RE: Surface Combat Sux

RE: Surface Combat Sux (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 7:15:44 PM)
improving surface combat TF vs Transport TF interactions is a wish list item. Is that enough of a 'spurt'? [;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 8:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski Look at what happened in real life, then be thankful for a game that simulates it so well. Leyte Gulf - overwhelming surface force gets marginal victory against screening forces and does not penetrate to the invasion transports at all. Savo Island - surface force annihilates screening ships and does not penetrate to the invasion transports. There's not much point in going on and on about this. I suggest that you attribute the "kill one let the other hundred go" results to fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want. Sorry Pasternaski, but these won't fly. Letye Guls was a group of warships intercepted by another group of warships, Group One, while on the rather weak and impotant side, did have some meangfull escorts, and MORE IMPORTANTLY was supported by the air assets of the other "Taffy's" as well. And the Japanese DID split up in pursuit..., their CA's were just bringing the target's under effective fire when ordered to retire by their Admiral's failure of nerve under the stress of continuous air attack. Savo Island was an example of the attacker "sighting and engaging" the Surface Support Group TF, but in game terms, not spotting the transport TF. A more reasonable use of the "well, it's a 60-mile hex" explanation. They did engage, and virtually annialated, the TF they spotted. And it was a night action, not what the poster was referring to at all. Neither example has anything to do with a beat-up group of 10-knot Merchies all by themselves being engaged in daylight by numerous and much faster group of warships.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 8:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker [:@] Like that? Fried my keyboard by spilling my tea on it![8\|] [:@]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 8:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thayne Actually, I think that the surface combat routine is fine the way it is. If one imagines hitting a big gaggle of freighters all bunched neatly in a small area, then the results are hard to explain. However, in fact, it was traditional for freighters -- when not escorted -- to run with picket ships. That is to say, one or two freighters would run a fair distance away from the pack. The idea is that the surface ships would see this freighter, he would radio in to the rest of the pack, which would scatter, moving off in all directions. The task force commander then has the option of going after -- perhaps -- one or two more ships, or splitting up his own task force to go after multiple shiips. But, there is safety in numbers -- in terms of AA coverage, in terms of firepower in case the task force should run across some enemy surface ships. Plus, there is the fact that surface ships travelling in a straight line are at risk of submarine attack, and go through fuel quickly (reducing the amount of time they have on patrol). And, a fleeing merchant ship, if it is fleeing anywhere, just might be seeking the protection of some really big guns that happen to be in the area. Splitting up to pursue multiple targets is very dangerous. To get one or two more freighters, it hardly seems worth it. So, I think, the existing model does a good job of capturing what would actually happen if a group of surface ships encountered freighters in the actual war. The picket ship would certainly die. The task force would be able to hunt down one or two additional ships. Then the task force would go back into traditional patrol mode. What are you using for these hallucinations?[:)]

velkro -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 9:28:47 PM)
Hey I just got a copy of the surface comat model in a text file: "...if a rootin' tootin' shootin' bunch of surface combat vessels intercepts an unescorted damaged convoy, then # of convoy vessels engaged = random (2) x random (1)..." So, I stand corrected. The model works perfectly. [sm=00000036.gif]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 9:30:40 PM)
Hmm, I thought the forum was more interested in important stuff like continuing games after they end? Why worry about trivial stuff like naval combat?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 9:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Hmm, I thought the forum was more interested in important stuff like continuing games after they end? Why worry about trivial stuff like naval combat? [;)]

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 9:41:50 PM)
My personal feelings are that while naval combat does need to be tweaked, the entire system is not flawed. Not all naval battles should be decisive. The should be a hodge-podge of bad ideas, luck, and the unkown causing fairly stupid and inexplicable results (the model now). However, there should also be a few decisie battles, where both sides have their heads together, and go after the big stuff. A fix is needed, yes, but not an entirely new system. Does the current system suck? no, not really. Is it flawed, and slightly unrealistic? At times. Is it frustrating? Very often. But then several battles were. It seems to me the system they have in place was done to prevent too many gamey results, but it also prevents some of the fewer historic successes. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.

velkro -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 10:27:27 PM)
[sm=00000436.gif]

freeboy -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/5/2004 10:34:22 PM)
quote: What are you using for these hallucinations lol Ron, Stop drinking tea... that surely is the problem Down with tea!!! OH ya what was this post about? right surface cambat.. Anyone like the convoy scatter suggetion? hate it? other?

pasternakski -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 12:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Neither example has anything to do with a beat-up group of 10-knot Merchies all by themselves being engaged in daylight by numerous and much faster group of warships. Can't agree, Mike. Look at the surface TF from the example: an old "R" class BB, 21 knots max, four of those dreadful old undergunned British CLs, and a couple of destroyers. Yes, I would have expected better results, too, but you've got to remember that you were not in command of the TF. From the description, LBA has been active, the situation is fluid, and the commander is one of those early Brits, all of whom are "careful" except for Layton, and he's a CVTF commander. What I think we're seeing here is the result of a mediocre commander in charge of a thin TF against an unknown quantity and quality of enemy forces. You know from looking at the combat results that this was a pitiful convoy of 26 undefended transport vessels, many of which are severely damaged, but this information was not available to the captain or admiral standing on the bridge of the one significant ship in the group. Besides, our old girlfriend Betty might have been coming to the dance any time. Leyte Gulf is directly applicable. Time was a-wastin' and the American battle line could have come over the horizon at any time. Aircraft were making attacks (even if only strafing), and more could have arrived any moment. Remember that the Musashi had been lost to air attack only shortly before. Savo Island is even more pertinent. Retirement was the only alternative available due to the fast approach of sunlight and the known presence in the area of at least one fleet carrier (Fletcher screwing the pooch notwithstanding). Again, I, too, would have expected better results, but I don't find anything wrong with this result, either. You pays your money and you takes your chance.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 12:48:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Neither example has anything to do with a beat-up group of 10-knot Merchies all by themselves being engaged in daylight by numerous and much faster group of warships. Can't agree, Mike. Look at the surface TF from the example: an old "R" class BB, 21 knots max, four of those dreadful old undergunned British CLs, and a couple of destroyers. Yes, I would have expected better results, too, but you've got to remember that you were not in command of the TF. From the description, LBA has been active, the situation is fluid, and the commander is one of those early Brits, all of whom are "careful" except for Layton, and he's a CVTF commander. What I think we're seeing here is the result of a mediocre commander in charge of a thin TF against an unknown quantity and quality of enemy forces. You know from looking at the combat results that this was a pitiful convoy of 26 undefended transport vessels, many of which are severely damaged, but this information was not available to the captain or admiral standing on the bridge of the one significant ship in the group. Besides, our old girlfriend Betty might have been coming to the dance any time. Leyte Gulf is directly applicable. Time was a-wastin' and the American battle line could have come over the horizon at any time. Aircraft were making attacks (even if only strafing), and more could have arrived any moment. Remember that the Musashi had been lost to air attack only shortly before. Savo Island is even more pertinent. Retirement was the only alternative available due to the fast approach of sunlight and the known presence in the area of at least one fleet carrier (Fletcher screwing the pooch notwithstanding). Again, I, too, would have expected better results, but I don't find anything wrong with this result, either. You pays your money and you takes your chance. Well, how would you explain what happened in my latest game vs veryhard J AI? Force Z (POW,Repulse, Danae and 5 DDs) boldy risks air attack in an attempt to disrupt the Kwantan landings. They remain undetected, defeat the 4 CA TF covering force soundly and suffer no torp hits, yet only engage one AP with a few shots and break off. Leach was in command and it is hard to believe that air attack was an acceptable risk in order to get at the transports but somehow becomes unacceptable with a strategic victory in their grasp. Please don't cite Mikawa at Savo as this was the exception, not the norm. Really annoying that veteran RN crews with excellent radar can't find the majority of the enemy vessels in a TF. The concept of undetected ships in a TF is off, and the explanation that it is a sixty mile hex does not wash. If ships are that far away from the other ships in the TF, then they are not IN the same TF.

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:05:08 AM)
Savo is IMO a totally illegitimate example because Mikawa's Surface Combat TF never sighted or engaged the transport TF. His was a decision to withdrawl before contact could have been made. Had he made contact....he would have found a bunch of motionless transports ripe for the picking. (also of itself an illegitimate example) Leyte Gulf. Also disqualifies in my mind. 1st off, The Japanese were squaring off against a fully navy TF....no civies that would have less training, less discipline in general and might even be suspectible to panic. Further, the Japanese were unable to make a beeline for the slower (but not as slow as some merchies) carriers because of interference from the escorts (which could make an example of buying time for merchants to evade) but more importantly they were often distracted by the (eventually) 300+ aircraft buzzing them. True the bombs quickly ran out. However the Japanese couldn't know that...and all of said evasive maneuvers cost them time, impeded their gunnery and made closing the range all the harder. Many pilots made fake bombing runs which the Japanese couldn't ignore. Finally the Japanese were as a whole, exhausted after the ordeals of the previous day. They were not in their best form and they broke off before the decisive moment could be reached. A better example would actually involve merchants and their escort(s). Such as when Scharnhorst and Gneisenau dispersed a convoy on 3/15/41, catching and sinking 13 of them. If environmental conditions favor such and either the #'s of surface warships are low and/or their ratio to escorts are near even i could see a convoy dispersing and escaping largely intact....such as when the AMC Jarvis Bay held off the singular panzerscheiff Admiral Scheer off for about an hour until darkness fell, allowing the convoy to disperse and escape but if you have a powerful surface TF and good visibility and badly outgun and outarmor any escorts avail....well the results should more often than not be heavy damage to the convoy. If convoys were so easily able to evade surface warships by dispersal, then i'd think that the powers that be wouldnt' have stressed so much about situations such as when the Tirpitz and company came to Norway abrest the Mirmansk convoy lanes. Nor would they have worked so hard to ensure that such an occurance did not come to bear. In WitP, engaging merchant/transport TF's should be very hard to acheive if the opposing player is minding his P's and Q's.....but if such an occurance does come about, either through bad luck or more likely carelessness and lack of preperation, they should get spanked for it.

kaiser73 -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:12:01 AM)
Well, in my AI campaign and in PBEm, i have seen the same thing. And please guys, let's be realistic. why defending always everything in WITP. i love this game, but this doesn't mean we have to defend the undefendable. the current surface combat system makes that if an AK is nearly dead and 1 BB is still alive and firing at your TF, your TF will keep firing at the dead AK. this can NOT be justified by ANY reason. it's simply not realistic. Personally i think the problem is the detection level together with "too tough" convoy ships. i don't know, but it seems to me here the AP and AK and TK are way too resistant to hits. weak ships should sink way faster than now.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:18:43 AM)
quote: Nor would they have worked so hard to ensure that such an occurance did not come to bear. In WitP, engaging merchant/transport TF's should be very hard to acheive if the opposing player is minding his P's and Q's.....but if such an occurance does come about, either through bad luck or more likely carelessness and lack of preperation, they should get spanked for it. Agreed, reason for my pursue feature request. Should a TF be grossly outgunned by a surface fleet, the standard step one hex away retreat move is balanced by the surface TF also stepping that one hex to get another couple of rounds of combat in. This would need to be balanced by an aggression check (commander skill) coupled with the React range being greater then 0 (so you can disable it) and an escape check (commander skill). Gives a reason to stick better commanders in TF's too [;)]

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:20:47 AM)
the danger of having convoys spanked would also help curb overaggressive play. Having most if not all of an entire Infantry division sunk at sea would reallllllly ruin a player's day....either side of the conflict [X(] So plan those convoys and their escorts carefullly boys and girls [;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:21:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Nor would they have worked so hard to ensure that such an occurance did not come to bear. In WitP, engaging merchant/transport TF's should be very hard to acheive if the opposing player is minding his P's and Q's.....but if such an occurance does come about, either through bad luck or more likely carelessness and lack of preperation, they should get spanked for it. Agreed, reason for my pursue feature request. Should a TF be grossly outgunned by a surface fleet, the standard step one hex away retreat move is balanced by the surface TF also stepping that one hex to get another couple of rounds of combat in. This would need to be balanced by an aggression check (commander skill) coupled with the React range being greater then 0 (so you can disable it) and an escape check (commander skill). Gives a reason to stick better commanders in TF's too [;)] I think it will work, Ray. Hopefully would apply to more than just Transport TFs.

caslug -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:38:45 AM)
Hopefully, the surface combat models commander's agressivness. That would make more sense, a cautious commander is more likely to retreat in face of real or imagined resistance. While a agressive one (Halsy, Scott, tanaka, yamaguchi) would go in knowing uncertain odds, they're more willing to roll-the-dice if you will. At least their real life counterpart did, hopefully their digitial ones are the same. Historically, a nation's naval history/tradition influenced(indirectly) an admiral's on the spot decision to be agressive or not. US/RN with their long history charging into the fray regardless of odds or losses, reward them more often than not in most sea battle in WWII. While IJN&German(surface) force tend to have more conversative commanders. RN evacuation of Crete&Dunkirk(they were getting pounded by the LuftWaffe), but still stayed on protect the transports or US DDs/CVE at Samar(they were getting pounded by the IJN CA/BB), but still stayed on to protect the transport. Both those navies rarely back down from a fight, regardless of odds. Can't say that for IJN or surface Kriegmarine. I can't recall(maybe i'm wrong) any surface battles(combat ships vs combat ships) in WWII, in both oceans where US/RN cut&run they either stayed and got sunk or stayed and won. We can't say that for ALL the surface battles the IJN or German fought in. I remember the UV thread where posters were complaining that CV TF commanders were TOO agressive(ie, strikes w/o fighter protection). A solution I recall was putting in your "conversative" admirals to command CV TF.

Splinterhead -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 1:39:21 AM)
The reason I asked about Pacific examples is that when the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau event occured, airpower had yet to prove they could sink an underway battleship. After the POW and Repulse, however, the equation changed. Any aggression role should be modified if within enemy LBA range, IMO. EDIT in reply to Caslug: Didn't the British fleet run away from the Japanese CVs in the Indian Ocean raid? EDIT: Conservative, chattyness isn't a factor.

caslug -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 2:20:35 AM)
Splint, i was talking more surface combact ship-to-ship. When the IJN raided ceylon, the RN didn't have carrier(hermes doesn' count) to go head-to-head. [:'(]. but more importantly, the RN wasn't didn't have a "important" mission, like protecting an major evacuation/landing, etc.,. that had to be done.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 2:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Savo is IMO a totally illegitimate example because Mikawa's Surface Combat TF never sighted or engaged the transport TF. Hm, imagine the outcry if that would happen in WITP! "But I KNEW transports were there, that's WHY I sent my surface TF to that hex at the first place!". The rioting would be much worse than it is now. I am with moderates on this issue. Surface combat is currently not a game killer, and more often than not produces realistic results, but if it can be improved further - then by all means do it. Also, anyone observing the combat animation for surface engagement must keep in mind that only the ships whose name appears on the screen are actually sighted by enemy. Un-named ships are there for you to see during animation, but they are NOT SIGHTED by little virtual people in your TF! You may see 26 helpless enemy transports on the screen, but if only 3 are named that means your TF thinks it's only 3 transports there. Others are dispersed. You may still complain that more ships should have been located by your TF, but then you're complaining over detection and sighting routines, not exactly combat. If your TF is tapping in the dark or suspecting air attack, they'll try to sink 3 sighted ships, and go away thinking they did enough for Britain in a day's (or nights) work. Wouldn't you? Oleg

Tankerace -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 2:48:03 AM)
One thing that should be done, IMO, is only put the ships on the combat screen that were sighted. This way it adds to the FoW, and people don't riot over results. If we KNOW a 20 ship TF is out there, but we can only SEE 4 ships, then we will be satisfied. But if all 20 are on the screen, many people (Myself included) tend to think that we should be able to see them aswell. I agree, not a game killer, but something that could be looked at. Of course, in retrospect, this current system actually suits my War Plan Orange Mod very well. In World War I (30 years before WiTP starts), a lot of times battlelines would pound one or two ships into driftwood, leaving the rest to escape. That should do nicely for my 1920's mod.

BartM -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 3:04:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace One thing that should be done, IMO, is only put the ships on the combat screen that were sighted. This way it adds to the FoW, and people don't riot over results. If we KNOW a 20 ship TF is out there, but we can only SEE 4 ships, then we will be satisfied. But if all 20 are on the screen, many people (Myself included) tend to think that we should be able to see them aswell. I agree, not a game killer, but something that could be looked at. Of course, in retrospect, this current system actually suits my War Plan Orange Mod very well. In World War I (30 years before WiTP starts), a lot of times battlelines would pound one or two ships into driftwood, leaving the rest to escape. That should do nicely for my 1920's mod. quote: Agreed, reason for my pursue feature request. Should a TF be grossly outgunned by a surface fleet, the standard step one hex away retreat move is balanced by the surface TF also stepping that one hex to get another couple of rounds of combat in. This would need to be balanced by an aggression check (commander skill) coupled with the React range being greater then 0 (so you can disable it) and an escape check (commander skill). Gives a reason to stick better commanders in TF's too very good idea on the pursue. as well Tankerace with the combat screen... I still have alot of problems with the combat screen showing things, (planes still shooting even though they have O (zero) planes listed and so on)...

pasternakski -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 3:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Well, how would you explain what happened in my latest game vs veryhard J AI? Force Z (POW,Repulse, Danae and 5 DDs) boldy risks air attack in an attempt to disrupt the Kwantan landings. They remain undetected, defeat the 4 CA TF covering force soundly and suffer no torp hits, yet only engage one AP with a few shots and break off. Leach was in command and it is hard to believe that air attack was an acceptable risk in order to get at the transports but somehow becomes unacceptable with a strategic victory in their grasp. Please don't cite Mikawa at Savo as this was the exception, not the norm. Really annoying that veteran RN crews with excellent radar can't find the majority of the enemy vessels in a TF. The concept of undetected ships in a TF is off, and the explanation that it is a sixty mile hex does not wash. If ships are that far away from the other ships in the TF, then they are not IN the same TF. This is an easy one, Ron. Leach fought a challenging surface action that probably used up a lot of ammo (I wish that people complaining about surface TF effectiveness would understand that they can only be effective for so long - and cruisers and destroyers expend a he11 of a lot of ammo in a short time in surface combat) and that precious commodity, time. When considered along with the other factors mentioned above, I have no problem believing that he broke off combat with the covered surface TF.

Hard Sarge -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 3:55:05 AM)
yea but tanker, that won't work either, you may start the battle only seeing 3 of the 20 ships, but as the fight goes on, you start to see more and more of them LOL has anyone ever ran into one of them 100 ship TF's yet ? HARD_Sarge

pasternakski -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 4:00:14 AM)
Nik, nik, nik, you're such a tool. I don't invoke these two battles because they demonstrate how a surface TF cannot be expected to gut an undefended transport TF, but rather because they show how the vagaries of naval combat lead to inconclusive results. You forget that the plaintiffs in this case seek redress of their grievance without addressing the reality of command without hindsight (this is not a pornographic statement). So address your redress. Or redress your address. Or whatever. I just think that it's expecting too much for surface combat TF commanders to win decisive battles all the time based on inconclusive intelligence, observation, and operational orders in fluid and unclear tactical situations.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 4:05:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Well, how would you explain what happened in my latest game vs veryhard J AI? Force Z (POW,Repulse, Danae and 5 DDs) boldy risks air attack in an attempt to disrupt the Kwantan landings. They remain undetected, defeat the 4 CA TF covering force soundly and suffer no torp hits, yet only engage one AP with a few shots and break off. Leach was in command and it is hard to believe that air attack was an acceptable risk in order to get at the transports but somehow becomes unacceptable with a strategic victory in their grasp. Please don't cite Mikawa at Savo as this was the exception, not the norm. Really annoying that veteran RN crews with excellent radar can't find the majority of the enemy vessels in a TF. The concept of undetected ships in a TF is off, and the explanation that it is a sixty mile hex does not wash. If ships are that far away from the other ships in the TF, then they are not IN the same TF. This is an easy one, Ron. Leach fought a challenging surface action that probably used up a lot of ammo (I wish that people complaining about surface TF effectiveness would understand that they can only be effective for so long - and cruisers and destroyers expend a he11 of a lot of ammo in a short time in surface combat). When considered along with the other factors mentioned above, I have no problem believing that he broke off combat with the covered surface TF. Nope, had over 75% ammo left AFTER the combat. For some reason, the majority of the APs remained undetected by a radar equipped combat TF.

pasternakski -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 4:07:47 AM)
Just for fun, can anyone identify the source of the expression, "Control yourself, you'll spurt"?

Nikademus -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 7:43:53 AM)
"A hard day's night" The Beattles.

velkro -> RE: Surface Combat Sux (9/6/2004 8:03:37 AM)
Pasternaski, you said: "From the description, LBA has been active, the situation is fluid, ..." Yeah, but it was MY LBA, not the Japanese LBA! These chuckleheaded Japanese were near Soerbaja (sic) WAAAYYYY out of range of any known Jap airfields, even Bettys'. He hasn't even taken any bases yet except for Midway, Wake, and Alor Star. I own Hong Kong, all of Malaya except for Star, and all of the PI. MY LBA was plastering them for days and my patrol planes were shadowing them for days. My surface fleets knew exactly where they were and what they were. I had numerous AK / TK TFs surrounding the whole area of action, none of whom had any air or surface action. This Jap TF was totally on its own, deep in my territory, and numerous intell sources confirmed it. The weather was clear. Half the force was burning, yet I only attack 2 ships? In addition, I spotted about 18 of the 26 ships during the surface action (the names appeared on the combat display). In addition, this situation was repeated for the next two days. You said, " hat I think we're seeing here is the result of a mediocre commander in charge of a thin TF against an unknown quantity and quality of enemy forces..." Perhaps, but not two or three commanders over three days... "You know from looking at the combat results that this was a pitiful convoy of 26 undefended transport vessels, many of which are severely damaged, but this information was not available to the captain or admiral standing on the bridge of the one significant ship in the group." Yes, it was, for the reasons mentioned above. "Besides, our old girlfriend Betty might have been coming to the dance any time." No way; unless the Brits were afraid of the Japanese "Doomsday" machine flown by Slim-san Pickens-iwa. "Again, I, too, would have expected better results, but I don't find anything wrong with this result, either. You pays your money and you takes your chance." Yeah, I paid my $70 for the game and I just want a patch to address this issue...it just makes common sense.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9370117