RE: unrealistic air combat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 2:24:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The problem is that the only radio frequency navigation used to get to a TARGET was in the ETO/N. Africa.It wasn't used by the Japanese to navigate to a TARGET ever by my recollection, much less one in the South Pacific or Pearl Harbor.


As I said above, it was used on the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the navigation course used. See the filmTORA, TORA, TORA!

quote:

It was exclusively used to direct returning a.c. to friendly CVs


Not so, see above.

quote:

and, in practice, pretty much only very useful during the daylight.


And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?

quote:

The only time the Japanese "sort of attempted it" (a late-daylight strike during the Coral Sea battle), the strike never found it's target and substantially did not return to their originating base either. Instead they suffered huge operational attrition for no gain of any kind.


Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.

quote:

They didn't do it from carriers for a couple of reasons. First, even when you could find both the target and afterward your originating CV, operational attrition was greater at night simply because it was and is much more difficult to land on a CV at night than during daylight.


Both points come back to OPS loses. Covered in game.

quote:

Second, land based a.c. were better at navigation because they had dedicated navigators with sextants, and always knew where their home destination would be; in contrast, it was rather difficult for night flying CV based pilots to find their originating CVs, even with radio direction to assist them on return flights.


So what were the other plane crew doing? Kates had 3 in total, and Vals had 2 in total.

quote:

At Coral Sea, the only Japanese a.c. to find their targets during the disastrous late-daylight strike confused Yorktown with a Japanese CV and attempted to land on the American CV rather than bomb it. That doesn't inspire alot of 20/20 confidence in IJN CV-crew night navigation skills because it shows not only that they did not know where their target was but they also had no useful idea where their own CVs were.


So you can make mistakes. It was not a common occurance .



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 2:36:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


Your post history shows you have insulted other members on more than one occasion. It looks like you're one of those blokes that can dish it out but can't take it. Hence not a complaint at all but more like whining or better yet, acting like a baby with a wet diaper.



I have been sarcastic in response to sarcasim and insults. I have NEVER used bad / foul language. My very first & last "insult" was to yourself, after you compared me to IKE99 ( which was intended as an insult by you, so again it was a response ). If I could not take it I would not be here defending myself. YOU have ended your post with an insult.
So, again, you are a Hypocrite!! That's not an insult, just a fact.
If you think that what everyone else does is acceptable, and that what I do is not, then you are at best blinkered, but most probably a fool.

GOOD BYE




ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 11:17:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB
quote:

and, in practice, pretty much only very useful during the daylight.


And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?

quote:

The only time the Japanese "sort of attempted it" (a late-daylight strike during the Coral Sea battle), the strike never found it's target and substantially did not return to their originating base either. Instead they suffered huge operational attrition for no gain of any kind.


Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.



Raids were only useful in the daylight? How do we know that? We know it because the Japanese never hit diddly effectively after dark and neither did anyone else (UK, Germans, USN) until radar became effective. Despite lots of hypotheticals about how you could fly this and that it wasn't done by people at the time despite what would be obvious and overwhelming advantages to do doing so. The only people who mounted consistent night raids (the UK) were grossly disappointed with the results. Saying ti could happen is like saying PT could have sank BB's. Yes, it could happen, and it fact it is a lot more theoretically possible than night raids, but the simple fact that it didn't happen means that if the game makes PT consistently sink capital ships it is doing something wrong.

The game does theoretically have mechanics to handle these raids but, as the combat results (33% hit rate) showed the game mechanics to handle it are grossly inadequate.



Joel Billings -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 3:51:27 PM)

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 4:25:50 PM)

thanks for the informative answer, joel. beside things like too effective carrier night operations, the game is excellent and every PBEm-game is different...even after so many years. thankfully, there is the possibility to arrange house rules between the opponents to avoid such problems in the game engine. so its not a big and game harming problem.

also good to read, that the weaknesses in the UV game engine will be addressed in carrier force.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/22/2008 5:31:02 PM)

quote:

As I said above, it was used on the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the navigation course used. See the filmTORA, TORA, TORA!


No, it (intrinsic radio navigation) wasn't. It was used in the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the RETURN course back to strike force. The radio signal gives a bearing to the source. If the source moves even a few kilometers, it does not provide a course to a fixed target.

The only radio beacon used by Strike Force's aircraft on 7 December 1941 to navigate to the target came from a Honolulu radio station. A fixed transmitter located near the target. Unless it is your assertion that every time the Japanese player wants to launch a cv strike to arrive at a target at dusk or at night the Japanese player can assume that the target has a pop music station pumping out at 100 KW, then you can't really pretend that the PH strike represents a circumstance of the use of a navigational aid that Japanese carrier pilots could use.

