Suggestion (Full Version)

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



Message

IronDuke_slith -> Suggestion (2/1/2011 1:37:21 AM)


For more than just the chrome....[;)]

Has allowing the Germans to convert some units to Kampfgruppe status been considered.

Historically, the Germans only really did this for two reasons. The first you have well covered by allowing support units to be cross attached. However, the main reason they did it was to re-organise shattered units.

Personnel policies and pressures on the front meant individual troops would be rotated out, but many units only left the theatre when they had been all but destroyed. In times of heavy combat, shattered divisions would often be driven into the ground before being folded into another unit as replacements.

Therefore, re-organising into a KG gave the Germans several benefits that might be reflected in the game. For the expenditure of 2-3 APs, a German player could convert a division to a KG provided TOE strength (rdy plus damaged) was below 40%.

This would have the following results.

1. Reduced command point cost. A KG is a regimental sized battle group. The 2 point cost of a division presumably reflects 9-10 manouvre battalions. In a KG, this has been reduced to three, and the Staff picked from a Divisional command unit. They should cost the same as a regiment to command.

2. 5% increase to morale and experience. Finding yourself in a full strength regiment rather than a battalion of 100 men would improve cohesion and this should be reflected through a minor morale boost. Likewise, evidence suggests that better soldiers survive longer so the re-organised unit might be expected to have a higher percentage of combat capable individuals then the initial unit, or (since experience is presumably an average) the re-organised unit might be considered to have a higher percentage of the previous units more capable soldiers. A number of KG throughout the war performed well on this basis.

3. A KG should allow two support unit attachments despite it's re-organisation as a regimental sized battle group.

4. KG status would be lost if a unit went into refit.

5. KGs would receive fewer replacements reflecting the return of organic wounded, but no direct replacements.

Just a thought, but creating combat effective regimental KGs out of shattered divisions was a German speciality by 1943.

Regards,
ID



elmo3 -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 4:52:39 PM)

KG's were discussed in the tester forums.  It was decided they don't fit with the scale of the game.  



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 6:07:05 PM)

If shattered Axis divisions automatically broke down into regiments, with some being destroyed, and those could then merge with other surviving regiments from other types of division, those would essentially be KG.

The game supports the regimental scale already...



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 7:26:03 PM)

I like the idea of Kampfgruppes but I just don't see any usefulness at this scale. Kampfgruppes are just a task organized force used for specific mission purposes and not used just because divisions were low on strength. Maneuver regiments would often get mixed up with divisional artillery battalions, pioneer battalions, GHQ units, etc. and there is no way to do this in the game. Reconsolidating units into a regiment from different units would not give that unit any kind of bonus. In fact, mixing units has the opposite affect as there is always a lack of cohesion and a dip in morale. Believe me, I was an artillery Battery Commander deploying to Iraq and we got 50% of our personnel from various different units to become a task organized, non-TO&E Unit and it took months for the unit to function at the level that I was comfortable with.

In short, I think this would be a huge programming undertaking with little to gain.

Trey



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 8:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

KG's were discussed in the tester forums.  It was decided they don't fit with the scale of the game.  


I suppose my argument would be that most KGs were worn Divisions reduced to ad-hoc regimental scale TOE and the game is Divisional scale and supports regiments. I don't see how they don't fit.

Regards,
ID



Zort -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 8:43:55 PM)

Why would you need KG's?  If you get them then you have support groups and other equipment going to them that the corps need.  How many support units can it hold as many as a corps?  What leaders would you put in, Colonels? 

These are a nice to have item but I think they are far from needed. 

I for one, if these were included, would hope that there would be a limit on them since they were not usually stood up for long.



Helpless -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 8:57:34 PM)

One of KG implementation ways would be reduced OB(TOE) declaration, this would allow unit to be in ready state longer than normally. Then you can attach some support units to have more custom setup.

quote:


In short, I think this would be a huge programming undertaking with little to gain.


Something like that.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 9:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I like the idea of Kampfgruppes but I just don't see any usefulness at this scale.


I did include some rule suggestions to reflect their battlefield usefulness.

quote:

Kampfgruppes are just a task organized force used for specific mission purposes and not used just because divisions were low on strength.


I'd argue this was true up to a point tactically, but that most of the ones you read about in operational histories were badly beaten Divisions. Task organised forces by nature tended to disappear once the mission was over, that doesn't need to be shown at this level. Re-organising shattered divisions, however, is an OOB and TOE amendment and as such, I'd argue, should be.

You've done excellent Market Garden scenarions for other titles. How many of those German units that contain and then reduce the British position were adhoc formations thrown together as little more than Alarm units. This was Wehrmacht SOP, they were perfectly comfortable with it.

quote:

Maneuver regiments would often get mixed up with divisional artillery battalions, pioneer battalions, GHQ units, etc. and there is no way to do this in the game. Reconsolidating units into a regiment from different units would not give that unit any kind of bonus. In fact, mixing units has the opposite affect as there is always a lack of cohesion and a dip in morale.


Allow a KG to add two support units and you get something close.

As below, if organising a KG caused affected personnel to suffer a dip in morale and a loss of combat effectiveness, why did the Germans do it so often? The German experience was surely the opposite, that taking men in 3 man platoons and 100 man battalions and putting them into composite units at full strength improved cohesion and morale. Not least because what was generally left was combat experienced and well seasoned. Putting a large number of veterans together in a new formation was unlikely to produce a poor unit. The Germans trained and fought along these lines, this was all but second nature to them.

quote:

Believe me, I was an artillery Battery Commander deploying to Iraq and we got 50% of our personnel from various different units to become a task organized, non-TO&E Unit and it took months for the unit to function at the level that I was comfortable with.


With the greatest of respect, I'd argue the modern American Army has a different method and ethos from the Wehrmacht and the fact that it didn't benefit you doesn't mean it wouldn't have benefitted them. Given they were clearly a learning organisation, the fact they did it so often speaks volumes about how they perceived its effectiveness.

Besides, the point is they are improving effectiveness of shattered units, not improving the effectiveness of full strength units. The Germans trained for this kind of thing, were well used to combined arms method and I can't overemphasise that they wouldn;t have done it so often if they didn't see a point to it.

quote:

In short, I think this would be a huge programming undertaking with little to gain.


To me, it's a flag and a couple of rule changes, but this isn't my field so I am happy to stand corrected.

Regards,
ID



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 9:09:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

Why would you need KG's? 


You don't have to need them. It's a flag and optional rule. You trade the benefits against the disbeneifts and makes your choice.

quote:

If you get them then you have support groups and other equipment going to them that the corps need.


Not sure I get you. All you've really done is flag a division and apply a few rule changes. Wouldn't the support grioups and equipment go to the Divison the KG was formed from if it didn't exist?

quote:

How many support units can it hold as many as a corps? What leaders would you put in, Colonels?


I could live with one or two suppport units. Commanding Officer would be the Divisional Commander of the unit the KG was formed from.

quote:

These are a nice to have item but I think they are far from needed.


Thankyou for your opinion.

quote:

I for one, if these were included, would hope that there would be a limit on them since they were not usually stood up for long.


I wouldn't. the Germans didn't have a quota for setting them up, why would we?

Regards,
ID



Zort -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 9:32:33 PM)

quote:

Not sure I get you. All you've really done is flag a division and apply a few rule changes. Wouldn't the support grioups and equipment go to the Divison the KG was formed from if it didn't exist?

I was figuring on a new type HQ not flagging a division, which makes better sense.


quote:

I could live with one or two suppport units. Commanding Officer would be the Divisional Commander of the unit the KG was formed from.

But now you are assigning SU's to a div/kg not a HQ. Wouldn't that be hard to code in? Also what command ratings do you use since Div Cmdr's aren't in the game atm?



quote:

I wouldn't. the Germans didn't have a quota for setting them up, why would we?

Yes you are right but since gamers don't have the same restrictions that they had in the war wouldn't it become a gamey tactic? Just trying to keep it from being overused.

Your idea makes sense in that you use the weakened division to form the KG. And if you can assign a SU or two that would be nice. But (unless I am missing something) you then have no leadership bonuses except form the corps. Does the KG stay assigned to the corps, then why have one if they do?

If the germans could hold out in the game like they did historically throughout the campaign then there is a reason to have KG's. But I don't see any special benefit for having them.

But would add flavor. But as said might be a coding issue and since it's not a game breaker we can put them on our wish list of new features.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 9:52:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

But now you are assigning SU's to a div/kg not a HQ. Wouldn't that be hard to code in? Also what command ratings do you use since Div Cmdr's aren't in the game atm?


Support units can be added to a Division now. Up to three can attached at any one time.

The lack of divisional commanders doesn't necessarily present a problem. You wouldn't need to have a named Leader if divisions don't.

quote:


Yes you are right but since gamers don't have the same restrictions that they had in the war wouldn't it become a gamey tactic? Just trying to keep it from being overused.


I'd have set conditions that must be true to activate the KG rule. If a unit fulfilled those condition, then I'd allow it.

Regards,
ID



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 9:54:46 PM)

Iron Duke, I don't disagree with many of your principles as I feel that Kampfgruppes would be a neat aspect to have in the game if done properly. I certainly don't disagree about the effectiveness of these fighting groups. The kampfgruppes would have to bring something significant to the table far beyond what an understrength division can currently do. Respectfully, I just don't see a unit getting a magical exp/morale bonus from forming into a kampfgruppe. According to OKH situation maps, divisions under 50% strength were automatically classified as kampfgruppes and assumed to be fighting in ad hoc groups.

Maybe instead of a new process, we could just add a rule that German units with a certain morale/experience are immune (totally or partially) from becoming unready so quality German divisions that would normally be 'unready' due to losses could still fight at their current strength. They could also be less of a command burden. Whenever a unit triggers this rule, the name could be slightly changed from 'division' to 'kampfgruppe' so the new name in the game would be something like '6th Panzer Kampfgruppe'.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I like the idea of Kampfgruppes but I just don't see any usefulness at this scale.


I did include some rule suggestions to reflect their battlefield usefulness.

quote:

Kampfgruppes are just a task organized force used for specific mission purposes and not used just because divisions were low on strength.


I'd argue this was true up to a point tactically, but that most of the ones you read about in operational histories were badly beaten Divisions. Task organised forces by nature tended to disappear once the mission was over, that doesn't need to be shown at this level. Re-organising shattered divisions, however, is an OOB and TOE amendment and as such, I'd argue, should be.

You've done excellent Market Garden scenarions for other titles. How many of those German units that contain and then reduce the British position were adhoc formations thrown together as little more than Alarm units. This was Wehrmacht SOP, they were perfectly comfortable with it.

quote:

Maneuver regiments would often get mixed up with divisional artillery battalions, pioneer battalions, GHQ units, etc. and there is no way to do this in the game. Reconsolidating units into a regiment from different units would not give that unit any kind of bonus. In fact, mixing units has the opposite affect as there is always a lack of cohesion and a dip in morale.


Allow a KG to add two support units and you get something close.

As below, if organising a KG caused affected personnel to suffer a dip in morale and a loss of combat effectiveness, why did the Germans do it so often? The German experience was surely the opposite, that taking men in 3 man platoons and 100 man battalions and putting them into composite units at full strength improved cohesion and morale. Not least because what was generally left was combat experienced and well seasoned. Putting a large number of veterans together in a new formation was unlikely to produce a poor unit. The Germans trained and fought along these lines, this was all but second nature to them.

quote:

Believe me, I was an artillery Battery Commander deploying to Iraq and we got 50% of our personnel from various different units to become a task organized, non-TO&E Unit and it took months for the unit to function at the level that I was comfortable with.


With the greatest of respect, I'd argue the modern American Army has a different method and ethos from the Wehrmacht and the fact that it didn't benefit you doesn't mean it wouldn't have benefitted them. Given they were clearly a learning organisation, the fact they did it so often speaks volumes about how they perceived its effectiveness.

Besides, the point is they are improving effectiveness of shattered units, not improving the effectiveness of full strength units. The Germans trained for this kind of thing, were well used to combined arms method and I can't overemphasise that they wouldn;t have done it so often if they didn't see a point to it.

quote:

In short, I think this would be a huge programming undertaking with little to gain.


To me, it's a flag and a couple of rule changes, but this isn't my field so I am happy to stand corrected.

Regards,
ID




Helpless -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 10:31:01 PM)

Asked Joel to add this to the suggestion list. No promise it will be in the next patch :)



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 10:47:14 PM)

So, beta patch next week then ;)

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Asked Joel to add this to the suggestion list. No promise it will be in the next patch :)




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 10:55:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Iron Duke, I don't disagree with many of your principles as I feel that Kampfgruppes would be a neat aspect to have in the game if done properly. I certainly don't disagree about the effectiveness of these fighting groups. The kampfgruppes would have to bring something significant to the table far beyond what an understrength division can currently do. Respectfully, I just don't see a unit getting a magical exp/morale bonus from forming into a kampfgruppe. According to OKH situation maps, divisions under 50% strength were automatically classified as kampfgruppes and assumed to be fighting in ad hoc groups.

Maybe instead of a new process, we could just add a rule that German units with a certain morale/experience are immune (totally or partially) from becoming unready so quality German divisions that would normally be 'unready' due to losses could still fight at their current strength. They could also be less of a command burden. Whenever a unit triggers this rule, the name could be slightly changed from 'division' to 'kampfgruppe' so the new name in the game would be something like '6th Panzer Kampfgruppe'.

Trey


Well, the experience bonus is really reflecting that the experience value is an average. So if a full strength division has X squads at 80, presumably some are 74 and some 82 etc. A Kampfgruppe represents the men in a unit who haven't yet been killed or wounded. There is evidence to suggest such men would be more likely to be veterans, more likely to be at the upper end of the scale and that therefore, the average of their experience would be higher than the experience of the unit as a whole.

The morale aspect is to reflect that they belong to a more cohesive formation than a 100 man battalion etc. Would you be happier in a full strength Regiment, or a decimated battalion? Cohesion is about belonging, being organised etc.

You could even (in situations where large numbers of Germans are in units that have shattered or routed) form ad hoc units. After heavy defeats in Normandy and the east, for example, the Germans would always hoover up whatever personnel reached the new frontlines in rout and retreat and form ad hoc units to flesh out the line.

Your suggestion re ready status looks a good one as a starter. Patch after next...[;)]

Regards,
ID



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 11:10:10 PM)


Just noticed the other posts. My thanks to you and Helpless for putting forward the suggestion. My thanks also for your challenges and counter suggestions which improved and refined it.

One other thing I meant to ask the reasoning behind. Panzer Divisions break down into equally proprotioned combined arms units. Would it be a huge leap to have them break down into a Panzer and two infantry regiments. I only ask because at times, I would refrain from putting an armoured unit into certain positions because of armour's vulnerability in the objective terrain.

If the unit broke down into PZGR, Motorised infantry and Tank regiments, I could commit the infantry and leave the Armour where it was (say trying to take a town or forest position).....Likewise in defence, an armour regiment for counterattack, two infantry regiments to dig in. Panzer units might become more useful and flexible in this instance because the individual regiments would have greater strength and less vulnerability in certain situations.

Just a thought.

Regards,
ID






Helpless -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 11:18:45 PM)

quote:

Would it be a huge leap to have them break down into a Panzer and two infantry regiments. I only ask because at times, I would refrain from putting an armoured unit into certain positions because of armour's vulnerability in the objective terrain.


Yes, it would be very HUGE task. Much bigger than the KG flag.



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 11:44:32 PM)

There is already some conversions in the game that allow support squads to convert over to the German rifle squads. Maybe when this 'kampfgruppe' rule gets triggered, a certain percentage of support squads get converted to manpower for combat elements in the kampfgruppe. It would help these units keep their fighting capability even longer. The more we discuss it, the more I like the idea. Pavel loves these great ideas so keep them coming ;)

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Iron Duke, I don't disagree with many of your principles as I feel that Kampfgruppes would be a neat aspect to have in the game if done properly. I certainly don't disagree about the effectiveness of these fighting groups. The kampfgruppes would have to bring something significant to the table far beyond what an understrength division can currently do. Respectfully, I just don't see a unit getting a magical exp/morale bonus from forming into a kampfgruppe. According to OKH situation maps, divisions under 50% strength were automatically classified as kampfgruppes and assumed to be fighting in ad hoc groups.

Maybe instead of a new process, we could just add a rule that German units with a certain morale/experience are immune (totally or partially) from becoming unready so quality German divisions that would normally be 'unready' due to losses could still fight at their current strength. They could also be less of a command burden. Whenever a unit triggers this rule, the name could be slightly changed from 'division' to 'kampfgruppe' so the new name in the game would be something like '6th Panzer Kampfgruppe'.

Trey


Well, the experience bonus is really reflecting that the experience value is an average. So if a full strength division has X squads at 80, presumably some are 74 and some 82 etc. A Kampfgruppe represents the men in a unit who haven't yet been killed or wounded. There is evidence to suggest such men would be more likely to be veterans, more likely to be at the upper end of the scale and that therefore, the average of their experience would be higher than the experience of the unit as a whole.

The morale aspect is to reflect that they belong to a more cohesive formation than a 100 man battalion etc. Would you be happier in a full strength Regiment, or a decimated battalion? Cohesion is about belonging, being organised etc.

You could even (in situations where large numbers of Germans are in units that have shattered or routed) form ad hoc units. After heavy defeats in Normandy and the east, for example, the Germans would always hoover up whatever personnel reached the new frontlines in rout and retreat and form ad hoc units to flesh out the line.

Your suggestion re ready status looks a good one as a starter. Patch after next...[;)]

Regards,
ID




Helpless -> RE: Suggestion (2/1/2011 11:50:07 PM)

One thing I'm not sure should it be manual or automatic conversion followed by leader roll.



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/2/2011 12:57:37 AM)

I'd say automatic if the unit passes a leader roll once the unit gets close to 'unready' status.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

One thing I'm not sure should it be manual or automatic conversion followed by leader roll.




LiquidSky -> RE: Suggestion (2/2/2011 4:04:45 AM)



Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt a Kampfgruppe a battle formation that includes a mix of armour and infantry, and used towards some purpose? Not just a beat up infantry division?

And for the life of me, I can't think of any that were formed on the Eastern front. Except maybe very late war, in Germany.

And if there was one, say Korsun or something, did it survive more then a week?



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/2/2011 9:52:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt a Kampfgruppe a battle formation that includes a mix of armour and infantry, and used towards some purpose? Not just a beat up infantry division?

And for the life of me, I can't think of any that were formed on the Eastern front. Except maybe very late war, in Germany.

And if there was one, say Korsun or something, did it survive more then a week?


Theoretically, they could be as you describe and frequently were. However, the Germans formed KGs out of anything and everything they had to hand as an emergency measure. That is, the unit exists not because of a specific mission, but because the disparate elements are useless on their own but combined....

Additionally, they saw it as a way of making what was left of a unit more combat effective and easier to control. Take a shattered Division with 9 manouvre battalions, all at company strength, and create a composite three battalion Kampfgruppe.

Examples are there. Generally when things are going badly. Examine the OOB following the Stalingrad encirclment. Manstein has Armee Abeitungs Fretter-Pico and Hollidt. these are large Battlegroups, but are essentially a mish mash of units thrown together. Fretter-Pico had what was left of several Italin units around a German Infantry Division. Additionally, the remants of 3rd GJ are re-organised as Group Kreysing, and a Gruppe Schuldt, which was a collection of SS and Police troops thrown together. This unit illustrates Trey's point about KGs not always finding it easy to be combat effective if the units thrown together were too disparate.

Looking at unit histories, there are examples. the 23rd infantry Division re-organised it's 1000 remaining Riflemen in Jan 1942 from 9 battalions to 3. It fought in the Battle for Moscow. Mitcham is an easily accessible source and frequently describes units as "now Battlegroup strength" which suggests an official re-organisation.

2nd SS Panzer Das Reich re-organised in December 1943 into Panzer Battle Group Das Reich with armoured elements and infantrymen from both Regiments (Effectives numbered around 5000). It was 5 months before the Battle Group was withdrawn from the front.

All the elements were put under one Leader, this was very important conceptually for the Wehrmacht, and the reason so many KGs bore the name of their Commander, not the unit they originally came from.

Regards,
ID



Great_Ajax -> RE: Suggestion (2/2/2011 10:21:55 PM)

Just for clarification, I never said that kampfgruppes wouldn't be easy in being combat effective. I said that KGs shouldn't get morale/experience bonuses over their existing level.

There were many instances of kampfgruppes throughout the entire war and not just the end of it.

Also, there are references to two kinds of kampfgruppes. One that is a task organized for a specific mission and the second as a means of classifying severely understrength units. OKH would often call any severely understrength unit a kampfgruppe.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt a Kampfgruppe a battle formation that includes a mix of armour and infantry, and used towards some purpose? Not just a beat up infantry division?

And for the life of me, I can't think of any that were formed on the Eastern front. Except maybe very late war, in Germany.

And if there was one, say Korsun or something, did it survive more then a week?


Theoretically, they could be as you describe and frequently were. However, the Germans formed KGs out of anything and everything they had to hand as an emergency measure. That is, the unit exists not because of a specific mission, but because the disparate elements are useless on their own but combined....

Additionally, they saw it as a way of making what was left of a unit more combat effective and easier to control. Take a shattered Division with 9 manouvre battalions, all at company strength, and create a composite three battalion Kampfgruppe.

Examples are there. Generally when things are going badly. Examine the OOB following the Stalingrad encirclment. Manstein has Armee Abeitungs Fretter-Pico and Hollidt. these are large Battlegroups, but are essentially a mish mash of units thrown together. Fretter-Pico had what was left of several Italin units around a German Infantry Division. Additionally, the remants of 3rd GJ are re-organised as Group Kreysing, and a Gruppe Schuldt, which was a collection of SS and Police troops thrown together. This unit illustrates Trey's point about KGs not always finding it easy to be combat effective if the units thrown together were too disparate.

Looking at unit histories, there are examples. the 23rd infantry Division re-organised it's 1000 remaining Riflemen in Jan 1942 from 9 battalions to 3. It fought in the Battle for Moscow. Mitcham is an easily accessible source and frequently describes units as "now Battlegroup strength" which suggests an official re-organisation.

2nd SS Panzer Das Reich re-organised in December 1943 into Panzer Battle Group Das Reich with armoured elements and infantrymen from both Regiments (Effectives numbered around 5000). It was 5 months before the Battle Group was withdrawn from the front.

All the elements were put under one Leader, this was very important conceptually for the Wehrmacht, and the reason so many KGs bore the name of their Commander, not the unit they originally came from.

Regards,
ID




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Suggestion (2/2/2011 10:22:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I'd say automatic if the unit passes a leader roll once the unit gets close to 'unready' status.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

One thing I'm not sure should it be manual or automatic conversion followed by leader roll.





Unless any of the effects are negative, in which case I'd argue should be optional.

Should this cost AP, for example? Should KG replacements be restricted to organic wounded returning? Would we be restricting the number of support Units attachable?

On the other side of the coin, should a KG cost fewer CPs to manage for a Corp HQ?

Regards,
ID



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375