have the desire to start a new game from scratch yet again trying to find that perfect winning combo. I suspect this is much more of a flaw on the Union side given everything that I've read, and that suspicion prevents me from starting a Confederacy game because if I found that to be true, I'd get even more frustrated with the program.

As an aside, perhaps my skills are just rusty, but I'm not new to the genre as I started playing old Avalon Hill games in the early 80s (Squad Leader) and have been an off-and-on wargamer since then. My personal view is after the hours I've spent and my previous experiences in wargaming, I shouldn't have to "get to know the game better" just to have a chance to win on a low difficulty level with the playing field supposedly tilted in my favor already. My experience suggests that if this is happening, perhaps the game is either too difficult, too complex or too formulaic. I think it's probably the latter, at least when it comes to the Union side.

So for now it goes on the shelf. Life's too short to keep repeatedly banging my head against this wall. Please understand my frustration is with the game, exacerbated because it's very close to something that I'd really enjoy only for a few flaws that I'm running into that I consider critical or inexcusable. But my frustration is not with the folks here, so thanks again for the help and advice.



ericbabe -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 4:31:10 PM)

Our economy was designed so that each side could field/replace roughly the historical numbers of men that each side had in arms during the war -- the population levels of provinces should limit this overall. The historical levels I used when designing this was US 2,200,000 men; CS 1,064,000 men. We did make some changes to the population rules in the last patch -- we made Camps have a chance to consume population and increased the population levels slightly, and this may have thrown off the original calculations a bit...eyeballing it, probably by no more than 1/8th of my original calculations, still near to historical levels. Though maybe the effect of camps is too high now. We'll look into this further.

Do you find the US 2,200,000 / CS 1,064,000 numbers fielded/replaced reasonable historical levels?

As a human player one can support larger armies with the CSA, but the key is to use forage, pay attention to the Logistical ratings of military groups, and so forth.

I don't see any "formula" for winning as the North or the South -- just reading the AARs, players win the game with very different strategies. However in order to make the various game options meaningful (firearms, supply rules, logistical and command ratings, disposition, the generals' abilities, etc.) we tried to design the game such that if you ignore one of these aspects then your game will suffer (or conversely, if you optimize one aspect, then it'll noticeably improve your situation). Since we provide players the option to turn off most of these aspects, we didn't feel as though we were forcing too much complexity on players -- we very much wanted to make these parts of the game meaningful to game play and not just fluff you can twiddle around with that doesn't have much of an impact on the outcome of the game. Our philosophy was that if you turn on the supply rules (or any other rule), then that rule really should matter.





Erik Rutins -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/18/2007 4:32:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackadar1
So I'm playing my 2nd game with most everything turned on, but an easy difficulty level. Now there are a few more issues, as well as a few holdovers.


Could you post your exact game settings please?

quote:

1. Two CTDs (Crash-to-Desktops), both in detailed battles with infantry charges. Most annoying to go back and play 30 minutes of a battle because the game crashes.


I'm surprised to hear this actually. We haven't had a CTD on the test team in a long while now. Could you post a DxDiag file?

quote:

2. I'm still seeing a wild disparity between instant simming and then fast simming in detailed battles...always not in my favor on instant simming. I didn't buy the game to really play the detailed battles as much as I have been, but I've grown to enjoy them.


There are definitely some differences, the results won't be the same. However, the results should still be plausible even if they're not identical.

quote:

3. I still don't like supply, but that's the way it is. I think it drastically changes the way combat really works - very often armies are tied to supply lines - and reduces the manuever that can be so much of a part of winning the war. But so be it, it's not going to change.


Hm, in the games I play supply is certainly a significant consideration. I suppose if you can afford to keep all armies on High supply it's less important, or if all your logistics ratings are Superb, but otherwise it's a huge drain on the economy to keep an army fighting consistently. Even more so when you stray from the low upkeep standard rifles and such.

quote:

4. This next one is my new frustration. I'm playing as union (again) and I'm concripting, mustering and doing everything I can. I've also managed to win almost every battle and have inflicted huge losses on the Rebels. I've already eliminated hundreds of thousands of Rebel troops. My highest is 32,000 troops killed in one battle.
Historically, that means I would have already eliminated about 1/3rd or 1/4th of the overall Rebel force (750,000 to 1,250,000). However, by 1863 I'm incredibly outnumbered. The Rebs are fielding an army that's close to 1,500,000 even after the losses. They're having zero problems getting reinforcements and building massive troop populations.


