RE: War in the East Q&A (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 3:40:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
I can't answer your first question except to say that was what Gary wanted and yes, the stacking is three units of any size period, no exceptions.


This was done in the interests of organizational hygiene? One of the screen shots (December, '41?) looks pretty peculiar with the deep ranks of Soviet 3 unit hexes. A corps consolidation option for the Russkies would reduce clutter, no? Maybe the comparisons with Panzer General, the absence of player controlled production, the rigid ZOCs makes this version more of a beer & pretzels game and less a cousin to WITP.


I normally try to be polite to everyone on the forums, but you got me close to breaking that rule

give the guys a chance, you don't even know what the game is, or what goes on in it, and you are knocking it, yes, Corps would be nice, and yes, you do get them, when the Russian Army starts to reorganize

was WIR anything like Panzer General ?, this game is a much more detailed verison of WIR then a nice, easy B&P game

we havn't been able to show off screen shots of the different battles, time frames of the game, mainly you are only seeing early in the battle



Stryder -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 4:28:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
I can't answer your first question except to say that was what Gary wanted and yes, the stacking is three units of any size period, no exceptions.


This was done in the interests of organizational hygiene? One of the screen shots (December, '41?) looks pretty peculiar with the deep ranks of Soviet 3 unit hexes. A corps consolidation option for the Russkies would reduce clutter, no? Maybe the comparisons with Panzer General, the absence of player controlled production, the rigid ZOCs makes this version more of a beer & pretzels game and less a cousin to WITP.


I normally try to be polite to everyone on the forums, but you got me close to breaking that rule

give the guys a chance, you don't even know what the game is, or what goes on in it, and you are knocking it, yes, Corps would be nice, and yes, you do get them, when the Russian Army starts to reorganize

was WIR anything like Panzer General ?, this game is a much more detailed verison of WIR then a nice, easy B&P game

we havn't been able to show off screen shots of the different battles, time frames of the game, mainly you are only seeing early in the battle


Sarge, I had the same reaction but chose not to respond to someone just making noise for the benefit of no one... this is a thread for questions, not insults, negativity and unfounded opinions.. the replies have been timely and awesome...for every individual that casts insults there are many more that truly appreciate the effort of the testers and 2BY3



Pford -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 6:38:37 PM)

Sorry that my post struck you guys as snarky. I was actually a major fan, and booster, of Gary's WBTS on the other forum.I found that game brilliantly conceived and somewhat under appreciated because it wasn't 'World War II'. I want this one to be good.



Sabre21 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 7:22:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

Sorry that my post struck you guys as snarky. I was actually a major fan, and booster, of Gary's WBTS on the other forum.I found that game brilliantly conceived and somewhat under appreciated because it wasn't 'World War II'. I want this one to be good.




Snarky..huh..I'll have to remember that term [:)]

Anyways, this is a pretty complex game, even without player controlled production. Just the fact that you can (if you want), get into each German Corps or Soviet Army and higher and change out commanders, rearrange support units, for the Germans you can even assign these support battalions down to division level (right now up to 3 each). You can also reassign divisions to different Corps or Armies, different Armies to different Fronts or Army groups, doing all these tasks require admin points, and these are limited each turn so you need to figure out the best balance on your playstyle.

Trying to keep all your units as well supplied is a tough task in itself, especially as the Germans since your supply lines can be attacked by partisans. Then you have your air power and a host of different missions you can perform with them, either by using the Ai or do it all yourself manually.

I've been doing this for at least 8 months now and it still takes me half a day just to do turn 1 of the Barbarossa campaign as the Germans. The Soviet turn 1 takes about as long. After that it gets easier but you can really get involved on what you want to do each turn. But here I'm just scraping the tip of the iceberg on what this game is capable of.

This is going to be one of those games that will be on your computers for a long time to come.

Andy



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 8:00:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


I've been doing this for at least 8 months now and it still takes me half a day just to do turn 1 of the Barbarossa campaign as the Germans. The Soviet turn 1 takes about as long.


Andy,

If you can do the Russian turn 1 in less time than the Axis turn 1, I am truly impressed! My Russian turn 1 always takes at least twice as long as my Axis turn 1. You don't really play WitE; you live it!





Lützow -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/12/2009 10:41:35 PM)

I wish you guys would publicize an alpha AAR, so we outsider can take a closer look on the gameplay. All I got so far is, that WitE will settle somewhere between WitP and WBTS - and frankly, with current state of information I still hover between excitement about another 2by3 game and concerns that it sacrifices too much details for the sake of 'accessibility'. Mr. Grigsby had set the expectactions very high with some of his older titles.



Apollo11 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/13/2009 9:41:30 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

I wish you guys would publicize an alpha AAR, so we outsider can take a closer look on the gameplay. All I got so far is, that WitE will settle somewhere between WitP and WBTS - and frankly, with current state of information I still hover between excitement about another 2by3 game and concerns that it sacrifices too much details for the sake of 'accessibility'. Mr. Grigsby had set the expectactions very high with some of his older titles.


Don't worry... the WitE is UV / WitP / WitP-AE of the land combat... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"



Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/13/2009 1:22:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

Sorry that my post struck you guys as snarky. I was actually a major fan, and booster, of Gary's WBTS on the other forum.I found that game brilliantly conceived and somewhat under appreciated because it wasn't 'World War II'. I want this one to be good.



no hassle, your post just stuck me the wrong way, when I read it

hassle is, we trying to show, what we can show, so, you guys don't know that is going on, or can be done, or will be done

once we can start showing off all of the goodies, I think you will find it is much more as you would it to be

in my current game, I just got to where I can start building Cav Corps, a few more months until the Inf Corps come in

and as I have said in other parts of this forum, the game is in the great range and has been since I have been with it, and we still in Alpha, by the time we get it polished off and finished, it is going to be a masterpiece



Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/13/2009 1:25:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

I wish you guys would publicize an alpha AAR, so we outsider can take a closer look on the gameplay. All I got so far is, that WitE will settle somewhere between WitP and WBTS - and frankly, with current state of information I still hover between excitement about another 2by3 game and concerns that it sacrifices too much details for the sake of 'accessibility'. Mr. Grigsby had set the expectactions very high with some of his older titles.


AAR's during Alpha are pretty HARD, there is so much we can't talk about, or show, and things are going to be changing, and changing

if the powers that be, give the okay, I am sure we could work one up, but with out them giving the go ahead, I don't think you will see one any time soon




bairdlander2 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/14/2009 3:33:08 AM)

Is this a remake of War in Russia?



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/14/2009 10:15:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Is this a remake of War in Russia?


No, it is a completely new design; the only thing that is similar is the subject matter.



BigDuke66 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/15/2009 5:24:38 AM)

I wonder how detailed this will be, especially the equipment part of it.
Could we get a look at a units TOE?



paullus99 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/15/2009 10:40:11 AM)

From past posts, it looks like the TO&E goes down to the individual machine gun, artillery piece, and vehicle. I don't think "details" are going to be an issue.



HannoMeier -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/15/2009 1:16:25 PM)

As War in Russia was quite a good game, in what areas is GG War in the East a better / improved game from your point of view?



Muzrub -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/16/2009 8:59:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
I can't answer your first question except to say that was what Gary wanted and yes, the stacking is three units of any size period, no exceptions.


This was done in the interests of organizational hygiene? One of the screen shots (December, '41?) looks pretty peculiar with the deep ranks of Soviet 3 unit hexes. A corps consolidation option for the Russkies would reduce clutter, no? Maybe the comparisons with Panzer General, the absence of player controlled production, the rigid ZOCs makes this version moreof a beer & pretzels game and less a cousin to WITP.


I normally try to be polite to everyone on the forums, but you got me close to breaking that rule

give the guys a chance, you don't even know what the game is, or what goes on in it, and you are knocking it, yes, Corps would be nice, and yes, you do get them, when the Russian Army starts to reorganize

was WIR anything like Panzer General ?, this game is a much more detailed verison of WIR then a nice, easy B&P game

we havn't been able to show off screen shots of the different battles, time frames of the game, mainly you are only seeing early in the battle



Pford- I do believe you may have a point here.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/16/2009 10:32:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanno Meier

As War in Russia was quite a good game, in what areas is GG War in the East a better / improved game from your point of view?


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so you're going to have to make this judgement for yourself. All I will say is that WitE is a completely new design that has little in common with WIR except the subject matter. Different map scale, different unit scale, different movement & combat system, different weather system, I could go on and on. It is not WIR new & improved, but a new treatment of the same campaign.



Capt Cliff -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/16/2009 6:51:13 PM)

I believe this was addressed in another thread but perhaps you can be more specific. Will there be a data file that is editable for equipment refit/replacements, when certain equipment arrives, etc. or just what can be inputed into this "data file"?



BigDuke66 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/16/2009 8:23:02 PM)

What does the map cover?

How long does the game go?
I hope we don't have a strictly historical end date, I would prefer at least some months more to play.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/16/2009 8:37:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

I believe this was addressed in another thread but perhaps you can be more specific. Will there be a data file that is editable for equipment refit/replacements, when certain equipment arrives, etc. or just what can be inputed into this "data file"?


An editor designed to be used by players (i.e. one that wouldn't let you break the game) has yet to be built so what it would or wouldn't allow you to edit I can't say.



Shupov -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 3:27:12 AM)

Does WitE have "special supply" like WiR?



paullus99 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 10:36:27 AM)

Do you mean the "special supply" boost the Germans get for the first few months of their offensive? Or allocating extra supplies to certain HQs?

I'm assuming the former - I believe it has been discussed that there will be opportunities to adjust allocations of supply and replacements, don't know the mechanisms though. The WiR feature was very abstract - like giving a football player a cortezone shot, I'm sure in WitE it will be much more defined.



Shupov -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 12:45:13 PM)

Actually I meant the latter, but i am curious about both HQ "special supply" and the Axis initial "Blitzkrieg supply".



ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 6:32:23 PM)

-Does partisan supply in German rear areas decrease if the front moves further east?

-Is there a special trigger for increased/decreased partisan activity? Historically, the success of the first Soviet winter offensive and the infiltration of NKVD agents into German rear areas during that same offensive caused an enormous increase in partisan activity. If the Soviet winter offensive had been fought to a stalemate early/defeated, many of those partisan formations might never have appeared.

-Are air units and airfields entirely abstracted as far as the map is concerned (in other words: are they on the map or not), or do players have to construct/capture airfields as in WitP? If so, is it possible to detach FlaK/AA formations from a HQ to guard the airfields, without the FlaK/AA unit being in need of being within the HQ supply radius? Allowing all German FlaK and Soviet AA units to stay at the front might lead to some very unhistorical and gamey concentrations of FlaK/AA near combat units.

-Many have whined about how production/the reinforcement roster is automated, I won't do so. I do have a question regarding how such automated reinforcement would work. Historically, many German formations became smaller as the war progressed and losses mounted (infantry regiments being reduced to 2 battalions for example). If, to stick with the example, the German player is succesful and doesn't suffer catastrophic losses, will units still magically decrease in size at the time when their historical counterpart did so?

Similarly, will units magically lose components at certain dates? For example: will German infantry divisions lose their motorcycles at set dates?

-Is railroad gauge conversion abstracted, or is it something the player has to do. If the player has to do it, how does the process work?

-Can infantry divisions improve infrastructure in a hex, decreasing supply penalties or the like? Historically, many infantry divisions (including SS divisions) spend a considerable amount of time improving roads so they wouldn't turn into rivers in autumn/spring.

-Historically, the experienced higher ranking officer pool for armoured/mechanized units in the Soviet army dried up around the start of Typhoon, which meant the Soviets no longer formed tank divisions/corps, but only brigades for the time being. Is this included in the game, by limiting Soviet tank division/corps creation in 1941, for example?

-If a poor quality commander was historically stuck with poor support assets, such as Himmler controlling at the Vistula front, is there a way to give the commander better support assets attached to his HQ? Considering that Himmler didn't even have a functional signals section, defending the Vistula front would be more or less impossible by default for the Germans in 1945.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 7:52:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jfarber


Sarge, I had the same reaction but chose not to respond to someone just making noise for the benefit of no one... this is a thread for questions, not insults, negativity and unfounded opinions.. the replies have been timely and awesome...for every individual that casts insults there are many more that truly appreciate the effort of the testers and 2BY3



So what was your question in this message ?



Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 7:52:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

-Does partisan supply in German rear areas decrease if the front moves further east?
supply is mainly done with air drops, so, if the front line is pushed far enough that the Transports can't reach them, then yes, but they do have some good range

-Is there a special trigger for increased/decreased partisan activity? Historically, the success of the first Soviet winter offensive and the infiltration of NKVD agents into German rear areas during that same offensive caused an enormous increase in partisan activity. If the Soviet winter offensive had been fought to a stalemate early/defeated, many of those partisan formations might never have appeared.
most of it is based on troops that get away, how well the Axis is able to garrison the main cities, so with in reason, it is modelled, but in a different way

-Are air units and airfields entirely abstracted as far as the map is concerned (in other words: are they on the map or not), or do players have to construct/capture airfields as in WitP? If so, is it possible to detach FlaK/AA formations from a HQ to guard the airfields, without the FlaK/AA unit being in need of being within the HQ supply radius? Allowing all German FlaK and Soviet AA units to stay at the front might lead to some very unhistorical and gamey concentrations of FlaK/AA near combat units.
airfields are a type of HQ, so they move on the map, are not part of the map, they have there own AA defence, and I think they can have more guns added as attachment (will have to check, never done it, but it should work

-Many have whined about how production/the reinforcement roster is automated, I won't do so. I do have a question regarding how such automated reinforcement would work. Historically, many German formations became smaller as the war progressed and losses mounted (infantry regiments being reduced to 2 battalions for example). If, to stick with the example, the German player is succesful and doesn't suffer catastrophic losses, will units still magically decrease in size at the time when their historical counterpart did so?
it is modeled, some units have to be withdrawn for refit, others will come in as new formations, there are many, many formation types

Similarly, will units magically lose components at certain dates? For example: will German infantry divisions lose their motorcycles at set dates?
don't think it is magical, more like wear and tear, worn out

-Is railroad gauge conversion abstracted, or is it something the player has to do. If the player has to do it, how does the process work?
Player and AI does this, the player has control over some RR repair units, the AI has control of the rest of them, rules are still being worked on, so not worth explaining it yet

-Can infantry divisions improve infrastructure in a hex, decreasing supply penalties or the like? Historically, many infantry divisions (including SS divisions) spend a considerable amount of time improving roads so they wouldn't turn into rivers in autumn/spring.
no, or not that I know of

-Historically, the experienced higher ranking officer pool for armoured/mechanized units in the Soviet army dried up around the start of Typhoon, which meant the Soviets no longer formed tank divisions/corps, but only brigades for the time being. Is this included in the game, by limiting Soviet tank division/corps creation in 1941, for example?
modeled

-If a poor quality commander was historically stuck with poor support assets, such as Himmler controlling at the Vistula front, is there a way to give the commander better support assets attached to his HQ? Considering that Himmler didn't even have a functional signals section, defending the Vistula front would be more or less impossible by default for the Germans in 1945.
I would that would be controlled by the campaign being fought, the support that a unit may have, would be different depending on when the campaign starts, so, if the designer felt this was the case and what was needed, he could set that in the OOB for that campaign

good questions



Stryder -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 9:09:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jfarber


Sarge, I had the same reaction but chose not to respond to someone just making noise for the benefit of no one... this is a thread for questions, not insults, negativity and unfounded opinions.. the replies have been timely and awesome...for every individual that casts insults there are many more that truly appreciate the effort of the testers and 2BY3



So what was your question in this message ?



Wow, witty! are your 973 other posts just as good?



ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 9:20:01 PM)

Thanks for the answers thus far!

quote:

airfields are a type of HQ, so they move on the map, are not part of the map


airfields or air commands? It would be kind of odd to have airfield HQ's move around the map.

Are aircraft organized in a hierarchy of HQ's too, for example, *local unit*>Luftflotte IV, or are higher air commands abstracted? It could potentially be pretty difficult to keep the lower HQ's within 6 hexes of the main air command.

quote:

it is modeled, some units have to be withdrawn for refit, others will come in as new formations, there are many, many formation types


Is the player forced to follow Hitler's philosophy that more divisions could do "more with less", which turned out to be "less with more" as many weaker divisions couldn't quite match the achievements of several early war full strength divisions? As the player is forced to stick with historical production, does that also mean that we're stuck with weaker units or can we increase their strengths up to early war standards?

Do late war German infantry units simply get their infantry squads cut by 1/3 as they're missing a battalion in each regiment, regardless of losses or does a "wear and tear" system set in which makes the divisions full strength as long as manpower is available?

quote:

don't think it is magical, more like wear and tear, worn out


Should I envision this as, say, motorcycle squads no longer being delivered to the infantry division, so the motorcycles will eventually disappear and be replaced with bicycle squads or the like, similar to how the Elefant units were described earlier?

-

That brings me to a question about how units evolve: judging by the comments made earlier, I'm assuming older equipment is no longer delivered and thus units using older equipment are eventually phased out?

A few other questions:

-Someone mentioned that the Soviets got amphibious capabilities to invade the Crimea, but do the Germans also get amphibious capabilities after they capture the Kerch peninsula, as they did in real life?

-Does the Strait of Kerch freeze over?

-Can Sevastopol (or any other location with a suitable port, such as Novorossiysk) be supplied/evacuated by sea?

-Is altitude/height of a mountain range a factor for supply, or are all mountains above a certain height abstracted into a mountain terrain type with certain supply penalties?

-As the scale seems to be mostly divisional or regimental, how are fortified zones or fortress battalions depicted, do they have their own HQ's?

-Do the non-German Axis countries get German equipment at times when they got it historically (in other words: is a portion of German production going to their allies) or are they limited to their own abstracted production?

-Do the Soviets get divisions from "liberated" countries after some sort of trigger, such as Bulgarian units after the German southern front has collapsed and Bulgaria has switched sides or on the historical dates? Earlier on, someone mentioned that Italy is always out by 1943 and even Slowakia seems to automatically give up in 1944 according to that post. It would be a bit weird if Slowakia would surrender when the Soviets are only holding a tiny strip of the Urals.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/17/2009 9:27:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shupov

Actually I meant the latter, but i am curious about both HQ "special supply" and the Axis initial "Blitzkrieg supply".


You can air drop supplies to units but the tonnages are usually only a fraction of what the units need so it gives a slight boost but can't substitute for an actual supply line.

Blitzkrieg supply is simulated by having German units overstocked with supply on the first turn.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/18/2009 12:24:30 AM)


ORIGINAL: ComradeP


airfields or air commands? It would be kind of odd to have airfield HQ's move around the map.

The "airfields" (called Air Bases in the game) are actually representing base force personnel and their supporting flak units.

Are aircraft organized in a hierarchy of HQ's too, for example, *local unit*>Luftflotte IV, or are higher air commands abstracted? It could potentially be pretty difficult to keep the lower HQ's within 6 hexes of the main air command.

Aircraft are organized in air groups which are attached to air bases. The air groups can be transferred between air bases.

Is the player forced to follow Hitler's philosophy that more divisions could do "more with less", which turned out to be "less with more" as many weaker divisions couldn't quite match the achievements of several early war full strength divisions? As the player is forced to stick with historical production, does that also mean that we're stuck with weaker units or can we increase their strengths up to early war standards?

The Axis player gets the units historically assigned to the Eastern Front. The TOEs of all units, Axis & Russian, change over time so you cannot go back to an outdated TOE. The actual strength of your units depends as much on how well you play the game as it does the production system or your current TOE.

Do late war German infantry units simply get their infantry squads cut by 1/3 as they're missing a battalion in each regiment, regardless of losses or does a "wear and tear" system set in which makes the divisions full strength as long as manpower is available?

As state above, the TOEs change over time so most of your German infantry divisions will adopt the '44 infantry division TOE.

Should I envision this as, say, motorcycle squads no longer being delivered to the infantry division, so the motorcycles will eventually disappear and be replaced with bicycle squads or the like, similar to how the Elefant units were described earlier?

When a formation's TOE changes, equipment classes (including squads) not used by the new TOE will be returned to the pool.

That brings me to a question about how units evolve: judging by the comments made earlier, I'm assuming older equipment is no longer delivered and thus units using older equipment are eventually phased out?

If a type of equipment, say the Panzer IIIh, goes out of production, provided the class of equipment it belongs to is still called for in the TOE, then the type will continue to be used until it is either replaced with newer equipment or replacements are exhausted.

A few other questions:

-Someone mentioned that the Soviets got amphibious capabilities to invade the Crimea, but do the Germans also get amphibious capabilities after they capture the Kerch peninsula, as they did in real life?

Can you name an amphibious operation the Germans conducted in the Black Sea?

-Does the Strait of Kerch freeze over?

The Sea of Azov freezes over so presumably yes but I can't remember off hand.

-Can Sevastopol (or any other location with a suitable port, such as Novorossiysk) be supplied/evacuated by sea?

Yes

-Is altitude/height of a mountain range a factor for supply, or are all mountains above a certain height abstracted into a mountain terrain type with certain supply penalties?

No special penalties for high mountains

-As the scale seems to be mostly divisional or regimental, how are fortified zones or fortress battalions depicted, do they have their own HQ's?

Russian fortified zones are non-moveable combat units but you can create them in any hex you can normally move into; in addition every hex on the map has a fortification level varying from 0 (no benefit) to 5 (maximum benefit). If units continously occupy a hex they can increase its fortification level over time.

-Do the non-German Axis countries get German equipment at times when they got it historically (in other words: is a portion of German production going to their allies) or are they limited to their own abstracted production?

Yes, Germany provides certain types of equipment to its Allies.

-Do the Soviets get divisions from "liberated" countries after some sort of trigger, such as Bulgarian units after the German southern front has collapsed and Bulgaria has switched sides or on the historical dates? Earlier on, someone mentioned that Italy is always out by 1943 and even Slowakia seems to automatically give up in 1944 according to that post. It would be a bit weird if Slowakia would surrender when the Soviets are only holding a tiny strip of the Urals.

Bulgaria and the Balkans in general are not in the game. The dynamics of the game are such that if you don't defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 your chances of doing so become progressively less. It is difficult to imagine a game in which both the Russians are holding on by their fingernails in 1944 and the Germans actually need the help of a couple Slovakian infantry divisions.



Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/18/2009 2:25:01 AM)

airfields or air commands? It would be kind of odd to have airfield HQ's move around the map.

The "airfields" (called Air Bases in the game) are actually representing base force personnel and their supporting flak units.

sorry that is my bad, early in testing, we just started calling them airfields, so it has kind of stuck



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.171875