Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/20/2006 3:48:03 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		CVO 5.13:
Location 101: US Alaska Command is equipped with Japanese Sound Detector instead of Allied one.

BTW. When you will finally fix Sovuet Navy?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 271
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/20/2006 7:27:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		What do you refer to? As far as I know - the Soviet Navy is entirely fixed - except in the technical sense it is classified as French! I did fold in your suggested spelling changes etc - did they get lost?

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 272
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/20/2006 3:46:47 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Let's see if you are telling truth:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

S-52 - commisioned 430609 Better, but still not fixed
S-53 - commisioned 430130 Better, but still not fixed

Old ones:

1. Class 1585 (Leninet):
a) Name should be changed to Leninets (as last cyryllic sign in their name is in English transcribed as ts), or even better "L (proj. XI/XIII)" FIXED
b) To few torpedo tubes, ships of "L class proj. II" had 6 torpedo tubes, proj. XI and XIII had 8 torpedo tubes (6xF 2xR). There is no need for averaging them as all Far East ships were of 2 latter subclasses. NOT FIXED!!!
c) They were capable of carrying 20 mines, not 28 as in RHS. -
d) Are you sure that they should have better manuv. than S-class? These were large and not so new minelayers...
NOT FIXED
2. Class 1588 (Stalinets):
a) Name should be changed to Srednaya, or even better "S (proj. IX-bis)". Since later names of types were no longer named after ships but after its size (Srednaya means medium) and name Stalinets was already used by ship of another class (L2), thus it was NOT POSSIBLE to name this class Stalinetz. FIXED
b) Wrong number of torpedo tubes. Should have only 6 (4xF 2xR). NOT FIXED!!!

3. Ship 3893 Raztoropny:
a) Should be named Rastoropny - this is most common version of its name in English. NOT FIXED


4. Ship 3813 Baku:
She was on Far East from commisioning (401211) until leaving to North fleet in late 1942. Its arriving date (420915) in not correct. She was leaving theater on late 1942, not arriving - change its start date to 411206
FIXED

5. Ship 3418 Tibilsi:
Incorrectly named as Tibilsi, should be Tbilisi FIXED


6. Ship 4106 Revnostny:
Commissioning date: 411214 NOT FIXED


7. Ship 4115 Razyaryonnyi:
a) Should be named Razyaryonny (to keep consistent with style in which other ships names are transcribed into English) NOT FIXED
b) Commissioning date: 411214 NOT FIXED


8. Ship 4320 Razyaryonny:
Ship doubled with 4115 NOT FIXED!!!


9. Ship 4227 [now moved to 4225] Vnushitelnyi:
a) delete it, it was commisioned 471229. (I know you wont do this )
b) at least name her Vnushitelny to keep her name consistent with others. NOT FIXED

10. Ship 3586 Radyashtchi:
Should be Razyashchy. NOT FIXED



So let's count: of 18 errors:
- 12 were not fixed, 10 of them wasn't even touched
- 2 were discussable
- 4 were fixed

You also didn't answered why name TShch-XXX is too long.

Also new ones:

11. Ship 9410 S-51:
Still you don't understand in which way Soviet ships were moving during war. ALL Pacific ships that changed theater during war were LEAVING, not arriving. 421028 is more less date of end of its assignament to FE Fleet.
It was commisioned 30.11.1941.


< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 10/20/2006 3:48:02 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 273
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/20/2006 5:15:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		What scenario are you looking at? Are these issues identical in all scenarios? And what level are you looking at - 5 or 6? I realize it is not obvious what I do - or how it is done:

at the moment I have 18 scenarios to manage - you only know about 12 of them - and I hand the files around
to other people. If anyone - including me - ever gets confused about what is the version of a file - or if a
record that is fixed is moved from its first file to the others - but a "save" does not take - it is not fixed in fact -
even though the work was done. The different scenario files are NOT identical in most cases - so each one needs fixing: it is not unusual to find a problem in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 different files. Anyway - your kind of reporting is the very best - in that you give record numbers - but it could be better still if I knew where you are looking?

I don't think any of these issues are factual problems.

As for why SHCH is too long - we have a problem with a presentation of reports and I have been systematically reducing it by reducing name length. I concluded - when I got below 1% report issues - that I cannot fix this entirely - and so I asked Matrix to chop the too long reports onto two lines - and I got a favorable response. This problem isn't fixed - but will be fixed I believe. It is less an issue than it once was.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/20/2006 5:23:18 PM >

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 274
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/20/2006 11:01:41 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Ooops. I have forgotten to add: Soviet errors are found in RAO 5.13.

BTW. When I find a possible error I always download the latest version from RHS site, and I look only in two sub-mods: CVO and RAO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
As for why SHCH is too long - we have a problem with a presentation of reports and I have been systematically reducing it by reducing name length. I concluded - when I got below 1% report issues - that I cannot fix this entirely - and so I asked Matrix to chop the too long reports onto two lines - and I got a favorable response. This problem isn't fixed - but will be fixed I believe. It is less an issue than it once was.


I was asking, because I found a lot of much longer names in RHS. Also if I can suggest you one thing. It may be better to write Shch and TShch instead of SHCH and TSHCH because Shch in Russian is a single letter ( Щ )

quote:

ORIGINAL: M_T
1. Class 1585 (Leninet):
a) Name should be changed to Leninets (as last cyryllic sign in their name is in English transcribed as ts), or even better "L (proj. XI/XIII)" FIXED

My error: actually it was NOT FIXED.

PS. I checked - all these errors weren't fixed also for RAO 6.14

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 10/20/2006 11:11:30 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 275
RE: RHS 5.16/6.15 micro plan - 10/20/2006 11:13:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		OK:

We have some Soviet Navy eratta reported by Montor above;
We have some new Indian Army OB data recommented by K;
We have some Allied Army eratta reported by Martin;
Two of three BBO like scenarios don't have all the US DEs and subs in their
alternate forms;
a fixed fort moves to Rangoon!;
and already corrected 2 battleships;
- and I have found AK Don Jose is
probably set to the wrong entry point - but not yet found her record

so

I will issue a x.15 update tomorrow (must work today)

with these and ANY other reported corrections -


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/21/2006 12:20:03 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 276
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/21/2006 5:58:01 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		If the details of the original WITP was scrutinized as diligently, it would STILL not be released yet..........

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 277
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/21/2006 7:01:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is the first time I have heard RAO was in use by anyone. I am glad I kept it in the set. These will fold into 5.14.

For 5.14/6.14 I am going to go hunting for obscure things - like device "weights" for naval guns - which do not have to be right - and make them right anyway - in case any one ever assigns them to a land unit. I am going to update some Commonwealth units - which I think are not given the great attention that US, Japanese, Dutch, even Axis Allied have been. I have some reports to review of various eratta - some out of date but there may be lines that still apply. I will take my time and attempt to issue complete revisions. I do not expect to revise 5 or 6 again - but go over to 7 and not backdate - unless we find a major technical improvement. 7 - which is in preliminary exchange between Cobra and myself - is quite different in technical terms - and it is a nightmare working on changes to 18 scenarios - so we are going back to 6 soon!


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 278
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 4:01:29 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		I think I may have found some errors in 6.14 for scenario 060.

Russian ships #9459-9476 which are the BO 201 - BO 223 (Class #1590 SN BO201 SC) show as arriving in Location #857=Nome (Alaska)

Russian ships #9447-9458 which are the T-271 - T-282 (Class #1589 Lekaryev MSW) show as arriving in Location #853=Seattle (Washington)

Shouldn't ship #6658 be named the Kanimbla. You currently show it as Kanimba.

Is this correct?

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 10/22/2006 4:36:08 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 279
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:03:10 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Those ships you have mentioned are lend-lease ships built in US shipyards. (Lekaryev Class = Admirable Class)

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 280
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:13:18 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Yes - and they appear at Nome so the Allied player may sail them to the USSR (as was done historically), or join the Allied forces in the Aleutians (which might be done if Japan is at war with Russia) - or they might just sit and wait developments - or even go somewhere else. Another option may appear presently: we may have the option of passing the Bering Strait.

Monter: since Germany used the NE passage for war missions (when USSR was neutral with Germany) - why does most or even all Soviet traffic AFTER the war NOT use that passage?

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 281
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:14:13 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I assume your question (Herrbear) is for an Aussie to answer: I think that is a native word and I don't speak that language. What was the name of the ship? Presumably I am using the CHS spelling.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 282
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:29:12 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		I assume you are talking about Northern Route? Never heard about Germans using it. Definetely not without help from Soviet icebreakers.

That route is almost impassable. Cruise from Vlad to Arkhangelsk is nothing less than polar expedition. Only few destroyers were transferred to Europe this way, and each such cruise was seen as unusual achivement (especially for weak hulls of Soviet DDs), widely used by Soviet propaganda.

I don't think that this route is cost efficient for normal cargo transport.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 10/22/2006 6:31:46 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 283
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:35:57 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Those ships you have mentioned are lend-lease ships built in US shipyards. (Lekaryev Class = Admirable Class)


Thank you. That explains it. I thought that might have been the answer but thought I would bring it up.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 284
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 6:38:09 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I assume your question (Herrbear) is for an Aussie to answer: I think that is a native word and I don't speak that language. What was the name of the ship? Presumably I am using the CHS spelling.


It is the Kanimbla I am pretty sure. You changed it once but now it is back. You also have it spelled Kanimbla in the task force name and location slot.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 285
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 8:33:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

I assume you are talking about Northern Route? Never heard about Germans using it. Definetely not without help from Soviet icebreakers.

That route is almost impassable. Cruise from Vlad to Arkhangelsk is nothing less than polar expedition. Only few destroyers were transferred to Europe this way, and each such cruise was seen as unusual achivement (especially for weak hulls of Soviet DDs), widely used by Soviet propaganda.

I don't think that this route is cost efficient for normal cargo transport.



One of the great German raiders made the passage - unaided by the Russians but intensely observed! - twice - once each direction - in the right season of course. This was before Germany and Russia were at war.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 286
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 8:35:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I assume your question (Herrbear) is for an Aussie to answer: I think that is a native word and I don't speak that language. What was the name of the ship? Presumably I am using the CHS spelling.


It is the Kanimbla I am pretty sure. You changed it once but now it is back. You also have it spelled Kanimbla in the task force name and location slot.



This happens - fixed things sometimes creep back into the file set. It is hard to explain why - but I keep creating procedures to make it less likely. OK - any idea the slot number of the ship?

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 287
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 9:08:12 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		the correct spelling is Kanimbla

Cobra Aus





Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 288
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 9:09:55 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		6658

Cobra

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 289
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 1:59:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Got it - folded in - thanks (could not find it).

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 290
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/22/2006 2:58:37 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		OK- Monter: I have folded in all the eratta you raised - including a couple which are debatable - with the exception of the ship you want me to delete. She was under construction for years - and her game commissioning date is based on the possible completion date - not the actual completion date. We have done this for other nation's ships - and I am unwilling to say we know the course of events years into a hypothetical game situation. She was present at a site that was able to complete her - and with different priorities she might have completed during the war. There is also some ambiguity about this particular ship: some Western materials do say she may indeed have commissioned during the war - as previously cited and discussed. I do not feel the Soviet Navy is overpowering - and in fact it can use every bit of help it can get - so I think this is the best choice. Players may always leave her in port if they feel she would not have been available for operations.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 291
RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued - 10/23/2006 2:50:21 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		DELETED

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 10/23/2006 2:52:49 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 292
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - to issue and notice - 10/23/2006 5:33:17 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am doing a validation of the updated x.15 versions of Level 5 and 6 RHS. These are probably the LAST versions at these levels - intended for use with the original RHS Maps or Andrew's Extended map (Level 5) or the interim RHS map art (Level 6). I am not going to support 18 scenarios any more! Way too hard. Also - we have addressed all eratta reports from all quarters - and this is running stable and well.

RHS will now go one more round - we call it Level 7 - to add the long sought (by Cobra anyway) Madagascar mini map - and we are folding in my proposal - we used to call it Level 8 - for a different Panama area to help address some issues over there. We may offer a supplimental weather package after that. This is well along.

RHS is considering a Level 9 proposal - and it is not at all certain we will do the work involved - which is massive. It would at long last bring ship and plane movement in to sync (going over to nautical miles for both) - change the projection - and probably be beautiful (knowing Cobra's map art) - but the work is intimidating - and short of volunteers to section out pwhex work - it may not be worth the effort.

RHS 5/6 coordinated release will upload in a couple of hours. Then it is on to Level 7 - and long range testing at Level 6. We know no reason not to play games to mid-war with either version. We probably will continue to offer 50-55 scenarios for anyone wanting the original map system - and will probably replace 60-65 scenarios with Level 7 when it comes out.
We may offer a weather package after Level 7 is finished - or Level 9 - if we do that. Level 6 has a basic edge of map shipping channel = no Madagascar - the original Aden and Panama. Level 7 kills the Aden mini-map, adds Madagascar, expands Panama mini-map - and has multiple edge of map shipping tracks in the SE area. It will go to New Orleans - and possibly also New York City.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 293
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - UPLOADED - 10/23/2006 7:20:50 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Essentially this is a micro update to deal with all forms of eratta -
plus a major rework of Indian Army and Commonwealth land units -
and British Artillery. It is a coordinated set of both Level 5 and Level 6
scenarios. Level 5 is the last version of RHS compatable with Andrew's
Extended Map system. Level 6 is a pilot project for shipping tracks
without the Madagascar mini-map. Level 7 will replace 6 - but 5 will remain
as is (except possibly for eratta correction). I am going to run Level 6 tests
while Cobra and I work out the Level 7/8 map integrated map system.
We have had some success on this front - but we will take the time to get it
right. Those who don't want shipping tracks and Magagascar should stay with
Level 5 - which may be completed. There are possible technical problems - but
unless there are - it is completed. Validation testing AI vs AI indicates some
improvement in program behaviors - including the first time every early attacks
on Palembang- before Java. Kuala Lumpur is falling about the same time as
Singapore - or before.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 294
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - UPLOADED - 10/23/2006 10:52:20 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Just a note to bring to your attention again (just in case):

Now that supply sinks' effect on combat has been dramatically reduced, you should make all of the devices/squads in the Wake Island defense unit 'ready'. With supply sinks now reduced, the default Japanese invasion force (in RHS EOS) now wins on turn 1 by 12-1 to 15-1 odds. Making all the defending squads/devices ready should make it less certain again (as I think it's intended to be).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 295
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - UPLOADED - 10/24/2006 2:39:34 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		First - I am not seeing your results in AI vs AI play.

Second - they stay damaged - because Wake Island lacked the men to man all its weapons! I gave you the real weapon count - from the commander's count - and the real manpower - same source. It is not a question of balance- it is a question of facts. There is also this: The Wake Island Militia. Concieved by Adm Kimmel, not formally founded, wholly illegal ("unlawful combattants" in present terminology because no uniforms - not even the mandatory arm bands) - it really fought - and some (manning machine guns) were executed as war criminals on the spot (which we object to but which we would have regarded as legal if done by "terrorists" out of uniform). This group - a construction company IRL - would quickly have learned to be soldiers - so the weapons should come up - and code lets them do that. A bit too fast - but still - close. If I do not "help" AI with another unit - or bombers and gunfire support - or both - it is normal for the Defense Force to wipe out the invaders quite regularly. Not every time - but it is a coin toss. Since Wake was badly planned by Japan - I think this is fine simulation. IF you better the plan (more force) you win for sure. If you do not - you can lose - and it will be expensive. Just right.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/24/2006 2:46:28 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 296
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - UPLOADED - 10/24/2006 2:48:26 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Second - they stay damaged - because Wake Island lacked the men to man all its weapons! I gave you the real weapon count - from the commander's count - and the real manpower - same source.


I did not know this. I thought you balanced it to make up for the supply sink. Request withdrawn!


quote:



There is also this: The Wake Island Militia. Concieved by Adm Kimmel, not formally founded, wholly illegal ("unlawful combattants" in present terminology because no uniforms - not even the mandatory arm bands) ...


See the John Wayne movie The Fighting SeaBees. They say just that at the beginning of the movie, and recount how that led to the creation of the units (whether strickly accurate or not).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 297
RE: RHS 5.15/6.15 update - UPLOADED - 10/25/2006 5:42:03 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Sid,

EOS v6.15

Transport TF's at Tristan da Chunha (South Atlantic Entry Point) are allowed to load Supplies, but are not allowed to load Resources, Fuel, or Oil, in spite of all of those being present in large quantities. The options to load them are simply greyed out on the TF screen.

I confirmed that I can load normally at at least one other port (I looked at Balikpapan).

Rather than proceed, I will wait to hear from you as it seems that something is wrong with the TdC base.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 298
RE: RHS 6.15 Problem - 10/25/2006 6:22:01 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I just checked CVO - same problem at TdC (South Atlantic Entry).

< Message edited by witpqs -- 10/25/2006 6:24:08 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 299
RE: RHS 6.15 Problem - 10/25/2006 1:01:34 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Just a quick Question - Using RHS V6 map how do you get the TF's to follow the long paths from say Panama or TDC to the main Pacific area?
My map is all blue without the grey barriers as shown in Andrew Brown's CHS extended map and in consequence the TF's ignore the pathways and take the shortest route.
Am I missing a map update?

Many thanks    

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781