Anymore future patches in the works???

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Anymore future patches in the works???

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Anymore future patches in the works???

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Anymore future patches in the works??? - 5/29/2003 2:20:28 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

Anyone have any ideas on anything they think still needs to be fixed or balanced???

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 5/29/2003 3:13:40 AM

Bobthehatchit

Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline

Re-supply by air.

The allies used the C47 and Bombers i thing to drop supplied to there troops in the field.

This would be very handy to keep supplies flowing to units in ememy/contested hexs and hexes without airfields.

_____________________________

"Look at yours before laughing at mine". Garfield 1984.

Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.

Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 2

Re: Anymore future patches in the works??? - 5/29/2003 3:32:15 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanaka
[B]Anyone have any ideas on anything they think still needs to be fixed or balanced??? [/B][/QUOTE] No more patches until after WitP and when that comes out Matrix hopefully will use the UV framework for a Med game.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 3

- 5/29/2003 5:59:22 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]Re-supply by air.

The allies used the C47 and Bombers i thing to drop supplied to there troops in the field.

This would be very handy to keep supplies flowing to units in ememy/contested hexs and hexes without airfields. [/B][/QUOTE]

I totally agree, but this would be a new feature, not a fix or balancing. I doubt this will make it into UV :( .
____

Sometimes I see odd TF routes cutting through islands - the hex side movement restrictions should be revised.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 4

- 5/29/2003 10:51:49 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

The "bug" that peeves me off the most is when you transfer a squadron,the CO dies, and the game locks up.Pls fix.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 5

- 5/29/2003 9:33:04 PM

Bobthehatchit

Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline

Would have to be Jap asw then, it is just too weak.

I know that the Japanies didn't concentrate on asw as much as the Allies, but that was a command decision on the part of the japanies leadership, there ships were still capable of offensive asw work.

When you play UV as the IJN you are in command so you make the stratagy, the IJN's ships asw should be rated by the ships weaponary and equipment.

Experience should increase over time like night fighting ability for the allies.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 6

- 5/29/2003 10:07:25 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]The "bug" that peeves me off the most is when you transfer a squadron,the CO dies, and the game locks up.Pls fix.[/QUOTE]

They really tried to fix that by making it so the CO couldn't die on transfer missions thinking that fixed the problem. Now the CO doesn't die, but the game still crashs. :(

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 7

- 5/29/2003 10:15:07 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
[B]I totally agree, but this would be a new feature, not a fix or balancing. I doubt this will make it into UV :( .
____

Sometimes I see odd TF routes cutting through islands - the hex side movement restrictions should be revised. [/B][/QUOTE]

I would be very wary of such a feature, due to the current "uber-ness" of transports being able to fly in to even the most trashed airfield and land add'l troops and supplies via "massed C-47 ops"

Though player choice plays a large part of the sense of unreality (i.e. shuttling in additional regiments/batallions to isolated garrisons simply to occupy the other player's attention and cauase grief....a varient of the human wave tactic) it still strikes me as a bit unrealistic.......and LRCAP vs transports doesn't seem as powerful as it once was and there is no "abort" feature either. Like good little drones, your C-47's will continue to fly missions into even the most dangerous and heavily contested airfields to drop supplies and troops

True op losses are great.....but coupled with high production rates and quick repair rates in UV it ends up meaning little

I can see it now (worst case scenerio)....cut off bases that historically would wither on the vine being completely sustained by air ops....even with no airfield present.

Given UV/WitP's necessarily abstracted supply point system....it could happen unless very carefully planned.

At the very least, such a new feature would have to be checked by a very heavy % of "supplies lost", particularily in rough terrain with no airfield. Later in the war, refined tactics and "lessons learned" allowed air transport ops to get a much greater % of supplies to the troops but initially, you'd be lucky to get even a small fraction to your troops.

Perhaps tying it to EXP would allow the required variablility and give players incentive not to sacrifice their transports on the notion that "we'll make more"

Not if good transport not only requires planes and supply BUT expert transport pilots as well!

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 8

- 5/29/2003 10:22:01 PM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I really wish Matrix would tweak UV before finishing WITP.

They are like marathon runners who 100 yards from the finish line decide to run in another race and come back later to finish this one.

My biggest gripe at the moment with UV is air transport is broken.

I no longer use air transport for troops as they too often disappear and it is not fair to my opponents to continually go back to previous saves.
In one game my opponent and I replayed half a dozen moves twice over because of the bug. No problems since using air transport only for supplies.

Other than that though UV is a lot of fun but with some tweaks could be the best game ever.
Just a little fine tuning is needed.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 9

- 5/30/2003 12:04:40 AM

chrisp

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline

Hmm, changes...

The biggie for me would be improving the AI so that it sends air units to airbases. I have been bombing Buna for weeks now, the place has a level 3 airfield, but no aircraft. Same with Lae. Same with Gili Gili (when the Japanese hold it).

All this while I'm getting 70+ zeros operating from Rabaul.

Chris P.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 10

- 5/30/2003 6:06:45 AM

NAVMAN

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline

Hi Mr. Frag,
Woe unto me, but my COs are still dying. Happened three(3)
times last evening.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 11

- 5/30/2003 6:23:38 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Yea, i know, they tried, but the evil code monster got them in the back when they were not looking :eek:

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 12

- 5/30/2003 7:20:39 AM

Nasrullah

Posts: 44
Joined: 2/14/2003
From: Annapolis, Md, USA
Status: offline

Fix the list jumping when selecting ships. It can't be that hard.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 13

- 5/30/2003 7:30:52 PM

chrisp

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline

I've had CO die during transfers too.

For what it's worth, I can get around the problem by saving the game and reloading it.

Chris P.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 14

- 5/30/2003 7:49:30 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nasrullah
[B]Fix the list jumping when selecting ships. It can't be that hard. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is a pet peeve of mine also. God, it is annoying to click on a ship then have to re-scroll back to where you were just to click on the next ship.:mad:

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 15

- 5/30/2003 8:42:55 PM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]That is a pet peeve of mine also. God, it is annoying to click on a ship then have to re-scroll back to where you were just to click on the next ship.:mad: [/B][/QUOTE]

Has anyone noticed a pattern to this? It seem that you can click a ship and this list won�t jump around IF the ship beneath the one you selected is of the same type as the one you selected. I haven�t done extensive tests but that was what I remember from some basic testing one day. If it�s true, it might help them to solve this bug.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 16

I've seen the same thing - I think - 5/30/2003 10:42:21 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

Click on a ship with the same class above it and it works fine. This particular bug can be annoying at ports with a lot of ships/TFs. Of course in my game with Yamamoto I don't have this problem at all.....

Now Yamamoto, send me a turn so I can be abused a bit more.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 17

- 5/30/2003 10:54:30 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]Has anyone noticed a pattern to this? It seem that you can click a ship and this list won�t jump around IF the ship beneath the one you selected is of the same type as the one you selected. I haven�t done extensive tests but that was what I remember from some basic testing one day. If it�s true, it might help them to solve this bug.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

It is somehting like that, and real annoying. (aggravating when building a larger TF)

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 18

- 5/31/2003 3:30:39 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

1. I would like to see some support for the editor. Give us a guide of do's and don'ts

2. Give us the ability to edit replacement rates for aircraft.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 19

Re: Re: Anymore future patches in the works??? - 5/31/2003 3:38:11 AM

Svar

Posts: 381
Joined: 9/7/2000
From: China Lake, Ca
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]No more patches until after WitP and when that comes out Matrix hopefully will use the UV framework for a Med game. [/B][/QUOTE]

2by3 Games makes these games and they talk about a new version of War in Russia which I would rather see than a Med game. I think that 2by3 has an agreement with matrix to do a Med Game after WitP though.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 20

Re: Re: Re: Anymore future patches in the works??? - 5/31/2003 7:34:55 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svar
[B]2by3 Games makes these games and they talk about a new version of War in Russia which I would rather see than a Med game. I think that 2by3 has an agreement with matrix to do a Med Game after WitP though. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, they have an agreement ... Lucca Brazzi and me made 'em an offer they couldn't refuse.

Back to the thread subject, I hope that the only changes that are made to UV in the future are retrofits from newly developed games, like WITP and MEDWAR.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 21

Just a few small things..... - 6/1/2003 8:10:17 AM

Deathtreader

Posts: 1039
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Don't get me wrong....... this is a great game and all....... I've already got my moneys' worth and more..... bit IMHO :

1/ gentle upwards nudge on Japanese asw - midway between today's level and the previous one .
2/ WAYPOINTS!!
3/ a small chance of mid-ocean surface tf intercepts
4/ ANY of the suggestions toning down the 4 eng. uberbomber mentioned so far in Raverdave's LRB poll.
5/ Fixing of the niggling outstanding (and annoying) things like lockups due to squadronn CO's dying on transfer........

Whether its done for WITP first & then retrofitted to UV, or tested in UV first for inclusion in WITP is immaterial...... so long as its done.
Just my 2 cents worth, well maybe a little more........:)

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 22

- 6/2/2003 10:10:19 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

I'm going to weigh in on a couple of things.

1. The Uberbombers. Just got off the LRB poll and I'll refer you to my comments there. My biggest complaint is the utter impossibility of bringing one down. I do feel that a large number of forts with mutual support and escorts working in their favor is one thing, but unescorted flights of 6 forts against 30 Zeros at 6000'...you should see SOME casualties. there needs to be some parity injected into that code

2. Medium bombers. Same thing. While I do see some casualties in this area, they seem either way too fast, too durable or I don't know, SOMETHING. I'm a big believer in variables(Pilot EXP, MOR, FAT, co's Attrbutes, A/C Stats etc) but back to the unescorted scenario, cut the Zeros some slack. Particularly early on. I could refer you to many many excerpts from Sakais book but who wants to here me get off on a rant anyway?

3. While I'm on the subject of variables. The point of UV is to replay history. We all have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight in this game. We all know what really happened at Midway, and the effect it had on the Japanese ability to sustain an effective air air campaign against the 2nd Gen of Allied A/C. BUT... The point of this game is NOT to repeat this cycle in a never ending loop of doom and destruction for the IJNAF and IJAAF. I just ask for a little parity given that the Japanese player uses his forces wisely, Maintains well trained pilots, and hopefully ushers in his own 2nd gen A/C (ie Georges, Tojos, and Franks within reason of course). It hasn't happened to me yet, but from the sound of other posts its pretty much a given when the Zero Killers appear. I refer you to the post on Pilot skill from Soulblazer I believe. I think this has a HUGE impact on Gameplay for the Japanese player. Personally, as an allied player routing the Zeros isn't any fun either.

4. Ships on patrol return to their bases automatically before they run out of fuel. ie Asw patrols where you KNOW subs wait for APs. AND they notify you when doing so i.e, "TF 23 returning to Tulagi to refuel"

5. CAP vs CAP Combat. I realize the definition of CAP ( god knows I done it enough myself) . But too many times when trying to interdict air supply by CAPing over enemy bases, My CAP and his CAP simply fly right by each other and wave courteously. No way man. You know if two CAPs crossed paths they would fight to the finish. Survivors of the triumphant CAP with gas and ammo to spare would remain on station.

More later

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 23

- 6/2/2003 10:30:04 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Zeroes have been cut way too much slack already against the early war Allied fighter types, particularly the F4F. Please don't cut them any more. Next thing you know, we'll be talking about "uber zeroes."

I am not so sure that lack of losses of Allied bombers to Japanese fighters is a design problem. I think that we players tend to be sloppy and inartful in how we use our air assets, and that contributes more to the problem than anything else. In PBEM, I have seen more than one Allied player get his bombers massacred because he didn't understand the importance of such things as morale, fatigue, and mission assignment skills. It's a tough game, guys, and it's still relatively new. We've got a lot to learn before we take off on another "let's change it and see what happens" crusade like we did back around v. 1.2. Before long, we had a complete mess on our hands, and it was all the Matrix/2by3 guys could do to return the game to playability by v. 2.3.

Let's leave it alone and learn for awhile, okay?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 24

- 6/2/2003 11:31:39 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Pasternakski,
Funny you should pop up, i was just getting ready to agree with you whole heartedly over on your WiTP gameplay post(and I still do). If you've read any of my recent posts on the LRB poll, you may have noticed my love for historical accuracy. I also want to avoid changing UV for the sake of changing it or because people aren't artful with their assets. I will be the first person to stand up and say "are you doing everything you can with your assets?" when I read complaints of unbalanced gameplay. Maybe I haven't given UV a chance in regard to the Zero issue. To be fair I have only gotten to Dec 42 in most of my games. But, I have seen some things that don't compute when it comes to the calculations/machinations/PFMagic that determines the results of air to air combat (something I know a little about).

Specifically flights of 3-6 B-17s or 10-20 Med Bombers at 6000 feet, Well within the heart of the Zeros envelope, facing 20-30 well rested highly experienced, non-malaria havin', well led Zero pilots. I'm talkin' Saburo Sakai-style with the kung fu grip. And they walk away unscathed, or only slightly damaged. Now I COULD go to the reference material and support my argument, but its way too late, and it IS just a game...

That being said, if you could enlighten me on how to better use my assets to improve my boys performance, do tell.

A note on historical accuracy. I am familiar with your idea of the perfect wargame. In fact I just read it and I agree 100%. the balance between gameplay and accuray is crucial. If the game is unbalanced in gameply, ie favors one side too strongly=no fun. If its too accurate, guess what, it favors one side, after all historically the US won! = no fun.

Historical accuracy has its place though. In the stats. By correctly assigning stats to each unit in the game you give the players the tools. What he does with them is his choice. But when the stats are inaccurate and lead to the inaccurate interaction between the tools then people get frustrated. In large part 2by3 has done an outstanding job. No doubt COUNTLESS hours were devoted to getting things right on a BROAD racge of items. More detail than I ve EVER seem in a game! I have very few complaints. In fact I had none until I started reading these damned forums and saw that I wasn't the only one who had a question about this action or that dogfight.

One of which is the inability of the Zero to do damage to med and hvy bombers. I fully realize the historical reputations of all A/C concerned here, but I have NEVER shot down a B-17! I rarley get any medium bombers. I know that to expect large numbers of Bombers to be downed when they are escorted by a competent unit of fighters is asking a lot. but what about the situation I mentioned above? I could accept it if it was a result of some freak of nature. Variables combined in such a way so as to allow them to escape unharmed after a successful raid, Jupiter aligned with Mars, Axle Rose and Slash back together again, dogs and cats living together...MASS HYSTERIA! But I digress

One of my other few complaints is the dominance of 2nd Generation Allied A/C over Japanese A/C. If the conditions in the game mirror those in history, what SHOULD happen? The Japanese SHOULD be dominated, but as you so astutely put it in the WiTP post, part of the fun of these games is what if the Japaese didn't lose all their Elite Carrier Aviators at Midway. What if the Japanese player DOES manage to preserve an elite core of Army and Naval Aviators and CAN control the Production of one type of fighter over another? What if he trains his pilots himself to higher levels of proficiency than IRL(he can do that in any of the current scenarios)? What if a group of green, though well trained Corsairs meets a large number of Veteran Lae wing Zeros in an advantageous position over Rabaul? Should 13 Zeros be downed without loss to the F4U's, I think not. But it happens, a lot.

I am NOT advocating major changes. Just accuarcy in the stats. A Corsair is not more maneuverable than a Zero. (I know that is the only way to distinguish the performance of each aircraft as it relates to another in game calculations) but maybe something else needs to be added? More consideration given to EXP levels, or even the artful use of assets...

That ended up being too long!

Regards
Elf

PS did I mention I agree with you?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 25

- 6/2/2003 11:46:31 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

i have to agree with you Elf. If a player can keep his elite pilots intact, they should be able to give Hellcats a battle. Unfortunately, I doubt if UV will be tweaked anymore since WitP is on the horizon. Perhaps after it comes out.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 26

- 6/2/2003 3:00:38 PM

Szilard

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline

Maybe for WitP rather than UV, I suppose, but a playability issue - having to go thru all of yr air groups each turn and check for morale and fatigue. This is just a chore, and I'm sure that it turns a lot of people off, including (obviously) me.

I appreciate the rationale, and I don't have a problem with it from a simulation point of view. But the game is huge, and facing dozens, hundreds of turns of having to do this is like .... ummmm contemplating having to fill out tax returns forever, or something.

Dunno what the best solution would be. An "auto standown" feature - where you can set hurdle levels for morale & fatigue for when a unit should standown & come back on-line? Something simpler, where you can set effort intensity levels for each base and air activity type?

Whatever - something where (a) you can set things at the level of bases, rather than the air-group level and (b) the settings can be left alone for > 1 week periods.

I do think it would be worthwhile putting some thought into this. I love Grigsby games, but they have a tendency to leave in big fun-killer rough edges like this. BOTR sure had them.

A smaller thing - I find Grigsby games usually have a problem with too many flow-stopping unimportant messages. In UV, a peeve of mine is the the message you get when PR missions takes photos - maybe 5 or 6 messages one after the other. Obviously, you can set the msg delay, but there should be an option to not have them come up in real time - maybe aggregated into an info screen at the end of the game, or something. Ditto, maybe, for TF spotting messages.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 27

- 6/3/2003 3:26:57 AM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

"A smaller thing - I find Grigsby games usually have a problem with too many flow-stopping unimportant messages. In UV, a peeve of mine is the the message you get when PR missions takes photos - maybe 5 or 6 messages one after the other. Obviously, you can set the msg delay, but there should be an option to not have them come up in real time - maybe aggregated into an info screen at the end of the game, or something. Ditto, maybe, for TF spotting messages."

Absolutely, wholeheartedly about the recon delays Szilard.
I'm sure my opponent is trying to drive me crazy with several recons each turn in one of my PBEM games.

:)

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 28

- 6/3/2003 4:05:48 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]Would have to be Jap asw then, it is just too weak.

I know that the Japanies didn't concentrate on asw as much as the Allies, but that was a command decision on the part of the japanies leadership, there ships were still capable of offensive asw work.

When you play UV as the IJN you are in command so you make the stratagy, the IJN's ships asw should be rated by the ships weaponary and equipment.

Experience should increase over time like night fighting ability for the allies. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think the Allies lost a single sub in the entire area during the capaign (maybe one). I am playing three campaigns against some competent opponents. They have all managed to sink at least two subs and we are only into August. I see no need to fool around with Japanese asw capability at all.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 29

- 6/3/2003 4:40:43 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B] I see no need to fool around with Japanese asw capability at all. [/B][/QUOTE]

I saw no reason to fool around with it in the beginning. The calculations for search and attack should be the same for both American and Japanese because this represents doctrine -- something the player shouldn't be penalized for. No where else is doctirne made an issue excpet for IJN sub doctirine, which can be turned off. Crappy american air tactics (pre-thatch weave, for example) sure aren't accounted for.

The only differences should be in the quality of the weapon system, the experience of the crew, and the leader rating. This is no different than surface combat. The only "advantage" the Japanese get at night is their higher experinece rating. You don't see a -50% modifier being applied to Americans at night.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Anymore future patches in the works???

Page: [1] 2 next > >>