Napoleonic Wargame Club

The Rhine Tavern

*   NWC   NWC Staff   NWC Rules   NWC (DoR) Records   About Us   Send Email Inquiry to NWC

*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général    La Grande Armée Officer Records    Join La Grande Armée

*   Allied Coalition   Allied Officers   Join Coalition

*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army   Anglo Allied Army (AAA)   Imperial Russian Corps

 

Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 1129
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
This Guide aims to form a generally agreed standard set of optional rules.

It should help in several aspects:
- a common set of ORs will prohibit that ORs are chosen purely to give a specific side benefits.
- opponents can be found faster as lengthy discussions about ORs fall away.
- furthermore it will achieve an environment that shifts the gameplay into more realistic and historical correct lanes, simply because the designers & programmers aimed for the most realistic and historical correct environment with the way the game works, its maps, OOB, scenarios, leaders, etc. and so the player himself should not stop or even work against this intention but continue on that road and apply optional rules that support this.

First and foremost two facts have to be recognized regarding ORs:
1. The use of an OR first leads to a change in behavior of the players as it rewards or punishes respectively allows or disallows certain behaviors that can cause a motivation to the player.
2. Only when being ignored the direct effects of ORs will play out in a certain situation.
That means one can worry about the effects of an OR but only if not acting accordingly. For example the isolation rule, if a player ignores it despite the historically paranoia that units & leaders had regarding their flanks and rear in these times, he has to suffer from the effects of that rule.


List of the recommended OR settings
ON Manual Defensive Fire
ON Victory Points for Leader Casualties
OFF Rout Limiting
ON Isolation Rules
OFF Optional Fire Results
ON Melee Terrain Modifiers
ON Column Pass Through Fire
ON Target Density Modifier
OFF No Retreat Overruns
OFF Movement Threat Disorder
ON Weak Zone-Of-Control
ON Partial Retreats
ON Line Movement Restriction
ON Flank Morale Modifier
OFF Optional Melee Results
ON Multiple Cavalry Melees
OFF Multiple Infantry Melees
ON No Opportunity Fire Against Skirmishers
OFF No Melee Eliminations
ON No Detached Melee
Note that No Melee Eliminations and Partial Retreats can't be ON at the same time.


Manual Defensive Fire - ON is recommended
Using this OR will split a turn into different phases to allows each aspect of a turn to be handled separately.
Beware that a PBEM will need additional mail exchanges compared to pure turn gameplay.
This is a key OR as it has a huge impact on the defensive capabilities because phase gameplay gives the defender the ability to handle the complete defensive fire like he sees fit.
The alternative that is happening in turn gameplay will have several setbacks:
- defensive fire is triggered randomly, in my experience far less then 50% of the time.
- if defensive fire is triggered it will be conducted at 50% strength, with the exception that fire triggered as a result of setting up a melee will be done at 100%.
The overall comparisons of attacker & defender in turn gameplay results in the fact that the randomly triggered defensive fire is simply too weak to stop serious attacks, and as many may have experienced it is often not triggered when and where you need it. Furthermore if the attacker resorts to specific actions he may well lower the overall number of possibilities in which defensive fire could be triggered even more like moving unit in such positions as to simply block the view.
Phased gameplay allows the defender a chance against massed attack columns as he can pick the units he wants to fire at. The benefit of phased gameplay is a more historical gameplay and with that more historical results while some gamey tactics that are possible in turn gameplay are banned.
(ATTENTION, there was word that the probability of Opportunity Defensive Fire was raised in the latest patch series, this will be tested on a large scale by me to see if it has any impact in the here given recommendation.)


