RE: Two problems with 1108m2

RE: Two problems with 1108m2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support

Message

michaelm75au -> RE: Two problems with 1108m2 (5/12/2011 10:11:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 I wonder if the movement of resources, oil & fuel should be limited like it is for supply for some bases. Because if the change made to the resource movement a short while ago Pakhoi(my only port left) drew 36920 in a single turn what is almost as much as whole China produces in one turn, pretty overkill I would say. And even before that I can see some weird fuel movements, Pakhoi has just a level 3 port so 3000 points of fuel are requested, I don't think WITP tries to double that like it does for supplies but despite that I had days where fuel ran over 10k points and that at a base with no heavy industry. I also wonder if it wouldn't be better to let the player also set values for resources, oil & fuel like he can do it already for supply, so if he wants something there he simply raises the requested value and waits for the base to draw it. which beta are you using? Ports always request fuel equal to the size*1000. Old WITP did the same. In addition, there is a hidden 'gotcha', that the port also needs enough fuel to refuel all the ships in port plus TFs based or assigned to the base. That was also in WITP, or was introduced with AE. That was toned back abit in one of the first patches IIRC, because all the fuel wants to go to port to refuel ships that wont get there for sometime. Each base should get what it wants from nearby bases. The excess is then shipped of to coastal ports. If a base has no fuel for its industry, then there couldn't have been any in range of the base. I tried to limit how much resource (res/oil/fuel) moved between bases each phase, but there were complaints that the coastal bases no longer had a large enough store to keep the resource fleets full. I have been monitoring 'failed industry' as the guide to bad resource movement, and I have had few failures (apart from one bad beta). If you only had one port left, I am not surprised that the excess fuel/oil/res migrated there. But I don't think that would have taken away the fuel required for industry in some other base unless the demands on fuel in the port were excessive.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 10:19:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus I have a query rather than a bug regarding the ease of moving large amounts of supply between distant bases via very poor terrain. In the opening release of ae it was near impossible to move supply by land from india to burma and from burma to china. This seemed very realistic as in reality the terrain between burma/india is thick jungle with just a few muddy tracks. Supplies and goods were shipped by sea to rangoon. The more recent patches have allowed supplies to flow automatically from india to burma and then from burma to china - in very large amounts eg tens of thousands of supply points. This means I never have to ship supply by sea into burma very unrealistic and in china I can supply all my troops and bases quite easily. You can see this in my current pbm game. Chunking has recently gained around 50k supplies drawn from rangoon. save pbm attached. Is the supply draw system working as planned and if so is it allowing supply to flow too easily over impassible terrain ? Also are too many supply points being allowed to move in this way ? michaelm thank-you for looking at this. I have gone back over my save games for the last month and I think I have a better example of the growth of supply stocks in china. The first save is for the 16 May 1942. The second is for the 17 May 1942 Supply stocks changes - Bombay 201k to 175k, Calcutta 134k to 164k, Rangoon 76k to 72k, Chungking 46k to 70k, Changsha 36k to 37k. 16 may save attached My concern is the increase at Chungking from 46k to 70k. This supply is not coming from within china so it must be coming from burma or india. 24k increase in supply at Chungking in 1 day. Over time this soon adds up. Here is the resource/supply movement for 16 May COMBAT EVENTS FOR 03/16/42 ADJUST TASK FORCE MISSIONS 1 Chungking receives 544 supply from Chengtu (98), store = 46645 req = 5637 1 Ichang receives 170 supply from Chungking (96), store = 2072 req = 660 1 Sinyang receives 1226 supply from Chungking (95), store = 26390 req = 8785 1 Kanhsien receives 149 supply from Chungking (96), store = 2310 req = 739 1 Kukong receives 160 supply from Chungking (96), store = 1548 req = 485 1 Mengtze receives 15 supply from Chungking (97), store = 617 req = 206 1 Nanning receives 341 supply from Chungking (97), store = 3269 req = 1060 1 Nanyang receives 163 supply from Chungking (95), store = 3055 req = 988 1 Siangtan receives 96 supply from Chungking (96), store = 2264 req = 723 1 Tienshui receives 381 supply from Chungking (96), store = 1179 req = 365 1 Pingsiang receives 170 supply from Chungking (96), store = 2006 req = 638 1 Chungking receives 603 supply from Kunming (97), store = 44240 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 255 supply from Lanchow (95), store = 44495 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 42 supply from Liuchow (97), store = 44537 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 86 supply from Nanning (97), store = 44623 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 86 supply from Nanyang (95), store = 44709 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 14 supply from Neikiang (99), store = 44723 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 23750 supply from Pakhoi (95), store = 68473 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 38 supply from Paoshan (95), store = 68511 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 13 supply from Shaoyang (96), store = 68524 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 100 supply from Sian (96), store = 68624 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 91 supply from Siangtan (96), store = 68715 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 80 supply from Tienshui (96), store = 68795 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 956 supply from Tsuyung (97), store = 69751 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 38 supply from Tuyun (98), store = 69789 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 32 supply from Wuchow (95), store = 69821 req = 5637 1 Chungking receives 88 supply from Pingsiang (96), store = 69909 req = 5637 2 Chungking receives 1620 fuel from Lanchow (50), store = 4220 req = 1300 2 Chungking receives 65040 resource from Pakhoi (59), store = 178900 req = 17890 2 Chungking receives 8780 fuel from Pakhoi (59), store = 13000 req = 1300 3 Pakhoi receives 53670 resource from Chungking (59), store = 125230 req = 17890 3 Pakhoi receives 9100 fuel from Chungking (59), store = 3900 req = 1300 Pakhoi seems to be main supplier of Chungking. michaelm thanks again for looking at this. In the example above Pakhoi may be sending supply to Chungking but where is Pakhoi getting the supply from ? I still think that china is drawing large amounts of supply from somewhere outside of china - india and/or burma. However if you think that things are ok or working as designed then that is fine for me. I just play and enjoy the game as it is. If you do want me to post any more save games let me know. Did you have save from before Pakhoi became your main supply hub??[:D]

viberpol -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m3 updated 9 May (5/12/2011 2:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm [1108m3] Tweaked Show the supply path as black dots in a PBEM rather than actual suppply numbers I am little confused. Why did you decide to change the numbers? I didn't have enough time to get used to '5' hotkey [;)] in the late beta before upgrading, but... am I right, that the numbers were telling us how many supply points can one expect in such and such a position? Black dots say nothing apart from the fact that there actually is a supply path (that no LCU blocks it), right?

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m3 updated 9 May (5/12/2011 2:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm [1108m3] Tweaked Show the supply path as black dots in a PBEM rather than actual suppply numbers I am little confused. Why did you decide to change the numbers? I didn't have enough time to get used to '5' hotkey [;)] in the late beta before upgrading, but... am I right, that the numbers were telling us how many supply points can one expect in such and such a position? Black dots say nothing apart from the fact that there actually is a supply path (that no LCU blocks it), right? Yep in a PBEM, the 'black' dot means a path can be traced to that hex. The last dot in a path doesn't necessarily mean that it has been stopped by an enemy LCU (concerns of some players as it acted as a free recon by showing a number to go); it just means it can't go further for whatever reason.

asdicus -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 5:28:59 PM)
[/quote] Did you have save from before Pakhoi became your main supply hub??[:D] [/quote] michaelm I have save games available going all the way back to the start of my latest pbm game. The game is now is April 1942 and china has more supplies than I know what to do with ! I have even turned on industry repair at Chungking and Changsha. I have never had to ship any supplies by sea from india to rangoon - they all move by land. The supplies in china are moving by land either from burma and/or india (via Pakhoi ??). I think this problem arises because the allies hold burma and this is allowing supplies to flow in large amounts to china. This save is from 4 march 1942 pakhoi has only 1k supply rangoon 295k all from india.

asdicus -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 5:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus Did you have save from before Pakhoi became your main supply hub??[:D] michaelm I have save games available going all the way back to the start of my latest pbm game. The game is now is April 1942 and china has more supplies than I know what to do with ! I have even turned on industry repair at Chungking and Changsha. I have never had to ship any supplies by sea from india to rangoon - they all move by land. The supplies in china are moving by land either from burma and/or india (via Pakhoi ??). I think this problem arises because the allies hold burma and this is allowing supplies to flow in large amounts to china. This save is from 4 march 1942 pakhoi has only 1k supply rangoon 295k all from india. This save is for 13 march 1942. Pakhoi now has 34k supplies rangoon only 134k. As well as the movement of supplies into china I am sure that too much supply is moving by land from india to burma. There are no roads just muddy tracks and jungle. As the allies I should be forced to send convoys of supply by sea to rangoon. I am sure when the game was first released the supply system did not allow supplies to flow so easily by land over poor terrain. michaelm if you would like more save games eg earlier in this pbm just let me know. Thank-you again for looking at this.

m10bob -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 6:35:54 PM)
OK, this is no fault of the excellent enhancements Michaelm is making, but since I know he checks this thread, I have some suggestions.. Colombo is a auto convoy supply port, but has no inherent oil/fuel supply of its; own and depends on the player remembering to get fuel there..I forgot and found 14 supply convoys sitting there, backed upp, all waiting for fuel, when they had taken on all the dry goods they might carry..I had ports starving waiting for the longshoremen to end their apparent strike!.. Suggestion..Lot of oil and fuel up north of there..If we could start auto convoys from Aden for tankers only, it would be nice, and more realistic than giving Colombo a source of those items automatically? Suggestion#2.....If an auto convoy ship is at a port it cannot get fuel at, allow the Cpt of the ship to be bright enough to take off with the foodstuffs he already has on board........Thank you....... It takes courage for me to admit my own weaknesses..[:D]

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 8:42:35 PM)
Normally the player ships a lot fuel to India so maybe using a port there(Bombay) as auto convoy port would be better. But I wonder how one can forget to supply his main naval base with fuel?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/12/2011 11:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob OK, this is no fault of the excellent enhancements Michaelm is making, but since I know he checks this thread, I have some suggestions.. Colombo is a auto convoy supply port, but has no inherent oil/fuel supply of its; own and depends on the player remembering to get fuel there..I forgot and found 14 supply convoys sitting there, backed upp, all waiting for fuel, when they had taken on all the dry goods they might carry..I had ports starving waiting for the longshoremen to end their apparent strike!.. Suggestion..Lot of oil and fuel up north of there..If we could start auto convoys from Aden for tankers only, it would be nice, and more realistic than giving Colombo a source of those items automatically? Suggestion#2.....If an auto convoy ship is at a port it cannot get fuel at, allow the Cpt of the ship to be bright enough to take off with the foodstuffs he already has on board........Thank you....... It takes courage for me to admit my own weaknesses..[:D] I have no idea if the code allows, but I'd guess/bet that setting up any off-map base as an auto-convoy originaiton point would make the code scream in protest. Just sayin'. Colombo can and should be serviced by several Abadan tanker CS TFs from very early on. I've run auto-convoys from there since the second turn, and have had over 1,000,000 fuel in Colombo, and up to 2.5M, continuously since Feb. 1942. This route is tailor made for the CS type convoy. Build and forget, except checking for upgrades every few months. On your last point, I find that the AC system doesn't make mixed supply/fuel TFs very often. Usually one or the other. But I also do very, very limited fuel auto-convoying. Tankers are too precious to risk a mis-route. I've had a handful in the pool, but inevitably I end up pulling them away to send on some needed refuel run.

DivePac88 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 5:29:35 AM)
I are currently running Public Beta - Build 1108m3 in a PBEM game. I have a problem with not being able to pull pilots into a Mavis unit, can someone help please. [image]local://upfiles/30275/EBAFE09B57BA419584CB8305DAEF7647.jpg[/image]

Alfred -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 7:08:17 AM)
That unit has a max TOE of 18 aircraft less its detached sub-unit of 18. Click on the OOB button. As it currently stands, it is being treated as if it were a fragment. Alfred

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 9:37:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob OK, this is no fault of the excellent enhancements Michaelm is making, but since I know he checks this thread, I have some suggestions.. Colombo is a auto convoy supply port, but has no inherent oil/fuel supply of its; own and depends on the player remembering to get fuel there..I forgot and found 14 supply convoys sitting there, backed upp, all waiting for fuel, when they had taken on all the dry goods they might carry..I had ports starving waiting for the longshoremen to end their apparent strike!.. Suggestion..Lot of oil and fuel up north of there..If we could start auto convoys from Aden for tankers only, it would be nice, and more realistic than giving Colombo a source of those items automatically? Suggestion#2.....If an auto convoy ship is at a port it cannot get fuel at, allow the Cpt of the ship to be bright enough to take off with the foodstuffs he already has on board........Thank you....... It takes courage for me to admit my own weaknesses..[:D] I have no idea if the code allows, but I'd guess/bet that setting up any off-map base as an auto-convoy originaiton point would make the code scream in protest. Just sayin'. I have seen several saves from players where they have set up CS convoys from Aden and Cape Town.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 9:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 I are currently running Public Beta - Build 1108m3 in a PBEM game. I have a problem with not being able to pull pilots into a Mavis unit, can someone help please. [image]local://upfiles/30275/EBAFE09B57BA419584CB8305DAEF7647.jpg[/image] Seems weird to have 18 planes in group with 18 in detachments. These are editor detachments rather than fragments from memory. What does the "Unit OOB" show? [Group 5015 does not exist in the main standard scenarios, so is this a user designed one?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 1:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob OK, this is no fault of the excellent enhancements Michaelm is making, but since I know he checks this thread, I have some suggestions.. Colombo is a auto convoy supply port, but has no inherent oil/fuel supply of its; own and depends on the player remembering to get fuel there..I forgot and found 14 supply convoys sitting there, backed upp, all waiting for fuel, when they had taken on all the dry goods they might carry..I had ports starving waiting for the longshoremen to end their apparent strike!.. Suggestion..Lot of oil and fuel up north of there..If we could start auto convoys from Aden for tankers only, it would be nice, and more realistic than giving Colombo a source of those items automatically? Suggestion#2.....If an auto convoy ship is at a port it cannot get fuel at, allow the Cpt of the ship to be bright enough to take off with the foodstuffs he already has on board........Thank you....... It takes courage for me to admit my own weaknesses..[:D] I have no idea if the code allows, but I'd guess/bet that setting up any off-map base as an auto-convoy originaiton point would make the code scream in protest. Just sayin'. I have seen several saves from players where they have set up CS convoys from Aden and Cape Town. No, I meant I thought the OP was suggesting recoding the game to make Abadan an AUTO-CONVOY origination base rather than Colombo. CS convoys work fine from and to off-base locations. I use them a lot.

DivePac88 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 6:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Seems weird to have 18 planes in group with 18 in detachments. These are editor detachments rather than fragments from memory. What does the "Unit OOB" show? [Group 5015 does not exist in the main standard scenarios, so is this a user designed one? Hi michaelm We are playing the standard Scenario 002, and here is the OOB. [image]local://upfiles/30275/41CADD229EB9455CB70111173F4870F6.jpg[/image]

DivePac88 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 6:38:09 PM)
Also this is the screen you get when you click on the location button for 22nd KuT-1 Det arriving in 81days. [image]local://upfiles/30275/0ABF7DC3853C4505B58F9EC011C22C9E.jpg[/image]

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/13/2011 10:35:43 PM)
@michaelm Can you tell me what format the audio files(SFX) use?

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/14/2011 12:11:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Seems weird to have 18 planes in group with 18 in detachments. These are editor detachments rather than fragments from memory. What does the "Unit OOB" show? [Group 5015 does not exist in the main standard scenarios, so is this a user designed one? Hi michaelm We are playing the standard Scenario 002, and here is the OOB. [image]local://upfiles/30275/41CADD229EB9455CB70111173F4870F6.jpg[/image] Must have missed checking that one. Ah there is the problem. Notice that there are 2 detachments in the Unit OOB screen: 21st Ku T-1 Det and 22nd Ku T-1 Det. I am guessing that the 22nd should not be there but be attached to the 22nd Ku T-1 group. Yep. The editor shows that. Someone has keyed in the wrong parent group when setting up the scenario up. Easy enough to do.

DivePac88 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/14/2011 1:58:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Must have missed checking that one. Ah there is the problem. Notice that there are 2 detachments in the Unit OOB screen: 21st Ku T-1 Det and 22nd Ku T-1 Det. I am guessing that the 22nd should not be there but be attached to the 22nd Ku T-1 group. Yep. The editor shows that. Someone has keyed in the wrong parent group when setting up the scenario up. Easy enough to do. Hi michaelm, thanks for confirming that. We are 4 turns into a new PBEM game, is their anyway I can fix this. Or am I stuck with it, and may as well disband this unit? Thanks Des.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/14/2011 2:36:36 AM)
Suggest you disband the second detachment. The scenario editor file would need to be fixed and then the save update would kick in. Chance of un-intented chances though.

DivePac88 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/14/2011 3:39:27 AM)
Thank-you Sir, that works a treat. [&o]

witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/14/2011 6:53:44 PM)
Michael, this is just an informational query. The section of the manual below describes the progression of the dud rate for torpedoes in the game. Upon reading it closely I wonder of the part that I made bold should actually read as follows: "In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate equal to or greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10." I put the edited part in italics. quote: 6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years. Note: if the Realism option �Reliable USN Torpedoes� (see section 2.4.7) is selected, this rule does not apply � no torpedoes will have dud rates higher than 10%. I am not asking for a manual update, just using that to illustrate a query about how the code works.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 2:38:33 AM)
The code is wrtitten as per the manual and that its the same as the original WITP.

Zacktar -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 2:34:59 PM)
Michael, I installed the beta patch yesterday and am very, very happy with all of the improvements. It works perfectly for me, and has really improved the experience of playing the game. Thanks very much for your work on making the game even better! [sm=00000436.gif]

ny59giants -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 2:49:39 PM)
Eastern USA base has stored over 281k in supply as of 16th Dec 42. I started this game using k9 and just got my opponent to go up to m3. Anyone else having problems with supply moving out of USA base with new game (scenario 2)?? We had played into June 42 while Beta's were coming out to ensure some stability before restarting. Prior, supply would move every second or third day out of USA base. I will send MichaelM a PM after next turn if it continues to stockpile supply (yes, I recycled the stockpile switches to make sure they were not stuck).

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 3:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Eastern USA base has stored over 281k in supply as of 16th Dec 42. I started this game using k9 and just got my opponent to go up to m3. Anyone else having problems with supply moving out of USA base with new game (scenario 2)?? We had played into June 42 while Beta's were coming out to ensure some stability before restarting. Prior, supply would move every second or third day out of USA base. I will send MichaelM a PM after next turn if it continues to stockpile supply (yes, I recycled the stockpile switches to make sure they were not stuck). Are your US mainlamd bases running short of supplies? Or ports not keeping up with TF loading supplies?

ny59giants -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 4:00:18 PM)
Both. Turn sent via PM that used k9. Will send next turn with m3 later.

witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m2 updated 2 May (5/15/2011 7:24:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Both. Turn sent via PM that used k9. Will send next turn with m3 later. I am not having that problem. Now I'm past k9, but I don't recall having it then either.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May (5/16/2011 2:50:24 PM)
This is an update just of the EXE/DLL with these couple of fixes. I suggest trying this but not for games in progress as it might have undesired consequences if I have made any errors. Note that once you save a game under this version, it most likely wont be able to be read under the older ones. [1108m4] Tweaked Wrong altitude was being used in some cases. Could impact raid, co-ordination and low level intercepts [MEM] Fixed Overflowing list caused lockup during air/land combat [MEM] Fixed Carry over replacement delay on LCU recombining [MEM] Changed Color of supply dot to yellow [MEM] Added Option to retire low experienced named pilots - in group and reserve lists [MEM} Fixed Error in movement of fuel and determination of excess resources [MEM] Tweaked Pilot overflow to clear more pilots. Corrected some discrepancies in pilot numbers [MEM] Fixed Auto-upgrade of squad devices when LCU taking replacements that cause an upgrade [MEM] Changed Auto-upgrade devices treated as 'new' for the device tally report [MEM]

Nemo121 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May (5/16/2011 4:35:23 PM)
Michael, Is the altitude tweak the solution to the kamikaze bug? Should kamikazes now go in at the altitude the player selects instead of defaulting to 9,000 feet? If it is I'll go with this change for my current game. Lack of kamis is a killer in the late-war scenarios.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.125