We're looking at this - my guess is that one of the last tweaks to population regeneration upset the rather delicate balance here.

Regards,

- Erik



General Quarters -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 1:28:37 AM)

B1, I am on your side. I also find myself facing oversized CSA armies. In fact, having played a dozen or more games as the Union, I have technically won only once, though a couple of times I felt I strongly defeated them even if victory conditions had not kicked in. I have never lost as CSA, so there must be a balance issue. Erik used to suggest playing Union as plus-2, fast sieges, to provide the best balance for pbem play. I don't know if that is the current advice. Maybe you feel the way I do: to give myself a plus-2 bonus feels like cheating, even if it is really just a correction.

I don't think you should give up on the game. I have played nothing else since the day it came out in November and had a lot of fun. Winning is certainly not formulaic. You can clearly win in different ways and lose in different ways. There is just a quirk and maybe the team can recommend settings that could correct it or compensate for it, until some future patch addresses the issue.



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 2:22:16 AM)

Blackadar1

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the developers/playtesters about the CSA enormous army issue and how to resolve it, so don't be too discouraged. The game has a rather large learning curve, so try to work with the current rules as they shouldn't change very much if at all regarding combat, etc. It took me quite some time to understand the game and all its intricacies, but once understood it's thoroughly enjoyable.

I also suggest that they look at the Carriers At War Tutorials, and if possible, come up with a similar idea, to help simplify the learning process.



Khornish -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 7:00:04 AM)

I'd like to see an soft cap, based on population, on the sheer number of men in the military. You'd get additional economic penalties as you recruit past the cap.

In effect, you can keep recruiting more, but your economy would be destroyed at some point by your recruiting efforts.

Allowing the money to go negative would be a good start towards this end. The incoming money from the Europeans would have to be used to pay off a negative balance first, before being used to build or produce something.

Also by prohibiting muster/conscription or building/producing while the money amount is negative would also tend to discourage massively unrealistic armies. This rule, of course, would have to apply to the AI.



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 7:09:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khornish

I'd like to see an soft cap, based on population, on the sheer number of men in the military. You'd get additional economic penalties as you recruit past the cap.

In effect, you can keep recruiting more, but your economy would be destroyed at some point by your recruiting efforts.

Allowing the money to go negative would be a good start towards this end. The incoming money from the Europeans would have to be used to pay off a negative balance first, before being used to build or produce something.

Also by prohibiting muster/conscription or building/producing while the money amount is negative would also tend to discourage massively unrealistic armies. This rule, of course, would have to apply to the AI.


There is an ongoing discussion on exactly how to impliment just what you are talking about without breaking the AI. Camp replacements are basically free and unlimited at the moment, which allows for the buildup of extremely large armies by either side if you are not aggresive enough in attriting them, and especially in the complete destruction "surrender" of the opposing sides brigades. Hence, my previous post stressing pursuit and surrounding retreating enemy units, whenever possible. Get good at this and when they implement an update, you can be as good as "Grant" or "Lee".

edit: Forcing enemy "surrenders" can give you a great feeling of accomplishment, but the failure to do so, leads instead to great frustration in watching the buildup of enemy armies, especially in regards to "Historical" scenarios.



Gil R. -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 8:42:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

Blackadar1

There is an ongoing discussion amongst the developers/playtesters about the CSA enormous army issue and how to resolve it, so don't be too discouraged. The game has a rather large learning curve, so try to work with the current rules as they shouldn't change very much if at all regarding combat, etc. It took me quite some time to understand the game and all its intricacies, but once understood it's thoroughly enjoyable.

I also suggest that they look at the Carriers At War Tutorials, and if possible, come up with a similar idea, to help simplify the learning process.



I would add that the discussion was partly prompted by your comments. It would be a shame for you to make constructive criticism and then not benefit from it.



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 9:07:39 AM)


<deleted>



Blackadar1 -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/19/2007 6:09:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
I would add that the discussion was partly prompted by your comments. It would be a shame for you to make constructive criticism and then not benefit from it.


You have been nothing but extremely helpful, a fact of which I am appreciative. I'm still going to shelve it for a bit, but I do want to thank you and Gary again for all of your help. My guess is I'll revisit it in the future when things might be tweaked or I'm just in a different frame of mind. Thanks again!



Gil R. -> RE: Next game, more questions (6/20/2007 1:47:11 AM)

Okay, we'll leave the lights on for you.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125