Victory Points for Leader Casualties - ON is recommended
Using this OR makes sure that loosing leaders is punished respectively rewarded.
Quote from the user manual:
"Every rule must be evaluated for what it motivates players to do. In this case, awarding points for leader casualties motivates the player to hide his leaders away from the battle to avoid losing Victory Points. For example, the player would never risk a good leader like Ney in the front line for fear of losing Victory Points and would keep him carefully hidden away in some safe place. Conversely, players would be motivated to focus their fire primarily on hexes containing leaders in hopes of picking up Victory Points. Having this rule as a default rule would skew the battles away from the historical outcomes in a way that would detract from the games as learning tools. Given the tactical nature of the battles, losing Ney for example is felt even in the absence of this rule since his replacement, and all replacements in the line of command, will generally be of lesser quality than the original leader and thus this will have a detrimental effect on the French Army."
First, it is unlikely that precious leaders are hidden or hunted, at least those that are really worth it, they are usually far enough behind the line were the usually were historically. Stories about high ranking leaders at the direct frontline are an exception and not the norm. Hunting them down will likely cost more then it rewards.
And while it is true that the loss of precious leaders will have a detrimental effect, it's only a possibility that even if it occur is not nearly enough to depict the long term effects of losing precious leaders in a war. As most battles are already fought like there is no tomorrow, this rule makes sure that the same careless wasting of leaders will have a direct and immediate negative effect on the victory level like it should be. In addition, one must also consider that the endless wasting of replacement leaders(especially those on brigade level) in a battle to achieve combat bonus also needs to be punished. Every leader that is lost is replaced by a replacement leader, even a replacement leader himself. This goes on endless, with this rule their loss will now cost VP, or else a player could loose dozens or hundreds of them without really being punished.
As a further note, often players agree to take a major defeat if they loose their army leader. Just another example that the effects are not enough even beyond the detrimental effects, and the direct effects of this OR.
It should be noted that even the best leader(A/A ratings) could only yield 96VP if captured, usually values are much lower and not the decisive factor in a game unless leaders are being wasted careless.


Rout Limiting - OFF is recommended
Using this OR makes the spread of a rout to neighboring units less likely then it already is.
Quote from the user manual:
"The routing logic causes the rout of a single unit to sometimes spread to adjacent units and so forth in a way that can have a major effect on a force. Establishing the correct balance in this logic is a matter of interpretation. If you have a large rout occur, check the following factors that affect morale. Did your units have High Fatigue? Were they Low or Out of Ammo? Were they of mediocre quality? Was it a Night turn? Experience has shown that game players conduct their attacks with far greater aggressiveness than was ever shown on the actual battlefield. Historically, leaders were very cautious in the commitment of their troops and were careful not to keep units in battle for too long for fear they would not hold. If you have just had D quality units, low on ammo, with Fatigue level 900, rout during a Night turn, don’t think that this was an unrealistic event."
Another manual quote:
"The default routing rules require that units adjacent to a unit that has failed its morale check must also take a morale check (there are restrictions such as routing skirmishers cannot cause non-skirmishers to rout). This is applied recursively if those units also fail their check. While this can result in the rout of large number of units, given normal probabilities it is ``self limiting’’, that is, it stops after a certain number of iterations based on the situation."
As the later quote points out routing is self limiting, all that this OR achieves is to stop it sooner, what isn't really realistic as many steps can be taking to make a position more stable. It is up to the player to do it or not, but it shouldn't simply be achieved out with an OR.
The player should use his forces in a "cautious" way like leaders did back in these times and not to throw units careless at the enemy like it's World War 1. He should consider using historical battle formations by leaving room between attack columns to have them not interfere each other, or to place leader or superior units in a defensive line to make it more solid. Using the rule would unrealistically reassured the player of his units instead having behaving and using them historically.
There are enough examples in the Napoleonic Wars where the panic spread to bigger parts of armies and send them running if the forces were in a bad state and/or bad lead by there leaders.


Isolation Rules - ON is recommended
Using this OR makes units suffer from being encircled.
Quote from the user manual:
"This rule is intended to have two effects. Commanders were always very cautious of their flanks. They often withdrew from a position before they had been overwhelmed simply because their flanks were threatened. This rule is intended to motivate the player to think in these terms. Secondly, units that had been surrounded would often surrender and not fight to the death. The 1/2 modifier to defending strength is intended to reflect the tendency of the Isolated units to surrender when pressed."
This OR ensures that the player cares about his position, his flanks and his line of communication or face the consequences of not doing so. On a grand scale usually no WW2 encirclement's happened in the usual open field battles, if such is wanted the scenario designer usually takes care of it with a supply source to allow holding out even when encircled. This rule also reflects the officers tendency to see doom with an enemy in their flank or back, this simply doesn't raise the fighting spirit but achieves the opposite and makes the officers act to prevent such situation at any cost. Historically considerable measures were taken to extend the own line and keep the line of communication open.
Same counts for the soldier on a smaller scale, a unit would try to deny the enemy their open flank or even back, if the unit was cut off and encircled it did not raise the fighting spirit but but achieved the opposite.
So if a player acts so careless that his units are isolated it is only common sense to have him suffer from the effects of isolation.


Optional Fire Results - OFF is recommended
Using this OR makes two fire calculations and takes the average of them, this ensures to have overall more average results then results below or above.
From a historical perspective the less predictable results would fit better as the turn length is usual 10 minutes so rather short. Besides there are example out of the Napoleonic Wars that even under good circumstances the fire delivered could sometimes be almost ineffective and sometimes the opposite of it. But everyone who wants it more predictable can turn this on.


