RE: what is WITE ? (Full Version)

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



Message

Redmarkus5 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/3/2011 7:34:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jajusha

Doesn't really matter what you call it...could be a quantic distorted boson accelerated through a higgs field kind of wargame. It still makes enough concessions in the micromanaging department so that it's not appealing only to the hardcore fans, and it has enough depth so that hardcore wargamers still feel in charge of stuff.


"Stuff" - now there's a word I can relate to :)



hfarrish -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 4:48:41 AM)

I prefer to think of the equation X = f(bs-tr)2d + 4rth. Don't you agree?



berthier -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 8:12:35 AM)

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+f'(t+dt)*dt. f'(t+dt) is the slope of f measured at time t+dt. That's called implicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+0.5*(f'(t)+f'(t+dt))*dt. That's Crank-Nicholson. Explicit integration is unstable--it tends to diverge from reality. Implicit integration is always stable, even when it shouldn't be. Crank-Nicholson is a compromise. Every game I know of uses explicit integration. Unless you keep them on the tracks somehow, they're likely to go off in weird and wonderful directions. "

Sorry, and I really dont mean to offend, but this is an entirely meaningless explanation to me and I assume to many others who haven't done higher maths...and I do have two degrees in science/health science and still have no idea what point you are trying to make. Perhaps an example of each case rather than a formula might help?



herwin -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 9:03:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berthier

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+f'(t+dt)*dt. f'(t+dt) is the slope of f measured at time t+dt. That's called implicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+0.5*(f'(t)+f'(t+dt))*dt. That's Crank-Nicholson. Explicit integration is unstable--it tends to diverge from reality. Implicit integration is always stable, even when it shouldn't be. Crank-Nicholson is a compromise. Every game I know of uses explicit integration. Unless you keep them on the tracks somehow, they're likely to go off in weird and wonderful directions. "

Sorry, and I really dont mean to offend, but this is an entirely meaningless explanation to me and I assume to many others who haven't done higher maths...and I do have two degrees in science/health science and still have no idea what point you are trying to make. Perhaps an example of each case rather than a formula might help?



Sorry. Suppose you have the situation on turn N--call it f(N)--and you want to do a game move, resulting in f(N+1) for turn N+1. So the change in the situation is f(N+1)-f(N), called delta f. You can define delta f forward based the situation on turn N, or you can work backwards from the situation on turn N+1. (Yes it works...) Ideally those are the same, but in a game, everything is approximate. There wouldn't be any problem if the change was a 'linear function' of f(N), but in reality, the change during a turn can be very non-linear, and you can get overshoot or undershoot. If you define delta f forward, you're doing explicit integration. If you define it backwards, you're doing implicit integration, and if you average the two, you're doing Crank-Nicholson. In the presence of non-linearity, explicit integration is often unstable (overshoots) and implicit integration is overly stable (undershoots). If you overshoot every turn, you eventually go off the rails. Every game I know of uses explicit integration and usually has to impose some sort of correction mechanism to keep things on the rails in the long term.

Overshooting occurs, for example, when you wipe out a unit. The losses beyond the strength of the unit are ignored. Yet, the costs to the other side are not. In reality, the battle would end without those excess costs and the unit winning would be available for recovery or to do some other task. Over hundreds of turns, it adds up.

Abstractly, implicit integration for a wargame would involve summing up the available things and proposing an optimal allocation to locations and units on the map perhaps in a few turns. Then working backwards from that allocation to work out the necessary moves and attacks for this turn. Throw in some randomness to see what happens. The idea is to create undershoot rather than overshoot. Ideally, you want neither, which is why Crank-Nicholson is probably best, despite its complexity.



corbon -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 9:39:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berthier

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+f'(t+dt)*dt. f'(t+dt) is the slope of f measured at time t+dt. That's called implicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+0.5*(f'(t)+f'(t+dt))*dt. That's Crank-Nicholson. Explicit integration is unstable--it tends to diverge from reality. Implicit integration is always stable, even when it shouldn't be. Crank-Nicholson is a compromise. Every game I know of uses explicit integration. Unless you keep them on the tracks somehow, they're likely to go off in weird and wonderful directions. "

Sorry, and I really dont mean to offend, but this is an entirely meaningless explanation to me and I assume to many others who haven't done higher maths...and I do have two degrees in science/health science and still have no idea what point you are trying to make. Perhaps an example of each case rather than a formula might help?



My guess...
Game designer's need game data to check things, but they can't spend all the time playing the game out to get varied data to check various situations. So they 'simulate' game results at various stages using formulae to get approximate results quickly that they can use to check how they think the game will turn out.

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration.
f(t+dt) is the function (or game state) at the turn desired. t is a known turn result, and dt is the number of additional turns required to get to the unknown turn result.
For example, you can simulate the results of turn 30 using the results of turn 20 + 10 extra turns worth of functioning. t=20, dt =10, the result at turn 30 will be simulated by taking the result of turn 20 and adding 10 estimated (the estimation is what f is all about) turn results to that.
The estimation process here is done by looking at turn results graphically (or mathematically) and finding the slope of the graph (f'(t)). For example, if a german infantry div lost 5% of its strength during turn 20, the estimation is that it will lose 5% of its strength in each of the following turns (vastly oversimplifying here). So the division's state at turn 30 will be estimated as its state at turn 20 (f(t)) plus the slope it was on at turn 20 (f'(t)=-5%) multiplied by the number of turns (dt=10). The division will have lost 50% strength in 10 turns (or be at .95^10 strength = approximately 60% strength, depending on your model).
This nearly always produces 'wrong' results (diverges from reality, or is unstable) because every existing result includes some random factor, or noise. So that measured 5% losses should maybe have been 4.2% on average, but the Russians got a good roll or something. This minor fault in the estimation process multiplies itself out each additional turn, making a bigger and bigger fault, not to mention introducing additional errors (after losing only 42% strength instead of 50% strength the division is fighting over 20% stronger, so it's current calculations are now 20% off, and they've been off all the way through).
That's explicit integration whatsit.

Implicit integration is exactly the same except you use the 'end' slope (at t+dt, or turn 30) instead of the 'start' slope (at turn 20). I don't remember why it's stable, but it doesn't give any more accurate results because the end slope is just as affected by a single random noise variable. Maybe the end slope is 3.8% loss (true average value 4.2 remember), so instead of over calculating losses all the way we will under calculate the losses all the way.

The Crank-Nicholson method uses an estimated average slope by adding together the starting slope and the finishing slope and dividing by 2 (multiplying by 0.5). Hence it is more likely to give better results because 2 random noise variables have a higher chance of canceling each other out than multiplying each other. 0.5(5+3.8)= 4.4% losses used in the calculation - closer than either other value.
It won't always be closer, but it usually will, and done many times in multiple calculations (ie that 10 turn break will usually be done 1 turn at a time) it will be closer very much more often than not - the distribution of an average of two values is much tighter around the mean than the distribution of individual values.

I've done my best to forget this stuff over the last 20 years, so sorry if there re some inaccuracies there but that's what it looks like to me in as layman's terms as I can think of..




herwin -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 9:50:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: corbon


quote:

ORIGINAL: berthier

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+f'(t+dt)*dt. f'(t+dt) is the slope of f measured at time t+dt. That's called implicit integration. Or you can approximate it by f(t)+0.5*(f'(t)+f'(t+dt))*dt. That's Crank-Nicholson. Explicit integration is unstable--it tends to diverge from reality. Implicit integration is always stable, even when it shouldn't be. Crank-Nicholson is a compromise. Every game I know of uses explicit integration. Unless you keep them on the tracks somehow, they're likely to go off in weird and wonderful directions. "

Sorry, and I really dont mean to offend, but this is an entirely meaningless explanation to me and I assume to many others who haven't done higher maths...and I do have two degrees in science/health science and still have no idea what point you are trying to make. Perhaps an example of each case rather than a formula might help?



My guess...
Game designer's need game data to check things, but they can't spend all the time playing the game out to get varied data to check various situations. So they 'simulate' game results at various stages using formulae to get approximate results quickly that they can use to check how they think the game will turn out.

"If you want to simulate a turn, you can approximate f(t+dt) by f(t)+f'(t)*dt. dt is one turn. f'(t) is the slope of f measured at time t. This is called explicit integration.
f(t+dt) is the function (or game state) at the turn desired. t is a known turn result, and dt is the number of additional turns required to get to the unknown turn result.
For example, you can simulate the results of turn 30 using the results of turn 20 + 10 extra turns worth of functioning. t=20, dt =10, the result at turn 30 will be simulated by taking the result of turn 20 and adding 10 estimated (the estimation is what f is all about) turn results to that.
The estimation process here is done by looking at turn results graphically (or mathematically) and finding the slope of the graph (f'(t)). For example, if a german infantry div lost 5% of its strength during turn 20, the estimation is that it will lose 5% of its strength in each of the following turns (vastly oversimplifying here). So the division's state at turn 30 will be estimated as its state at turn 20 (f(t)) plus the slope it was on at turn 20 (f'(t)=-5%) multiplied by the number of turns (dt=10). The division will have lost 50% strength in 10 turns (or be at .95^10 strength = approximately 60% strength, depending on your model).
This nearly always produces 'wrong' results (diverges from reality, or is unstable) because every existing result includes some random factor, or noise. So that measured 5% losses should maybe have been 4.2% on average, but the Russians got a good roll or something. This minor fault in the estimation process multiplies itself out each additional turn, making a bigger and bigger fault, not to mention introducing additional errors (after losing only 42% strength instead of 50% strength the division is fighting over 20% stronger, so it's current calculations are now 20% off, and they've been off all the way through).
That's explicit integration whatsit.

Implicit integration is exactly the same except you use the 'end' slope (at t+dt, or turn 30) instead of the 'start' slope (at turn 20). I don't remember why it's stable, but it doesn't give any more accurate results because the end slope is just as affected by a single random noise variable. Maybe the end slope is 3.8% loss (true average value 4.2 remember), so instead of over calculating losses all the way we will under calculate the losses all the way.

The Crank-Nicholson method uses an estimated average slope by adding together the starting slope and the finishing slope and dividing by 2 (multiplying by 0.5). Hence it is more likely to give better results because 2 random noise variables have a higher chance of canceling each other out than multiplying each other. 0.5(5+3.8)= 4.4% losses used in the calculation - closer than either other value.
It won't always be closer, but it usually will, and done many times in multiple calculations (ie that 10 turn break will usually be done 1 turn at a time) it will be closer very much more often than not - the distribution of an average of two values is much tighter around the mean than the distribution of individual values.

I've done my best to forget this stuff over the last 20 years, so sorry if there re some inaccuracies there but that's what it looks like to me in as layman's terms as I can think of..




Pretty good. +1



JJKettunen -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 10:39:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The mesh (time-space ratio) scale is almost the same as OCS, which is the best manual simulation of the operational level available. The stacking is a bit off--a corps attack frontage was about 8 kilometres, but that might not be that important, particularly as two hexes can concentrate on one.


That brings up a question: If there are superb boardgame designs out there, why not computerize them to a cat free environment? Instead we got all of these fancy looking operational games, with superbly detailed TOEs, that ultimately produce just horse manure.



herwin -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 11:04:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The mesh (time-space ratio) scale is almost the same as OCS, which is the best manual simulation of the operational level available. The stacking is a bit off--a corps attack frontage was about 8 kilometres, but that might not be that important, particularly as two hexes can concentrate on one.


That brings up a question: If there are superb boardgame designs out there, why not computerize them to a cat free environment? Instead we got all of these fancy looking operational games, with superbly detailed TOEs, that ultimately produce just horse manure.


Investigate Vassal.



JJKettunen -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 11:24:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The mesh (time-space ratio) scale is almost the same as OCS, which is the best manual simulation of the operational level available. The stacking is a bit off--a corps attack frontage was about 8 kilometres, but that might not be that important, particularly as two hexes can concentrate on one.


That brings up a question: If there are superb boardgame designs out there, why not computerize them to a cat free environment? Instead we got all of these fancy looking operational games, with superbly detailed TOEs, that ultimately produce just horse manure.


Investigate Vassal.


Cheers!



BletchleyGeek -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 12:31:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The mesh (time-space ratio) scale is almost the same as OCS, which is the best manual simulation of the operational level available. The stacking is a bit off--a corps attack frontage was about 8 kilometres, but that might not be that important, particularly as two hexes can concentrate on one.

That brings up a question: If there are superb boardgame designs out there, why not computerize them to a cat free environment? Instead we got all of these fancy looking operational games, with superbly detailed TOEs, that ultimately produce just horse manure.


I don't read herwin's remark as a criticism of WiTE, or computer wargames in general. Both boardgames and computer wargames have bugs either on the rules or the programming, which mediate our appreciation of the work behind them. I don't know why The Gamers - OCS authors - haven't considered a computer adaptation of their OCS or TCS systems, to be honest, but probably the issue has been raised more than once on consimworld or other forums.

Regarding detailed TOE's. A coarse grained 1:1 modeling of unit elements doesn't really guarantee a good simulation. You need also a good simulation engine that effectively uses all that info - rules abstracting combat, supply, etc. - so that it the computations required don't take hours of CPU time and one gets likely outcomes from the simulation.

I sincerely think that WiTE is the closest thing an OCS fan can get on a computer. For this I thank the devs and testers: this is a wonderful product. "Wonderful" doesn't mean "perfect", but WiTE certainly raises the bar.

