RE: The core problem with WitE+

RE: The core problem with WitE+ (Full Version)

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

Message

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 8:23:14 AM)
Hi Aurelian You said quote: And yet, they were used when needed as an anti tank weapons, being that they could be and were used in a direct fire role. There are exceptions to every rule they were of course used in the direct fire role, but in-game they are -only- used in the direct fire role. because. when they fire the opposing artillery or any other long range weapon can fire back at them. wrong. In reality they would be out of sight and probably range. ie In reality they can usually lay there barrage unimpeded. The game models indirect fire weapons as direct fire weapons. The game is modelling the exception (line of sight) not the rule (indirect). Best Regards Chuck.

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 8:24:18 AM)
Hi Morvael Have you read what I wrote at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428981 What do you think? Best Regards Chuck.

chuckfourth -> RE: fixes (1/11/2014 8:31:45 AM)
Hi Pelton. My concern is that the combat engine in WITE2 will be very similar to what we have now and wont incorporate any of the suggestions I or MechFo and others have suggested, for me that makes the game (WITE2 and WITW) unplayable and I want to play. My challenge to one and all is to watch a high resolution battle and think about the circumstances required for that particular result to occur. From my experience it does not take long to see a result that really isn't possible at that time or is tactically extremely naive Best Regards Chuck.

Gabriel B. -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 10:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles Hi gradenko_2000 You said quote: All weapons with enough reach to participate in the Long-range phase (mostly artillery) all take turns firing at each other (hence artillery killing artillery) and at non-participating targets (hence artillery killing tanks). The Artillery don't fire at each other the attacking artillery lays a barrage on the defending infantries positions. The attacking Artillery lays a barrage on the advancing infantry. They are to busy doing this (there jobs) to fire at each other. Also it is unlikely that the opposing batteries are within range of each other. Because the artillery is wrongly modelled as a direct fire weapon It participates in tank killing from the engagements beginning when in reality it cant see any tanks. It shouldn't be killing any tanks until the attacker has rolled right over the defending division and can actually see the defending artillery. The chance of indirect fire hitting a moving tank is about .00something. best Regards Chuck. You an expert? Counterbattery fire was handled by the germans using the medium batalion at divisional level and the gun batalion at corps level . Corps arty to include both soviet and german outranges divisional arty by 8 km or more , you could place your divisional arty so back that it only covers the foward edge of defense but still be targeted by corps CB. 8 km is outside the range of direct fire weapons In fact anyting above 5 km calls for indirect fire due to earths curvature . It also outside the range of medium/heavy infantry mortars .

carlkay58 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 1:00:00 PM)
The Soviet artillery doctrine from WWII (and is still part of their current doctrine) is artillery in the front lines. The Soviets did not have the forward observers and radios that make indirect fire effective. The artillery was executed on a pre-planned task list with two signals possible from the front lines by flares: stop and start. The artillery at the regimental level and below were front line units. They operated mostly over open sights. They took heavy losses but also dished out over 60% of the losses caused by the Soviet artillery (that number comes from the Soviet Army's evaluation of WWII tactics done in the 50s and 60s). It was so effective that their current doctrine has a battery of 6 152mm SP Howitzers combining with a tank platoon and a mechanized infantry company as the leading elements right behind their recon units. The Axis and Western Allies relied on the indirect fire tactics more, with the Americans developing the TOT (time on target) concept utilizing up to 120 tubes of various artillery types at the same time. Many of the US WWII infantry company commanders felt like their job was to protect the forward observers so that the artillery was accurately used to destroy the enemy forces.

Flaviusx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 2:53:30 PM)
The thing that drives me slightly crazy about TOAW is that it's kind of difficult to tell when your turn is going to end. I wish this were easier to predict and plan for. But it's a good engine and I look forward to a TOAW IV, which is supposedly in the works. A graphics overhaul would do wonders here.

Wuffer -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 3:08:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The thing that drives me slightly crazy about TOAW is that it's kind of difficult to tell when your turn is going to end. I wish this were easier to predict and plan for. But it's a good engine and I look forward to a TOAW IV, which is supposedly in the works. A graphics overhaul would do wonders here. + 1 Just one thing to add: Please, all you developers, please have once more a closer look at TOAW - many of the problems here had been adjusted by Norm Koger around 15 years ago :-)) Don't go for the new, insane(?) big scenarios, I would advocate Koger's original 'Korea' for example.

Rasputitsa -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 3:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The thing that drives me slightly crazy about TOAW is that it's kind of difficult to tell when your turn is going to end. I wish this were easier to predict and plan for. But it's a good engine and I look forward to a TOAW IV, which is supposedly in the works. A graphics overhaul would do wonders here. Isn't that where the realism comes in as for most games, including WiTE, you can see just how far your units can go, taking into account terrain and weather factors, effects that actual commanders can only guess at. The realism comes with setting a plan that can cope with some unpredictability.

SigUp -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 3:52:48 PM)
I would be content with a simple MP deduction for entering hexes in which battles were fought. For me personally this combat rounds system of TOAW would take just too much time for a game with lots of units. Nothing against the system in smaller scenarios though.

Flaviusx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 3:59:42 PM)
Rasputitsa, yes, but the process could be more transparent in TOAW and more easily controlled. I also think the engine tends to exaggerate the amount of time it takes to undertake certain activities. It's stickier than I like. Maybe it needs more granularity, too. Consider doubling the number of possible subimpulses to create the possibility of greater differentiation between types of combats.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 4:15:01 PM)
I have looked over some of the other games out there that are named on this thread. None really look that great or are tring to tackle WW2 in Europe as 2by3 is. WiF's simply is going to be hard to do HvH in real time, because of phase design. Operational games tend to be easy to design as both players are in a box. WitE/WitW+++ to WiE is a sandbox. But yet on a grand scale no one is tring to do BOTH in a single game. As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run.

SigUp -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 4:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run. I hope so, the AE forum is still buzzing despite the game being 4 years old or so and now I couldn't resist and bought the game. The engine had enough development time from Uncommon Valor onwards. As for the state of this series, well you know more than us due to being a beta tester. I hope WITW and then WITE2 will be a great game, but a severe combat engine remodeling in addition to a couple of other pressing issues need to be corrected.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 4:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SigUp quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run. I hope so, the AE forum is still buzzing despite the game being 4 years old or so and now I couldn't resist and bought the game. The engine had enough development time from Uncommon Valor onwards. As for the state of this series, well you know more than us due to being a beta tester. I hope WITW and then WITE2 will be a great game, but a severe combat engine remodeling in addition to a couple of other pressing issues need to be corrected. I love history. 2by3 has a history. Each game they produce gets better with time. WitE has gotten better and better over time. Once .14 is public all things being equal for the first time in 3 yrs we finally have a big fat ? when players play. GHC fuel exploits have been nerfed and SHC I win buttons(mostly bugs+1v1=2v1) have been nerfed. We all can injoy the game knowing bugs and exploits will not be the desiding factor finally. Sure the engine needs to be tweaked in allot of areas, but as 2by3's history shows this will happen.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 6:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles Hi Aurelian You said quote: And yet, they were used when needed as an anti tank weapons, being that they could be and were used in a direct fire role. There are exceptions to every rule they were of course used in the direct fire role, but in-game they are -only- used in the direct fire role. because. http://www.wio.ru/galgrnd/atg.htm Note the 122mm M-30 howitzer in a direct fire role. As noted above the Russian doctrine was artillery in the front lines. Direct fire role. http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1001 The Red Army placed much greater emphasis on using the artillery in a direct fire role (as opposed to shelling an out of sight target indirectly) than other armies of the time. Soviet doctrine encouraged gunners to drag their weapons forward and blast the enemy over open sights Direct fire was less wasteful of ammunition than indirect shelling which was considered an inefficient way of destroying the enemy. The Soviet Union experienced severe ammunition shortages for its artillery early in the war. This was because the ammunition factories were mostly positioned further west than the gun factories. Also, the Red Army was always short of radios and this made it difficulty to arrange artillery fire at short notice. The Red Army mainly relied on field telephones to communicate, and telephone lines were cumbersome to lay and vulnerable to being severed by enemy fire. Finally, the educational standards of the Red Army were, on average, lower than most other armies of the time. This, combined with the difficulty of providing training to such a large army, meant that it was difficult to train enough observers for the artillery army. It doesn't matter if they were division or higher level guns or not. Direct fire was the doctrine.

Rasputitsa -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 8:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Rasputitsa, yes, but the process could be more transparent in TOAW and more easily controlled. I also think the engine tends to exaggerate the amount of time it takes to undertake certain activities. It's stickier than I like. Maybe it needs more granularity, too. Consider doubling the number of possible subimpulses to create the possibility of greater differentiation between types of combats. I am not saying TOAW is the way to go, the industry should be able to move on beyond that, but supporting the principle of a more realistic representation of movement and combat, with a reasonable helping of unpredictability. Even WIR had the possibility of movement and combat not taking place as plotted, if the OP calculation was wrong. Even had the option to have some friendly HQ operating under AI, with set objectives, OK primitive and unreliable, but it added some unpredictability, instead of hundreds of units moving directly to your command, which never happened in reality. Some of the earlier games had features that potentially added to the realism, even if the level of development did not deliver fully. The John Tiller games, with the ability to control through lower level commanders, more in keeping with the way a command system really works. Ideal for something as large as the Eastern Front, but gradually lost from GGs games. I know the endless discussion of, the AI is broken, not doing what I want, but that is what happens in war. Controlling through subordinate AI operated HQ would be more realistic, replicate command and control capabilities of each side and reduce the workload in complex games. It could always be subject to options and preferences for those who want to micro-manage and choose a greater level of player control. I knew WiTE was not going this way, long before it was issued, but bought it anyway, but having never gone beyond the scenarios it has limited appeal. I don't expect a change of course now.

Shiva the Destroyer -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 8:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I have looked over some of the other games out there that are named on this thread. None really look that great or are tring to tackle WW2 in Europe as 2by3 is. WiF's simply is going to be hard to do HvH in real time, because of phase design. Operational games tend to be easy to design as both players are in a box. WitE/WitW+++ to WiE is a sandbox. But yet on a grand scale no one is tring to do BOTH in a single game. As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run. Can't post a link due to low number of posts but check out wargamer.com re:Schwerpunkt games and you'll find someone is working on BOTH in a single WIE game! edit1> scale = 7.5 miles per hex center to center edit2> Incidentally, though it's getting rather dated, Decision Games has had a PC adaptation of SSI's board game version of WIE for many years.

Michael T -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 9:00:23 PM)
quote: Can't post a link due to low number of posts but check out wargamer.com re:Schwerpunkt games and you'll find someone is working on BOTH in a single WIE game! +1 If your in to strategy rather than counting tanks this might be the one for you. I have high hopes for it. Ron's games have been improving with every release. I am playing AGW right now and its a blast of fun.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 10:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gray Lensman quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I have looked over some of the other games out there that are named on this thread. None really look that great or are tring to tackle WW2 in Europe as 2by3 is. WiF's simply is going to be hard to do HvH in real time, because of phase design. Operational games tend to be easy to design as both players are in a box. WitE/WitW+++ to WiE is a sandbox. But yet on a grand scale no one is tring to do BOTH in a single game. As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run. Can't post a link due to low number of posts but check out wargamer.com re:Schwerpunkt games and you'll find someone is working on BOTH in a single WIE game! edit1> scale = 7.5 miles per hex center to center edit2> Incidentally, though it's getting rather dated, Decision Games has had a PC adaptation of SSI's board game version of WIE for many years. http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=83493 http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=508684 http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=584761

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 11:22:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlkay58 The Soviet artillery doctrine from WWII (and is still part of their current doctrine) is artillery in the front lines. The Soviets did not have the forward observers and radios that make indirect fire effective. The artillery was executed on a pre-planned task list with two signals possible from the front lines by flares: stop and start. The artillery at the regimental level and below were front line units. They operated mostly over open sights. They took heavy losses but also dished out over 60% of the losses caused by the Soviet artillery (that number comes from the Soviet Army's evaluation of WWII tactics done in the 50s and 60s). It was so effective that their current doctrine has a battery of 6 152mm SP Howitzers combining with a tank platoon and a mechanized infantry company as the leading elements right behind their recon units. The Axis and Western Allies relied on the indirect fire tactics more, with the Americans developing the TOT (time on target) concept utilizing up to 120 tubes of various artillery types at the same time. Many of the US WWII infantry company commanders felt like their job was to protect the forward observers so that the artillery was accurately used to destroy the enemy forces. Hi Carlkay58 I understand Regimental guns can be LOS guns but not necessarily. Heavily Armoured SP assault howitzers are clearly front line units I'm talking about artillery batteries (with radios and spotters). OK then, of the remaining soviet artillery What proportion do you think fired directly and what proportion fired indirectly? Did the Soviet artillery 'divisions' fire directly? How about Soviet Mortar and Rocket batteries? what proportion of these units fired directly or indirectly? Are you saying that the game shouldn't bother trying to model indirect fire weapons correctly? Best Regards Chuck

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/11/2014 11:41:59 PM)
Hi Aurelian A passage from your second quote, about Soviet artillery doctrine "Indirect Fire The (Soviet) artillery fired indirectly to prepare the way for an assault, to bring down defensive walls of fire in front of Soviet troops under attack, as well firing in counter-battery roles to destroy enemy artillery" OK so my question to you is even if as you say the Soviets had a "Direct fire was the doctrine" some proportion of their artillery fired indirectly what do you think that proportion was? Also if there was in fact a lot of soviet Heavy artillery up front then all the more reason to model indirect Artillery fire correctly The Germans certainly didn't and so shouldn't be getting the higher artillery casualties which your Soviets front line gunners should be getting. Personally I doubt it but if appreciable numbers of Soviet divisional or Corps artillery is in fact deployed in the front line then this is a clear difference between German and Russian ignored by the combat engine. Best Regards Chuck.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 12:08:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles OK so my question to you is even if as you say the Soviets had a "Direct fire was the doctrine" some proportion of their artillery fired indirectly what do you think that proportion was? How many trained forward observers did they have? How many telephone wires were not cut that day? How long did they have to prepare? Were they part of an attack that day? Were the targets static or moving? What was the artillery used for when the Russians moved past the preplanned targets? Once the battle turned fluid Russian indirect fire became just about useless unless the guns could see the target. The Soviets had a hard time training good observers and fire control specialists. Those who could usually ended up in Artillery Divisions. Argue all you want, but their artillery doctrine stressed direct fire for the reasons above. Their artillery was designed to be used in either role.

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 12:18:51 AM)
OK So are you saying that the combat engine shouldn't bother modelling indirect fire weapons? Best Regards Chuck.

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 12:25:20 AM)
I haven't read it yet, but this may be of interest: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll2/id/1551 This study is a detailed look at the information available in current Soviet military publications on how the Soviets use their field artillery weapons in a direct fire role. It includes a discussion of the historical background for use of direct fire as it was developed during the Great Patriotic War. The primary emphasis is on how the Soviets currently employ direct fire during offensive and defensive operations, and the training techniques used to develop direct fire skills at individual and collective levels. The conclusions drawn from this study are that the Soviets will aggressively use their field artillery in a direct fire role in both offensive and defensive situations, but most routinely in the meeting engagement; the major advantages for the use of direct fire are timeliness, accuracy, and ammunition savings; routine training is conducted by Soviet artillery units to develop their direct fire skills; and the Soviets'; significant numerical advantage In artillery assets allows them the flexibility to employ It for direct fire." "In the sectors of greatest importance for the Leningrad counterattack in January 1943 there were at least 40 direct fire guns per kilometer of front. In the main attack by 2nd Army, thirty seven per cent of the small caliber artillery pieces (mostly 76mm) were in direct fire positions, and about ten percent of the larger caliber artillery pieces (mostly 122mrn. but some 152mm) were in direct fire positions. The supporting attack by 8th Army showed about fifteen per cent less use of direct fire artillery."

Aurelian -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 12:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles OK So are you saying that the combat engine shouldn't bother modelling indirect fire weapons? Best Regards Chuck. No. What I'm saying is that this: quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles The problem is that the 152mm howitzers are divisional or better artillery. That means that they are far -behind- an entire Russian (for arguments sake) infantry division. Is wrong.

carlkay58 -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 2:21:14 AM)
quote: Hi Carlkay58 I understand Regimental guns can be LOS guns but not necessarily. Heavily Armoured SP assault howitzers are clearly front line units I'm talking about artillery batteries (with radios and spotters). OK then, of the remaining soviet artillery What proportion do you think fired directly and what proportion fired indirectly? Did the Soviet artillery 'divisions' fire directly? How about Soviet Mortar and Rocket batteries? what proportion of these units fired directly or indirectly? Are you saying that the game shouldn't bother trying to model indirect fire weapons correctly? Best Regards Chuck Today, the Soviet artillery is armored SP assault howitzers, in WWII they were horse drawn artillery pieces. Meeting engagements (one of the primary type of engagements according to Soviet doctrine from 1930s and on) see regimental artillery committed to the front line from the first. The reaction speed, accuracy, and support fire is better that way. Divisional, Corps, and Army artillery were also used in the front lines depending on the situation and the amount of support the regiment is to have. It was not a standard practice for the higher echelon artillery to be in the front line, but the pursuit and exploitation phases included the Divisional and Corps levels being placed there. Artillery divisions were used for opening barrages for deliberate attacks. They fired from a distance and were basically trained for barrages. These barrages were area suppression type missions, they were plotted for specific geographical locations on precise time tables. These time tables could be stopped and/or restarted through the use of flares from the forward units. The artillery divisions also had the few trained forward observers that could be detached to the front lines for defensive support missions. Neither rockets or mortars are direct fire weapon types. That said, mortars were commonly within sight of their planned targets while the heavy mortars were sometimes used as additional long range support. Anything under 150mm were usually front line weapons. Rockets were more of an operational (read division/corps) element and used for area bombardments in both the offensive and defensive modes. Their rapid rate of fire were used to break up enemy concentrations or protect the flanks of advances until supporting units could take over. I guess what all this is leading to is that the current combat calculations and resolution are fairly complex. Could you make it more complex with consideration of each individual nation's artillery doctrines? Definitely. You can say the same thing for the nation's tank and infantry doctrines also. Will the game benefit from the additional detail and complexity? That I could argue either way. All I know is that trying to make it more complex may not be the right answer as the smallest bit of wrong calculation or evaluation is magnified on the scales that are represented in these games.

Peltonx -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 4:19:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Gray Lensman quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton I have looked over some of the other games out there that are named on this thread. None really look that great or are tring to tackle WW2 in Europe as 2by3 is. WiF's simply is going to be hard to do HvH in real time, because of phase design. Operational games tend to be easy to design as both players are in a box. WitE/WitW+++ to WiE is a sandbox. But yet on a grand scale no one is tring to do BOTH in a single game. As with WitP things will get better and better in the long run. Can't post a link due to low number of posts but check out wargamer.com re:Schwerpunkt games and you'll find someone is working on BOTH in a single WIE game! edit1> scale = 7.5 miles per hex center to center edit2> Incidentally, though it's getting rather dated, Decision Games has had a PC adaptation of SSI's board game version of WIE for many years. http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=83493 http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=508684 http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=584761 Your looking at a 1 man team. I respect the guy, but odds are the system will fail.

gradenko2k -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 4:58:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles Hi gradenko_2000 You said quote: All weapons with enough reach to participate in the Long-range phase (mostly artillery) all take turns firing at each other (hence artillery killing artillery) and at non-participating targets (hence artillery killing tanks). The Artillery don't fire at each other the attacking artillery lays a barrage on the defending infantries positions. The attacking Artillery lays a barrage on the advancing infantry. They are to busy doing this (there jobs) to fire at each other. Also it is unlikely that the opposing batteries are within range of each other. Because the artillery is wrongly modelled as a direct fire weapon It participates in tank killing from the engagements beginning when in reality it cant see any tanks. It shouldn't be killing any tanks until the attacker has rolled right over the defending division and can actually see the defending artillery. The chance of indirect fire hitting a moving tank is about .00something. best Regards Chuck. I was not referring to real-life combat. Of course opposing artillery wouldn't always be in a position to hit each other and of course indirect artillery fire would have a vanishingly small chance of hitting an advancing tank. I was referring to how artillery-on-artillery kills and artillery-on-tank kills result from how War in the East's combat, specifically, is modeled/simulated.

chuckfourth -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 5:10:42 AM)
Hi carlkay58 You wrote quote: All I know is that trying to make it more complex may not be the right answer as the smallest bit of wrong calculation or evaluation is magnified on the scales that are represented in these games Right on the money here. Because the combat engine is so crude, not modelling indirect fire weapons. not restricting AT fire to armour. not giving armoured troops the benefit of the armoured carriers. not including any tactics. These are in your language 'wrong calculations' and -are- being 'magnified' to the detriment of the German player, Because The German player relies heavily on tactics and the 'proper' use of specialist or support weapons. The Russian with numbers on his side isn't affected. Not fair. Best Regards Chuck.

76mm -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 6:02:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chuckles The German player relies heavily on tactics and the 'proper' use of specialist or support weapons. The Russian with numbers on his side isn't affected. Not fair. I agree with your general point, but don't think it is as simple as all that, and in particular don't agree that the combat model exclusively favors the Soviets--if so, why was the 1:1->2:1 rule necessary? The 1:1->2:1 rule is no less than a white flag from the combat engine saying that it cannot properly reflect the results of Sov attacks in 1941. I think that the biggest problem that the Germans have with the combat engine are the retreat losses.

SigUp -> RE: The core problem with WitE+ (1/12/2014 6:15:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm I think that the biggest problem that the Germans have with the combat engine are the retreat losses. Agreed. If the German player can't turn the match into a fort slugfest in 1943-44 his army is getting ground to dust in no time. Another issue are the low attacking losses of the engine. No matter German or Soviet, the engine severely understates the losses of successful attacks.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9526367