Melee Terrain Modifiers - ON is recommended
Using this OR ensures that terrain has an effect in a melee.
Plain and simply, why should terrain have no impact in melee? I don't know any reason. Having this on ensures that terrain features like villages are fought over because they have an advantage. Besides, as the attacker is usually able to mount large stacks to attack giving the defender the terrain as advantage seems just fair and at least a slight counter to over stacked attack columns.


Column Pass Through Fire - ON is recommended
Using this OR makes sure that multiple units in a hex suffer from artillery fire like they should.
While a canon ball might simply pass through one line and hit a second it may seem too much for one column and a second column. Usually units take different damage levels, this depiction is realistically taking spread and especially spread of canister into consideration. Firing into a hex and only hitting one unit seems very unlikely for the smoothbore artillery of these times. That's the view from a ballistic point.
Now to a game view, allowing battalion columns to be stacked will create a local very superior force that is almost unstoppable if only one unit could take fire, the usual defense that is in line formation and that tries to achieve maximum firepower to stop the enemy can't hold such a superior force back. In theory this also counts for lines were multiple lines could be in one hex, even if just the first could fire, and create a hex that is hard to assault. In both cases such hexes with multiple units will now allow to hit not one but all units in it.
Overall this should foster a more historical way of deploying and conducting assaults on an enemy defensive line by forcing the attacker to come in "waves" with one battalion after another instead of stacking to the limit in a single hex, same counts for the defense that wants to have single unit in line on the defense and not multiple units.


Target Density Modifier - ON is recommended
Using this OR makes sure that a certain destiny in a hex leads to proportional more causalities.
It is obvious that tighter formations, d'Erlons corps at Waterloo is a prime example for this, will take more casualties as there is not only less chance to miss the enemy, but also the chance that hits may cause multiple casualties even by musket fire.
Overall the high density should be punished, also from a game perspective as these massively packed hexes must come at a price or else the use of them would be the rule and not the exception. Basically this OR goes hand in hand with the Column Pass Through Fire OR and makes sure that such examples like d'Erlons corps, that would be depicted in game as multiple units stacking to the hex limit, come at a price.
Another thing to note is that cavalry is not effected by the Column Pass Through Fire OR, so punishing cavalry stacks is only really possible with this rule.


No Retreat Overruns - OFF is recommended
Using this OR prevents the defenders of a melee from retreating into hexes containing enemy skirmishers.
While it doesn't make much sense that a retreating unit can simply overrun skirmishers, especially when you consider that attackers need to melee a skirmisher screen out of the way, skirmishers were usually not able to stop formed units from moving.
Also the use of skirmishers was usually to harass the defender or an approaching attacker, provide screening of the defensive line or advancing attack columns, and being used in obstructed terrain not meant for formed units like woods, swamps, etc.. They were not meant to encircle and get in contact with the enemy to allow formed units to deliver a killing melee.
At best skirmishers may indirectly isolate units in defensive positions like villages by encircling the objective but staying at a distance so that formed units work through such a position and clear it easier.
Note, overruns by cavalry charges are not effected by this rule and still work no matter what this rule is set to.


Movement Threat Disorder - OFF is recommended
Using this OR can cause units that are moving to be subject of disorder due the threat that is exerted by the enemy, a little similar to the disorder when changing formations.
Currently it works rather strange, limbered artillery exerts a threat value, supply wagons disorder and do not order back, hexsides prevent threat sometimes and sometimes not. Overall this may work out in the two NB titles who cover the Spanish peninsula in which this OR started to show up, but for others it's questionable.


Weak Zone-Of-Control - ON is recommended
Using this OR allows units to move one hex in the enemies ZOC per turn.
While it seems to weaken the concept of ZOCs, this OR only allows a unit to move one hex inside the enemies ZOC, that is still a tight restriction on movement but leaves room for a small move within a 10 or even 15 minutes turn.
Note, with this turned OFF there is no way to pass from one ZOC hex to another ZOC hex, not manually, not by retreat because of a lost melee and not by a rout. This seems rather drastic as ZOCs should only provide the opportunity to react but not act as total blocker of hexes that are empty.


Partial Retreats - ON is recommended
Using this OR allows some units to retreat from a hex after being defeated in melee even when there is not enough room for all of the units to retreat.
Quote from the user manual:
"Retreats from a hex by units that have just lost a melee are necessarily very chaotic events. Certainly with a breakdown in command and morale, it would not be possible to find some optimal displacement of units that would just fit in the retreating hex. A good analogy would be a burning building where quite often a large number of people perish even though there are exits readily available. The dynamics of this situation is known as "choking" and results in greatly reduced flow through openings. Based on this, there is justification for concluding that obstructions to their retreat would often result in the surrender of the defeated troops rather than some optimal reduction."
While this seems logic it seems more logic that at least some would get away. Without this rule there is just the all or nothing outcome what doesn't seem plausible, especially if you consider that units that retreat historically even tried to cross rivers by swimming, That shows that all kinds of options were drawn to get away, and that it usually resulted in at least some getting away.


Line Movement Restriction - ON is recommended
Using this OR gives the chance that units that move in line formation can disorder.
Historically many leader preferred to let the unit move in column formation simply to avoid disruption that hit even very good units sooner or later if moving in line formation. Besides, the game engine already lowers(for B and better units) or raises(for D or worse units) the probability of disorder, this already shows how problematic moving in line was and that this is acknowledged in the game engine by design. Ignoring this would mean to ignore the quality of units what I strongly reject.


Flank Morale Modifier - ON is recommended
Using this OR raised the moral of non-Skirmisher units by 1, if such a unit has friendly units on both flanks, for the purpose of Rout and Disorder determination.
On a small scale the common soldier, if he is "protected" in his flanks, his sturdiness is higher if challenged. It seems obviously that such also applies to units with support on the right and left side as they are assured in there position more sturdy compared to a unit that stands alone or is at the end of the line. Some historical example also show that lines were anchored between sturdier units or units in sturdier formation. So this "shoulder to shoulder" concept works in big like it works in small.


Optional Melee Results - OFF is recommended
Using this OR makes two melee calculations and takes the average of them, this ensures to have overall more average results then results below or above.
From a historical perspective the less predictable results would fit better as a melee was a rather uncertain action and a highly psychological situation that could turn this or the other way even when looking promising. But everyone who wants it more predictable can turn this on.


Multiple Cavalry Melees - ON is recommended
Using this OR allows cavalry units to melee attack units that have all already been meleed.
Beware that doesn't mean an attacker who had already meleed can melee again, it only means that a unit that had already meleed can be meleed again by cavalry that has not yet meleed.
Although one can say that multiple melees would take too long in a 10 minutes turn that potentially can cover movement and melee, cavalry is lacking a certain initiative as well as dynamic.
In addition there are some problems:
- cavalry seems a bit too slow as it moves just one hex more then infantry would in clear terrain, gaining a bit more terrain by a chance to melee, especially in charges, is seriously to consider.
- cavalry has no way of passing between squares and so if squares would get meleed to allow cavalry to finally break or contribute in breaking this solid line is seriously to consider.
- cavalry charges are hard to set up as you can not even turn the units without spoiling the charge for this turn is seriously to consider, in that aspect if a unit gets shifted into the path of such a charge it seems only fair & logic to allow cavalry to melee it again as to not break the charge.
Overall cavalry should because of these lacks be a more dynamic & initiative showing factor that could follow up on already meleed units. Besides that, in pure cavalry vs cavalry engagements more dynamic & initiative could also be useful, especially as casualties are usually much lower in such combat as the charge bonus doesn't count here.
A different perspective is comparing 10 to 15 minute turns. Should some despite the listed points decide against this rule, he should at least use it in 15 minute turns to in some way counter the missing turns(6 vs 4 turns per hour comparing 10 to 15 minute turns) and with that the missing actions that could be taken.


Multiple Infantry Melees - OFF is recommended
Using this OR allows infantry units to melee attack units that have all already been meleed. Beware that doesn't mean an attacker who had already meleed can melee again, it only means that a unit that had already meleed can be meleed again by infantry that has not yet meleed.
One can say that multiple melees would take too long in a 10 minutes turn that potentially can cover movement and melee.
But consider that screening skirmishers are, especially in phased gameplay, are blocking units that need to be meleed away for the formed units to advance, what is highly unrealistic as skirmishers usually always fell back before formed units. So allowing a skirmisher unit to be meleed again to clear a path for the formed unit to advance seems necessary, if not by the skirmishers of the attacker then at least when the attackers formed unit.
Unfortunately under the aspect of formed vs formed units this seems less applicable and logic, and as this mostly will apply the skirmisher problematic could be covered by the attacker using more skirmishers.
In the end it's a question of dynamic & initiative similar to the cavalry OR and what to prefer.
A different perspective is comparing 10 to 15 minute turns. For 10 minute turns I would still recommend to turn it off, but at least in 15 minute turns this OR should be considered to in some way counter the missing turns(6 vs 4 turns per hour comparing 10 to 15 minute turns) and with that the missing actions that could be taken.
(Note, a possibility to solve the skirmisher problem better but at the same time have it not impact formed units would be a simple House Rule stating:
"Only skirmishers may be meleed more then once per turn by infantry."
But has House Rules are not taken into considerations here the recommendation stands as it is.)


