View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:40 am




Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
V4 Is the Sky Falling? 
Author Message
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4119
Location: Fortress Knox
VAeric wrote:
The whole six-inch command thing is BS and the killing everything around the commander to force a morale check is BS. It is gamey pure and simple. I flat do not like those aspects of V4, which is all a by-product of the bad morale system.


I've got to say, and have many times, that morale changes are the #1 issue about V4 for me. I'm still baffled by them, especially when I don't understand the need for them to change in the first place. Phil's "answer" about taking 4 of 5 model tank platoons as the reason was unsatisfactory. But I am trying to be objective and just seeing how it plays out. My sense from the MW game I played was that it was fine there (small platoons anyway). In the LW games with a big Strelk blob, I never got the blob below 50% so no impact there. In one of my LW Wolfkrieg games getting two ARPs well below 50% and then having to go after them to break them really felt wrong. I cannot deny that.

So at this point I'm looking at the frequency of occurrence and severity of impact analysis perspective. I know it will not always feel right. Given! But that does not mean it has to negatively impact my enjoyment in every FoW game. I do know the rule provides at least one positive. That is I no longer have to bother my opponent to ask how close a unit is to checking morale. I can see it on the board. That's a small thing for sure, but now I never have to ask again ever. So does that never having to ask outweigh the discomfort I have to endure when I am put off about a three team ARP getting along just happily? I do don't know. I have to get a feel for the sum total negative and the sum total positive to make that call. Not ready yet to make that assessment and the only way I can is by experimenting more.

Then I have to look at morale in V3 and before, how many times did a unit pass check after check? Was the average really at less two infantry teams? I don't think so, but I don't know because I never kept statistics on it. Phil "says" units in V4 are on average leaving the board at about the same point in the game as they would in V3 (hope I have that right). Is he right? Sure I had a lot of units break at first check, but then I had a lot of units get down to sole survivor too. I know damn well I had units that got down to just one team or two and never checked again hiding for the rest of the game. Now when these units get to that threshold they are checking all the time so much less chance for denying VPs or delaying formation checks perhaps. And I have the potential of causing a morale check even before 50% losses now as noted above.

So, yeah, on the surface level...I don't like or understand the morale rules. That's my "official" response. But I am trying to go deeper below the surface now and look at it from all angles. It's hard to do but I am trying to be non-emotional about it and stay open minded. I'm really just trying to come to grips with the overall feel and not letting the instances where it bugs me to taint my overall impression of the rule itself. In the end, it might very well be a full "thumbs down." However, right now my gut tells me its wrong, but my mind wants to investigate further.

I stayed disengaged from FoW for years because of initial preconceived notions I had of it. Then when I started playing, FoW solely to accommodate my friends, I came to understand some of the nuances of the game and in many cases actually appreciate them. Not saying that will happen here, but I am advocating that we owe it ourselves to give the game a good shake down before we cut ourselves out of it.

Please excuse my preaching. I'm off to listen to WWF #13 and paint some T-72s now. :D


Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:08 am
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2245
Location: Oak Hill, VA
Of course the really silly things is with a card=unit based system, you could actually specify the morale of every single platoon in the game. Want hordes to run early? Have them check morale at 60% Want tough veteran platoons? Have them check at 20% It's like BF has a license to print money sometimes and they just keep turning off the press.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:17 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:08 am
Posts: 242
Trying to kill the 'unit leader' first is not gamey, it's historical. Most wars involve the low levels being filled with conscripts or recently trained troops with small numbers of professional soldiers. Those with the ability will be the sergeants/etc and if you can take out them out then the unit operates at a lower level. Why aim for the cannon-fodder ? Why do you think over the centuries the unit/formation leaders went from wearing uniforms that made them stand out to looking just like all the rest.

At v.3 when I shoot a platoon I know who I want destroyed but instead the target gets to give the shot to the bullet catcher out the back. For some reason my troops thought it best to get the guy at the back.

Now at v.4 my troops have a better chance at hitting that priority target. I think this is a move in the right direction, even the 6" bubble. Morale however I'm still not convinced, but that's perhaps because my favourite lists run platoons with only 2 tanks.

_________________
Image


Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:59 am
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:50 am
Posts: 267
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Barad wrote:
Trying to kill the 'unit leader' first is not gamey, it's historical. Most wars involve the low levels being filled with conscripts or recently trained troops with small numbers of professional soldiers. Those with the ability will be the sergeants/etc and if you can take out them out then the unit operates at a lower level. Why aim for the cannon-fodder ? Why do you think over the centuries the unit/formation leaders went from wearing uniforms that made them stand out to looking just like all the rest.

At v.3 when I shoot a platoon I know who I want destroyed but instead the target gets to give the shot to the bullet catcher out the back. For some reason my troops thought it best to get the guy at the back.

Now at v.4 my troops have a better chance at hitting that priority target. I think this is a move in the right direction, even the 6" bubble. Morale however I'm still not convinced, but that's perhaps because my favourite lists run platoons with only 2 tanks.


Sure, that makes sense for a platoon level game, but for a company level game?

Can you show me the unit leader here?


Attachments:
1413753169682_wps_44_INVASION_SCENE_FROM_SAVIN.jpg
1413753169682_wps_44_INVASION_SCENE_FROM_SAVIN.jpg
1413753169682_wps_44_INVASION_SCENE_FROM_SAVIN.jpg [ 76.55 KiB | Viewed 608 times ]
Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:57 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:08 am
Posts: 242
Is an example of where I said "looking just like all the rest".

Must admit I can't see the 'head' there so would have to roll for "mistaken identity" :-)

_________________
Image


Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:40 am
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4119
Location: Fortress Knox
You do not have to look at it from the perspective of "killing the unit leader." Just as in the picture above, any team can be the unit leader in V4. What we might be better talking about here is breaking up the enemy formation into parts that are too dispersed. Breaking up, in addition to a flat out reduction of strength, can have a negative psychological impact. Quite simply the unit is losing its cohesion. In any book, that is a bad thing!

Gamey or not, deliberate or accidental, it's going to happen on occasion. Might it start happing naturally about the same point a unit is getting around the 50% mark? I can't say, it did not happen to the two ARPs I mentioned earlier, but that was one game. I think its something to watch out for as we dip our toes into V4.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:54 am
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 817
Given the way mission tactics now works, the chance your leader, who is generally near the center, is hit is a little higher, but at least in Viet Nam, that's the way it worked out anyway. I've not seen data on ww2 and officer casualties.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:14 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:01 pm
Posts: 1652
On the table top we know everything and where everything is and who everybody is. This rule just exacerbates this problem which in any "good" game system god's eye view gamey tactics should be minimized. It will lead to bizarre player behavior instead of good tactics. This is just a pet peeve of mine.

BUT why are we even talking about this? You have to find a way to end the game with this weaksauce morale system.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:07 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Well either you take a great risk and try to secure an objective from an enemy that cant be disbanded or you follow the easy path of obliterating the enemy with superior firepower.

Certainly V4 is a game of choices... but its pretty obvious which is the most direct route to victory.

Fortunetly people are trying v4 ussing unchanged v3 lists so they only value the new «refreshing» game mechanics... the moment people start exploiting the obvious loopholes in those game mechanics they will start judging the V4 for its own merits.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:20 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 324
Lots of negativity here and I have to say based on play so far, I'm just not seeing the concerns on the table in reality. In a tournament setting, people will find the right ways to break the system - they certainly did in v3 as well. However, from actual play it is fun, exciting and plays faster than v3. I have only played converted LW so far though, so that's what my experience is based on.

I'm also confused about how the game would be lacking fun for you compared to v3, Soviet Pride. Perhaps it depends on what your fun is based on? You seem very concerned about balance issues - if a game needs to be perfectly balanced (or at least appear so) for you to feel it's fun that would make sense. Given they changed no point costs in the conversion, I'm sure it's not perfectly balanced. However, it may not be much worse balanced than v3 given that the conversion did at the same time address some v3 balance concerns.

_________________
Image


Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:48 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Well, whatever balance issues where adress in the adaptation... it has been throw away by utterly broken units such as calliopes or tip3m sturmoviks... have you tried them in your test games? Anyway what balance can there be when you change decisevely the core mechanics of a game an not the point cost of units.

Regarding the fun factor I find the gimmicks of v4 such as movement orders and mistaken target to be basically a micromanagement waste of time. Furthermore movement is now completelly arcade, with nobody risking nothing when entering rough terrain or crossing open terrain at top speed. Also in V3 I have great success using template weapons as support for the assault troops, now that artillery has multiply its effectivity by four or by six its clear that they are going to be the prime killer (since is cheap and can be spam with ease) making actual manouvre and assaults irrelevant (except as a mop up element).

Thats not my type of gamming... neither is deploying 15 or 20 platoons ussing the proper 100 points multiformations of the mw v4 books. Off course if you and your oponent agree beforehand what exactly to play without exploiting the actual game loopholes I suppose you could have «fun» but thats true of any game, even those fan made, I expect more of the fourth interaction of a highly succesfull comercial wargame.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:38 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:54 pm
Posts: 95
Soviet Pride wrote:
Well, whatever balance issues where adress in the adaptation... it has been throw away by utterly broken units such as calliopes or tip3m sturmoviks... have you tried them in your test games? Anyway what balance can there be when you change decisevely the core mechanics of a game an not the point cost of units.

Regarding the fun factor I find the gimmicks of v4 such as movement orders and mistaken target to be basically a micromanagement waste of time. Furthermore movement is now completelly arcade, with nobody risking nothing when entering rough terrain or crossing open terrain at top speed. Also in V3 I have great success using template weapons as support for the assault troops, now that artillery has multiply its effectivity by four or by six its clear that they are going to be the prime killer (since is cheap and can be spam with ease) making actual manouvre and assaults irrelevant (except as a mop up element).

Thats not my type of gamming... neither is deploying 15 or 20 platoons ussing the proper 100 points multiformations of the mw v4 books. Off course if you and your oponent agree beforehand what exactly to play without exploiting the actual game loopholes I suppose you could have «fun» but thats true of any game, even those fan made, I expect more of the fourth interaction of a highly succesfull comercial wargame.


There are a few weapon systems that will go from rarely used to must haves.

One I stumbled on while looking over my Canadian MG lists was the UC/Piat rockets. for 100 points you get 3 vet rocket launchers with HT movement with range 24, AT 1 FP4+

Then there are the 6 Vet pak40 arty that are still Paks, but are now also AT 1 FP4+ in bombardments all for the low low price of 295 points. Plop them down to defend your objective and when there are not tanks in LOS just bombard away on targets out of site!!!

HS 129b3, 115 points for AT15 cannons that hit on 4+ with FP3+ on a flying tank
OR
Just take Rudel, hits on 2+ FP3+ AT11 cannons on a plane that can never die for 175 points

I am sure there will be more but that's starting to look scary.

What bugs me is how much the British seem to get nerffed with the V4 changes. Heck they gutted the Typhoon and you cant even use it for anti air anymore :(


Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:31 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Rocket armed planes and heavy artillery proved to be useless weapon systems in WWII... thats why they were phased out after the conflict ended and modern armies rellied more and more on light antitank guns and light artillery units as their prime support weapons. ;)


Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:04 pm
Profile
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 2:45 am
Posts: 174
Location: Danbury, CT
Soviet Pride wrote:
Rocket armed planes and heavy artillery proved to be useless weapon systems in WWII... thats why they were phased out after the conflict ended and modern armies rellied more and more on light antitank guns and light artillery units as their prime support weapons. ;)


That's well and good from a historical perspective, but what tools do Brits have in their tool box to deal with heavy German tanks?

Cromwells and fast tanks? - Tactical speed is now nerfed, and if I use speed, I can't shoot, giving any German player who knows their threat ranges to adjust and manuever out of my way.

Piats? I get to take one of them. No combat attachments. (unless I'm airborne) and I get a +1 to hit in an assault. AT 10 on side 8 is a much worse proposition than German fausts hitting on at12 on side 4.

Heavy Artillery? nerfed, and I generally like that change. But it still limits my options

Planes? Nope. As just mentioned, my tank busters don't do much to bust tanks now. ( I need to play test with these more)

That leaves AT Guns. my 6pdrs got better...but they still can't pen a panther or tiger from the front. I guess its 17pdrs for me.

Going from 5 tools to 1 isn't the best. I still overall like the changes, even if that may put me in the minority, but the Brits are going to have some tough going until I learn some new tricks.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:37 pm
Profile WWW
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4119
Location: Fortress Knox
Soviet Pride wrote:
Rocket armed planes and heavy artillery proved to be useless weapon systems in WWII... thats why they were phased out after the conflict ended and modern armies rellied more and more on light antitank guns and light artillery units as their prime support weapons. ;)


Rockets and heavy artillery were, and still are, very effective in the right role against the right targets. Historically tanks not normally being high on that list.


Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:35 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:22 pm
Posts: 904
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
Mameluke wrote:

Sure, that makes sense for a platoon level game, but for a company level game?

Can you show me the unit leader here?



Image

I found 3.

The vast majority of the troops depicted in the landing were from the 29th Infantry Division; it was a National Guard division and D-Day was its first taste of combat. The weapon issue would have been much more in line with TO&E than units who have been in combat before, so shoot anyone with a Thompson: it should be Platoon Sergeant and higher.

_________________
Make haste to reassure us that you love and support us as we love and support you, for if we find that we have left our bones to bleach in these sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions

Image


Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:20 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:08 am
Posts: 242
Captainecho wrote:
That's well and good from a historical perspective, but what tools do Brits have in their tool box to deal with heavy German tanks?

Cromwells and fast tanks? - Tactical speed is now nerfed, and if I use speed, I can't shoot, giving any German player who knows their threat ranges to adjust and manuever out of my way.

Piats? I get to take one of them. No combat attachments. (unless I'm airborne) and I get a +1 to hit in an assault. AT 10 on side 8 is a much worse proposition than German fausts hitting on at12 on side 4.

Heavy Artillery? nerfed, and I generally like that change. But it still limits my options

Planes? Nope. As just mentioned, my tank busters don't do much to bust tanks now. ( I need to play test with these more)

That leaves AT Guns. my 6pdrs got better...but they still can't pen a panther or tiger from the front. I guess its 17pdrs for me.

Going from 5 tools to 1 isn't the best. I still overall like the changes, even if that may put me in the minority, but the Brits are going to have some tough going until I learn some new tricks.


The first tool in fighting German Heavies is they are expensive and so there aren't many.

The second and new tool is the morale rule. With the need to have multiple platoons to fight almost any mission it means when taking a German tank list that has heavies you have small platoons. My Panzer IV/70 list (ok they aren't heavies as such but at 150pts each they certainly aren't mediums) relies alot on 2 tank platoons (3 tank platoons mean less platoons) which worked well in v.3 as you have to kill them all, now it's bail one and they just might run. This goes for any heavy platoon, they are much easier to make flee.

On the weapons front. All nations have mostly lost artillery killing TA2 tanks, planes are weaker also (I don't have an AT5 Stuka anymore to kill tanks), most infantry has poor tank assault. So as you point out you need to take bigger AT guns. If that means we see more 17pdrs or even a bigger variety that's fine by me.

The more I look at this and read other people's comments and observations it reinforces the fact that lists can't be as one-dimensional as they could before and 'extra' unit types need to be considered.

Artillery doesn't work against everything anymore.
Planes don't work against everything anymore (certainly not those allied ones with different weapons)
Infantry aren't as strong
Tanks are best defeated using other tanks or ATGs
Guns don't die as easily anymore when they shoot.
and so on.

We must adjust and rethink how we fought battles, I might even win a few more until everyone else works out what is good.

p.s. I wonder if armoured trains are useful now.

_________________
Image


Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:24 am
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:50 am
Posts: 267
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Captainecho wrote:
Soviet Pride wrote:
Rocket armed planes and heavy artillery proved to be useless weapon systems in WWII... thats why they were phased out after the conflict ended and modern armies rellied more and more on light antitank guns and light artillery units as their prime support weapons. ;)


That's well and good from a historical perspective, but what tools do Brits have in their tool box to deal with heavy German tanks?

Cromwells and fast tanks? - Tactical speed is now nerfed, and if I use speed, I can't shoot, giving any German player who knows their threat ranges to adjust and manuever out of my way.

Piats? I get to take one of them. No combat attachments. (unless I'm airborne) and I get a +1 to hit in an assault. AT 10 on side 8 is a much worse proposition than German fausts hitting on at12 on side 4.

Heavy Artillery? nerfed, and I generally like that change. But it still limits my options

Planes? Nope. As just mentioned, my tank busters don't do much to bust tanks now. ( I need to play test with these more)

That leaves AT Guns. my 6pdrs got better...but they still can't pen a panther or tiger from the front. I guess its 17pdrs for me.

Going from 5 tools to 1 isn't the best. I still overall like the changes, even if that may put me in the minority, but the Brits are going to have some tough going until I learn some new tricks.


I think heavy artillery was way more effective against tank formations than BF gives them credit for. I remember volunteering when I was younger with a British vet from the war in Europe, I asked him how they dealt with German heavy tanks, he said they'd pull back and let the artillery do the work.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:55 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2245
Location: Oak Hill, VA
I don't know how many tanks that artillery actually destroyed, but if you read the accounts, you will see that concentrated artillery on enemy tank formations drove them back and away (broke up the attack). I am not sure how one would model that in FoW. Not sure v4 models artillery right either.

We would start playing, I would call in my division-level artillery, and you would pick up your army and put it back in the bag. That's not a game, so some concessions need to be made.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:52 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:01 pm
Posts: 1652
The answer is, when you repeat bombardments the AT should go up by 1. Nobody stays under a bombardment in a tank unless they have to. The longer you stay in the impact area the greater your chances for damage.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:00 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4119
Location: Fortress Knox
That's a fair suggestion Eric. That would compel tanks to react more historically.

I don't have immediate access to it but I do seem recall some NTC data about it taking something like well over a 1000 rounds of conventional (not DPICM, Copperhead, etc) artillery to get an expected kill on one tank. That being said nobody likes being under bombardment, not even us tankers. The usual TTP when tanks are being hit by artillery is a "react to indirect fire drill"...which simply was to move out of the impact area! That unfortunately did not apply to when you were on the defense in two-tier fighting positions. The waves of T-80s coming up right behind that barrage tended to make you want to tough out the barrage in your BPs.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:11 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 324
The artillery changes overall make v4 more historical compared to v3. Whether they create game balance issues between the combined arms will depend on actual play experience. So far my experiences have been good and while I read a lot about v4 problems and many concerns I did share before play, I'm not seeing it on the tabletop so far.

I think the reports of using artillery as the answer for armor formations were more relevant for a longer time scale rather than what is one bombardment turn in the game. Even in the game with re-rolling successful saves on repeat bombardment, you can certainly start bailing some TA2 tanks and destroying TA1 tanks with heavy artillery. Heavy artillery firing direct over open sights is also able to handle most armor fairly well, given proper deployment.

v4 says the answer for tanks is anti-tank guns, other tanks and tank destroyers and infantry assaults when in close quarters. I don't have a problem with that - arty being quite effective in bombardments vs tanks was one of my personal beefs with FOW v3.

_________________
Image


Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:06 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:50 am
Posts: 267
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Headsup, rerolls on repeat bombardments are for infantry and guns only, not tanks. I don't know if the changes were for the game to be more historical. It seems to me that the primary driver was to speed the game up and encourage more Rock, Paper, Scissors type gameplay.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:49 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Mark wrote:
We would start playing, I would call in my division-level artillery, and you would pick up your army and put it back in the bag. That's not a game, so some concessions need to be made.


Thats is how V4 is actually ment to be played, spam 5 or 6 cheap artillery templates and wait until the enemy is subdue... most tactical problems in V4 can be sholve by the simple accumulation of artillery firepower.

That tanks can now more or less ignore enemy artillery dosent compensate this.

Its hard for me to understand why some people are calling "historical" a game solution that makes impossible many actual historical outcomes (it was artillery which stopped the panzer counterattack in Mortain, and it was aircraft armed with bombs and rockets which interdicted enemy tank division movements) and whose main effect in the game is to make more feasible that tanks manouvre touching fender to fender.

That a "tank hunter" plane like the Typhoon is useless in its intended role is not historical, is a game design flaw product of a rushed adaptation of EW/LW books.


Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:11 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 324
It seems to me that we are mixing operational examples with tactical examples. The effect of certain weapons on an operational level was different from their effect on the tactical battlefield in the time scale of a FOW battle. I see a lot of tactical accounts of artillery disrupting tank attacks or disabling a few tanks (i.e. bailed out) which is still quite possible against the vast majority of TA1 tanks. I don't see many tactical accounts of non-direct fire artillery guns taking out tanks with bombardments. Similarly with allied fighter bombers. They were great at interdiction and destroying all kinds of vehicles, but statistically they were not as great at destroying fully armored tanks. But a tank battalion or regiment has a hard time moving when its entire line of supply and all its support vehicles are destroyed as well.

I guess some of this may also depend on what you think each turn represents time-wise, but my assumption has always been that we're looking at 5-10 minutes per turn at most and probably more like just a few minutes. Given the non-linear ground scale though, I suppose it could be seen as more than that.

_________________
Image


Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

36,256,505 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y