Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

  1. #21

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Shoebopp that's a really interesting alternative route to re-balancing "pike" unit stats. My main concern when making personal mods is to KEEP the general proportion of numbers across the game roster. Whatever changes I make must not create overpowered or underpowered units relative to all the other factions. For the sarissa users, I've generally opted for a +2 to personal defense scores (the middle value, neither the armor or the shield) for the whole "family" (this includes distant relatives like the North Anatolian Pikemen and Illyrian phalanx) with the exception of the agema who only get +1. I'm also working on shifting the Germanic pikemen to also use the spearwall animation and formation (why depend on their shields with such long pikes), thus giving a green light on also getting that +2.

    However, giving them +3 to attack and then (on average, and what I'm going to apply maybe) a -3 to defense (I guess personal defense scores) is very interesting. Makes their front far stronger while making them far more vulnerable to rear or flank attacks. Dev team, both propositions are obviously heresy to what you placed for in-game balance, but which route is more historically accurate?? Modestly bumping up defensive scores, or increasing attack while nerfing their defense? Thoughts?

    P.S. Oh yeah guard mode off for all spearwall users. Never gonna budge on that hahahaha

  2. #22
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    My biggest problem with pikes in EB2 is the lack of killing power so this sounds interesting.However this might cause them to kill too many enemies even when flanked or when they are on walls.
    but which route is more historically accurate??
    In "The Parallel Lives" by Plutarch he describes the maceodonian phalanx during the Battle of Pydna:



    The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death.When the first line had thus been cut to pieces, those arrayed behind them were beaten back; and though there was no flight, still they retired towards the mountain called Olocrus, so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments. For this part of his army was retreating, and the rest of the Romans were turning aside from the phalanx, which gave them no access to it, but confronted them as it were with a dense barricade of long spears, and was everywhere unassailable.


    But the ground was uneven, and the line of battle so long that shields could not be kept continuously locked together, and Aemilius therefore saw that the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were dashing forward. Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly into the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line and thus come to close quarters, not fighting a single battle against them all, but many separate and successive battles. These instructions being given by Aemilius to his officers, and by his officers to the soldiers, as soon as they got between the ranks of the enemy and separated them, they attacked some of them in the flank where their armour did not shield them, and cut off others by falling upon their rear, and the strength and general efficiency of the phalanx was lost when it was thus broken up; and now that the Macedonians engaged man to man or in small detachments, they could only hack with their small daggers against the firm and long shields of the Romans, and oppose light wicker targets to their swords, which, such was their weight and momentum, penetrated through all their armour to their bodies. They therefore made a poor resistance and at last were routed.
    Opinions differ but IMO high attack is more realistic.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  3. #23

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sint View Post
    My biggest problem with pikes in EB2 is the lack of killing power so this sounds interesting.However this might cause them to kill too many enemies even when flanked or when they are on walls.
    If you know how to use them, phalangitai are awesome killing force.

    The issue is that AI can't use them right. You need to use them to hold the line at first, exhaust the enemy, then turn guard mode off and let them rip through the enemy. AI can't do that. So when you up the killing power to make AI decent with them, you end up making them terribly overpowered in player's hands.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    So I take it, (slightly) higher defense is the safer way to go? It's more of an idiot-proof method to make units friendly to the "being controlled by the ai" experience. At least it also makes it so auto-calc battles aren't so biased against phalanx-majority armies. It's laughable how much likelier your wins qualify as "heroic victories" even if the enemy only slightly outnumbers you if most of your infantry are phalanxes...The most direct solution to this whole debacle is not stats though, it's if some brilliant modder pinpoints the ghosting issue. What combinations of variables are present in EBII that even created this situation? Like I said before, other mods don't have this problem. It's frustrating watching Imladris Elite Guardsmen kill hordes of orcs in perfect spearwall formation with not a single enemy passing through the thing to come out in the rear. Weirdly enough, unlike DAC, maybe having units that use a pikewall that ISN'T impenetrable to desperados blitzing through it makes the whole thing more realistic? Getting their phalanx scrambled IS the weakness of the phalangitai...

  5. #25

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pooploop View Post
    So I take it, (slightly) higher defense is the safer way to go? It's more of an idiot-proof method to make units friendly to the "being controlled by the ai" experience. At least it also makes it so auto-calc battles aren't so biased against phalanx-majority armies. It's laughable how much likelier your wins qualify as "heroic victories" even if the enemy only slightly outnumbers you if most of your infantry are phalanxes...The most direct solution to this whole debacle is not stats though, it's if some brilliant modder pinpoints the ghosting issue. What combinations of variables are present in EBII that even created this situation? Like I said before, other mods don't have this problem. It's frustrating watching Imladris Elite Guardsmen kill hordes of orcs in perfect spearwall formation with not a single enemy passing through the thing to come out in the rear. Weirdly enough, unlike DAC, maybe having units that use a pikewall that ISN'T impenetrable to desperados blitzing through it makes the whole thing more realistic? Getting their phalanx scrambled IS the weakness of the phalangitai...
    Frontal penetration of the phalanx is not something we've intended with EBII phalanxes (the only historical precedent for this was the Galatians who defeated Ptolemy Keravnos, who rolled under the spear-points to get into the phalanx). How did they do that in DAC?

  6. #26
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Frontal penetration of the phalanx is not something we've intended with EBII phalanxes (the only historical precedent for this was the Galatians who defeated Ptolemy Keravnos, who rolled under the spear-points to get into the phalanx). How did they do that in DAC?
    Wait, really? I thought for sure that the four Macedonian Wars with the Roman Republic included numerous examples of Roman legionaries finding ways to confront the phalanx head on, while also obviously relying on flanking maneuvers if the classic hammer-anvil cavalry component was weakened or removed as a threat. Am I misremembering that? Weren't they able to slow them down at least with a bunch of pila javelin throwing, followed up by cutting the spearpoints off some of their sarissas, or something? I have some vague memory of that but I could be wrong. In either case the Romans bested them not just with logistics on the strategic level, but also ultimately on the tactical level between phalanx and legion (even if the Macedonians managed to eke out some inconsequential victories). The Roman manipular legions were also more flexible and able to divide into different squads with different roles.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Roma_Victrix (huhhh that name...hahaha) in the most conclusive battle (the Battle of Dog's Hill/Head) the Macedonian right basically pushed the Romans all the way back and were in the process of shattering the legions. It was because their left wasn't ready (not formed up, were tired) AND on hilly ground that allowed the Romans to countercharge and break them (then they turned and crushed the Macedonian right). Everyone also seems to forget the elephants that Aemilius unleashed. And the fact that the Macedonian skirmishers and cavalry were sucked into an inconclusive melee and were unable to help. Basically, head on the Macedonian phalanx was really really difficult to deal with. I was just trying to rationalize the fact charging enemy infantry can ghost through the phalanx and pop out the back (a few desperadoes, not all). Because this very unique formation bug in EB2 seems unsolvable. More accurately, to explain it in game terms, when Romans can take advantage of the "gaps", it's when an orderly line of phalanx units starts to create space in between (so beside) each unit, with a couple going far forward and a couple struggling to keep up...so instead of a solid line, it looks like an array of individual blocks...

    For DAC, I went to their discord and unless there's an inside secret they refuse to share, they said they just use vanilla M2TW pikewall animations with all phalanx-capable units having NO secondary weapon. That's it. I kinda tried it here in EB2, went to battle_models and shifted the pike animation back to vanilla (the phalangitai start having their first rank kneel and raise their lances as if to repel a cavalry charge) and of course by default they already don't have secondary weapon. Nothing happened...some crazy dudes can still ghost through the formation from the front...

  8. #28

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    What is the EDU entry for a pikeman in DAC? What's their kill rate settings in the battle_config.xml?

  9. #29

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Hope DAC doesn't mind, here's the EDU entry of one of the most iconic pikemen units in the game, Uruk-hai Pikemen:

    type Uruk-hai Pikemen
    dictionary Uruk_Hai_Pikemen
    category infantry
    class heavy
    voice_type Heavy
    accent IsengardUrukPikes
    banner faction main_spear
    banner holy crusade
    soldier noble_pikemen, 50, 0, 1.2
    officer isengard_captain_early_flag
    officer nazg_hai_bg
    officer nazg_hai_bg
    mount_effect horse +6, camel +4, elephant +4
    attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit, pike, legionary_name
    move_speed_mod 0.98
    formation 1.3, 1.3, 2.6, 2.6, 6, square, phalanx
    stat_health 1, 3
    stat_pri 5, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 90, 1
    stat_pri_attr spear_bonus_6, long_pike
    stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 0, 1
    stat_sec_attr no
    stat_pri_armour 14, 3, 0, metal
    stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
    stat_heat 4
    stat_ground -1, -2, 1, 2
    stat_mental 19, disciplined, highly_trained
    stat_charge_dist 6
    stat_fire_delay 0
    stat_food 60, 300
    stat_cost 2, 900, 370, 125, 125, 884, 4, 88
    armour_ug_levels 3, 4, 5, 5, 5
    armour_ug_models Uruk_halberd, Uruk_halberd_upg
    ownership france, slave
    era 0 france
    era 1 france
    era 2 france
    recruit_priority_offset 40

    In the battle_config settings here's what I found:

    <config>
    <!-- global combat balancing factors -->
    <combat-balancing>
    <missile-target-accuracy>
    <infantry>0.8</infantry>
    <cavalry>0.9</cavalry>
    <elephants>1.0</elephants>
    </missile-target-accuracy>
    <melee-hit-rate>1.0</melee-hit-rate>
    </combat-balancing>
    <!-- per unit task configuration -->
    <unit-tasks>
    <!-- wall reform - used for split up units -->
    <wall-reform>
    <!-- once more than this number are queued up, split across the other ladders -->
    <queue-length-before-split>4</queue-length-before-split>
    </wall-reform>
    <!-- unformed charge -->
    <unformed-charge>
    <!-- proportion of unit that will charge before unit task will finish -->
    <finish-proportion-infantry>0.80</finish-proportion-infantry>
    <finish-proportion-cavalry>0.80</finish-proportion-cavalry>
    </unformed-charge>
    </unit-tasks>
    <unit>
    <!-- phalanx configuration -->
    <phalanx>
    <intercept-range>15</intercept-range>
    </phalanx>

    Below that are skirmish values, which shouldn't be useful for this particular issue...

  10. #30
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pooploop View Post
    Roma_Victrix (huhhh that name...hahaha) in the most conclusive battle (the Battle of Dog's Hill/Head) the Macedonian right basically pushed the Romans all the way back and were in the process of shattering the legions. It was because their left wasn't ready (not formed up, were tired) AND on hilly ground that allowed the Romans to countercharge and break them (then they turned and crushed the Macedonian right). Everyone also seems to forget the elephants that Aemilius unleashed. And the fact that the Macedonian skirmishers and cavalry were sucked into an inconclusive melee and were unable to help. Basically, head on the Macedonian phalanx was really really difficult to deal with. I was just trying to rationalize the fact charging enemy infantry can ghost through the phalanx and pop out the back (a few desperadoes, not all). Because this very unique formation bug in EB2 seems unsolvable. More accurately, to explain it in game terms, when Romans can take advantage of the "gaps", it's when an orderly line of phalanx units starts to create space in between (so beside) each unit, with a couple going far forward and a couple struggling to keep up...so instead of a solid line, it looks like an array of individual blocks...

    For DAC, I went to their discord and unless there's an inside secret they refuse to share, they said they just use vanilla M2TW pikewall animations with all phalanx-capable units having NO secondary weapon. That's it. I kinda tried it here in EB2, went to battle_models and shifted the pike animation back to vanilla (the phalangitai start having their first rank kneel and raise their lances as if to repel a cavalry charge) and of course by default they already don't have secondary weapon. Nothing happened...some crazy dudes can still ghost through the formation from the front...
    What's so funny about my name, pal?

    Thanks for the explanation and the reminder about Cynoscephalae in the second conflict, but I was speaking more in generalities about all four wars combined, not a single engagement (albeit one of the largest and most consequential since it concluded the war against Philip V). Obviously the Macedonian phalanx was a near unstoppable beast from the front when they were all lined up without these yawning gaps as you mentioned. I was almost sure I remembered someone somewhere explaining that the Roman legionaries of the time also used certain tactics to counter this. You're saying that's completely incorrect and the Romans only ever won due to unique circumstances and distracted skirmishers and cavalry?

  11. #31

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Well, considering they were able to replicate those circumstances again and again I don't want to say that Rome won due to sheer luck. It was overall better morale, better officers, better initiative with smaller subdivisions, better capability to adapt and REFORM after initial failed attempts, and the fact the manipular formations simply lead to more opportunities to flank or simply "deny" clashing head on with a rigid unbroken single line formation. I mean in the battle of Magnesia the phalanx once again repelled the romans in the center while Antiochus's cataphracts smushed the Roman cavalry. It was Eumenes (I think that was his name) of the Attalid auxiliaries that counterattacked and panicked the elephants causing a domino effect that essentially stripped all cavalry and light troops of the Seleucids and put them to rout. This left the poor phalanx alone to get enveloped and destroyed. Whereas the earlier successes of Antiochus dented but didn't shatter the Roman army, the Roman infantry may not have been able to push back the phalanx but weren't too damaged by it and were able to REFORM and try again.

    So point is a company of phalangitai vs a company of legionnaires in a head on clash with no tricks the phalangitai win. But there is no such thing as a battle without even minimal outside factors right? Bad terrain, a body of water, receiving heavy fire from enemy ranged units, reinforcements, early routs and an opportunity to reform, need to TURN and try to take an enemy on the flank or protect your rear, gaps in your battle line because some hotblood moved his units way too fast for the main body to catch up, a battle which catches you unprepared and you only in marching order (not in battle line), a clash where your cavalry loses and leaves you in the dust, a need to detach a large body of your own troops to take an indirect route to envelop the enemy, a race to to get to high ground or a scramble to restore order and cohesion after multiple failed charges....all or at least one of these happens in even the most textbook battle. A roman soldier may not win directly in a simple clash against a sarissa hedge, but he is far more capable of performing adequately in ALL those circumstances I just mentioned. So they might get nearly bulldozed in round one, but they'll hold on long enough that a three round match will turn into a ten, and on the tenth they clinch the win.

    It also really doesn't help that the phalangitai (to express a historical reality in game terms, it is most likely a large portion and especially the left of the macedonian line at Dog's head were just composed of deuteroi phalangitai) of this era ONLY know the simple clash. They just know how to march relatively unmolested to a neutral battlefield (they did do ok fighting uphill against the Spartans at the battle of sellasia, but it was Philopoemon who turned the tide to favor the Macedonians) and then they line up and grind the enemy right in front of them. Gone were Phillip and Alexander's days where they were truly professional, capable in both a regular battle line and turning into skirmishers to fight an open order brawl. Most crippling was the horrible degradation of the quality of the officers across all ranks in said phalanx(es). Whereas Roman officers had a high variety but were all very (politically and culturally) motivated to win glory and seize the initiative, the same cannot be said for their Macedonian counterparts. They never had a repeat of an era where their army had guys like Seleucus, Antigonus, Craterus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Perdiccas and so on fighting under ONE monarch.

  12. #32
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pooploop View Post
    They never had a repeat of an era where their army had guys like Seleucus, Antigonus, Craterus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Perdiccas and so on fighting under ONE monarch.
    Great post and a wonderful explanation of all the variables at play. Thanks for sharing. I would rep you for it but I did so too recently for another post. Someone rep him in my stead! Or so help me God (Jupiter/Zeus) I'll bury you under an endless poop loop you'll have to climb through like Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill (only it's made of stinky poo).

    Sorry, had to take a snipe at you after you commented on my name.

    The kind of battlefield mechanics and tactics you mentioned are interesting, because I notice that even our mod EBII (and M2TW) simulates these things to some degree. That's especially the case with taking high ground and having that advantage first, while getting harassed in the rear flank by javelin throwing or arrow shooting cavalry. Something that EBII seems to get right is that the phalanx is pretty indomitable when you face it from the front, but I am usually able to route even the Macedonian phalanx with cavalry charges from the side or rear (infantry doesn't have the same affect, and it just turns into a slogging fest where the enemy is eventually ground down). I only manage to route Agema Phalangitai if they are completely overwhelmed and without support.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Hahaha, thanks Roma Victrix. I just get a bit cranky seeing people across various sites constantly bringing up the Roman soldier when discussing basic weapon vs weapon match ups. So someone (rightfully) brings up the excellence of the spear and its related family members (e.g. the sarissa), then someone counters by saying sword and board is better as long as you get up close, then he brings up the legionnaire. Those sword fans never seem to understand how important the opening salvos of javelins were to Roman victories, or how MORE important was their organization, logistics, armor, military/political culture, and officers. They forget that half the legion were auxiliaries (many of whom were armed with the spear or a ranged weapon, on foot or horse), and that the late Roman army (whose performance was massively slandered thanks to rigid fanboys like Vegetius) won impressive series's of victories when all their regulars dropped the gladius in favor for said spear or longer swords. Then they continue to poop all over the phalanx without knowing the EXACT nuances and circumstances in which the scutum and gladius beat the sarissa.

    Discussing the context on how and why the phalanx, or more accurately "nations who fielded majority phalanx armies but failed to develop excellent standards for officers as well as good cohesion between all branches and types of units within their very expensive and ultimately unsustainable glass-cannon war machines", lost to the legion with a user with a tag of Roma_Victrix...well....hahahaha

  14. #34

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    They often omit that Rome had absolutely collosal reserves of manpower to draw upon, as well. If the Romans lost 50,000 men in a battle, it was a setback, but they'd just build another army from their reserves.

    If a Successor state lost 50,000 men all at once, that was their manpower for a generation unless they could hire mercenaries.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Oh yeah Quintus, somewhere above I've posted the stats and stuff of DAC's pikemen unit(s). I hope the EB2 team replicates what they did there here (regarding the integrity of the spearwall). I wonder what hidden game mechanics even allow such a problem to surface?

  16. #36
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pooploop View Post
    Hahaha, thanks Roma Victrix. I just get a bit cranky seeing people across various sites constantly bringing up the Roman soldier when discussing basic weapon vs weapon match ups. So someone (rightfully) brings up the excellence of the spear and its related family members (e.g. the sarissa), then someone counters by saying sword and board is better as long as you get up close, then he brings up the legionnaire. Those sword fans never seem to understand how important the opening salvos of javelins were to Roman victories, or how MORE important was their organization, logistics, armor, military/political culture, and officers. They forget that half the legion were auxiliaries (many of whom were armed with the spear or a ranged weapon, on foot or horse), and that the late Roman army (whose performance was massively slandered thanks to rigid fanboys like Vegetius) won impressive series's of victories when all their regulars dropped the gladius in favor for said spear or longer swords. Then they continue to poop all over the phalanx without knowing the EXACT nuances and circumstances in which the scutum and gladius beat the sarissa.

    Discussing the context on how and why the phalanx, or more accurately "nations who fielded majority phalanx armies but failed to develop excellent standards for officers as well as good cohesion between all branches and types of units within their very expensive and ultimately unsustainable glass-cannon war machines", lost to the legion with a user with a tag of Roma_Victrix...well....hahahaha
    You better believe the chariot riding powers of the Eastern Mediterranean collapsed during the late Bronze Age cuz them Sea Peoples had even bigger gladius swords than the later Romans, which was like the atom bomb of that age, don't @ me bro, k? Thanks.

    The point about the quality and motivations of commanding officers is another good one that cannot be overlooked. I remember reading a similar conversation elsewhere (it might have even been you posting, or was it Sumskilz, hmm...), that monarchies like the ones in the Hellenistic period did not offer a lot of incentives for people to climb up the career ladder for riches, fame, and political success. Kings were far too paranoid to let a good deed go unpunished if it was performed by a rising star (poor Surena on the Parthian side, for instance, and even Alexander killed some of his best friends). That sort of thing was harder to do in a Republic where everyone was competing as nominal equals for a share of the spoils and recognition, until of course the late Republican First and Second Triumvirates where those at the top acted like a trio of miniature kings. For instance, Publius Ventidius Bassus got his triumph for his victories over the Parthians, but he probably kept his head down low after that as an underling of Mark Antony (inherited as one of Caesar's proteges).

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    They often omit that Rome had absolutely collosal reserves of manpower to draw upon, as well. If the Romans lost 50,000 men in a battle, it was a setback, but they'd just build another army from their reserves.

    If a Successor state lost 50,000 men all at once, that was their manpower for a generation unless they could hire mercenaries.
    Yep, this is a point that is hammered home by historians like Klaus Bringmann, who remarks that the Roman system of socii alliances in Italy before the Social War provided them with an endless pool of auxiliary soldiers. Pooploop also brings up a good point about how the Roman legionaries were buttressed at all times by auxiliary spearmen, skirmishers, and cavalry.

  17. #37
    bitterhowl's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Russian Feodality
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Revisiting EB2'S Phalangites (AGAIN)

    I think this is right thread to ask.

    What do you say about AI behaviour on this video?
    First draft of EBII battle on medium difficulty on my TrueGeneral Beta project.

    My sister, do you still recall the blue Hasan and Khalkhin-Gol?
    Russian warship is winning. Proofs needed? Go find yourself!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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