No Opportunity Fire Against Skirmishers - ON is recommended
Using this OR prevents units from wasting opportunity fire on skirmishers.
Skirmishers take much less damage and fire on them, especially by formed units or artillery, is mostly a waste of ammo. Furthermore a gamey approach could be to deliberately use them to trigger opportunity fire to achieve low or even out of ammo and by this weaken such units.


No Melee Eliminations - OFF is recommended
Using this OR will allow defenders that loose a melee and have no valid retreat hex to be eliminated.
Quote from the user manual:
"Secondly, units that had been surrounded would often surrender and not fight to the death."
There are many reasons to turn this rule OFF.
- with it units usually have to be beaten to death, what isn't realistic nor historically correct and prevents situations were a lot prisoners were gained rather easy, specially as gaining prisoners demands much to favorable conditions and so are almost impossible in these games.
- with it all that can be done is to route & isolate the enemy so it can get overrun, but usually routed units make a lot distance and are not easy to be reached again. The only way would be if terrain helps like a river bend in which such units can be driven to prevent them from further escaping to deliver the coup de grâce, Friedland is an example.
- also several gamey situations can arise with this rule like a map edge that is used to prevent isolation, or max stacking a second defensive line to prevent the first from being moved back when loosing a melee, etc..
Overall using this rule would allow an easy kill only under the most beneficial conditions, again this is unrealistic, especially it totally blocks situations were taking prisoners would have realistically have occurred.
Turning it off solves all that and furthermore fosters realistic formations with space between units.
It also prevents from Gung-ho assaults that are just there to cause damage, for example kill artillery, and are done like a robbery going in & out in no time while neglecting flanks and rear completely. If such units are cornered and have no valid retreat hex and loose a melee, taking them prisoner seems not only fair but simple logic.


No Detached Melee - ON is recommended
Using this OR will depict a sort of Command & Control as detached units can't initiate melee attacks on their own
Beware this counts only for melee, units can still move & fire like they want. This rather good depicts the need for a brigade leader to have control over his units or else they would not go "all in". Beware this does not apply to Leaders who are detached from their next in command.
Furthermore it does depict and by this also play out the internal structure of the armies, the French with often more sinful compositions will have less trouble, mixed brigades of cavalry & infantry like Prussians used at J-A will have more trouble. I think this is very welcome as it depicts the differences between the armies and makes them more unique, especially in the Golden Years of 1805-1807.

_________________
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 1129
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
RESERVED FOR FURTHER NOTES:

Please comment and discuss based on this current Version 1.0.

_________________
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Massachusetts, USA
A lot of work on this. Good clarification of optional rules.

_________________
Image
President, Colonial Campaigns Club


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2020 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:30 am
Posts: 2
Good work, Tactics should be historical leaving strategy to be decided by the player. These suggestions are very helpful

_________________
2nd Leutenant Danny Canavan
Allied Coalition
Anglo Allied Army
6th Division, 10th British Brigade
27th (Inniskilling) Regiment of Foot


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 2:48 am
Posts: 1197
Location: Charlotte NC
I would have to say that I kind of agree with most of the rules, some are less important than others, but I think having the defensive fire manual is not a great idea. It makes for a lot of file exchanges.

Also in the old Talonsoft system the defensive phase made sens because you had more options than just defensive fire.
You could attempt 2 things with a risk of failure:
    - counter-charge
    - put your infantry in square

If we had those 2 things implemented in the game I would say Yes to that option. As of now I say no... it's a waste of time.

Truly yours,

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 1129
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Yes a little more to do in the defensive phase would be nice.

If one can stand that randomness of the defensive fire he may well go to play the game in turns.

_________________
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:34 pm
Posts: 15
Are these the rules we are now to play games with here at NWC?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Massachusetts, USA
All rules, both the optional and any "house" rules always are up to what the players agree to, before starting a game. For instance, you might say you want only the default optional rules. Once you agree, play on.

_________________
Image
President, Colonial Campaigns Club


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 1129
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Exactly, this Guide here is just a recommendation based on historical aspects & how the engine works.
There are ORs that are hard to argue against, for example the "Column Pass Through Fire" and the "Target Density Modifier" because of historical aspects & how the engine works.
Others like the optional melee and fire results are just something where you could very well choose what you prefer.

_________________
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr