RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again.

RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV

Message

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 1:17:22 PM)
When you open Game Options you see several check boxes for new game rules. One more check box for New Rivers wouldn't hurt. I don't know how many player made scenarios there are, maybe over a thousand, but that didn't stop all of these new items from being made whether or not it broke some of those scenarios. And many people took the time to fix some of those that did break. But a switch like what we have for all of the other new ways the game does things would take care of the old scenarios. New River Graphics For that matter you could even make a switch for when movement points are spent for rivers. Either upon entering or upon leaving. New River Rule This would add a greater variety and people can play with whatever version they want. You actually could make most of the people happy most of the time. [;)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 2:32:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larrybush 99% of all board games use hex side rivers That's it in a nutshell: Cardboard counters and hex grids. That's what passes for "evidence" in this endless screed. Never reality - reality is far, far messier.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 2:52:20 PM)
Here's item 2.2 from the old "Comprehensive Wishlist" document: 2.2 Improve river hexes by inferring deployment state in them from the context of when & how the hex was captured: 2.2.1 Defensive: Began last defender player-turn in control of defender. Attacks out of or into suffer the river penalty. 2.2.1.1 Such attacks must have a minimum amount of major ferry included if it is a Super River hex. 2.2.2 Offensive: Captured in last defender’s player turn. Attacks out of do not suffer penalty. Attacks into gain offensive bonus equal to the river penalty being applied to the defender. 2.2.3 Offensive status takes effect the instant the hex is captured. It is reset to Defensive status at the start of the second enemy player turn after the friendly player captured the hex (assuming it remains in friendly control all that time). 2.2.4 Info panel displays what the status of any selected river hex is (possibly subject to fog-of-war). 2.2.5 Rationale: The two states infer which side of the river the defender is located on relative to the enemy. If the hex has just been gained (Offensive State), the defender is assumed to be on the far (enemy) side of the river, and retains his offensive posture. He can then push on without need to further suffer any penalty associated with crossing the river. And, he remains vulnerable to a counterattack with the river at his back. However, if no such push takes place after the next defender player turn (Defensive State), the defender is assumed to have relocated on the near (friendly) side of the river and taken a defensive posture. He is no longer vulnerable to a counterattack, but if he later wishes to push on, it will require another river-crossing assault. 2.2.6 Alternate: Offensive state remains in effect until converted to Defensive by owner’s choice via popup. Something similar to that may be implemented at some point.

warspite1 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 5:10:28 PM)
I don't understand what the fuss is about. I've been fighting in the desert for months now and have no problem with rivers......

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 6:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I don't understand what the fuss is about. I've been fighting in the desert for months now and have no problem with rivers...... [sm=00000030.gif]

Franciscus -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 6:14:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I don't understand what the fuss is about. I've been fighting in the desert for months now and have no problem with rivers...... [:D][:D][:D]

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 7:24:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay That's it in a nutshell: Cardboard counters and hex grids. That's what passes for "evidence" in this endless screed. He does have a point. Even in the world of digital war games hex side rivers are in the majority. While there are some that use mid hex rivers the reason to keep them to the hex side is simple. It's easy to know what side of the river you are on. And that is an important piece of information. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Never reality - reality is far, far messier. Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up. Anyway, the inconsistencies of mid hex rivers need to be cleared up. Can't deny that they are there.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 8:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster He does have a point. Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this. quote: Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up. "Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do.

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 9:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster He does have a point. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this. That is your opinion and only an opinion based on no facts. And if middle of the hex rivers ever make sense then none of the above even matters. quote: Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay "Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do. Simulate: to look, feel, or behave like (something). That is what this game does. It simulates naval warfare which you had no problem improving so it made sense. It also simulates things like rivers. In TOAW rivers run through hexes in straight lines or curvy lines with no left or right bank. Rivers actually do have a left bank and a right bank. But in TOAW this is not simulated. It's ignored. In fact, if a river occupies a hex in TOAW, it runs in all directions simultaneously. It covers every direction of the compass. I know this because if I move from one river hex, across a river hex side to the next river hex I have to pay to cross a river even if it graphically appears that the river runs in only one direction. At least in hex side rivers you actually do have a left bank and a right bank. In inter hex rivers you have to develop convoluted programming to properly simulate a river and the positions of things within the hex that the river occupies. Now if that is easier than introducing hex side rivers fine. But as things stand how do you or anyone else conclusively know what side of a river a unit occupies or even if the unit is on both sides of the river or all sides of an infinitely sided river? That is the "reality" of rivers in TOAW. There's more like crossing a river and then paying a penalty to attack a unit across the river that you just crossed but what's the point? Trying to introduce a little more logic into the game mechanics seems to make the least sense of all.

fdski10 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 10:37:19 PM)
i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are. Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems. What am I missing ? Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ?

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/1/2018 11:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this. That is your opinion and only an opinion based on no facts. And if middle of the hex rivers ever make sense then none of the above even matters. Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it. quote: quote: Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up. quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay "Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do. Simulate: to look, feel, or behave like (something). That is what this game does. It simulates naval warfare which you had no problem improving so it made sense. It also simulates things like rivers. In TOAW rivers run through hexes in straight lines or curvy lines with no left or right bank. Rivers actually do have a left bank and a right bank. But in TOAW this is not simulated. It's ignored. In fact, if a river occupies a hex in TOAW, it runs in all directions simultaneously. It covers every direction of the compass. I know this because if I move from one river hex, across a river hex side to the next river hex I have to pay to cross a river even if it graphically appears that the river runs in only one direction. At least in hex side rivers you actually do have a left bank and a right bank. In inter hex rivers you have to develop convoluted programming to properly simulate a river and the positions of things within the hex that the river occupies. Now if that is easier than introducing hex side rivers fine. But as things stand how do you or anyone else conclusively know what side of a river a unit occupies or even if the unit is on both sides of the river or all sides of an infinitely sided river? That is the "reality" of rivers in TOAW. There's more like crossing a river and then paying a penalty to attack a unit across the river that you just crossed but what's the point? Trying to introduce a little more logic into the game mechanics seems to make the least sense of all. No. I've never said there was no need for improvement. In fact, I posted about it in post #33. But your idea that you should be able to move along a sequence of river hexes as if they aren't there - as if they were clear terrain - I don't agree with.

76mm -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/2/2018 5:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it. I find this statement to be rather bizarre in a wargaming forum. Reality? This whole game is intended to, in fact must, simulate and simplify reality in convincing ways. For the reasons described in this thread (and the many other threads on the topic), I don't think that in-hex rivers achieve this. And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well.

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/2/2018 10:01:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fdski10 i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are. Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems. What am I missing ? Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ? In TOAW, since rivers pass through the hex instead of along the hex border, you have to defend off the river hex. That is, in a hex adjacent to the river. Then, when you are attacked from the hex that contains the river, the attacker gets a .7 multiplier applied to their attack. Unless... The attacker is attacking down a river. That is, from a river hex into an adjacent river hex. Then you can sit on the river and the attacker will receive a .7 multiplier to their attack. Ikr.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/2/2018 2:48:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Not true. Reality really is what matters. And there have been multiple claims (several just today) that some count of games that have hexside rivers proves that is the way to do it. I find this statement to be rather bizarre in a wargaming forum. Reality? This whole game is intended to, in fact must, simulate and simplify reality in convincing ways. How is that materially different from my "bizarre" statement: "Reality really is what matters."? quote: For the reasons described in this thread (and the many other threads on the topic), I don't think that in-hex rivers achieve this. What you think is irrelevant. What is your evidence? From what I can tell, it appears to be nothing more than other board wargames. quote: And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well. That's basically what constitutes "evidence" in this endless waste of time. It's self-perpetuating. How could anyone deviate from it with a group-think mindset like we've seen on this thread?

gbaby -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/2/2018 7:42:33 PM)
If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move. I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be?

DanNeely -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/2/2018 10:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbaby If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move. I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be? I think everyone involved in the series should take that this - something which at the end of the day doesn't really matter (both ways work, both have some advantages and some disadvantages) is the only thing in this release that is generating a non-trivial complaint thread - as proof that they've done their job very well.

Chicharito19 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/3/2018 3:53:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbaby If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move. I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be? Same here +1

fdski10 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/3/2018 7:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster quote: ORIGINAL: fdski10 i'm relatively new to TOAW and found this dicussion right after playing Market Garden scenario. Playing as Allies i rolled germans without much trouble. Didn't even bother checking where the rivers are. Playing as germans, i tried to create chokepoints on heavely defended destroyed bridges, regardless Allied units crossed rivers as they wished without any problems. What am I missing ? Should have I been defending one hex back ? Or is it simply that this modeling as described here is simply inadequate to simulate such peculiar scenario as Market Garden ? In TOAW, since rivers pass through the hex instead of along the hex border, you have to defend off the river hex. That is, in a hex adjacent to the river. Then, when you are attacked from the hex that contains the river, the attacker gets a .7 multiplier applied to their attack. Unless... The attacker is attacking down a river. That is, from a river hex into an adjacent river hex. Then you can sit on the river and the attacker will receive a .7 multiplier to their attack. Ikr. Thanks for explanation. This makes a scenario like market garden moot point. If there is no limit as to how many units can attack over the bridge, allies will have no problems sweeping down to Arhnem.

Lobster -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/3/2018 11:40:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chicharito19 quote: ORIGINAL: gbaby If I got revisited as much as this subject does, I'd move. I don't get it, the rivers as implemented do not bother me in the slightest. TOAW IV plays well, and I have a great time playing it, even with these in hex rivers! How can that be? Same here +1 I've played TOAW and enjoyed it since it was released so many years ago even though I know it has some pretty bad logic problems even for a IGOUGO turn based game. So 'how can that be' is preaching to the choir. [;)] What Bob and Ralph have done in the latest release is nothing less than fantastic. But there are still logic issues and even if all of the logic were cleaned up it is still an IGOUGO turn based game with all that that implies.

gbaby -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/3/2018 12:59:10 PM)
quote: What Bob and Ralph have done in the latest release is nothing less than fantastic. But there are still logic issues and even if all of the logic were cleaned up it is still an IGOUGO turn based game with all that that implies. Oh, I definitely agree there, on all counts. The IGOUGO system of play will always have its flaws, but I sure love playing them, and that is what counts.

Chicharito19 -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/3/2018 5:57:04 PM)
Believe me I try myself not to worry about it too much with any game/sim. They all have flaws. But in the end I just wanna have fun. If I think about the flaws too much, it takes the fun away. Michael

rhinobones -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/4/2018 1:05:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: Lobster He does have a point. Rubbish. Reality is what matters. And that "cardboard counter" mindset is what's behind most of this. quote: Exactly. In TOAW rivers in hexes pose a multitude of problems that makes it very messy. I can't move down one side of the river or the other without being 1 hex times the scale away from the river. So if I'm playing a 50 km map I have to be 50 km off of the river to move down it. Makes no sense. Even on a smaller scale it's not all that logical. You can throw out all sorts of winding river excuses but in real life it doesn't hold up. "Makes no sense" if you think that rivers run in straight lines down the center of hexgrids. I suppose if your "reality" is coming from a board game, they do. Curtis is correct, rivers do not in “reality” run down the sides of hexes. Curtis neglects to mention that rivers do not in “reality” move thru the center of the hex. So, I question, what is better for the player. My recommendation would be hex-side rivers. Curtis also touts the company line and champions hex-in rivers. I suspect that this is mostly because existing scenarios would need to be “converted” to hex-side and a whole bunch of TOAW code would need to be changed. This would be a big effort, however, the TOAW community would take up most of the scenario conversion effort. Ultimately I think that TOAW has evolved from Norm’s original vision of “hex-in” rivers to TOAW IV to where a change to “hex-side” rivers is possible. Cross seems to have this view. Regards, RhinoBones

jmlima -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/4/2018 12:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay ... quote: And the fact that you dismiss the fact that virtually every other operational/strategic board and computer game has used hex-side rivers for the last few decades as irrelevant speaks volumes as well. That's basically what constitutes "evidence" in this endless waste of time. It's self-perpetuating. How could anyone deviate from it with a group-think mindset like we've seen on this thread? C'mon Bob, by your own admission above, rivers need improvement. When you then go to accuse people of 'group-thinking' after they (fundamentally) state the same thing does not show you at your best. Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement. What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/4/2018 3:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones Curtis is correct, rivers do not in “reality” run down the sides of hexes. I didn't say anything about "sides of hexes" above. Nevertheless, it is true that rivers don't so run. quote: Curtis neglects to mention that rivers do not in “reality” move thru the center of the hex. On the contrary, that was the exact point I was ridiculing above - and have been throughout this thread. You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/4/2018 4:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima C'mon Bob, by your own admission above, rivers need improvement. When you then go to accuse people of 'group-thinking' after they (fundamentally) state the same thing does not show you at your best. It doesn't seem to matter what I actually said. People will read whatever they want into it. The statements I was objecting to were not even remotely related to "rivers need improvement". I was objecting to what can be considered evidence. quote: Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement. Whatever improvements are needed, we will want them to be based upon reality. Board games are not reality. quote: What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you. Same ole group-think. As I said, it's self-perpetuating. How could any developer buck such a trend in the face of such a mindset? Why it's been "proven". Nobody seems to be able to produce any of that "proof", though.

rhinobones -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 1:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills. Go ahead, be **** head, we'll love you anyway. Regards, RhinoBones

jmlima -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 6:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay ... quote: Fact is, rivers (the way they are in TOAW) have issues and need improvement. Whatever improvements are needed, we will want them to be based upon reality. Board games are not reality. quote: What is the best way to represent rivers in a hex based simulation, if such is the theme of this thread, as long been proven to be by hexside. The sheer amount of simulations produced over decades that do so, many for professional use, should provide enough evidence and (despite what will happen in TOAW development) you fail to appreciate this, then I'm certain there will be no argument produced in here that will convince you. Same ole group-think. As I said, it's self-perpetuating. How could any developer buck such a trend in the face of such a mindset? Why it's been "proven". Nobody seems to be able to produce any of that "proof", though. No Bob, I'm afraid that is not how it works. You are the revolutionary thinker here. You are the one that has to convince us that in-hex rivers are the wondrous thing you make them out to be. Leonardo had to convince the world, it was not the world that had to show to Leonardo he was wrong. We are still awaiting to an answer to the original question on this thread. I leave with the words of another member of that cabal of group-thinking, someone that also thinks hex edge rivers are good and an acceptable abstraction, in fact, this chap seems to think they are as acceptable as in-hex rivers, it's just a matter of graphical and personal preference: quote: Rivers are not infinitely thin, like some kind of abstract geometric concept. They take up real space. The choice of hex side vs. through-hex is strictly a matter of personal preference, and which set of distortions we wish to live with. There is also the matter of graphic representation. I've yet to see a hex side river graphic that doesn't highlight the hex grid, and there are quite a few gamers out there who really don't want to see "hexes". It's from a chap called Norm Koger. http://normkoger.com/truth.html

Oberst_Klink -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 8:54:05 AM)
Sigh... what an endless discussion that leads to... Sisyphus comes into my mind. Now, for those of you 'pups' who insist on rivers not being a hex... (I personally have no issue with either of the river hex concepts), what about a classic of the mid(!!!)-80s? Crusade in Europe, NATO commander, Decision in the dessert, etc. e.g. used river hexes, too. Did it screw up those games, no :D Anyway. Let's not waste our energies here. If somebody got spare time, please create a map of the Republic of Zangaro, 2.5km/hex if possible, in order for me to proceed to the Tutorial '50s series to explain the n00bs how dirty little wars of independence work with modern stuff.. thanks! ;) Klink, Oberst [image]local://upfiles/28259/1154BA48BEC7476B9999D7D64A52D83F.jpg[/image]

Oberst_Klink -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 9:00:00 AM)
... gosh, I also forgot Conflict in Vietnam... those were the pimpled teenage days on the C=64! Klink, Oberst [image]local://upfiles/28259/D73333EE99B0492790AEB18656BCAEC1.jpg[/image]

jmlima -> RE: In Hex Rivers Revisited...Yet Again. (1/5/2018 9:32:02 AM)
Actually, (from memory) those games did not use an hex grid, but used a square movement grid. quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Sigh... what an endless discussion that leads to... Sisyphus comes into my mind. Now, for those of you 'pups' who insist on rivers not being a hex... (I personally have no issue with either of the river hex concepts), what about a classic of the mid(!!!)-80s? Crusade in Europe, NATO commander, Decision in the dessert, etc. e.g. used river hexes, too. Did it screw up those games, no :D Anyway. Let's not waste our energies here. If somebody got spare time, please create a map of the Republic of Zangaro, 2.5km/hex if possible, in order for me to proceed to the Tutorial '50s series to explain the n00bs how dirty little wars of independence work with modern stuff.. thanks! ;) Klink, Oberst [image]local://upfiles/28259/1154BA48BEC7476B9999D7D64A52D83F.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875