An online community for Command Decision

Command Decision - Test of Battle Forum Index -> Game Photos/After Action Reports

Quick Battle,
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
olde-tanker
Brigadier


Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 1218
Location: Camp Shelby
 Reply with quote  

Dear Bill,

We use modified charts on a case by case basis. If there are those who do not approve or otherwise care for, we of course respect them and their wishes. Once the game is underway however, the changes play well with little to know noticeable slow down. I do issue charts made for each such battle to every player...and yes they are keen on taking advantage where they can.

It has never been my intention to make others feel uncomfortable by modifying the charts. That said, it really makes a tactical difference in the games. Suddenly, there are consequences for poor tactical conduct. (Of course, that all by itself is a subjective topic for some.)

Like I said, I am working my way through total chart conversions for five different countries but time is an issue for me. I am not a skilled typist as many of you know from my posts. When I complete such, I would be happy to pass them along to you if you would like BUT I do want to be sure not to suggest or suppose that these will in any way supersede, or otherwise take the place of RAW. You have got to really want to play with advanced gunnery.
To your next point, It applies to all cannon AP. The HV is more ticklish for me. Many contributors here including Frank and Glen have done much valuable research into HV ammunition. I hold all of them in the highest regard. This understood, The quick fix is to apply the same formula. You will notice that the penetration values are unchanged by me. In any case where HV does not shoot as far as AP, the formula should work the same.

I do want to thank you and everyone here for letting me post my thoughts on this topic here. I am aware that I may be flawed in some ways about all of this but I am having fun all the same. I really do not have any desire to cause problems or to otherwise bring about ill will.
_________________
Forge the Thunderbolt

Post Thu May 17, 2012 12:47 am   View user's profile Send private message
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by olde-tanker:
SNIP
To your next point, It applies to all cannon AP.



So all AP... not just he long guns? Since so much of your discussions were about them, I just assumed there was some point where you went with RAW stats. ...whether 50mm L42 or 75 L36 etc.?

I have to let this sink in because I am not sure if I am a fan of this sort of consistency oddly enough. I have been persuaded that the long guns might have been incrementally shorted but thought that the stubby ones might be okay as is.

And with the +1 on the to-hit, this allows a +3 to hit at the old Medium range to 50% of maximum.

PS I wouldn't bother to retype all the charts but I guess I'm for low-hanging fruit. Perhaps it's because I've spent a lot of time reworking variants only to rework them again later! And again... Sad

I'd much rather have the players do the math! Good mental exercise.
_________________
CD play aids currently at: https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Thu May 17, 2012 6:23 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pnzr12
General


Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 4177
Location: Mississippi
 Reply with quote  

I see we have fallen deep into the bushes. Wink

Post Thu May 17, 2012 4:40 pm   View user's profile Send private message
olde-tanker
Brigadier


Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 1218
Location: Camp Shelby
 Reply with quote  

Dear Bill,

No retyping on this end, just editing the existing one. Very Happy

There are other issues that you might care to think about too.

Consider that an 88 in the woods cannot hit a M3 Grant/ Lee tank at 1,000 yards but the Lee can knock out the 88 at 3,000 yards with the 88 being in the woods.

To my mind, there are some things here that are counter to what we might think. Question

It is for this reason that I have concluded a while back Exclamation (but did not bring up this bite of the elephant yet) that for the high performance guns (like the ones you mentioned) that I alter the AP range (TOB Shocked heresy follows) to 3,000 yards. Again this is only for the cannons that are considered to have HV properties.

Anyway, if you are still reading this, thanks for your consideration and letting me explain. This stuff is hard to do at long ranges... Embarassed
_________________
Forge the Thunderbolt

Post Fri May 18, 2012 1:47 am   View user's profile Send private message
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by olde-tanker:
SNIP
Consider that an 88 in the woods cannot hit a M3 Grant/ Lee tank at 1,000 yards but the Lee can knock out the 88 at 3,000 yards with the 88 being in the woods.
SNIP


I know you are aware that 88 vs. Lee is a an apples & oranges + kumquats & rutabagas situation--HE area weapon vs. AP. Gun vs. tank.

And not assuming that the Lee is the primary basis for upgrading the range of HV weapons to 60", that's beyond* my personal playtest "zone of control" (and you likely bit into this whole enchilada piecemeal too). I appreciate you have a lot more experience and reading to lead you to this.

I think that my playtest will be limited to 75+mm & L56+ weapons Medium ranged to 50% maximum with the Long increment = Extreme's.

Meaning I won't be testing this for all AP, no +1 to hit and increasing range for high velocity. But I think my approach will be manageable and yet impact the core complaint.

Thanks for the clarifications!

*Perhaps because I just don't want to go back to Tractics and how a center positioned weapon could sweep the entire board (admittedly only with not enough terrain).
_________________
CD play aids currently at: https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/


Last edited by Bill Owen on Fri May 18, 2012 3:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post Fri May 18, 2012 4:47 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
olde-tanker
Brigadier


Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 1218
Location: Camp Shelby
 Reply with quote  

Cool!
_________________
Forge the Thunderbolt

Post Fri May 18, 2012 11:27 am   View user's profile Send private message
Jonathan Perry
Lance Corporal


Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Bloomington/Normal Illinois
 Reply with quote  

@OT

I can be counted amongst those who would like to see a boost to the accuracy of some weapons at long range - although I suspect that I am more like Bill, prefering to see these adjustments made to a 75L70 rather than a 75L24.

Anyhow, working against this desire to tweak the ranges is a concern for "fun" (strictly as defined by myself and the guys I play with). In the many years that we have been gaming together, there is a concensus that games with more maneuver are generally more "fun" than those that have less maneuver. Charging the Great Redoubt at Borodino just isn't as much fun as the swirling chaos of Gettysburg Day 1. And it can certainly be argued that the limited effectiveness of long range weapons fire in CDToB allows players a certain freedom to maneuver in the face of the enemy.

So I said all of that to ask you this - in comparing your games before you tweaked your charts to your games after you tweaked your charts - how has the increased lethality of long range weapons fire impacted the maneuvering of units in your battles?

- JP

Post Fri May 18, 2012 4:57 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5429
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  

Not that I'm OT....

I use tweaked ranges and they don't effect manoeuvre - in some way they increase manoeuvre. Assuming you have a relatively cluttered table then vistas where the long guns have an advantage are unusual. So to take advantage of the 88's you need to manoeuvre to exploit the open vistas. Similarly the enemy will be manoeuvring to avoid them
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Fri May 18, 2012 6:07 pm   View user's profile Send private message
pnzr12
General


Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 4177
Location: Mississippi
 Reply with quote  

What Bob says is prety accurate. Terrain affects manouver in most of our/OTs games.

Post Fri May 18, 2012 8:06 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

So RAW with "typical" terrain (i.e. lots) may be just fine because the longer ranges just don't come into play. So the issue becomes a distinction without a difference.

But much of North Africa and the portions of Russia with the steppes, that's another story.
_________________
CD play aids currently at: https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Sat May 19, 2012 12:59 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jake Strangeway
Lieutenant General


Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 3571
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Mackenzie:
Not that I'm OT....

I use tweaked ranges and they don't effect manoeuvre - in some way they increase manoeuvre. Assuming you have a relatively cluttered table then vistas where the long guns have an advantage are unusual. So to take advantage of the 88's you need to manoeuvre to exploit the open vistas. Similarly the enemy will be manoeuvring to avoid them


Bob,

I understand what you are saying, but what if you are playing on the steppe or in the desert where those vistas are common?

More importantly, with OT's +1 to hit as well as increased range bands, the lethality quotient goes WAY up - one presumes at SOME point you are going to actually be seen be in LOS of someone, and as soon as you get into LOS - WHAM - you are dead.


Take, for example, the difference between engaging a RAW 88L71 with an Experienced T34/43 as opposed to OT's version. (assuming opp fire from an experienced 88 gunner)

RAW stats:

6(7)14 12(5)13 18(3)13 48(1)12

OT stats

10(8)14 30(6)13 50(4)13 60(2)12

I simply took OT's info from what he posted here:

Short range =10
Medium range=1/2 extreme
Long range=extreme-10 inches
Extreme range for HV guns=60 inches

You are giving the triple whammy of increased accuracy (+1 to hit at all range bands) AND hitting power (the RAW 88 penetrates 13 out to 18 inches as opposed to 50) AND range (shoots more accurately at range and further extreme range).

Some simple statistics:

From 0-300 yards, RAW gives a 63% chance of a kill per die, or 1.89 kills
Same distance, OT's version gives a 72% chance, or 2.16 kills.

However, when you step that up to 301 to 500 yards:
RAW is now a 40% chance, or 1.2 kills - while OT's remains 2.16 - effectively TWICE as many kills.

From 501 to 600 yards, the gap narrows:
RAW remains 1.2, and OT's decreases to 48% per die, or 1.44 kills

But then from 601 to 900 yards, RAW drops to 24%, or .72 kills - again, OT's remains 1.44, or TWICE as likely to inflict a kill.

When you go from 901 to 1500 yards, it gets even worse, with RAW dropping to a 7% chance, so .21 kills, meaning in that range band, OT's gun is 7 TIMES as likely to inflict a kill.

From 1501 to 2400, OT's drops to a 32% per hit, or .96 kills - still 5 TIMES as likely to kill.

At 2401, RAW can no longer hit, while OT still retains the .96 kills out to 2500 yards.

From 2500 yards to 3000 yards, OT's gun only has a 14% chance per die, or .42 kills

Changes do not occur in isolation. I think that the majority of the people on the forum agree that TOB produces historical casualty results when playing historical battles - or in some cases, higher than historical casualty results.

If you simply make ALL guns hit more accurately, with greater penetration, at greater range - with no other changes, you have now by just by simple logic made the game create ahistorical casualty rates.

So, while I think that everyone agrees that all guns performing the same at up to 900 yards is simply a game mechanic to simplify things and make for faster gameplay - I think if we all just take a step back and use common sense, we can realize that simply ramping up the lethality of armor piercing weapons without any other changes can skew things to be just as ahistorical, just in a different way.

Now, the nice thing about this is that we can all still play the game whichever way we would like to - but for me, personally, I prefer a simple, ahistorical game mechanic that yields a historical overall result more than a historically accurate mechanic that yields an overall ahistoric result. (and to be clear, even the numbers for the tweaked system are not really historically accurate, given that you are sticking to the 4 range band system, which in itself is ahistorical).

But that's just me Smile

P.S. Bob, I realize that although you do have increased range bands, you do not use OT's +1 to hit, and so your charts do not cause as radical a shift in lethality.

Post Sat May 19, 2012 1:01 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1895
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Jake Strangeway:
SNIP
So, while I think that everyone agrees that all guns performing the same at up to 900 yards is simply a game mechanic to simplify things and make for faster gameplay - I think if we all just take a step back and use common sense, we can realize that simply ramping up the lethality of armor piercing weapons without any other changes can skew things to be just as ahistorical, just in a different way.
SNIP


Oddly enough I had never noticed that all the guns had the same close/medium/long ranges! Embarassed Will anyone else be humble enough to admit that? Or is 100% of the rest of the CD world more observant than me?

Because weapons had varying extreme ranges, I have been wondering what was so simple about the TOB's 'new' range system. And since I was always having to consult the chart for to-hit (by shell-type; I had noticed the same to-hit AP scores that came from CD3), ROF and penetration ...this simplification was of no advantage. And certainly not worth sacrificing any historicity for.

In the desert there's only a few weapons that increase ranges (in my limited subset of OT's suggestions) and only certain situations of a portion of games in Russia, so I have been willing to listen because the impact would be limited.

So, Jake, my playtests would not be as impacted as your magnified odds would seem to indicate:
1. Fewer cases because of typically denser terrain
2. No extreme AP range increase (which limits the medium range increase which you correctly identify as a net +3 to-hit increase)
3. No AP to-hit bonus

So why bother? Restores some realism for a low investment of effort... and only a nominal increase in overall casualties.

A majority of gamers' "feel" for historical overall casualties is obviously subjective. And casualties are a little harder to get a feel for with regrouping, n'est ce pas? Even Jake doesn't play RAW 100% Shocked ...does any one?! Making small or large changes and omitting bits and grit describes nearly all gamers.

Having said that, I do appreciate feedback about my ideas because I may adjust further as y'all make your astute observations.

PS Other things that would impact Bob's game vs. RAW is that I think he doesn't use regrouping or proximity suppressing (both of which I prefer to use) but both also increase lethality. I think he prefers to reach a quicker conclusion and I respect his incredibly prolific number and breadth of games--so it's a'workin' for him.
_________________
CD play aids currently at: https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Sat May 19, 2012 5:02 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jake Strangeway
Lieutenant General


Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 3571
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Owen:
Because weapons had varying extreme ranges, I have been wondering what was so simple about the TOB's 'new' range system. And since I was always having to consult the chart for to-hit (by shell-type; I had noticed the same to-hit AP scores that came from CD3), ROF and penetration ...this simplification was of no advantage. And certainly not worth sacrificing any historicity for.


The simplification was of no advantage because you somehow didn't notice it. Now that it has been pointed out to you - don't you think it speeds play? You never have to look at the charts ever for the to hit numbers.

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Owen:

So, Jake, my playtests would not be as impacted as your magnified odds would seem to indicate:
1. Fewer cases because of typically denser terrain
2. No extreme AP range increase (which limits the medium range increase which you correctly identify as a net +3 to-hit increase)
3. No AP to-hit bonus


I agree that your changes also don't yield the same shift as OT's - although I'm a little unsure of what your changes are, since you wrote this:

"I think that my playtest will be limited to 75+mm & L56+ weapons Medium ranged to 50% maximum with the Long increment = Extreme's."

I don't know exactly what that means. Could you give an example using an actual weapon in actual numbers?


quote:
Originally posted by Bill Owen:

So why bother? Restores some realism for a low investment of effort... and only a nominal increase in overall casualties.


I want to point out you should write that sentence as "Restores some realism for a low investment of effort...and only a nominal increase in non-realism" Smile

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Owen:

A majority of gamers' "feel" for historical overall casualties is obviously subjective. And casualties are a little harder to get a feel for with regrouping, n'est ce pas? Even Jake doesn't play RAW 100% Shocked ...does any one?! Making small or large changes and omitting bits and grit describes nearly all gamers.


Remember - and this is the subjective bit - so I'm totally on board that it affects everyone differently - non-realism is non-realism. You simply feel that the gunnery non-realism is more important that the casualy non-realism - which is fine.

But it still isn't more realistic, overall - it simply trades one instance of realism for another.

But like I said, the best part is you can do that - since the rules are easily adaptable to your own playing group.

But if I may - let me leave you with some quotes from Frank Chadwick on this very issue from FIVE YEARS AGO:

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Chadwick:

How Many Range Bands Are Enough?"

Although no one has raised this question, it is at the heart of this whole thread. It is really THE question under discussion, and the fact that I'm the first one to phrase it as such I will take as evidence that I am really smart.

Remember that the original question is: "What evidence is there that the 88mm had a 10% chance of hitting at 950 yards?" The question itself is so narrowly phrased that it is somewhat misleading -- although I don't believe that it was intentionally so. But why do I say that?

Because reality is curved and game tables are stepped. That is, declining accuracy in reality -- whatever that accuracy in battlefield conditions is, and we can argue over that for yars -- declines in a fairly smooth curve. The slope of the curve may change, but it's always a slope, with gradual changes from one range to the next, not abrupt changes.

But a game has to define specific range bands, and the values between those range bands change in significant steps. And the inescapable result of that is distortion at the step points. The values of the range bands are meant to be an average over the entire band, but that means the closer you get to either end of the band, the less accurate they will be -- inescapably. That's just how math works. As it happens, the break point between long and extreme range is 18 inches (900 yards), so there is a huge -- and inescapably distorted -- drop in accuracy when going from 900 yards (18 inches) to 950 yards (19 inches).

Here's another way to phrase the same question: "What evidence is there that the 88mm gun had three times as much chance of hitting at 900 yards as it did at 950 yards?" In the game it's true. And of course there is no evidence to support that the gun is three times as accurate on one side of the range band break than on the other. But the question is -- in my opinion -- irrelevant. Distortions like this right at the range band breaks are an inescapable fact of life in game design land. No matter where you put those range breaks, there will be distortions as a result of your decision.

Now, one way to minimize the distortions is to have more range bands with smaller breaks between each one, which of course brings me to the question at the top of the post: How Many Range Bands Are Enough?


Four.


Oky, wise guy, why four?


Because you only get so much detail "load" to play with in a design, and where you put that load is a function of what you want the game to be about. As far as Glenn and I are concerned, Command Decision Test of Battle is about maneuvering battalions, not about shooting guns. Detail lavished on getting the gun shooting model just right is detail we can't put into the battalion maneuver part of the design -- or if we do, we overload the design with detail. Let's face it, even in its current lean-and-mean configuration, CDTOB is a demanding mistress.

If there is onew thing I'm petty certain of from thirty years of designing games, it is that if you try to do everything in a game design, you end up with a mess.

So trust me, the magic number is four.

"All Range Bands Are Equal, But Should Some Be More Equal Than Others?"

I’ve explained why we have four range bands; I have not really addressed why they are the same. Jack surmised in an earlier post that they were the same for sake of simplicity. As much as I love simplicity, that’s not really the entire story. The longer range bands were different for different guns until fairly late in the CDTOB development process, and it was specific game play results which persuaded me (finally) to change them. (In fairness, Glenn thought they should be the same almost from the start.) I’ve talked about those specific game play results elsewhere, but I guess it’s worth mentioning them again.

It helps here to remember that the adoption of four range bands means that there is a fairly abrupt step reduction in hit chances at each range band break, and that it is a necessary abstraction of the smooth curve of accuracy decline over range. There is no question that higher velocity guns have some accuracy advantages in engaging targets at longer ranges in the rough and tumble of combat. I don’t disagree with that (and suggesting that I do actually mischaracterizes my position on this). The question is how to model it and whether in fact it is worth modeling at all – beyond an extension of the extreme range band.

The real-world effect of higher velocity is a marginally better chance of hitting pretty much all along the outer extent of the gun’s range. I feel – and this is really the crux of this whole issue – that modeling this by giving a gun a longer long range band is, from a game accuracy point of view, worse than not modeling it at all. When you take a gun and increase its long range band from 18 to, say, 22, what you have done is taken all of that marginally better accuracy which shows up all along the outer ranges, and concentrated it at one jarringly anti-historical “sweet spot.” Instead of it being 5% better at every point along the range, you have made it 200% better from 19 to 22 inches. And that is a far, far worse fit with reality than equal range bands.

Here's another way to look at it. Suppose the 5% number is about right, and one gun is 5% better than another throughout the longer range. If you go with equal range bands, you are 5% off everywhere. If you increase the long range band from 18 to 22, you are still 5% off everywhere -- except from 19 to 22 inches, where you are now 195% off.

And that is an improvement... how?

From a game point of view, you have made the preferred tactic of this gun to sit at that range band – and only that range band – and fire away. There is no historical justification for that, so far as I can see. Someone (I think is may have been Jack) suggested that if he were referee, he would punish any player who practiced such a blatantly non-historical tactic. Okay. Then why change the range tables to make the tactic viable in the first place? If the answer is “greater realism” I think we have a problem. If the principal result of the “greater realism” is to encourage a tactic which is grossly unrealistic, and if your answer is to punish any player who takes advantage of the changes you have made to the charts, then in my opinion, the wrong guy is getting spanked.

There is an answer – of a sort -- to this problem, and the answer is more range bands, ideally seven or eight of them, provided you’re going to stay with a D10 resolution system. If you were really daring, you might consider sixteen to eighteen range bands with a D20 resolution system. In this case, and this is the key, every range band would be the difference of a single pip on the die, and so – particularly with the D20 system – you would not have any glaring tactical sweet spots.

The problem with this approach is that which I covered in the earlier post – it squanders enormous detail on getting AT hit numbers just right, and doesn’t really leave you with much uncommitted capital in the bank to get the other – more important – stuff right. It is probably appropriate to a detailed tank-versus-tank game. It is as surely inappropriate, in my judgment, to a battalion-versus-battalion game.

I should probably add to the above that the other reason I do not believe that we need to model the marginally better accuracy of higher velocity guns is that their game effect is already helped along at longer ranges by their superior penetration, and that's the real difference in effectiveness on the battlefield (in my opinjion). A 75L24 and an 88L56 are not the same at long range in the game.

Don't agree? Here. Sit in this Valentine (frontal armor of 7) and I'll shoot at you with this 75L24 (long range penetration of four) and this 88L56 (long range penetration of eight) and tell me if one of them makes you more nervous.


"As to the issue of range bands in general, I think I've explained my position on this at sufficient length, and I'd add only this. If anyone absolutely has to fiddle with this part of the game, Dave's approach of adding range bands is the approach which will -- by far -- do the least damage to history and science. In my opinion, fiddling with different medium and long ranges within the four range band framework invariably provides a much more distorted model of hit probabilities, and produces some grotesquely exagerated difference between weapons which in reality were fairly similar in performance. You also all know that I think more range bands ends up lavishing more detail on one aspect of the gamre than other equally important parts -- I think a disproportionate amount of detail -- but in the long run that probably does less violence to the game than does changing the hit numbers at the existing range bands for different guns. "

The key thing I want to emphasize here -- and I know I've said it before, but I feel compelled to say it again -- is that this game aims at getting the battalion fight right. If the losses are right at the battalion level over the course of an hour or two, the game works. Looking at what one battery or platoon does in ten minutes and trying to draw meaningful conclusions from it is a dead end. It will lead you to a model where attrition is way too high, and then to fix that you will end up having to add more and more and more special rules and die roll modifiers to ratchet the losses back to something approaching actual battlefield experiences over the span of time covered.

Post Sat May 19, 2012 10:38 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5429
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  

Where as I am in favour if upping the range band for various weapons I'm not in favour of upping the hit chances (beyond the fact that the longer rangers have an implicit +2 hit change over the CD RAW). Having played buckets of historically scenarios it give about right historical casualties at ranges over 6" In fact I've long toyed with dropping the 7 range bracket because at close range things get a-historically too lethal, and OT once said how HARD it was to hit at very close ranges due to traverse speed limitations and the off set between sights and the gun tube

I would note all my gun stats have the pen correct for the centre of the range bracket, so increasing the ranges doesn't increase penetration
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Sat May 19, 2012 4:02 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5429
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  


quote:
I understand what you are saying, but what if you are playing on the steppe or in the desert where those vistas are common?


The desert is dull so I don't often play it

The steppe isn't as open as you think....
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Sat May 19, 2012 4:05 pm   View user's profile Send private message
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

phpBB Template by Vereor