RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

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: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 12:10:49 AM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

BTW on exercises I do the same for Hurricanes and Tsunami and it is amazing the things the players will come up with. Some good and many frightening! The best I ever saw was a park ranger who came up with using an LCVP like ferry to take ATVs over to an island for initial damage assessment and I be danged if one month later we didn't do it!

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 31

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 12:15:45 AM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

You can always put them on an allied side so that the player knows they are there but has no control - but if things get messy they will engage

Interesting idea! The theater commander, at least in the West, would not have command over them as they would be National Command Authority assets! I hate nukes though.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 32

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 12:25:12 AM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

Those updates sound good to me! I'm currently about done with the A2A portion of the scenario (I think) and am retooling most of my multirole aircraft to AsuW loadouts, preparing for the Russian SAG. Here are my losses and Russian losses so far:

SIDE: Russia
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Commercial Container Vessel - Feedermax [3,000 TEU, 30,000t DWT]
1x Ka-27M Helix A
1x Ka-27PL Helix A
9x MiG-29K Fulcrum D
6x MiG-31BM Foxhound
5x Su-24M2 Fencer D
4x Su-25UTG Frogfoot B
6x Su-33 Flanker D

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x A/C Hangar (2x Very Large Aircraft)
12x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
3x Ammo Revetment
1x AvGas Bunker (400k Liter Tank)
2x Bunker (COMINT Station)
1x Bunker (SIGINT Station)
11x F-16AM Falcon MLU
2x Radar (AN/FPS-110)
1x Radar (AN/FPS-6A HF)
3x Radar (Coastal ACSR)
1x Radar (GLOBUS II [AN/FPS-129 Have Stare])
1x Radar (RAT-31SL/N)

I lost 1 F-16 on the ground, 2 to A2A missiles, and 8 to that damned Growler! No matter what I do, it seems that those SAM missiles always find me. Having destroyed most of the Russian CAG, I'm leaving the F-15C squadron and a handful of F-16s up north, and the rest goes to Orland, Vaernes, and Bodo, joining the rest of my aircraft in preparing for the naval strike. One thing that concerns me is that I have no dedicated anti-ship munitions, just weapons that have a dual attack role on both land and sea. With the range of the Russian SAMs on their ships, theres no way I can conduct a successful strike without 60% casualties, or more. Instead I'm going to gather all my subs into a wolfpack, and launch a heavily coordinated, 3 pronged attack: Torpedoes and TLAMs from the subs (as targets), NSMs from my missile boats, and everything from the SLAMs and Harpoons on my P-8s and P-3s to the brimstones on my Typhoons.

< Message edited by Excroat3 -- 8/4/2017 12:26:53 AM >

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 33

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 2:09:44 AM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

Only in the first couple of hours. Sneaked my initial pair of Norsk F-16s behind a pair of Foxhounds and splashed them without suffering counterfire and beat feet for home. Sent the aloft pair of Tornadoes toward the Russian merchie near Iceland, which was left burning but unsunk. Sent an RAF Sentry north but will be waiting for fighter escort (need fighters and tankers for this) before going _way_ north. Added some Brimstone 2 loadouts on Typhoons and Lightnings and went all-internal loads for the Lightnings for starters. Set all Strike Eagle loadouts to GBU-54, preferring that to Maverick and GBU-12 loads they start with. Otherwise units are in motion toward the AO...

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 34

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 5:27:43 AM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

Just a quick couple notes as I wait for all my forces to get ready:

Make sure the ASuW patrols for the subs have their radars turned off under EMCON, otherwise the subs will turn on their radars and get detected when they come up to recharge their batteries.
You might want to consider putting munitions in the bases that don't currently have fighters in them (Evenes, for example) as players may relocate their F-16s there (I did while Bardufoss was under attack)

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 35

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 1:55:23 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

All,

Updated the Beta download in the first Message above to Version 3.0

Changes...

1. SSBNs are gone (they were just there to gain some VPs IF the opposing play could get to them (unlikely)).
2. More Russian SSN & SS headed to Norwegian Sea.
3. All Strike missions and some surface patrol missions are scrubbed for the human player. I left a few so the Human can just change the patrol area.
4. Reduced the Fighter, Strike and Multi-role aircraft in the UK to 1 Tornado, 1 Typhoon, 1 F-15C & 1 F-15E squadron. The computer will use near the UK and human can do what they want with them.
5. Added two C-17 squadrons in the UK for those wanting to move stores around.
6. Vaernes AFB, Norway has been set up to take the USAF and RAF UK squadrons (all others deleted are assumed to be CAP or support for the UK or committed to the central front).
7. Cleaned up the missions and removed unavailable aircraft.
8. Moved the Anzio SAG closer to the action.

Al

< Message edited by Beachinnole -- 8/4/2017 1:58:01 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 36

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 7:07:08 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Make sure the ASuW patrols for the subs have their radars turned off under EMCON, otherwise the subs will turn on their radars and get detected when they come up to recharge their batteries.
You might want to consider putting munitions in the bases that don't currently have fighters in them (Evenes, for example) as players may relocate their F-16s there (I did while Bardufoss was under attack)

Thank you. Will do.

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 37

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/4/2017 7:07:32 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Thanks!

_____________________________

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 38

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 7:11:07 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

The sub wolf pack took heavy losses, but with the help of F-15Cs sneaking in at wavetop level and splashing ASW Ka-27s, they were able to sink a number of ships, including the 2 BCGNs. Now without long range SAM coverage, the Russians were subjected to salvoes of NSMs and SLAMs, wiping out what remained of their fleet. With no offensive air arm, and no fleet to support an amphibious attack, the battle for NATO's Northern Flank had ended in a victory for NATO.

Score: TRIUMPH - 3945

SIDE: Russia
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x BPK Udaloy I [Pr.1155 Fregat]
1x Commercial Container Vessel - Feedermax [3,000 TEU, 30,000t DWT]
1x Commercial Dry-Bulk Carrier - Capesize Size [150,000t DWT]
1x Commercial Tanker - Large Range 2 [150,000t DWT]
1x Commercial Tugboat
1x EM Sovremenny I [Pr.956 Sarych]
1x EM Sovremenny I [Pr.956A Sarych]
2x Ka-25Ts Hormone B
9x Ka-27M Helix A
6x Ka-27PL Helix A
2x Ka-27PS Helix D
20x MiG-29K Fulcrum D
6x MiG-31BM Foxhound
2x MRK Nanuchka III [Pr.1234.1 Ovod]
1x PLA-671RTMK Victor III [Shchuka]
1x RKR Admiral Nakhimov [Pr.1144.2M Orlan, Ex-Kalinin]
1x RKR Marshal Ustinov [Pr.1164 Atlant]
1x RKR Petr Velikiy [Pr.1144.2 Orlan, Ex-Yuri Androvo]
1x SSV Vishnya [Pr.864 Meridian]
1x SSV Yury Ivanov [Pr.18280]
6x Su-24M2 Fencer D
4x Su-25UTG Frogfoot B
12x Su-33 Flanker D
1x TAKR Admiral Kuznetsov [Pr.1143.5]
1x VTR Academician Pashin [Pr.23130]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
18x 30mm Twin Gatling Gsh-6-30K Burst [375 rnds]
3x AA-10 Alamo A [R-27R, MR SARH]
2x AA-11 Archer [R-73]
4x AA-12 Adder B [R-77-1, RVV-SD]
1x AA-9 Amos [R-33S, SARH]
8x AK-100 100mm/70 Frag
16x AK-130 130mm/54 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
27x AK-630M 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
6x AS-11 Kilter [Kh-58, ARM]
288x AS-15 Kent C [Kh-555]
32x AS-20 Kayak [Kh-35U Star]
96x AS-4 Kitchen D [Kh-32]
2x Generic Acoustic Decoy
43x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
27x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
3x Generic Flare Salvo [2x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
4x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
13x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
3x Paket-NK [MTT ASW]
96x PK-10 Flare [SO-50]
6x PK-16 Flare [TST-60U]
9x PLAB-250 Depth Charge
3x RBU-12000 Torpedo Decoy Salvo [UDAV-1, 10 rnds]
1x RBU-6000 Salvo [12 rnds]
130x RGB-16MK [Search, Passive Omni]
493x RGB-41 [Search, Passive Omni]
244x RGB-48 [Search, Passive Directional]
223x RGB-58 [Track, Active/Passive]
140x RGB-NM-1 [Passive Omni]
41x SA-21b Growler [40N6]
10x SA-N-11a Grisom [9M311K]
2x SA-N-20b Gargoyle [48N6M]
4x SA-N-4a Gecko [9M33]
4x SA-N-4b Gecko [9M33M3]
11x SA-N-6a Grumble [5R55RM]
2x SET-65M Enot-2 [NATO ET-80A[76]]
10x SS-N-14 Silex [85RU, Dual-Role, UMGT-1 Torpedo + 185kg Unitary]
2x SS-N-15 Starfish [RPK-6 Vodopad, UMGT-1 Torpedo]
2x USET-80K

SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x A/C Hangar (2x Very Large Aircraft)
18x A/C Hardened Aircraft Shelter (1x Large Aircraft)
1x Ammo Bunker (Surface)
3x Ammo Revetment
1x AvGas Bunker (400k Liter Tank)
2x Bunker (COMINT Station)
1x Bunker (SIGINT Station)
12x F-16AM Falcon MLU
2x Radar (AN/FPS-110)
1x Radar (AN/FPS-6A HF)
3x Radar (Coastal ACSR)
1x Radar (GLOBUS II [AN/FPS-129 Have Stare])
1x Radar (RAT-31SL/N)
1x S 107 Trafalgar
1x S 119 Astute
1x S 300 Ula [Type 210]
1x SSN 751 San Juan [Improved Los Angeles Class]
1x SSN 751 San Juan [Improved Los Angeles Class]

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
73x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
9x 27mm Mauser BK-27 Burst [30 rnds]
2x ADC Mk2 Mod 0 Torpedo Decoy
4x ADC Mk2 Mod 3 Torpedo Decoy
4x ADC Mk3 Mod 1 Torpedo Countermeasure
4x ADC Mk4 Mod 1 Sonar Jammer
16x AGM-84G Harpoon ICR
24x AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA
276x AIM-120B AMRAAM
135x AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4
4x AIM-132A ASRAAM
86x AIM-2000A IRIS-T
16x AIM-9X Sidewinder
26x AN/SSQ-53E DIFAR
588x AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR
31x AN/SSQ-62D DICASS
519x AN/SSQ-62E DICASS
342x AN/SSQ-77B VLAD
6x Brimstone Dual-Mode
6x DM2A3 Seehecht
4x GBU-54(V)1/B LJDAM [Mk82]
4x Generic Acoustic Decoy
50x Generic Chaff Salvo [5x Cartridges]
2x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
4x Generic Flare Salvo [3x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
8x Meteor
76x MIM-120B NASAMS [AMRAAM]
8x Mk48 Mod 7 ADCAP CBASS
3x Mk54 LHT Mod 0
34x Naval Strike Missile (NSM)
4x Paveway IV [Mk82]
22x RB 12 Penguin Mk3
6x RIM-174A-2 ERAM SM-6MR Blk IA [Dual I]
8x SCAD 102
6x SCAD 200
12x Spearfish Mod 0
427x SSQ-926 ALFEA
822x SSQ-955 HIDAR DIFAR
195x SSQ-963D CAMBS VI

Final Notes:

Even though I lost most of my subs, I was still awarded a triumph, you may want to change the scoring so players are more punished and don't spam the subs at the enemy ships.
I never used the QE CVBG, nor the Anzio SAG. I don't think they would make it into the AO before the major fighting was over even if a player was much more patient than me. Maybe they should start closer to Norway?
I ended my scenario with 2d 23hr remaining, and other than the Backfire ARM and Blackjack cruise missile attack every 24hrs, the Russians don't have anything to throw at me, and I have no intention of facing the S-400s in the Kola. Scenario should be a bit shorter?
Looking at the editor, I notice that at Fedotovo airfield, a number of bears are supposed to take off, but the taxiways are too small for them to taxi on. I would make it a single unit airfield both to improve performance and to make sure the bears can take off.
I moved the NASAMs to positions on mountains, 1 near Evenes, Andoya, and Bardufoss. Not sure if this was intended, but they weren't doing anything near Bodo. Maybe include a tidbit about what the player should do with them in the editor?

Overall, I like the scenario a lot! Good job with this one!

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 39

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 7:13:14 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beachinnole
Changes...

5. Added two C-17 squadrons in the UK for those wanting to move stores around.

Just so you know, currently airplanes cannot transfer munitions simply by taking off at one airbase and landing at another, you have to use LUA to do this. Otherwise, the player can simulate this by ferrying the C-17s to another airport and then going into editor and manually entering the munitions into the ammo bunker.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 40

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 7:43:07 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

The sub wolf pack took heavy losses, but with the help of F-15Cs sneaking in at wavetop level and splashing ASW Ka-27s, they were able to sink a number of ships, including the 2 BCGNs. Now without long range SAM coverage, the Russians were subjected to salvoes of NSMs and SLAMs, wiping out what remained of their fleet. With no offensive air arm, and no fleet to support an amphibious attack, the battle for NATO's Northern Flank had ended in a victory for NATO.

Score: TRIUMPH - 3945

Thanks, I have never gotten quite that far as I am always tweaking things before I get to that point. I expected the Russians would give a better accounting with the Admiral Nakhimov just fitted out.

My subs have also taken heavy hits early on and I lost the Newport News and the two Norwegian boats trying to make runs on the Russian SAG/CVBG.

quote:

Even though I lost most of my subs, I was still awarded a triumph, you may want to change the scoring so players are more punished and don't spam the subs at the enemy ships.

Yeah will increase the scoring for the subs, and decrease the scoring for the Russian Merchants.

quote:

I never used the QE CVBG, nor the Anzio SAG. I don't think they would make it into the AO before the major fighting was over even if a player was much more patient than me. Maybe they should start closer to Norway?

Actually I already did for the Anzio SAG (GIUK Gap) and will move up the QE CVBG

quote:

I ended my scenario with 2d 23hr remaining, and other than the Backfire ARM and Blackjack cruise missile attack every 24hrs, the Russians don't have anything to throw at me, and I have no intention of facing the S-400s in the Kola. Scenario should be a bit shorter?

Maybe three days? Or maybe increasing chances of an early end after day two with greater chances with each 6 hour period?

I have reduced NATO aircraft Substantially (minus two Tornado, two Typhoon and one F-15E squadron) so that might balance things a bit more?

quote:

Looking at the editor, I notice that at Fedotovo airfield, a number of bears are supposed to take off, but the taxiways are too small for them to taxi on. I would make it a single unit airfield both to improve performance and to make sure the bears can take off.

Thanks will do.

quote:

I moved the NASAMs to positions on mountains, 1 near Evenes, Andoya, and Bardufoss. Not sure if this was intended, but they weren't doing anything near Bodo. Maybe include a tidbit about what the player should do with them in the editor?

I wouldn't want anyone to have to do anything in the editor. I just ingested them from the file and left where they were set up. Will move them.

quote:

Just so you know, currently airplanes cannot transfer munitions simply by taking off at one airbase and landing at another, you have to use LUA to do this. Otherwise, the player can simulate this by ferrying the C-17s to another airport and then going into editor and manually entering the munitions into the ammo bunker.

I new to this game let alone cargo operations. I added them for those much more advanced than myself.

quote:

Overall, I like the scenario a lot! Good job with this one!

Thanks. Tweaking some more right now. Maybe it will be ready to go in a few days.

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 41

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 8:18:39 PM

Excroat3

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beachinnole

quote:

I ended my scenario with 2d 23hr remaining, and other than the Backfire ARM and Blackjack cruise missile attack every 24hrs, the Russians don't have anything to throw at me, and I have no intention of facing the S-400s in the Kola. Scenario should be a bit shorter?

Maybe three days? Or maybe increasing chances of an early end after day two with greater chances with each 6 hour period?

I have reduced NATO aircraft Substantially (minus two Tornado, two Typhoon and one F-15E squadron) so that might balance things a bit more?

quote:

I moved the NASAMs to positions on mountains, 1 near Evenes, Andoya, and Bardufoss. Not sure if this was intended, but they weren't doing anything near Bodo. Maybe include a tidbit about what the player should do with them in the editor?

I wouldn't want anyone to have to do anything in the editor. I just ingested them from the file and left where they were set up. Will move them.

I meant to say briefing instead of editor, sorry! But I do think just moving them yourself so the player doesn't have to would work better.

I think that the reduction in NATO aircraft would work, however, I didn't use any of my Tornado or F-15E aircraft because the subs + missile boats were more than enough, and there are no land targets where they would really come in handy. The Typhoon squadron can provide that extra boost in AAW power just like the F-15Cs did for me, so I think they are alright.

As for the Russians, currently, their only real AAW aircraft come from the carrier, while I would imagine that a real 2019 WW3 scenario would see a lot more aircraft coming from the Kola bases, rather than just a handful of Mig-31s. For an example of this, I would take a peak at Gunner98's "H-Hour" scenario in his Northern Fury series, which is nearly the same premise as yours, just in 1994.

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 42

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 9:39:42 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

As for the Russians, currently, their only real AAW aircraft come from the carrier, while I would imagine that a real 2019 WW3 scenario would see a lot more aircraft coming from the Kola bases, rather than just a handful of Mig-31s. For an example of this, I would take a peak at Gunner98's "H-Hour" scenario in his Northern Fury series, which is nearly the same premise as yours, just in 1994.

I was thinking of adding more Russian aircraft. The problem is from what I can tell PVO has really atrophied. I think if this battle really happened the Russians would be sailing into a modern day Tsushima!

I'm going to move the Russian subs that were guarding the SSBN Bastion further forward into the Norwegian Sea.

_____________________________

(in reply to Excroat3)

Post #: 43

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 10:17:40 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Beefed up the Russian Kola Peninsula aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 44

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/5/2017 11:24:53 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Bear issue is fixed.

_____________________________

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 45

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/13/2017 9:49:23 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

Just noticed that NATO tracks the Commercial Tug Boat in the Kuznetzov task group. Probably don't want that.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 46

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/20/2017 8:32:59 PM

BeirutDude

Posts: 2625
Joined: 4/27/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
Status: offline

Hey thanks for the input, been busy with a 66 hour week last week so first chance to reply! So how are they tracking her? Radar? She needs to be part of the battle group as the Kuznetsov never sails without her.

_____________________________

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 47

RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for ... - 8/20/2017 10:43:09 PM

blkholsun

Posts: 58
Joined: 5/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beachinnole
I was thinking of adding more Russian aircraft. The problem is from what I can tell PVO has really atrophied. I think if this battle really happened the Russians would be sailing into a modern day Tsushima!

My opinion is that you should do whatever you feel is most realistic. Most of us love CMANO because it provides at least a suggestion of realism, not because every scenario is a nail-biting challenge. I feel like too many scenario designers are worried about creating some artificial sort of balance but real life isn't balanced. (I think it's a different story if you introduce some alternative history or speculative future concepts to "explain the balance.")

(in reply to BeirutDude)

Post #: 48

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: "Arctic Tsunami 05-01-2019" Scenario for Testing

Page: << < prev 1 [2]