The perception some have had with WiTE being more a "game" than a simulation has several causes, many of them related to bugs on either the rules or the implementation of replacements mechanics. Operational attrition - due to movement - has been laughable until 1.04, where several changes have been implemented that should partially model the staggering, ebb and flow of operational war that OCS captures so well. These changes perhaps could possibly be complemented with other that explicitly link unit supply level and offensive capability, perhaps not.

Areas that still need some work are FOW (DL), the air model and effects of "isolation".

The Air model just doesn't seem to me to make much sense: in some places feels like being hardwired to produce historically plausible outcomes, in other places is just out of whack. But it has already been acknowledged that it needs work and that there's work being done on that.

Regarding FOW, I think that CV's aren't uncertain enough. They're just an approximation of actual combat effectiveness, I know. But it feels to me it's a too good approximation. I don't know if DL influences on the CV's we see for enemy units, but probably should, distorting the perception one has of enemy units, not only CV but also it's type, reporting for instance a wrong type. I also think the info we get from air recon is too reliable, or it is raising DL too much. And finally, very much like in WiTP, enemy losses should be subject to some degree of FOW (perhaps only "killed" inf, arty and tanks should be reported, currently I understand they show also "disabled" or "damaged" inf, arty and tanks, stuff that eventually comes back).

Finally, there have been made several observations regarding the effects of isolation not "scaling up well". It's not the same thing an encirclement encompassing one single hex than one which covers an area comparable in size, population and resources to several small Western European countries, especially when plenty of supply is stockpiled in isolated pop centers and HQ's.

Many people have been complaining for long about how hard is to obtain an ahistorical Axis decisive victory in 1941 or 1942 (or in other words, kill the Soviet Union in a one year campaign). Even in WiTE 1.00 it was extremely hard, perhaps impossible. I think that's a witness to how sound WiTE modeling actually is (it's very sound, btw).

EDIT: Spelling, FOW.



berthier -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 12:56:19 PM)

Herwin and corbon, thanks for those eminently understandible explanations! 



Redmarkus5 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 3:04:46 PM)

All I know is that I have had outstanding WW2 board game experiences (even in Solitaire mode) using two dice and a cup.



Scook_99 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 4:04:18 PM)

Strangely, I understood Herwin's explanation, and will use the 1942 scenario to apply game terms.

Say we have a line starting at turn 1, and we play to turn 42. We will label this line "Expectations."
We have a 2nd line running from turn 1 to turn 42, and we will label this one, "What Really Happens in the Game."

When "What Really Happens in the Game" is nothing like "Expectations", we (the players) come to the forums and say "What really happened in my game does not meet my expectations".

If enough players agree, then the designers will take a closer look at data and formulas in the game (the explicit values).

The application of Crank-Nicholson comes when the designers agree with the players and rewrite code, and we will call this a "Patch."

So, we will keep applying the "Patch" so "What Really Happens in the Game" comes closer to "Expectations".

There is a lot more verbage to write on this, but I think this is the gist of the Crank-Nicholson method in game terms.



vilcum -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 4:16:34 PM)

What is Wite?

  I have been for 20 years a follower of Europa series, specially its DNO/FiTe/Scorched Earth, and to me WitE is the perfect computerized BOARD game,plainly ,a wet dream maked real.

       An hexed Map with counters who can model attrition , waste and tearing by modifiying your combat factors infinitelly... that is not at the reach of a "paper" board game




Redmarkus5 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 4:59:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vilcum

What is Wite?

  I have been for 20 years a follower of Europa series, specially its DNO/FiTe/Scorched Earth, and to me WitE is the perfect computerized BOARD game,plainly ,a wet dream maked real.

       An hexed Map with counters who can model attrition , waste and tearing by modifiying your combat factors infinitelly... that is not at the reach of a "paper" board game




I wasn't criticizing WiTE. I was making an observation about the fact that I have been able to play war games of similar complexity (game play complexity - not design complexity) for several decades without needing to know what the application of Crank-Nicholson implies for applications and modelling. I just needed to know how to throw a dice :)



PyleDriver -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 6:28:21 PM)

Ok my two cents, I've been playing wargames for 41 years, since AH's Stalingrad in 1970. I've been testing this game nearly 3 years now, and still try to get up earlier than my wife to play it...lol...And whats great is Gary, Joel and Pavel are still working on it to make it better, and we testers are still testing... Not many releases can boast that...



BletchleyGeek -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 6:42:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ok my two cents, I've been playing wargames for 41 years, since AH's Stalingrad in 1970. I've been testing this game nearly 3 years now, and still try to get up earlier than my wife to play it...lol...And whats great is Gary, Joel and Pavel are still working on it to make it better, and we testers are still testing... Not many releases can boast that...


Indeed. I think you can count them with the fingers of one hand (and no, I'm not counting those who release patches as they release "modules" with content that used to come along the game in the initial release).

EDIT: Spelling



morvael -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/4/2011 8:08:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Investigate Vassal.



Red Star Rising?



Scook_99 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/5/2011 1:32:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ok my two cents, I've been playing wargames for 41 years, since AH's Stalingrad in 1970. I've been testing this game nearly 3 years now, and still try to get up earlier than my wife to play it...lol...And whats great is Gary, Joel and Pavel are still working on it to make it better, and we testers are still testing... Not many releases can boast that...


And I thank you for it, and all the people responsible for this product. This is why certain people and companies get my money. Been playing games since Avalon Hill's 'War in the Pacific' (circa 1975 for me), and have been buying products with Gary Grigsby's name on them since.....hmm, around 1984. I will mention Joel here by name too, since he was running SSI for a long time when I bought almost every game they put out.

Wargaming isn't about fun, it's just a way of life [:)]



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/5/2011 3:03:37 AM)

If X equals my play, and Y equals my enjoyment, with Z being the amount of times I have screamed at a "hold" result of 1.9/1 odds, then the obvious ratio of...oh hell, who am I kidding, I only got a masters degree in history!

WITE is a game for me, and nobody can tell me different.



sIg3b -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/5/2011 7:19:34 PM)


quote:


Overshooting occurs, for example, when you wipe out a unit. The losses beyond the strength of the unit are ignored. Yet, the costs to the other side are not. In reality, the battle would end without those excess costs and the unit winning would be available for recovery or to do some other task. Over hundreds of turns, it adds up.



Great example. Now I, and probably most others, understand what you mean. Good point.



sIg3b -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/5/2011 7:24:39 PM)

quote:



That brings up a question: If there are superb boardgame designs out there, why not computerize them to a cat free environment?

Yes, yes, and yes. I am still waiting for a good PC version of Third Reich, the definitive WWII game made in the late 1970s or so.[sm=00000028.gif]

Edit: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1563/rise-and-decline-of-the-third-reich

+Edit: Problem with Vassal is I want the PC for bookkeeping, and to provide an opponent. Even for playing solitaire, Vassal and the like are a bit on the 'amateurish' side in look and feel.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/6/2011 6:04:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:



I am still waiting for a good PC version of Third Reich, the definitive WWII game made in the late 1970s or so.



One of my favorite strategic-level WW2 board games. There was PC version many years ago, but it had numerous problems, IIRC.



sIg3b -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/6/2011 6:56:57 PM)

Exactly. Some bugs, weak AI, and no Pbem, iIrc.

The great thing about the boardgame is complete WWII ETO (land/naval/air), reasonable detail, but just below 'Monster Game' size. Endless replayability, to top it.



PyleDriver -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/6/2011 8:12:59 PM)

Many, many hours with Third Reich (boardgame). The computer version sucked. It had so many bugs and lockups I couldnt play it. Another one of those games that went in the trash bin...



PyleDriver -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/6/2011 8:25:03 PM)

If you like Third Reich, GG's AWD is a great game. At first I didn't like WAW, the first release, it seamed to abstract. Once you get into Garys mind of thinking it is one of the most playable games out there. The what if's are endless. I still go back and play it on and of all the time...



sillyflower -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/7/2011 10:01:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

If X equals my play, and Y equals my enjoyment, with Z being the amount of times I have screamed at a "hold" result of 1.9/1 odds, then the obvious ratio of...oh hell, who am I kidding, I only got a masters degree in history!

WITE is a game for me, and nobody can tell me different.


Well, my original degrees are in experimental psychology

All this maths stuff looks to me like classic displacement activity. Worry about equations whilst your army runs away. I bet neither Crank nor Nicholson could play this game for toffee.

My subsequent degrees are in law so I will sue anyone who disagrees with me, or who beats me at the game.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/7/2011 2:19:54 PM)

My other masters is in Cultural/Social Anthropology - I would be happy to get a government grant to do fieldwork and go study the primitives who play this game.



sillyflower -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/7/2011 9:51:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

My other masters is in Cultural/Social Anthropology - I would be happy to get a government grant to do fieldwork and go study the primitives who play this game.


A fruitless search. The primitives all play poker



PyleDriver -> RE: what is WITE ? (5/7/2011 11:48:53 PM)

Poker? Did someone call my name?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625