Zug um Zug – Frankreich Zug um Zug – Frankreich

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 - English » Relive the early hours of World War II, far in the east with Memoir ’44: The Battles of Khalkhin-Gol
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Zalamence
Senior Member
Mayor

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 181
Registriert:
June 2010
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Fri, 07 July 2017 14:41
Jeronimon wrote on Thu, 06 July 2017 21:29

I would argue the Armored car is not an "armor unit" for this purpose.

The card (Troops 31 Armored Car) states: " Treat as Armor to order and in combat"

Then it states: "Move 0-4 hexes and Battle"


The "Treat as Armor" infers it is not armor.


On the other hand, the rulebook (pages 4 and 5) says for both tankettes and ACs "A [Te-Ke/Armored Car] unit is treated like armor for all purposes."
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Fri, 07 July 2017 16:32
Major Duncan wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 08:17

… It would just have been clearer if they had included the armoured cars in the special rule exclusion.

Play testers and proof readers try to catch as much as they can, but there is always a lot to test and read when you do this. Especially when it's something that everyone does instinctively as it is intended by design.
(everyone I know and everyone who has reported about it in answer to your question, even you yourself, has played it that AC can move 4 in these scenarios)

Maybe the AC were initially treated as infantry in the first design, but during play test this was changed so it was treated as armour. And then they overlooked this change in the final version of the rulebook/scenario rules.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Fri, 07 July 2017 18:13
Zalamence wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 13:41

Jeronimon wrote on Thu, 06 July 2017 21:29

I would argue the Armored car is not an "armor unit" for this purpose.

The card (Troops 31 Armored Car) states: " Treat as Armor to order and in combat"

Then it states: "Move 0-4 hexes and Battle"


The "Treat as Armor" infers it is not armor.


On the other hand, the rulebook (pages 4 and 5) says for both tankettes and ACs "A [Te-Ke/Armored Car] unit is treated like armor for all purposes."


It actually only says that for the tankettes, although I don't think there is any doubt that Armoured cars are armoured units. And what is very telling is that on page 4 of the rules it says:
"An ordered Te-Ke unit may move up to 3 hexes normally. In the Khalkhin-Gol campaign other armor units are limited to 2 hexes."

Armoured cars are other armoured units.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Fri, 07 July 2017 18:15
Quit2 wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 15:32

Major Duncan wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 08:17

… It would just have been clearer if they had included the armoured cars in the special rule exclusion.

Play testers and proof readers try to catch as much as they can, but there is always a lot to test and read when you do this. Especially when it's something that everyone does instinctively as it is intended by design.
(everyone I know and everyone who has reported about it in answer to your question, even you yourself, has played it that AC can move 4 in these scenarios)

Maybe the AC were initially treated as infantry in the first design, but during play test this was changed so it was treated as armour. And then they overlooked this change in the final version of the rulebook/scenario rules.


You could well be right. All the more reason why this needs an official clarification.
      
Zalamence
Senior Member
Mayor

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 181
Registriert:
June 2010
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Sat, 08 July 2017 10:17
Major Duncan wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 19:13

Zalamence wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 13:41

Jeronimon wrote on Thu, 06 July 2017 21:29

I would argue the Armored car is not an "armor unit" for this purpose.

The card (Troops 31 Armored Car) states: " Treat as Armor to order and in combat"

Then it states: "Move 0-4 hexes and Battle"


The "Treat as Armor" infers it is not armor.


On the other hand, the rulebook (pages 4 and 5) says for both tankettes and ACs "A [Te-Ke/Armored Car] unit is treated like armor for all purposes."


It actually only says that for the tankettes, although I don't think there is any doubt that Armoured cars are armoured units.


P.5, second paragraph, last sentence. "A Armored Car unit is treated like armor for all purposes." The summary cards are written differently.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Sat, 08 July 2017 10:37
Zalamence wrote on Sat, 08 July 2017 09:17


P.5, second paragraph, last sentence. "A Armored Car unit is treated like armor for all purposes." The summary cards are written differently.


Your right! I thought the italics were just a general intro. And that too is a little incorrect as they aren't treated as an armoured unit for taking hits. But that hit taking is the only noted exception. In all other respects it is to be treated as an armoured unit, and that inludes movement and special rules concerning armour.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Sat, 08 July 2017 13:19
Major Duncan wrote on Fri, 07 July 2017 02:17

Thanks TC.

I think what you have seen confirms that they don't intend armoured cars to be caught by the special rule, which would have been daft. It would just have been clearer if they had included the armoured cars in the special rule exclusion.


I agree on that.

It would have been better to lay out the tankettes and armored car sections listing their abilities.

Then the special 2 move armor rule could have been presented separately and in a clearer fashion.

There is a thread for the official FAQ to see what rules questions are FAQ worthy. I have posted there:

https://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?goto=360847#msg_360847

If anyone thinks is that post could be worded better, let me know and I can edit it.

[Aktualisiert am: Sat, 08 July 2017 13:32]

      
ArchNME
Member
Iron tank

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 71
Registriert:
July 2014
Re:Relive the early hours of World War II, far in the east with Memoir ’44: The Battles of Khalkhin- Sat, 08 July 2017 14:01
Clexton27 wrote on Thu, 06 July 2017 13:15

I agree with John. I think you are trying to create a nuance where none exists. Yes, I agree that sometimes the rules seem contradictory, but each new unit has a defined movement in its description. The exception is made for Armour units. The only Armour units without defined rules are the standard units, and hence this is where the 0-2 rule for movement comes into play. This is simply a variant of the 0-3 movement in normal play for this Expansion.


I also agree with how it seems we are,for the most part, in agreement on how we play the armored cars. And we would definitely prefer an FAQ ruling to make this official. What a great new set of battlemaps!!!

Don
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Sat, 08 July 2017 15:03
tank commander wrote on Sat, 08 July 2017 12:19


If anyone thinks is that post could be worded better, let me know and I can edit it.



This could be amended:
"There is also a special rule which limits armor units in the Khalin-Gol scenarios to only being able to move 1-2 hexes instead of the normal 1-3 hexes."

to
"There is also a special rule which limits armor units in the Khalin-Gol scenarios to only being able to move 1-2 hexes."

The special rule only mentions armour; it doesn't specify what that armor could originally move. If it had said armor that can move 3 hexes is limited to 2, then we wouldn't have had this problem.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Sat, 08 July 2017 17:19
Major Duncan wrote on Sat, 08 July 2017 09:03

tank commander wrote on Sat, 08 July 2017 12:19


If anyone thinks is that post could be worded better, let me know and I can edit it.



This could be amended:
"There is also a special rule which limits armor units in the Khalin-Gol scenarios to only being able to move 1-2 hexes instead of the normal 1-3 hexes."

to
"There is also a special rule which limits armor units in the Khalin-Gol scenarios to only being able to move 1-2 hexes."

The special rule only mentions armour; it doesn't specify what that armor could originally move. If it had said armor that can move 3 hexes is limited to 2, then we wouldn't have had this problem.


Point taken and that change will be made.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 11 July 2017 12:14
Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.

[Aktualisiert am: Tue, 11 July 2017 12:14]

      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3373
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 11 July 2017 14:08
tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 06:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.


I am guessing that they also meant the Flamethrower Tank???
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 11 July 2017 14:20
Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 08:08

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 06:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.


I am guessing that they also meant the Flamethrower Tank???



If you refer back to the special rule it limits other armor units to 2 hexes of movement. So that would include flame tanks.


[Aktualisiert am: Tue, 11 July 2017 14:25]

      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3373
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 11 July 2017 15:51
tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 08:20

Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 08:08

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 06:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.


I am guessing that they also meant the Flamethrower Tank???



If you refer back to the special rule it limits other armor units to 2 hexes of movement. So that would include flame tanks.




Yes, John I agree with you 100%. However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 11 July 2017 17:43
Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 09:51

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 08:20

Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 08:08

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 06:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.


I am guessing that they also meant the Flamethrower Tank???



If you refer back to the special rule it limits other armor units to 2 hexes of movement. So that would include flame tanks.




Yes, John I agree with you 100%. However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.


Yes, that is what I figured you were doing. I am sure that someone out there may pick up that "loose end" and run with it.

We may have to ban him to Siberia. lol

[Aktualisiert am: Tue, 11 July 2017 17:44]

      
ArchNME
Member
Iron tank

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 71
Registriert:
July 2014
Re:Relive the early hours of World War II, far in the east with Memoir ’44: The Battles of Khalkhin- Tue, 11 July 2017 20:48
Clexton27 wrote on Thu, 06 July 2017 13:15

I agree with John..... Yes, I agree that sometimes the rules seem contradictory,..... This is simply a variant of the 0-3 movement in normal play for this Expansion.


Very Happy So glad we have got this all pinned down, at last.

Next question? Did the Maps sell well enough for us to look forward to more Goodies???

Don


      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 11:36
tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 11:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.



Thanks TC. It is what we all thought must be true, but it is good to have it officially confirmed.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 11:45
Major Duncan wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 05:36

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 11:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.



Thanks TC. It is what we all thought must be true, but it is good to have it officially confirmed.



Your welcome.

I am glad DOW still answers questions for Mem '44.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 13:41
Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017

However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.


Some people can be so picky! Grin

In these scenarios the FT tanks may as well be regular tanks. I have now played all the nine scenarios, all 2 to 4 times, and I don't think I ever used their special ability once. It can only be used against woods, and there isn't much of that.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 15:43
Major Duncan wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 07:41

Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017

However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.


Some people can be so picky! Grin

In these scenarios the FT tanks may as well be regular tanks. I have now played all the nine scenarios, all 2 to 4 times, and I don't think I ever used their special ability once. It can only be used against woods, and there isn't much of that.


But they also have the other special rule that if they cause a hit then the targeted unit cannot ignore any flags rolled in a given attack.

I assume that this rule overrides sandbags and the Imperial Japanese Army rule.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 15:59
tank commander wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 15:43

Major Duncan wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 07:41

Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017

However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.


Some people can be so picky! Grin

In these scenarios the FT tanks may as well be regular tanks. I have now played all the nine scenarios, all 2 to 4 times, and I don't think I ever used their special ability once. It can only be used against woods, and there isn't much of that.


But they also have the other special rule that if they cause a hit then the targeted unit cannot ignore any flags rolled in a given attack.

I assume that this rule overrides sandbags and the Imperial Japanese Army rule.

Shocked
That special rule is new, isn't it?
Does it apply to this campaign / these scenarios alone, or is it a new rule to apply for all existing flame thrower tank scenarios?
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 17:38
Quit2 wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 14:59

tank commander wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 15:43

Major Duncan wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 07:41


In these scenarios the FT tanks may as well be regular tanks. I have now played all the nine scenarios, all 2 to 4 times, and I don't think I ever used their special ability once. It can only be used against woods, and there isn't much of that.


But they also have the other special rule that if they cause a hit then the targeted unit cannot ignore any flags rolled in a given attack.

I assume that this rule overrides sandbags and the Imperial Japanese Army rule.

Shocked
That special rule is new, isn't it?
Does it apply to this campaign / these scenarios alone, or is it a new rule to apply for all existing flame thrower tank scenarios?


Doh! I missed that. I just played the standard rule. I would assume that as a Special Rule it would negate sandbags and IJA Rules.

As it is listed as a Special Rule in the KG rules, I would say it only applies to these scenarios.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 18 July 2017 18:34
Quit2 wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 09:59

tank commander wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 15:43

Major Duncan wrote on Tue, 18 July 2017 07:41

Clexton27 wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017

However, someone will nuance the word "regular" to only refer to tanks without any special abilities, so I am just playing the Devil's Advocate in my question. Thanks for getting this hopefully settled.


Some people can be so picky! Grin

In these scenarios the FT tanks may as well be regular tanks. I have now played all the nine scenarios, all 2 to 4 times, and I don't think I ever used their special ability once. It can only be used against woods, and there isn't much of that.


But they also have the other special rule that if they cause a hit then the targeted unit cannot ignore any flags rolled in a given attack.

I assume that this rule overrides sandbags and the Imperial Japanese Army rule.

Shocked
That special rule is new, isn't it?
Does it apply to this campaign / these scenarios alone, or is it a new rule to apply for all existing flame thrower tank scenarios?


It did not state that the rule applied outside the KG scenarios, so it would not be an official change to other scenarios with flame tanks
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Tanks or Tankettes in "Tightening the Noose"? Wed, 19 July 2017 17:49
I came across this Q&A earlier in this thread:
"Q. On the Tightening the Noose Breakthrough scenario Tankettes are named in the rules but not printed on the map. Are their Tankettes in this scenario or is this just a misprint?
A. We need to review a few things and look back at what was intended for this scenario, but for now you can assume it was a copy/paste error and play without the Tankettes."

The Japanese withdrew all their tanks, consisting of the 3rd and 4th tank regiments, after their failed July offensive. They therefore had no tanks at this time. I think both tank units should be Tankettes.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Historical Balance? Mon, 24 July 2017 15:05
How have people found the balance of these scenarios to be?

Personally I have found the balance to be fairly good, but with the edge going to the Japanese.

Historically the Soviets won the campaign quite handsomely. I was wondering whether ditching the commissar rules might give the Soviets their historical edge. They did after all have their top man Zhukov in charge.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1869
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:Historical Balance? Mon, 24 July 2017 16:50
We have played the campaign twice (from each side) and i agree with you. There s balance but the japanese tend to have a slight edge.

Both campaigns ended with the Jaoanese gaining ten more medals than the Russians (42 -32 and 45-35)
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2593
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Historical Balance? Mon, 24 July 2017 20:13
Major Duncan wrote on Mon, 24 July 2017 09:05

How have people found the balance of these scenarios to be?

Personally I have found the balance to be fairly good, but with the edge going to the Japanese.

Historically the Soviets won the campaign quite handsomely. I was wondering whether ditching the commissar rules might give the Soviets their historical edge. They did after all have their top man Zhukov in charge.


That certainly would be an interesting variant. You might try it without that rule. If you do, please post the results.
      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3373
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Historical Balance? Mon, 24 July 2017 22:24
Jeronimon wrote on Mon, 24 July 2017 10:50

We have played the campaign twice (from each side) and i agree with you. There s balance but the japanese tend to have a slight edge.

Both campaigns ended with the Jaoanese gaining ten more medals than the Russians (42 -32 and 45-35)


Played Campaign from both sides as well, Split decision.
Japan 43 - Russia 41 (2 medal difference)
Russia 45 - Japan 35 (10 medal difference)

Played scenario Tightening the Noose with regular Japanese Armor units

[Aktualisiert am: Mon, 24 July 2017 22:25]

      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Historical Balance? Mon, 24 July 2017 22:34
Clexton27 wrote on Mon, 24 July 2017 21:24

Played scenario Tightening the Noose with regular Japanese Armor units


Yes I played that scenario with regular Japanese tank units, and in two of those games those 2 units played real havock with the Soviets, often when down to just 1 figure. If they had been tankettes it could have made a real difference. I would love to know which type were actually intended?
      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1584
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Tue, 25 July 2017 04:17
tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 05:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.



I had no problem understanding this. This special armor rule only to all armor that isn't armored cars or tankettes. I thought it was worded fine the way it was. If it applied to AC's or TK's, their rules would have shown their movement accordingly.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Winter Wars Expansion Wed, 26 July 2017 17:21
50th wrote on Tue, 25 July 2017 03:17

tank commander wrote on Tue, 11 July 2017 05:14

Drumroll please.....

I got an answer from DOW on this question and here it is:

The Armored Cars are not concerned by this special rules, only the "regular" tank.



I had no problem understanding this. This special armor rule only to all armor that isn't armored cars or tankettes. I thought it was worded fine the way it was. If it applied to AC's or TK's, their rules would have shown their movement accordingly.



This has already been revealed?
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Historical Balance? Thu, 27 July 2017 09:08
Jeronimon wrote on Mon, 24 July 2017 16:50

We have played the campaign twice (from each side) and i agree with you. There s balance but the japanese tend to have a slight edge.

Both campaigns ended with the Jaoanese gaining ten more medals than the Russians (42 -32 and 45-35)


I can confirm. I also recorded a japanese victory:
48 - 38
Japanese only lost the 5th scenario 5-7 (and the overlord played 1vs1: 15-18)
They won all the others, but most of them only narrowly. Some of them came down to a failed die roll on the last Allied turn.

Khalkin Ghol
Axis - Allies
5 - 4 Sparks
5 - 3 Bridge
10 - 8 Heights
5 - 4 Infiltration
5 - 7 River Shelling
5 - 4 the Dumps
5 - 2 Soviet Outpost
(15 - 18) Encirclement
8 - 6 the Noose

48 - 38 total
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 161
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Historical Balance? Thu, 27 July 2017 19:52
Quit2 wrote on Thu, 27 July 2017 08:08

I can confirm. I also recorded a japanese victory:
48 - 38


Just finished the campaign with my brother and we had a similar experience, although the overall campaign score was closer:

Khalkhin-Gol Spark - Japanese won 5:3
Kawatama Bridge - Japanese won 5:4
Bain Tsagen Heights - Soviets won 10:7
Soviet Infiltration - Japanese won 5:2
Halha River Shelling - Japanese won 7:5
Down in the Dumps - Soviets won 5:4
Attack on the Soviet outpost - Japanese won 5:4
Khalkhin Gol Encirclement - Japanese won 18:16
Tightening the Noose - Soviets won 8:6

Japanese win 44:41 for a narrow marginal victory.

This bears out my solo experience that the game is close, but slighly favours the Japanese.
      
Seiten (5): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5 ]     
Vorheriges Thema:Revised Air Pack?
Nächstes Thema:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT)
Gehen Sie zum Forum: