Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Results 201 to 208 of 208

Thread: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

  1. #201

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    That doesn't answer my question. Are you arguing here to be against me? Or are you here to convey what you think is right?
    Go back and reread the thread. I wasn't even answering to you when I mentioned CAATSA act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Oh, so you're not really speaking from a place of knowledge but assumption. Noted.
    I know that it is said that whatever sanctions would be based on CAATSA. I never claimed knowledge of the ins and outs of the act, neither I'm interested to learn more about it at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    That's what the part where "refer to" would imply as I said. A treaty can either name a landmass or refer to it. So, now, tell us which island Kardak islets are dependent on? Kalymnos? It's quite far away from the islets. A simple look at the map would show that they're not really dependent on that island. The islets are closer to the Turkish coastline. So, what mythical island do Kardak islets dependent on?
    I really don't know if I should reply since obviously you don't read what I write. We've been over that before in another thread
    A comprehensive list is at this Italian document (Appendice III at the last 4-5 pages)
    https://ebiblio.istat.it/digibib/cen...ttimizzato.pdf
    This is the "short version" found in page 66 of the pdf file, with the islands involved in the census.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	29 Isole.PNG 
Views:	11 
Size:	252.0 KB 
ID:	352775

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Really? This is quite fundamental. The islands in question are about 1nm from the Turkish coastline. They were already given to Turkey by the Treaty of Lausanne.
    Again, we've been through this again. Italy was occupying the islands of southeastern Aegean since 1912. The 1923 Lausanne treaty said that Turkey will keep the islands in less than 3nm distance from the Anatolian coast but also that Italy will keep the islands that was occupying. So, a treaty was made to hand over to Turkey the islands that Italy was occupying but were at a distance less than 3nm from the coast.
    As it is said in the treaty
    Being desirous of maintaining and strengthening still further the relations of sincere friendshipwhich happily exist between them, have decided to settle by a direct agreement the dispute which
    has arisen between Italy and Turkey concerning the sovereignty over the islets situated between
    the Anatolian coast and the island of Castellorizo and also over the island of Kara-Ada, and to
    delimit the territorial waters surrounding the said islets, the ownership of which has given
    rise to a dispute between them in consequence of the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty
    of Lausanne relevant thereto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Now you're jumping back to Kardak. A post ago you were talking about two islets off the coast of the coast of Yeşilköy, near Kaş. You even provided a Google map location link to it. I pointed out to you that the protocol doesn't mention the islets you talked about. You claimed that the islets were given to Turkey by the protocol. Yet, now you talk about a completely different location.
    I talked about Tsouka (Topan) that is in the area of Imia. You said that Tsouka (Topan) islet was the Catal islet named in the 1932 Treaty and I showed you that it is not. Catal (or Volo) of the 1932 treaty is at the area of Castellorizo while Topan is in the area of Imia. There are a few Catal islands around, don't get confused. I also showed a map of Tsouka (or Zucca in Italian) but you may missed the edit of the post.

  2. #202
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    20,905

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    @kyrtgr
    Why bothering with Setech.His point of view is clear for many posts.
    "Turkey is the new bully and what ever evidences you bring, the right is the right of the powerfull one that in this case is Turkey".
    No need to search for evidences about borders or anything else. You can not chnage his opinion about that the same way no one changed Hitler's opinion about the demolition of Chechoslovakia!
    That is so simple.
    The right is always the right of the strang one.
    The rest is only to post endless posts, load TWC's data base with no meaning or hope to come to common logic.
    You post an evidence (you say is white) he denies and says "i see it black"...The same old story for those that can not accept right from wrong because their interests is in the side of the wrong.
    See my last part of sig. Turkey declaired war to Germany 8 hours before Germany officialy surrendered and claimed Dodecanisa as reward!!!
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  3. #203

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Go back and reread the thread. I wasn't even answering to you when I mentioned CAATSA act.
    Yes, you were not answering to me, but Tuerek, which is not ioannis76 either.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    I really don't know if I should reply since obviously you don't read what I write. We've been over that before in another thread
    A comprehensive list is at this Italian document (Appendice III at the last 4-5 pages)
    https://ebiblio.istat.it/digibib/cen...ttimizzato.pdf
    This is the "short version" found in page 66 of the pdf file, with the islands involved in the census.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	29 Isole.PNG 
Views:	11 
Size:	252.0 KB 
ID:	352775
    No, not obviously. Please don't make stuff up about what I do. It's the first time I see this.

    This document you present merely gives the Italian perspective. If they consider a bunch of islets far far away from Kalymnos as a dependency, good for them. Though the document separates Kalymnos and Kalolimnos as different archipelago. The fact that you could not tell me by yourself what island Kardak islets were dependent on is telling enough. By the way, the document includes landmasses that were given to Turkey by name before the date of the document, so I don't know much about the accuracy of the document.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Again, we've been through this again. Italy was occupying the islands of southeastern Aegean since 1912. The 1923 Lausanne treaty said that Turkey will keep the islands in less than 3nm distance from the Anatolian coast but also that Italy will keep the islands that was occupying. So, a treaty was made to hand over to Turkey the islands that Italy was occupying but were at a distance less than 3nm from the coast.
    As it is said in the treaty
    Sigh... The islands, and islets dependent on them, is given to Italy under article 12 and 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne. There is no blanket article that says Italy keeps the islands that they occupied. The treaty only gives the islands that are specifically named in the treaty and their dependencies. Kardak islets is too far away from Kalymnos to be one of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    I talked about Tsouka (Topan) that is in the area of Imia. You said that Tsouka (Topan) islet was the Catal islet named in the 1932 Treaty and I showed you that it is not. Catal (or Volo) of the 1932 treaty is at the area of Castellorizo while Topan is in the area of Imia. There are a few Catal islands around, don't get confused. I also showed a map of Tsouka (or Zucca in Italian) but you may missed the edit of the post.
    The Volo you showed near Kastellorizo is not the Çatal island. It's called Yılan island. With the islet next to it, they're called Çatal islands together, plural. The Çatal island is off the coast of Turgutreis in Bodrum. It's within the 3 nm zone. Let's put the naming issue aside. If the sovereignty of the islet in question, the one you showed on the map, is only dependent on the protocol, then sure, Turkey doesn't own it. It's an other gray area, however, it falls within the Turkish part of the median line between Greece and Turkey. Simple enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    @kyrtgr
    Why bothering with Setech.His point of view is clear for many posts.
    "Turkey is the new bully and what ever evidences you bring, the right is the right of the powerfull one that in this case is Turkey".
    No need to search for evidences about borders or anything else. You can not chnage his opinion about that the same way no one changed Hitler's opinion about the demolition of Chechoslovakia!
    That is so simple.
    The right is always the right of the strang one.
    The rest is only to post endless posts, load TWC's data base with no meaning or hope to come to common logic.
    You post an evidence (you say is white) he denies and says "i see it black"...The same old story for those that can not accept right from wrong because their interests is in the side of the wrong.
    See my last part of sig. Turkey declaired war to Germany 8 hours before Germany officialy surrendered and claimed Dodecanisa as reward!!!
    You're lying about what I argue. Don't do that. It's an utterly pathetic thing to do, and I'm not even talking about your liking of me to Hitler. If you don't want me to say something is not white, then don't post something that's not white. Simple as that.
    Last edited by Setekh; Yesterday at 10:19 AM.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  4. #204

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Yes, you were not answering to me, but Tuerek, which is not ioannis76 either.
    ioannis76 was not asking a question. And I'm not the forum police to go around correcting anyone that makes a mistake, nor I know everything to do so, nor I'm willing to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    No, not obviously. Please don't make stuff up about what I do. It's the first time I see this.
    It was posted again here:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15522757

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    This document you present merely gives the Italian perspective. If they consider a bunch of islets far far away from Kalymnos as a dependency, good for them. Though the document separates Kalymnos and Kalolimnos as different archipelago.
    It does show it under Italian perspective. But the treaty wording was put like that under the Italians request. They were already occupying the islands that were already administratively divided in a way that all parties knew.
    What does it mean that they are separated in different archipelago? It clearly notes the island they are depended on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The fact that you could not tell me by yourself what island Kardak islets were dependent on is telling enough.
    What exactly is it telling? Was I asked for the specific island Imia were depended on? Obviously I knew since I was aware of the document (and a map posted some time ago with the exact same Italian administrative division). But if I just posted an island name you would, rightfully so, ask for a source. So I posted the source directly and that happened a couple of months ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    By the way, the document includes landmasses that were given to Turkey by name before the date of the document, so I don't know much about the accuracy of the document.
    To what landmasses are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Sigh... The islands, and islets dependent on them, is given to Italy under article 12 and 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne. There is no blanket article that says Italy keeps the islands that they occupied. The treaty only gives the islands that are specifically named in the treaty and their dependencies. Kardak islets is too far away from Kalymnos to be one of them.
    Dependencies are already shown. I may say they are close, you may say they are far. Far or close they are what they are though.

    From article 15
    Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo (see Map No. 2).
    PS. I'd love to see that Map No 2, but it's nowhere to be found online. I'm sure governments have a copy though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The Volo you showed near Kastellorizo is not the Çatal island. It's called Yılan island. With the islet next to it, they're called Çatal islands together, plural. The Çatal island is off the coast of Turgutreis in Bodrum. It's within the 3 nm zone.
    Yes it is Volo (Catal). And so they say here
    http://www.turkishgreek.org/ikili-il...talya-anlasmas
    And it makes sense. In article 6 of the 1932 Treaty it says.
    ...
    From the latter point in a straight line to a point situated three miles south of the island of Volo where it joins the maritime frontier which is not under discussion. The line of demarcation described in the present Article, which has been fixed by the High Contracting Parties with a view to determining the ownership of the islands and islets on either side of that line, joins in an easterly direction at a point situated three miles south of Tugh Burnu, and in a westerly direction at a point situated three miles south of the island of Volo, the general maritime frontier which is not under discussion between Turkey and Italy.
    Now, you put a point 3 miles south of what you say is Volo and tell me how a delimitation of the Castellorizo sea area makes a huge leap over land and ends up in the Bodrum area where there is another Catal island (I warned you not to be confused as there are a few Catal islands around, not every island or rock has a unique name).

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Let's put the naming issue aside. If the sovereignty of the islet in question, the one you showed on the map, is only dependent on the protocol, then sure, Turkey doesn't own it. It's an other gray area, however, it falls within the Turkish part of the median line between Greece and Turkey. Simple enough?
    Again, we've been through that before. There are no grey areas. All islands in the Aegean are accounted for. What was in the 3nm frontier line is Turkeys (plus Imvros, Tenedos, and Rabbit Islands), what's not is Greeces (either by 1923 Lausanne treaty, or by the 1947 peace treaty).

    PS Since you're into these things it will be interesting to you to read the Records of proceedings of the Lausanne treaty and the British Documents on the Origins of the War 1898-1914 (Vol X PART I)

  5. #205

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    ioannis76 was not asking a question. And I'm not the forum police to go around correcting anyone that makes a mistake, nor I know everything to do so, nor I'm willing to.
    Yeah, yeah, nice excuses. You saw someone making a false claim, and only pitched in when it become a subject for the other side of the debate. I got my answer to my question, thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Yup, you posted it in response to someone else.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    It does show it under Italian perspective. But the treaty wording was put like that under the Italians request. They were already occupying the islands that were already administratively divided in a way that all parties knew.
    What does it mean that they are separated in different archipelago? It clearly notes the island they are depended on.
    The treaty wording was put like that under the Italians request? That's a big leap of fate. Many of the islands or islets had no life to be administered to begin with.

    The fact that Kalymnos and Kalolimnos were considered as belonging to different archipelago kinda means that they were seen as different systems of islands. By your logic all islands and islets are a dependent of Athens or Ankara.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    What exactly is it telling? Was I asked for the specific island Imia were depended on? Obviously I knew since I was aware of the document (and a map posted some time ago with the exact same Italian administrative division). But if I just posted an island name you would, rightfully so, ask for a source. So I posted the source directly and that happened a couple of months ago.
    Yes, I exactly asked you to which islands Kardak islets were dependent on. Instead of giving an answer of your own you had to resort to a different document that was commissioned 13 years after the treaty in question. My question was a question of logic and reason. Same as what the treaty likely intended. Otherwise, it would have referenced a table or list like the one you posted from 13 years later.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    To what landmasses are you referring to?
    For example, a great deal of the islands and islets under "ARCÌPELAGO D1CASTELROSSO" were given to Turkey in 1932.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Dependencies are already shown. I may say they are close, you may say they are far. Far or close they are what they are though.
    From article 15
    PS. I'd love to see that Map No 2, but it's nowhere to be found online. I'm sure governments have a copy though.
    The dependencies that you show are about 13 years late. If there was such a list back then it would have been pointed at. "Which are now occupied by Italy" simply refers to the islands that were named. It's not a blanket statement. Making it as such makes the entire article pointless.

    The map likely doesn't help 100% for either Turkey or Greece, hence, neither side is using it. When it comes to the actual legal push, neither side will get 100% of what they desire.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Yes it is Volo (Catal). And so they say here
    http://www.turkishgreek.org/ikili-il...talya-anlasmas
    And it makes sense. In article 6 of the 1932 Treaty it says.

    Now, you put a point 3 miles south of what you say is Volo and tell me how a delimitation of the Castellorizo sea area makes a huge leap over land and ends up in the Bodrum area where there is another Catal island (I warned you not to be confused as there are a few Catal islands around, not every island or rock has a unique name).
    You can't have that and have what I say to be true at the same time. What I say is not false... By the way, you're not quoting the article 6. The article 6 of the treaty is about where the names are taken from. It's from article 5. This is inconsequential at this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    Again, we've been through that before. There are no grey areas. All islands in the Aegean are accounted for. What was in the 3nm frontier line is Turkeys (plus Imvros, Tenedos, and Rabbit Islands), what's not is Greeces (either by 1923 Lausanne treaty, or by the 1947 peace treaty).

    PS Since you're into these things it will be interesting to you to read the Records of proceedings of the Lausanne treaty and the British Documents on the Origins of the War 1898-1914 (Vol X PART I)
    Yet, there are gray areas. The 1932 treaty is a testament to that. If there was none, there was no need for the 1932 treaty.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  6. #206
    Aexodus's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Ulster
    Posts
    1,668

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Yet, there are gray areas. The 1932 treaty is a testament to that. If there was none, there was no need for the 1932 treaty.
    Thats an incredibly vague and projective statement. "There were gray areas here, so there's gray areas everywhere else"

    The treaty you talk of is the one that defined the sovereignty of Kastelorizo and surrounding islets, as shown below. It didn't concern imia, and certainly didn't redefine the 3nm rule for 'undeclared' islets. Imia is beyond this 3nm, and as such Greek sovereign land as any island beyond 3nm was Greek sovereign.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Katsumoto; Today at 05:12 AM. Reason: Please use spoilers for large images
    "So much death! What can men do against such reckless hate?"

  7. #207

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Yeah, yeah, nice excuses. You saw someone making a false claim, and only pitched in when it become a subject for the other side of the debate. I got my answer to my question, thanks.
    Ok, you got me. I'm stalking you and whenever you post I'm on a mission to ruin your day

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Yup, you posted it in response to someone else.
    In a post you quoted part of a couple of posts later. So you do read my posts, but only part of them..

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The treaty wording was put like that under the Italians request? That's a big leap of fate. Many of the islands or islets had no life to be administered to begin with.
    Some were inhabited, some were not, some only part of the year, some were used as pastures, some as safe harbors for fishers. But even barren rocks you can have control on if you control the sea around them. Also, the powers of the time didn't care much of the present usefulness of what they controlled, but the more they controlled the better for them. Kinda like Turkey today...

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The fact that Kalymnos and Kalolimnos were considered as belonging to different archipelago kinda means that they were seen as different systems of islands. By your logic all islands and islets are a dependent of Athens or Ankara.
    I have no idea why they chose to divide them like that. You can notice that there are islands in different archipelago that are closer than with those islands belonging to their own archipelago. But that's besides the point.
    Also, administratively, they were dependent of Rome and today are dependent of Athens to a greater scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Yes, I exactly asked you to which islands Kardak islets were dependent on. Instead of giving an answer of your own you had to resort to a different document that was commissioned 13 years after the treaty in question. My question was a question of logic and reason. Same as what the treaty likely intended. Otherwise, it would have referenced a table or list like the one you posted from 13 years later.
    I'm sorry, but I don't recall the question. Also the document I have and can show are of that date. I'm sure there are earlier ones, but that's what I have. You are free to look around to find one that suits you timeframe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    For example, a great deal of the islands and islets under "ARCÌPELAGO D1CASTELROSSO" were given to Turkey in 1932.
    You will notice that thos islands have a (1) mark beside their name and a footnote corresponding to that mark that they were given to Turkey with the 1932 treaty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The dependencies that you show are about 13 years late. If there was such a list back then it would have been pointed at. "Which are now occupied by Italy" simply refers to the islands that were named. It's not a blanket statement. Making it as such makes the entire article pointless.
    It's not pointless as Italy didn't have sovereignty over the islands she was occupying, as she had them only temporarily with the 1912 Lausanne (Ouchy) treaty. This article made the occupation permanent and official.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The map likely doesn't help 100% for either Turkey or Greece, hence, neither side is using it. When it comes to the actual legal push, neither side will get 100% of what they desire.
    Anyway, I'd love to see it. I come to think that it doesn't exist, although It would be strange for it to be mentioned in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    You can't have that and have what I say to be true at the same time. What I say is not false... By the way, you're not quoting the article 6. The article 6 of the treaty is about where the names are taken from. It's from article 5. This is inconsequential at this point.
    See, I too make mistakes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Yet, there are gray areas. The 1932 treaty is a testament to that. If there was none, there was no need for the 1932 treaty.
    No there are not. The only disputes were settled by the 1932 treaty. With your logic there will always be a gray zone just because there was one before it even after 1000 treaties settling disputes. Come to think of it that's exactly what Turkey wants.

  8. #208

    Default Re: Erdogan-NATO members are not strong enough to stand up to Turkey

    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    In a post you quoted part of a couple of posts later. So you do read my posts, but only part of them..
    Yup, in a post where I quoted the section that was directed at me, leaving out the sections that are directed at others, something most people usually do. So, yes, I take the time to read your posts where it's relevant to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    I have no idea why they chose to divide them like that. You can notice that there are islands in different archipelago that are closer than with those islands belonging to their own archipelago. But that's besides the point.
    Also, administratively, they were dependent of Rome and today are dependent of Athens to a greater scale.
    Probably because Kalolimnos is large enough to be an island, not an islet. Same as Agathonisi. In fact, Agathonisi is larger than some of the islands listed in the treaty (about 14.4 kmsquare) and with no other island within a 10 nm radius. Yet, Greeks want to pass that as an islet that's dependent on some other island. Based on your document, Agathonisi, which Gaidaro in Italian, has its on archipelago.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    I'm sorry, but I don't recall the question. Also the document I have and can show are of that date. I'm sure there are earlier ones, but that's what I have. You are free to look around to find one that suits you timeframe.
    It's supposed to suit your time frame. It was your argument. It's not valid to come up with a document over a decade later to pass it as if it had any meaning in 1923.

    The question from my post #200:
    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    So, what mythical island do Kardak islets dependent on?

    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    You will notice that thos islands have a (1) mark beside their name and a footnote corresponding to that mark that they were given to Turkey with the 1932 treaty.
    Yup, that's why it's strange for them to be in a census document. Think how it would be if Turkey listed all former Ottoman possessions in it's census documents for today.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    It's not pointless as Italy didn't have sovereignty over the islands she was occupying, as she had them only temporarily with the 1912 Lausanne (Ouchy) treaty. This article made the occupation permanent and official.
    That doesn't address what I said.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyrtgr View Post
    No there are not. The only disputes were settled by the 1932 treaty. With your logic there will always be a gray zone just because there was one before it even after 1000 treaties settling disputes. Come to think of it that's exactly what Turkey wants.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •