Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Issue with RHSEOS v7.679

 
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 >> Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/17/2007 4:54:43 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		-I´m noticing a few issues with the game I´m starting to play and it seems this is a good place to put them

1-The unification of IJA and IJN air forces seems to be a negative point. Why will I build any Oscars I if I can convert all my Ki-27´s to Zeroes?
2-The Wake invasion force has only one construction unit plus one AA unit, where is the infantry to take the island? (playing with historic turn)
Post #: 1
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/17/2007 6:32:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Depending on scenario - there is either just a tiny NGF - or an SNGF and the support units you list plus a tank unit - and all these are loading properly at source. What is your scenario?

I would not trade Oscars for Zero's if I were you. There are advantages production wise to going with the existing plant structure instead of starting over. But there is more to it than that. Not all units may upgrade to all planes. In general, only JAAF units intended for escort fighters should be converted to Zeros. You will find that some later upgrade options will not exist. This isn't entirely under control - the official Matrix list (and I have both the manual and three different lists from programmers at different times) of what permits an upgrade is not the whole story - and I don't entirely know what the whole story is. But I can say that upgrading to one plane vs another gives you very different choices downstream - or can.

Anyway - what you upgrade to is your choice - and that is the point. If you think there is no point in Oscars - don't build em. Would we have done any different?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/17/2007 6:39:55 AM >

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 2
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/17/2007 7:12:57 PM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Depending on scenario - there is either just a tiny NGF - or an SNGF and the support units you list plus a tank unit - and all these are loading properly at source. What is your scenario?


-Scenario 75

quote:


I would not trade Oscars for Zero's if I were you. There are advantages production wise to going with the existing plant structure instead of starting over. But there is more to it than that. Not all units may upgrade to all planes.


-Looking the upgade list, it seems almost every Nate unit can be upgraded to Oscars or Zeroes, I will take a look again

quote:


In general, only JAAF units intended for escort fighters should be converted to Zeros.


-Well, but the Oscar with his tiny guns isn´t a very good bomber buster, what is the point of reserving it as a defense fighter?

quote:


You will find that some later upgrade options will not exist. This isn't entirely under control - the official Matrix list (and I have both the manual and three different lists from programmers at different times) of what permits an upgrade is not the whole story - and I don't entirely know what the whole story is. But I can say that upgrading to one plane vs another gives you very different choices downstream - or can.


-Even with PDU on? Was your scenario designed to PDU on or off?

quote:


Anyway - what you upgrade to is your choice - and that is the point. If you think there is no point in Oscars - don't build em. Would we have done any different?


-Keeping the separation between IJA and IJN aircraft types maybe would force you to make a different set of choices. Don´t take it as criticism. I think you did an excellent work with RHS, and I´m grateful but maybe some tweaks are needed. How is the feedback you´re receiving from Human vs. Human games?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/17/2007 8:12:30 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur
1-The unification of IJA and IJN air forces seems to be a negative point. Why will I build any Oscars I if I can convert all my Ki-27´s to Zeroes?

Obviously the "H" in RHSEOS doesn't stand for "historical" any more.........

_____________________________


(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 4
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/17/2007 9:57:51 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		If RHSEOS stands for more possibilities for "What if?"-cases the "H" may IMHO have a different meaning.

AvG

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 5
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 1:15:08 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur
1-The unification of IJA and IJN air forces seems to be a negative point. Why will I build any Oscars I if I can convert all my Ki-27´s to Zeroes?

Obviously the "H" in RHSEOS doesn't stand for "historical" any more.........



Au contraire, mon ami. It is quite true, however, that EOS is classified as "different" from the other "strictly historical" RHS scenarios. The other five come in two flavors: CVO/RAO are the war as it happened IRL; BBO/RPO/PPO are the war as it was planned (by both sides). EOS is based on a different assumption: Japan uses the historical planning model of Gen Yamashita for Malaya on a broader scale - and plans the entire war that way. It does so ONLY from the decision for war itself (July 1941) - not years earlier (as some have asked for). So ONLY a few things change by the time the war starts. But one of the things historians think was "wrong" with the Japanese (and all Axis) systems was "too many types of aircraft, too little standardization and cooperation". EOS permits you to explore the possibility that didn't happen in quite so severe a sense. You are still stuck with too many R&D types - but you get to choose what to focus on. The idea you would not produce Oscars is a poor one - but a possible one. [You will have a lot fewer modern fighters in the critical year of 1942 if you go that way] I do not believe history is the story of what had to happen. Nor the story of what was likely to happen. It is the story of what did happen. In the context of choices. EOS is about exploring alternate choices by the Japanese (mostly - with just a few thrown in for the Allies by the tag team - e.g. building Midways as Essex class).

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 6
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 1:16:18 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: AvG

If RHSEOS stands for more possibilities for "What if?"-cases the "H" may IMHO have a different meaning.

AvG


If you want me to do a non historical scenario I would take the suggestion Japan planned for war from about 1935. Very different scenario.

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 7
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 5:49:19 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		El Cid, do not misunderstand me.
At this moment I know so little that I may NOT critisize. I only may wonder.

I played WitP for some time and got demotivated by the knowledge that I (Japanese) had to pay for ALL my war-stuff,
whereas the AI (Allies) get everything for free except the aircraft-bodies. On top of that they have a completely functioning warindustry. IMHO to big an advantage.
I was thinking of a very simple mod, when I ran into CHS and RHS.
RHS-EOS, with its damaged Allied-factories and res/oil-points seemed a very nice solution to me.
For me however it is very important to understand ALL the ins and outs of a simulation like this.

Today, using v7.679 for SO75, I used the R-Key for better seeing the infrastructure. The black and red lines you get then
are not following the RHS-rail- and -roads. In some situations you get even rail in the sea. I hope that the R-key just provides sort of an overlay based on the WitP-map.

AvG

.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 6:28:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Sounds like you need different map art. EXCEPT for the following, the reveal codes line up with art:

1) Ferries. These are NOT railroads. Between certain points are "secret" trails and roads - and they are labeled HCF or LCF (High capacity Ferry or Low capacity Ferry).

2) Developed areas. Usually they are trail systems in all relevant directions - in the US and a few other places they are roads - and they are always on land. And this IS represented by map art - as sort of farm fields in my interpretation of the art.

FYI when I do pwhex I simply look at the art and code to it with reveal codes on. If I disagree with the art - I ask for a change. The result is that art and pwhex line up perfectly - because pwhex is written to match the art. The art in turn comes from photographs taken in space - mostly - styalized and symbolized - as I understand it. That may account for some sea areas with funny colors.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/18/2007 6:31:51 PM >

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 9
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 11:03:33 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		Thanks for your answers.
I am still on turn 1 and extremely disappointed. I learned something today. I run EOS on PC-1 and on PC-2 the RHS-production/resources-matrix. Now I saw the meaning of mentioning those "secret" or "magical" supplies or fuel.
I see that in Salt Lake City from day 1 onwards there are coming in from "magical" sources 16K of supplies.
The total of these "magical" supplies is >40K. >23K "magical" fuel.
Considering that Japan has to do a lot of fighting to get HI over 15K I think that those magical figures spoil the fun.

The Allies are on 7 Dec 41 at war at the Western Fronts or in a situation that every kind of resource that could be spared went in that direction.
What I would like to see is a situation that on day 1 Japan has lots of everything (prepared) and the Allies just enough to survive.
Maybe it is possible to get rid of that magical stuff by increasing the total US-HI-capacity(starting damaged) with 10K-40K.
This could reflect the enormous industrial POTENTIAL.
I have no idea if the AI can handle that.

I do not ask you to do this. I will try to do this myself. I only hope that I may ask still questions.

My goal: A WitP-RHS-EOS derivate that makes it possible Japan wins the Pacific war (against AI and an extremely skilled player). If this will work it can attrack players that like a game with at least a very small surviving chance for the underdog.

BTW: El Cid you mentioned an earlier starting date of 1935. If the system can handle that it would be a solution for the Kamikaze-problems in the later stages.

BTW2: What do you see when pressing the R-key? Ceylon area OK? Not for me.

AvG


< Message edited by AvG -- 5/18/2007 11:07:33 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/18/2007 11:53:25 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: AvG

Thanks for your answers.
I am still on turn 1 and extremely disappointed. I learned something today. I run EOS on PC-1 and on PC-2 the RHS-production/resources-matrix. Now I saw the meaning of mentioning those "secret" or "magical" supplies or fuel.
I see that in Salt Lake City from day 1 onwards there are coming in from "magical" sources 16K of supplies.
The total of these "magical" supplies is >40K. >23K "magical" fuel.
Considering that Japan has to do a lot of fighting to get HI over 15K I think that those magical figures spoil the fun.


REPLY: I must confess confusion on my part. But in fairness, I am not trying to make a balanced game - rather a simulation. There is no hope of balance for Japan - though EOS goes almost as far as possible down that road. [You could change Japanese planning from an earlier date to go even farther as someone once proposed]. The Allies cannot function without off map supply sources - nor does it make any sense to me that they should try. The majority of US supply is East of the map - and Soviet supply West of the map - same for UK - so how can we change this in any meaningful sense? These off map sources are beyond the reach of Japan in most senses (a few raids with flying boats and I-400s were contemplated - but not to destroy - just to cause overreaction and waste of resources).

The Allies are on 7 Dec 41 at war at the Western Fronts or in a situation that every kind of resource that could be spared went in that direction.
What I would like to see is a situation that on day 1 Japan has lots of everything (prepared) and the Allies just enough to survive.
Maybe it is possible to get rid of that magical stuff by increasing the total US-HI-capacity(starting damaged) with 10K-40K.
This could reflect the enormous industrial POTENTIAL.
I have no idea if the AI can handle that.


REPLY: The fact is that the US did supply its West coast bases using things from farther East - oil and steel in particular. Russia also supplied its Siberian bases from off map sources. And UK / CW supplied from lots of places off map. Note that these supplies are carefully calibrated to YOUR propsal - minimal to support the forces required. GROWTH comes from two places: repair of damaged things and smart export of resources and even oil from ON map - with all that implies about risks. The Allies can optimize growth by good management. And the repair EATS lots of those "free" supplies - so much so many places (see Vancouver in particular) will be in the red for a long time.

I do not ask you to do this. I will try to do this myself. I only hope that I may ask still questions.

My goal: A WitP-RHS-EOS derivate that makes it possible Japan wins the Pacific war (against AI and an extremely skilled player). If this will work it can attrack players that like a game with at least a very small surviving chance for the underdog.

REPLY: AI cannot win - but I may attempt an AI version. A human MIGHT win - sometimes - but AI cannot - ever.

BTW: El Cid you mentioned an earlier starting date of 1935. If the system can handle that it would be a solution for the Kamikaze-problems in the later stages.

REPLY: You are confusing game start with planning start. The war starts in 1941 - but Japan is not forced to waste enough steel on each of 4 battleships that = 150 DE or 1500 tanks. That sort of thing.

BTW2: What do you see when pressing the R-key? Ceylon area OK? Not for me.

AvG




< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/18/2007 11:57:22 PM >

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 11
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 3:48:23 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		More issues with scenario 75

-I would say el cid is right on Oscars, if I convert all my Oscars factories to Zeroes I will lost precious planes. RHS starts with low levels for Japanese production and there is a scarcity of modern aircraft
-Chitose, Mizuho and Chiyoda have air wings with Kates and Zeroes but they are still classified as CS, it means that they will be useless to operate these planes. They still preserve their CS graphics
-I confirm that the naval landing force in Wake has no infantry or armored units
-There is a second Hiryu to be received in early January. It´s rated as a CV and has the Hiryu graphics but it carries only 30 planes and speed is only 21 knots. Seems more like a CVE

Things I liked
-Bombers can shot down fighters. I have one Nell and one Ki-49 with one victory each. On the other hand, the B-17´s scored nothing, maybe is the 20mm gun of Japanese bombers
-The economic model seems a significant improvement over stock


(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 12
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 3:58:27 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		More info: The 2nd Hiryu is a Setssu[Coal] class (class 669). It has a few 5in guns. Seems more like a auxiliary cruiser(?). It has no air wing attached. It´s number (ship, not class) is 578. It´s scheduled for 2 upgrades (class 670 and 671). I hope I´ve given helpful informations.

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 13
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 7:07:40 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bombur

More issues with scenario 75

-I would say el cid is right on Oscars, if I convert all my Oscars factories to Zeroes I will lost precious planes. RHS starts with low levels for Japanese production and there is a scarcity of modern aircraft
-Chitose, Mizuho and Chiyoda have air wings with Kates and Zeroes but they are still classified as CS, it means that they will be useless to operate these planes. They still preserve their CS graphics

REPLY: In what scenario? They are CVL in EOS - and CVS in other scenarios (in general). They should have seaplane groups in that case. HOWEVER a ship can operate ANY plane assigned to it - even a 4 engine bomber. IF you have zeros they are de facto CVLs and will run them fine. It is how code works. I once flew Zeros from Nagato! [Should have been A6M2-N Rufe]

-I confirm that the naval landing force in Wake has no infantry or armored units

REPLY: Correct. Not in CVO or related scenarios.

-There is a second Hiryu to be received in early January. It´s rated as a CV and has the Hiryu graphics but it carries only 30 planes and speed is only 21 knots. Seems more like a CVE


REPLY: Correct - it is only in EOS - and it is a deception ship. It is really a radio controlled target ship converted to CVE status - but arranged to look like (and report as) Hiryu.

Things I liked
-Bombers can shot down fighters. I have one Nell and one Ki-49 with one victory each. On the other hand, the B-17´s scored nothing, maybe is the 20mm gun of Japanese bombers
-The economic model seems a significant improvement over stock





< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/19/2007 7:09:56 AM >

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 14
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 7:25:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		All scenarios but one (EOS Level 7) have Chitose and Chiyoda correct:

CS with seaplanes in the 5 "strictly historical" scenarios and

CVL with carrier planes in EOS.

EOS Level 7 has CS with CVL type planes - and these should still work - unless they overload the ship. However, I am issuing a 7.692 correction for EOS only immediately.

Note that all these ships (and a number of others) were designed so they could be completed in several alternate forms - CVL being one - and the decision to complete as CVL was always on the table as an option IRL. EOS simply implements that option. In EOS we retained one of the true CVS - and do the conversion making her have a dozen midget subs plus a dozen seaplanes - for fun. IRL two such CVS sailed during the Battle of Midway, but no surface action developed along the lines envisaged. A book on midgets (of all nations) concludes they might have done very well in a surface battle of the sort for which they were designed to participate in. RHS has midgets - and they are available for use on submarines, CVS type ships, and from land. Tests indicate they do occasionally score. What they do not do is what the midgets did at Pearl Harbor, Sydney and Diego Suarez: they cannot hit a ship in port. [It was not understood that a hit was scored at Pearl Harbor until a few years ago - although we did know one reported by radio the night afterward the code for "success"]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/19/2007 11:27:17 AM >

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 15
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 7:10:02 PM   
Bendarek

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 8/21/2005
Status: offline 		El Cid, quick question about HQ's for the allied side on the level 7 EOS. When I try to change a unit to a different HQ, there is no list of HQ's to change to.

For example, I wanted to change some USN base forces stationed in the PI, but I am unable to at present. I wasn't sure if that is still a work in progess or intentional that you cannot change HQ's.

This is true for LCU and Air units

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 9:37:31 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		That was indeed a problem until I changed the cam file. You have a slightly out of date edition of the data set.
You need 7.69 - which fixed this issue - and 3 other issues.

(in reply to Bendarek)
Post #: 17
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/19/2007 9:48:47 PM   
Bendarek

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 8/21/2005
Status: offline 		hm, I thought I had the current version 7.679?

Now, I am currently in a pbem game with this version, can I update it without causing too many difficulties as long as my partner does the same?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/20/2007 6:31:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		You can change pwhex or art (usually - not this next one though) without difficulty. But you cannot change data files. IF you know how to unpack your turn I will fix it for you - and it will run unpacked.

There will be a series of microupdates over the next three days ending in 7.70 - which will need a new map pwhex and map art - and should be stable. 7 is in test - not for play just yet. 5 and 6 are suitable for play now - and only get better - but nothing is wrong really. They will be abandoned (probably) at x.70 level.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/20/2007 6:54:44 AM >

(in reply to Bendarek)
Post #: 19
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/20/2007 4:02:02 PM   
Bendarek

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 8/21/2005
Status: offline 		thanks for the info, how close are you to making level 7 playable? currently in a pbem game, but my oppenent is on vacation for a week. if 7.70 is pretty much playable perhaps we can start over with that version, or play with level 5 or 6 depending since we have just barely started.

And thanks for your work, I am enjoy this mod. That jap landing on Hawaii really surprised me, I was not expecting that at all.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/21/2007 6:09:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		OK - you can play this scenario right now - in Level 5 or Level 6.

7.70 may well be stable - but until it is done AND tested we cannot be certain.

It is coming up very fast and well - but problems keep being discovered. I have to check every reinforcement at locations in Australia and New Zealand (on land) it seems.

The EOS start is one that Adm Yamamoto concluded SHOULD HAVE been attempted two days after Pearl Harbor. It is also what the Japanese were actually attempting at the Battle of Midway - but until the official history was published we didn't know it (and few know it still since it has never been translated).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/21/2007 6:11:18 AM >

(in reply to Bendarek)
Post #: 21
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/21/2007 11:02:01 AM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		RHSEOS v7.679 S075
For some reason the Ki-100 Tony does not show up in the Intelscreens Aircraft Reinforcement Schedule and Aircraft Replacement Pool.
In a cityscreen-Aircraft Assembly Facilities it is possible to change to Ki-100 Tony rd.
Tony is also in the Database.
Why is it not in the Intelscreens?

AvG

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/21/2007 7:12:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		No idea.

It DOES show up - right under the Ki-102b. It isn't in order.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/21/2007 7:13:56 PM >

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 23
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/21/2007 9:21:17 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		In what screen? And on wich day?

I checked again the Aircraft Replacement Pool and no Ki-100 after Ki-102. I am on 9 Decemeber 1941.

AvG

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 5/22/2007 3:47:44 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		OK - I mean it shows up on the intelligence screen - the aircraft data screen. I don't think you should see it in the 1941 unit screen. This aircraft probably only is used by units that upgrade from another type - not as original equipment.

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 25
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 6/22/2007 1:52:07 AM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline 		-Air combat seemed relatively bloodless at first turns (close to Nik v5.x), however, I´m noticing that when Zeroes are involved, A2A losses are very high, maybe due to their high gun value. Here is the result of a Zero sweep over PH (RHSEOS). On the other hand, or as a consequence of the not so bloody model, only one Zero was lost in A2A up to now....


Day Air attack on Pearl Harbor [Oahu] , at 114,72

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 18

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 3
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10
P-36A Mohawk x 3
P-40B Tomahawk x 11

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 5 destroyed

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 26
RE: Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 - 6/22/2007 6:58:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There were only two significant eratta in the Level 7 set. We are having trouble with the Japanese aircraft art/filmstrips/pointers - but when this is done we can issue the final form of all scenarios - INCLUDING Level 7.

(in reply to Bombur)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Issue with RHSEOS v7.679 Page: [1]
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

1.438