The IJN had NO intrinsic capability at any time during WW2 for radio navigation to targets. Not even when the targets were fixed targets such as land bases.

quote:

And how pray, do you come to that conclusion?


Despite the fact that fixed source navigation radio signals were used by Bomber Command to aid navigation to targets during night raids, accuracy was poor. Despite the fact that radio signals were used to aid returning Japanese aviators at Coral Sea, the information was so spotty and inaccurate that Japanese a.c. attempted to land on American carriers. It was the mother of all navigational errors. During daylight hours, it was alot easier to use radio frequencies to get a general guide to the area of the originating CV and then navigate the last 15-20 km visually.

quote:

Both of which are covered in the game mechanics.


Oh? Are Japanese CV launched night operations regularly producing 60% operational losses for no hits on the intended target?

quote:

So you can make mistakes. It was not a common occurance .


Well, the only time the Japanese attempted a late evening strike with anticipated night-return they had huge operational losses. So, if by "not a common occurrence" you mean "It only happened 100% of the time" then you'd be correct. If you mean "It was unlikely or atypical or something one would not reasonably expect to happen often" you would be incorrect.



DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 12:36:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

No, it (intrinsic radio navigation) wasn't. It was used in the Pearl Harbour attack to confirm the RETURN course back to strike force. The radio signal gives a bearing to the source. If the source moves even a few kilometers, it does not provide a course to a fixed target.


I guess by that definition it was not, but see below.

quote:

The only radio beacon used by Strike Force's aircraft on 7 December 1941 to navigate to the target came from a Honolulu radio station. A fixed transmitter located near the target. Unless it is your assertion that every time the Japanese player wants to launch a cv strike to arrive at a target at dusk or at night the Japanese player can assume that the target has a pop music station pumping out at 100 KW, then you can't really pretend that the PH strike represents a circumstance of the use of a navigational aid that Japanese carrier pilots could use.


That's what I was referring to. It was said ( by someone ) that it was NEVER used. I gave a known example to refute that.

quote:

The IJN had NO intrinsic capability at any time during WW2 for radio navigation to targets. Not even when the targets were fixed targets such as land bases.


And your source is ? As often said to Ike99, lets see it.
By the way, why is this all around what the Japs could or could not do? The game rule in question allows the Allies to do Night Carrier OPS too. Are you saying the Allies can & the Japs can't?


quote:

Oh? Are Japanese CV launched night operations regularly producing 60% operational losses for no hits on the intended target?


I have no idea and I don't think you have either. Let's stick to facts.

quote:

So, if by "not a common occurrence" you mean "It only happened 100% of the time" then you'd be correct.


A "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all).

quote:

If you mean "It was unlikely or atypical or something one would not reasonably expect to happen often" you would be incorrect.


Again, a "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all). And where is your evidence to support that comment? You're guessing again. Let's have facts, not your theories




DEB -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 12:41:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.


Thanks for the prompt reply. Sorry you can't recollect more.



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 1:05:45 AM)

quote:

That's what I was referring to. It was said ( by someone ) that it was NEVER used. I gave a known example to refute that.


I figured you would stick to the context of the discussion. As I noted in my previous post, one would only make that capability a regular feature of the IJN if one presumed that every time the IJN wanted to hit a target, the target emitted for their convenience some sort of remotelty detectable navigation beacon to facilitate navigation. f

quote:

And your source is ? As often said to Ike99, lets see it.


Your position is a bit like demanding proof of the absence of god. The Japanese never had a reliable strategic capability to use radio beams to navigate to TARGETS. If they did, you'd be able to provide evidence of them doing it apart from one instance of them using a commercial radio station as a navigational aid before the outbreak of the war.

You guys are the ones asserting that the Japanese had a real capability to launch CV based airstrikes at night. So far you have been unable to come up with an example of a successful one. You guys are the ones who have asserted that night time navigation by CV based piliots without loran is simple and reliable enough to make it an effective strategy in a consim, yet you have not provided a single example of the IJN successfully implementing a night attack on any target at any time.

quote:

By the way, why is this all around what the Japs could or could not do? The game rule in question allows the Allies to do Night Carrier OPS too. Are you saying the Allies can & the Japs can't?


The Royal Navy could try it in 1942, because CV based swordfish and other torpedo a.c. were often equipped with radar. While that's not so great for navigation, it means that in the dark of night or low-cloud cover you could pick out a target with a small chance of success. Not as good as visual aiming in daylight but definitely better than visual aiming by iteself at night. In 1942, the only USN a.c. capable of executing any kind of night attack with reasonable chances of success were land-based PBYs.

quote:

I have no idea and I don't think you have either. Let's stick to facts.


It's germane. The point is that if operational losses at night are correctly modeled, and if operational successes are correctly modeled, players would emulate the historical IJNs aversion to launching night attacks.

quote:

A "one off" is not a statistic anyone with any sense would use to prove anything (other than against someone who thinks something never happaned at all).


You have yet to provide a one-off example that demonstrates that the IJN had a capability for using radio directed navigation to a target worthy of inclusion in a consim. You seem very confused about what happened at Pearl Harbor.

It appears to be your contention that every time someone playing UV might wish to launch a night strike it should be allowed on the presumption that every target MUST have a 100 KW radio station blaring out American Bandstand conveniently usable by the enemy for navigation. Either admit that is what you are claiming or admit that the Pearl Harbor example is (as most of us know) irrelevent to this discussion.

quote:

And where is your evidence to support that comment?


The evidence is that the IJN never launched a successful CV-based night raid throughout the entire war. If you believe otherwise, where is your evidence?



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 4:48:36 AM)

quote:

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.


So there it is.



borner -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 12:26:42 PM)

So there itis? Sorry my friend, I still dis-agree. Yes, the US attempted night ops, and had some success with these in a strike at Truk. However, most of these planes flew from US Enterprise, with radar equiped Avengers, after Enterprise had been withdrawn for months of practice. Can anyone show me an example where a night strike hit one target at sea, let alone against a whole TF.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 12:54:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

So there itis? Sorry my friend, I still dis-agree. Yes, the US attempted night ops, and had some success with these in a strike at Truk. However, most of these planes flew from US Enterprise, with radar equiped Avengers, after Enterprise had been withdrawn for months of practice. Can anyone show me an example where a night strike hit one target at sea, let alone against a whole TF.




Ike has once again demonstrated his penchant for ignoring the facts and focusing on a miniscule aspect of some one else's comments in a lame and transparent effort to prove his point. Get used to it Borner.

Sure, Joel came right out and admitted they wanted to portray night operations, ie...washing machine charlie. He also admitted they didn't really put much effort into considering the manner in which an open ended, uncontrolled implmentation could be expolited by a mercenary individual with no common sense and a lack of concern for historical accuracy. Read between the lines. He is saying in so many words, " we know we goofed on this but it's too late to fix it".

So there it is.



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 2:03:37 PM)

So it would be fair to say at this point in time the following:

UV is a game and as such historical can be bent in the what if of gaming.

Night CV ops should be allowed in UV, while at the same time ops loses should be high while accuracy of the attacks should be low.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 4:39:08 PM)

quote:

Ike has once again demonstrated his penchant for ignoring the facts and focusing on a miniscule aspect of some one else's comments in a lame and transparent effort to prove his point. Get used to it Borner.


And you have the habit of putting words in peoples mouths.

Joel did not say...

quote:

"we know we goofed on this but it's too late to fix it"


...or anything of the sort.

The lines your reading between don´t exist.

quote:

He also admitted they didn't really put much effort into considering the manner in which an open ended, uncontrolled implmentation could be expolited by a mercenary individual with no common sense and a lack of concern for historical accuracy.


Here again, he said nothing of the sort but said...

quote:

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development.


So that´s what you got and I wouldn´t expect him to reply anymore as he has better things to do than debate with a troll.



[image]local://upfiles/19240/E5A58D3F34024CDF9D859DD22C9C82AF.jpg[/image]



bigbaba -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 5:26:56 PM)

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.

british 4E bombers (with much better navigation systems then japanese single engine planes) had a typical hit rate of at most 15-20% of their bombs in a 5 Km radius around the target  (huge german cities) in 1942.

tiny japanese carrier planes have a hit rate of 33% on a small target at night and can do this with so little OP loses, that they can repeat the same attack just 3-4 nights later again and again and again...

i agree with todd. night attacks from carriers should be possible, but with much higher Op loses and lower effectiveness on target. i hope thats the case in carrier force.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 5:43:34 PM)

quote:

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.

british 4E bombers (with much better navigation systems then japanese single engine planes) had a typical hit rate of at most 15-20% of their bombs in a 5 Km radius around the target (huge german cities) in 1942.

tiny japanese carrier planes have a hit rate of 33% on a small target at night and can do this with so little OP loses, that they can repeat the same attack just 3-4 nights later again and again and again...

i agree with todd. night attacks from carriers should be possible, but with much higher Op loses and lower effectiveness on target. i hope thats the case in carrier force.


That´s fair enough.

So then Mike Wood and Justin Prince should say something about the topic and give us an idea of how they´re handling the Night Carrier Operations issue, and perhaps night bombing accuracy in general. What they´re planning.

But...

quote:

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks. but they were not very successfull on it


Joel said...

quote:

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.


No where did Joel say they were not successful at getting the night bombing accuracy or OPS losses to where they felt they felt they should be.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 6:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.




What's this??? An admission that they "goofed" and since it's too late to fix it in UV they are looking to CF to fix it????

So much for the lines I was reading between not even being there!

Ike it was kind of you to post the portrait of yourself.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 7:06:25 PM)

quote:

What's this??? An admission that they "goofed" and since it's too late to fix it in UV they are looking to CF to fix it????


No it is not an admission they ¨goofed¨, if it was he would have said they tried, but couldn´t do it, or failed, or it didn´t work out, etc. etc.

Take it just as he said it, Him and Gary worked on trying to minimize night bombing effectiveness. That doesn´t mean, ¨Troll fill in the blank and presume they did not succeed in getting the results where they felt they wanted them to be.¨


Once again you add, take away and presume things that you don´t know in order to troll the thread.



HansBolter -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 7:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

if it was he would have said they tried, but couldn´t do it, or failed, or it didn´t work out, etc. etc.






So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?



pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/23/2008 9:09:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

So it would be fair to say at this point in time the following:

UV is a game and as such historical can be bent in the what if of gaming.

Night CV ops should be allowed in UV, while at the same time ops loses should be high while accuracy of the attacks should be low.


Absolutely, and thanks for that.

As the final word on the subject, I think Joel's statement, "At this point, the game is what it is" pretty much sums it up.

On to Carrier Force. Hi-ho.



SuluSea -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 1:03:07 AM)

Ten pages and still no one has posted a shred of evidence that the IJN carried out a successful night carrier operation. Not that there was any doubt in the first place.

Whether or not 2 by 3 allows this tactic as it stands in Carrier Force will not change the fact that it wasn't possible to launch an air group, bomb a target , then land in the dark on a pitching carrier without extreme losses.



ILCK -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 1:06:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Ten pages and still no one has posted a shred of evidence that the IJN carried out a successful night carrier operation. Not that there was any doubt in the first place.


For people in a historical game you'd think this would be possible.



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 5:06:27 AM)

quote:

So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?


Well let´s see here, this is Joel´s entire post...

quote:

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.




quote:

So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?


I don´t see where Joel said ANYTHING about not being succesful. I do know that night OPS losses for night missions are higher than with daylight missions. I also know bombing accuracy is lower in nighttime missions than in daylight missions. So obviously they did try, and DID minimize their effectivness and usefullness compared to daylight missions.

Did they get get it where they wanted it? They are 20+ year wargame programmers...what do you think?

And Joel clearly stated...

quote:

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations...Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.


So that obviously contradicts what you and many others have been saying here.



pasternakski -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 5:42:05 AM)

Ike, fer chrissake, can't you just let it go? I mean, the horse has been shot, thumped, beaten, ground, breaded, fried, fricasseed, whipped, honked, tailored, whacked, beaten some more, pureed, shredded, pounded, mortar-and-pestled, nuked, decontaminated, disembowelled, shellacked, torpedoed, and beaten some more.

I don't see a single person here disputing your contention that night carrier air operations were possible, and sometimes attempted, in the Pacific theater in WWII. What they are saying, impliedly if not directly, is that such operations were not anyone's preferred mode of launching airstrikes from their carriers, and the primary reason was that severe operations losses were feared in exchange for lack of effective results. UV allows night carrier air operations almost off-handedly, and however they are represented by that game, Matrix has given you an exact pronouncement of what the prospects for change are: none.

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games. I trust their judgment.

How about you?



Nomad -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 11:04:17 AM)

I think this is needed.

[image]local://upfiles/4176/170D8CD663554B3D952F836D2A3019BD.gif[/image]



tocaff -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/24/2008 2:57:14 PM)

[sm=sign0031.gif]



borner -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/25/2008 2:44:47 AM)

what did the poor horse do to deserve all this anyway??[X(]



Nomad -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/25/2008 3:23:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

what did the poor horse do to deserve all this anyway??[X(]


He died? [:(][8|][:)]



Ike99 -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/25/2008 3:34:43 AM)


quote:

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games.


Now you´re getting the idea pasternakski. [;)]



mdiehl -> RE: unrealistic air combat... (7/25/2008 4:52:22 PM)

quote:

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games.


[:D]



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.375