Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BlackMoria

  1. Artillery guy here. I served 17 years with the guns but I have been out of the service for 15 years how. Standard HE rounds have a quick setting (fuse initiates when X lbs of pressure on the fuze) and a delay setting. The delay setting is 1/2 second delay after the same pressure. The delay setting is not more time selectable than that. Time fuses can be set to 90 seconds in 1/10th of a second increments but this is the key, the round explodes on impact like a standard fuse on quick setting. The reason is the purpose of the fuse, which is to initiate the exploding of the round along the trajectory, not how long after it hits the ground. Variable Time fuses emit a radio signal and looks for a echo return of that signal reflected off the ground. The fuse is designed for a optimal height of 7 meters above the ground but the type of soil affecting the reflectivity of the radio signal will vary this up or down by several meters. At the time I was in, there was no fuse (at least that I saw in my career) that was designed specifically for variable initiation after penetrating the ground. There may be now so I can't comment on that type of fuse. As a observer who called in fire and has seen the effect of artillery fire on all sorts of things, I will make some comments. A 155mm round on delay fuse will penetrate 24 inches of overhead cover consistently. The bench mark of 24 inches of overhead cover is a layer of 2X4 wood, covered by two layers of metal revetment, covered by sandbags of dirt to a depth of 24 inches - standard bunker and hard point prepared structures in a defensive position. A 155 round on delay fuze will penetrate 3-4 floors easily of as standard western style wood framed house (inter level floors are wood 2x6 trusses with 2 layers of 3/4 plywood) and will very quickly compromise the structure of the house. A 155 round on delay will only penetrate 1 floor of a standard concrete building, where the floors typically are 12-18 inches of concrete with rebar. The structure will hold up for while but eventually, the explosive overpressures of 155 rounds will crack and rubble the concrete to a gravel and the building will come apart. I am not certain how middle east structures compare but my opinion is that a 155 round on fuse delay will consistently penetrate at least one level of the structure as a minimum. I am less certain about mortars and 105 rounds, for while I have seen the effects of those first hand, I spent my career with 155mm gun batteries, so I will speak of only what I know for certain. For what it is worth to this discussion.
  2. I started another run at this scenario and noticed similar behavior. I have a game save just prior to the activity in question. Any of the beta testers want the save file?
  3. "If QMB gives you many units, you have been smiled upon and are destined to win." Take that frown and turn it upside down...
  4. Yes, the danger of having the capital some 11 miles from the DMZ. But that doesn't mean one simply caves in to the demands of NK. For one, I don't think they have the artillery rounds to shell Seoul for days on end. Second, there are existing systems which can help. I saw a video of a test or production system of a Phalanx system mounted on a special flatbed trailer with a special radar system and control unit. The system was designed to automatically engage artillery and mortar rounds and the video showed it doing just that. Don't know how effective it actually was (claim was some 85% of artillery / mortar rounds destroyed) as we all remember the Patriot Missile controversy from the first Gulf War. It will take several semi-trailers of phalanx ammo to feed just one system against the NK artillery, but who says it can't be done and if the systems are already in place. Remember, South Korea and the US have had the same 50 - 60 years to counter the NK nightmare scenario. There is all sorts of counter battery systems, tested and proven technology. Regardless, Seoul most likely is going to take damage. How much we can speculate but London, Berlin and Toyoko took extreme damage in WW2 and the people survived and the governmental and military infrastructure survived. Seoul will take its baptism of fire and will rebuild. It will be another story for NK. Regime change is a absolute certainty if NK attacks - the US and Pacific Rim allies will settle for nothing less.
  5. In regards to the NK article, I have that all before during the cold war about Warsaw Pact capabilities. Everyone was scared $h!tless of the Warsaw Pact. The canadian commander of the 4 CMBG at Lahr described his brigade as a 'fire and forget' brigade and that it would be destroyed after one battle with the Warsaw Pact. The soviet soldier was 10 feet high it seemed and like Braveheart, consumed the enemy with lightning fired out his ass. The fear of the Soviet juggernaut drove weapon design and acquisition. Sound familiar? Same tune, different fiddler. What we do know, after the fall of the Warsaw Pact. The average recruit in a front line unit fired maybe a rifle magazine in weapon qualification in a training year. The average tank gunner fired maybe 10 rounds from the tank gun. Track miles for vehicle drivers was less an 250 km a year. Vehicles were disable by draining the fluids out to distill alcohol to drink. Soldiers sold equipment and ammunition on the black market because they went long periods of time without pay sometimes. The image of a soviet super soldier was a Western construct build by our collective fears. The average soviet soldier was, in reality, poorly trained, was poorly motivated, and was poorly lead. Corruption and incompetence was the norm, not the exception at all command levels. Thus, the nightmare scenario of a Warsaw Pact sweep of Europe was not a quaranteed outcome in a real invasion. Yes, quantity has a quality all of its own but the two superpowers didn't come to blows except in proxy wars like the Arab-Israeli conflict and Afganhistan. And we know how those proxy wars turned out for the nations using soviet tactics and training. What is the bottom line. Nations learn the fight the next war from the past war. The soviet 'warsaw pact' era tactics focused on massing equipment, men and artillery and driving hard at the enemy. Notice the similarity with the Soviet tactics of the later part of WW2. The equipment change but not the mindset. So, in regards to NK, it the much the same. I have no doubt given the impoverishment of NK, the NK soldier is most likely poorly trained, poorly lead (like the Warsaw Pact, promotion is more along being political loyality than military merit), etc. And NK has no more military geniuses than any other military, so NK will fight the next war like they fought the last war, until circumstances forces changes in doctrine and tactics. How quickly they adapt is the question but NK doesn't reward innovative thinkers and military mavericks. It rewards political 'purity' and slavish adherence to the established order of things, not the sort of leadership that adapts to change when it is called for. That is why Rense's article is pure hokem, a throwback to the mindset during the cold war. I heard all the same arguments about the Soviets during the cold war. That 'fiction' wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
  6. I played the scenario, Alamo last night and did two playthroughs. In both, I found a recurring condition that I thought odd. Here is the condition. Sorry, both games were RT so no game save, but I may have a game save prior to Two ZSU-23s on high ground advances to edge of hill feature. I have a Wiesel and 4 Marders in the low ground. I have a spot on the ZSUs from my observer who is on high ground across the valley, so at least I am aware of them trundling forward. ZSUs stop at crest of hill, one in clear terrain, one with some light brush around it. I have no spot from the Wiesel or the Marders. First ZSU opens up on the Wiesel (which has not fired and is in trees), which implies the ZSU has observation on the Wiesel. Wiesel is not destroyed in first burst and still doesn't pick up the ZSU, despite the streamer of tracer fire. ZSU hestitates for some 15 seconds and then destroys the Wiesel with a second burst of 23mm fire. While this is going on, the second ZSU sprays down one of my Marders and damages it. No Marders get any spot on it. Two bursts of 23mm later and the Marder is destroyed. No Marders get spot. The second ZSU now starts working on the second Marder and with two bursts, kill it. Marders still do not get spot during this process. In frustration, I try to manually assign a target to the ZSUs with the remaining two Marders and while I can get a clear line of sight to the ground around the ZSUs, the ZSUs themselves show no line of sight. Ok, this is what is so wrong with this. 1. ZSU-23 is a very high vehicle and should be easy to see, especially with the big ass radar dish on the top of the turret. If anyone is going to get spotted first, it should be the ZSU but is almost like they are under some freaking cloaking device at throughout this entire firefight, neither the Wiesel or the Marders ever get a valid line of sight to the hulking ZSUs. 2. The radars on the ZSUs have no ground search capability the I could find would looking at the equipment capabilities, yet they had in that instance an uncanny ability to spot the Wiesel despite it small size and being in trees. It was also clear that one of the ZSUs had line of sight to two of my Marders if not all of them, yet despite firing mulitple times, my vehicles never got line of sight to either of the ZSUs. I redid the scenario and this time, only one ZSU crested the hill but again, it hosed down two vehicles with 23mm bursts and none of my vehicles could get a line of sight. Not sure if this is a common problem with ZSUs in general, or just specific that that scenario. Anyone else noticed the behavior above?
  7. Here is the route I took which resulted in me getting a total victory with only 4 casualties. Note my earlier post about that. I am just showing the route and not any enemy or IED locations to avoid any spoilers. It worked against the Syrian battleplan I faced so there are no guarantees.
  8. bigmac1281: I am at work but after I get home, I will do up a map that shows you the route I took. Once past the initial IED ambush, the going was fairly easy because I was then attacking the Syrians from their rear. The caveat is that it worked for the battle plan I got. I don't know how many battleplans the Syrian side so there are no quarantees that my route is best in all circumstances.
  9. You can spot the IED trigger man but basically, you have to be in the same building as him or spend a hell of amount of time observing the suspected building. I played through Red Barricades and never saw the trigger men once, so good luck with that. But I have found IED trigger men in other scenarios, so it is possible. What did work for me was moving my tanks in front and having them hug the walls. The trigger man will set off on the tank but the two IED detonations I experienced were beside the tank and not UNDER it, so the tanks survived, although they do get banged up pretty good. My plan was to crawl convoy style with the tanks leading, using the back streets and not the main streets. I worked my way to the left back of the map to the center back and then worked back to my objectives, trusting that most IEDs would be on the logical approaches to the objectives and not on the Syrian side of the objective. The plan worked as I only set off two IEDs early in game with a tank (which survived both time) and I only 4 WIA in total casualties. Normally, leading with a tank in a MOUT situation is not commonly accepted doctrine but in this case, with IEDs and RPGs ambushes, leading with a tank works because the tank can usually survive an IED strike or a RPG hit while your LAVs will not. Work slowly and keep your infantry close to protect the armor but not so close that they become casualties if the tank sets off an IED. Good Luck
  10. *** Warning - may contain spoilers *** I found the scenario very challenging but not hideously so. It sucked to have no artillery as even a several tubes of mortars would definitely would have helped but I made do with the amply firepower my forces had. I play RT and pause frequently to allow me to more precisely position my vehicles in hull down (I am very much a micro-manager in that regard), which explains my low vehicle casualties. I finished up with a handful of KIA/WIA, 2 Marders KIA and about 5 vehicles mobility killed. My base plan was to charge up the right flank after trying to develop the situation while awaiting my reinforcements. In the course of the my cautious recon, a AT-14 opened up on a vehicle and by incredible luck, the warhead detonated in the trees just short of the Wiesel. The AT-14 was spotted as a result on a hill feature on the right flank and I hit the position with 2 tanks and a platoon of Marders, scrubbing down the position for several minutes. As I worked my way up the left somewhat, I had a tank get hit (mobility killed only, thankfully) by either the same AT-14 or another one (it was positioned in a different area of same hill). Again, I massed firepower on the hill for several minutes. At some point, some red armor showed up (seemed like a BTR MR company with a troop of tanks) but my tanks and anti-armour section made short work of them. I assaulted up the right side with a troop of tanks and a company of marders, relying on my speed and distance to mitigate the Syrian AT threat, which worked because the entire force made it intact to the right hand objective. I saw a hell of a lot of RPGs hitting the ground during that charge so I don't know how RPGS opened up and only one position was spotted by my firebase but the amount of firepower I hit at location with either killed the personnel or they bugged out. After that, it was just a matter of carefully moving my attack forces along the MSR from the right hand corner objective to the left hand corner objective. Even with no artillery, a troop of Leopard 2s and a company of Marders can put down a hideous amount of firepower on revealed positions so the ultimate result of that effort was two Marders killed (but few troop casualties) but the heavy defences along the MSR crumbled under the firepower of 120mm guns and 20mm cannons. When I was nearly halfway (mid assault) along the MSR, I launched another tank troop and company of marder up the left flank. It seemed there was a hell of a lot of Syrians in the trees and folds in the ground and the advance was slower. I suffered most of my mobility kills in the left flank attack but no real casualties to speak of and my two forces linked up when the Total Victory screen came up. I attribute my success to the following factors: I obviously found the AT-14s without getting a vehicle killed and apparently dealt with them early enough. The right flank was principally defended by the Kornets so once they were out of the picture, my sprint up the right side of the map was basically unopposed by any significant force. My charge of the right side was fast and presented crossing targets to the RPG gunners because despite a significant amount of RPGs impacting around my vehicles, none of them hit. My sweep along the MSR allowed me to concentrate on a very narrow frontage with most of the enemy not facing that way. My sweep along the rear of the map got dicey only when I approached the left rear objective. My god, it seemed like a company plus of infantry was in that area because there was a carpet of red icons appearing once that battle began in ernest. When the enemy gets spotted, don't swat him - bite his frigging head off. By that, I mean hit him with everything you can bear on him. Most enemy positions will crumble after a salvo or two of troop of Leopards and a company of Marders. Again, I play RT with frequently hitting the pause to micromanage direct fire allocations, so there were times a Syrian squad or AT postion would literally get hit with 4 x 120mm HEAT rounds and 12 x 20mm cannon salvos in the space of 15 seconds. Bye bye baby... :eek: In short, mass your fires, move boldly, decisively and quickly from fire position to fire position and you will prevail.
  11. Lets not dish on the game already because the epaulets are the wrong color or the uniforms are off. I understand that some people want an authentic look and feel but let's not turn this thread into a bitch-fest like many WW2 threads where the grogs vent their spleens on whether the camoflage paint for this model of the Tiger or the vehicle skirts for this model of the Panther are authentic become flame fodder for unending debate. I care more about how it plays than whether the epaulet are the right color.
  12. Your reasons make perfect sense. Too bad bridges can't be simulated because I didn't consider you were simulating the BMPs were coming from the other side of the highway. Makes total sense now that you mention it. Looking forward to testing the last scenarios.
  13. Are you referring to the z-Bee Mod Manager? If you, you will find it here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=448
  14. I started scenario 4 and is it still in progress so here is my intial observations. Map: Excellent Setup Area: No issues, though with Allied HQ being so close, why not include it in the setup zone? If you have a reason for doing it that way, no problem. It just seemed odd to advance 50 metres into the courtyard of the complex just to occupy it. Force Composition: To early for a final verdict but the Brits just have too many forces and the Syrians get steamrollered. I am just 30 minutes into the scenario and already I have forces up to the M5 observation point on the one flank and up to the Weapons cache on the other. With only 1 friendly WIA to show for it. The Brits need to either be reduced in size or the Syrians need to have more forces or some combination of the two. Reinforcements: Expect the Brit player to jump into the canal / wadi and use the dead ground to advance as far as he can. I moved a platoon and half of vehicles in the canal and advanced up to the M5 bridge. Just as I was about to move out of the canal / wadi, a company of BMP teleported literally into our midst and the results were predictably UGLY to say the least. I was not happy to say the least and reverted to an earlier game save as the carnage was unacceptable for such a occurance that should have been impossible to happen in the first place. I mention this as players will do the same thing - using the canal as a means to advance out of line of sight. The BMP reinforcements either need to come in some other place or have the BMPs start the game on map in the canal waiting for the 'time' for them to advance to where ever you want to go. I will report further once I finish up the scenario. I am only 30 minutes into it so far and outside the reinforcement incident in with my platoon plus of Warriors literally were scraping hulls with a company of BMPs, the game has been enjoyable so far. Oh. Keep the arty. I am a ex-artillery officer and I finally got some real toys to play with in this scenario.
  15. Here is the playtest results for scenario 3. Map: Excellent Setup Area: No issues Force Mix: Good, though it is odd that several platoons of Brits arrive as reinforcements with no transport and have to hoof it. Reinforcements: Brits - see above. Syrians - I will just echo what Souldierz has commented on and that is Syrian forces appearing in that 'courtyard' or whatever it is supposed to be. That is too close to where Brit forces may possibly be deployed. Souldierz and I aren't saying that you shouldn't have Syrian forces attacking the Brits in the flank, it is the way the game 'spawns' them in amid the Brits without the Brits seeing them coming. If you like a little surprise like that, have the Syrians spawn in from some place where Brit forces aren't likely to be at that point. Overall, I liked this battle. The only issue for me is Syrian forces 'spawning' in the midst of my forces. Otherwise, good scenario.
  16. I rolled the FO over to the extreme left and got a visual on the village and the area between the village and the compound. I got both Apaches to 'hunt' this gap and they did a number of passes and were engaging stuff I couldn't see with rockets and guns. By the time I risked some vehicles to push up into visual observation, most of the enemy near the compound between the village were pretty worked over by the Apaches. Taking the compound as easy at that point. I had two groups move on the village. One group used the low ground and flanked to the far side of the village and up to the level of the village for a 'rear door entry'. The other group moved on the village from the direction of the compound, mainly with the purpose of having the enemy reveal themselves so that they could be engaged by airpower. The plan worked so well my casualties were only 2 WIA. The key to the my success is using the airpower to work over the enemy and soften them up for the pixeltruppen and you don't need eyes on the enemy to do that.
  17. A scenario in which the insurgents are using the forested areas as a refuge and blue forces are mounting a mission to encircle them and destroy them. Red's mission goal is to escape while preserving his forces. It would principally be a infantry battle. It has great potential to be played either side. But I haven't created any scenarios yet, so I don't know if the system can handle victory conditions of red forces escaping off map.
  18. I put the LandRovers over at the right side as I wanted them to make for the area between the two hills. If you setup on that side, the LandRover passengers get hit by sniper fire and the drivers start trying to reverse all over the place (usually into some more small arms fire) They are damn lucky villagers because the first six times I tried this, I would have between 2 to 3 Warriors getting smoked due to flank shots. Totally understand you are for authentic realistic ground so leave the ground as it is. Yes, it would be all I need. I understand you find Jackals useful during your own playtest and it is your scenario so you can do with them what you will. My personal experience during the scenario is the Jackals occupants take small arms hits and in short time, the crew is either incapacitated or bails the vehicle. In real life, for a operation like this, the Jackals would be screening the flanks and doing route recce because of their speed and manuever. That said, you can keep them in the setup - others will appreciate their utility even if I concerns about their use in this operation and their vulnerability. It a preference thing. While I may not have overall have liked the scenario because it is not my cup of tea as the brits say, I do appreciate the map and the effort into making a very interesting scenario which is quite different from the normal fare. It is a good scenario despite my grumbling.
  19. Ok, managed to complete the second scenario. I must of had a string of evil luck on the attempts before because I got nailed repeatly but this time around, I must have been charmed because the attack on the village went a whole lot smoother as most of the inital RPG shots missed. And area firing the crap out of any building which showed enemy helped. Once I seized the village and reinforced, the going through the rest of the scenario was relatively easy and it just a matter of working through the forest to the exit point. I stand by my original statement about the issues I have with the setup. The first five minutes will be swingy as it stands because of the points I raised in my proceeding post. One shouldn't resort to gamey tactics like massive vehicle smoke screens or area firing every building in sight to win through. Thoughts on the rest of the scenario. Not my cup of tea as I think there is insufficent infantry to push bush for 3/4 of the map. The only reason the going was easy for me was the syrian reinforcements walked piecemeal into my pixeltruppen rather than the other way around. If the syrians decided to lay in ambush rather in advance towards the village, it could have gotten real ugly for blue infantry and engineers as they took losses after contact after contact. That is NOT a slam of the scenario. The map is very good, the dread of walking the woods looking for the enemy and hoping you get to shoot first will have most people twitching in anticipation. I didn't like the scenario simply as a personal preference as I hate close quarters 'jungle' like warfare. But I can see that this battle will appeal to others. And you don't always get to pick the ground to fight on as a commander, so you deal with the cards you are dealt - sometime you have to take a walk in the woods, with bad guys with AKs seeming behind every tree.
  20. Second mission feedback. This mission is still in progress but I wanted to address some burning issues I have this one. Let's just say that my experience with this scenario so far is very different than souldierz. I found it frustrating and annoying and it all comes down to one point - the setup. Here are my issues with the setup. Blue starts with no arty or air to start. Blue starts 200 metres from the edge of a village filled with enemy fighters, RPGs, and snipers with NO COVER except their vehicles. No matter how I arranged the blue forces, within two minutes of the start of the mission, the blue light skinned vehicles have been shot up with casualties and are reversing meaninglessly to cover that doesn't exit. The IFVs have usually taken a few vehicles casualties at this point. And the Syrian artillery is starting to drop in the setup area. All the first two minutes and it doesn't get any better.... Try as I might, the outcome is the same -the only option that did work was to stampede the entire force into the gap between the two hills and then try to reorganize the mess to carry on. For the mission at hand, the blue force at start is simply inadequate for the task. Souldierz has stated he had to use vehicle smoke to advance into the village, that he had to wait for reinforcements and the fight for the village took the bulk of the game time. This tells me that blue is too light on the ground. Start up forces are 40% light skinned vehicles and there is only a infantry platoon, which is insufficent for the task at hand, which is, in essence, an assault! Sitting 200-300 metres from hostiles with RPGs without cover for your forces and waiting for sufficent reinforcements to clear out the village is not tactically sound and not fun from a game point of view. If the intention was to make a fun scenario, the objective was missed IMHO. The setup and the start of the mission frustrated me and despite trying about a dozen different game starts, I just can't make any headway into the village, can't effectively bypass the village without taking flank or rear RPGs shots and given the enemy reinforcement into the village and where the blue reinforcement come in, I can't ignore it and push on for the end point. I don't frustrate easy but I was frustrated and I am certain, others will be as well. Suggested fixes: Option 1: Keep the blue forces as is but give blue artillery and/or air support at the start. Option 2: Drop the Jackal recce and other light skinned vehicles and replace with two more platoons of infantry and their mounts, for a full company at start. The fight for the village is an assault mission and recce as no place in starting fight as currently configured except as flank security. Starting with the tanks on map instead of as reinforcements is also an option. Options 3: Give blue defensive terrain so the dying doesn't start seconds into the game. Part if not most of the blue startup area should have some cover or dead ground. Option 4: Some combination of the above. There are some good points. The map is fabulous and plenty of room for manuever and making options once you get clear of the village at the start point. I haven't been able to play it out to appreciate the AI plan since I am held up with the intial frustration of the game start and getting clear of the village. I will post more on scenario two when I can. The syrians in the village and I are going into round 13 and I hope I win through this time.
  21. Did the first mission and here are my observations: Briefing - needs a estimate of approximate enemy resistance expected and if there are minefields. In the buildup to the invasion kickoff, the S2 staffs will develop a fairly accurate picture of enemy defensive efforts at the border since they will have time for all sort of intelligence gathering. Since one of your victory conditions is seizing and holding the border crossing station, make that clear in the briefing or change the victory condition to 'touch' rather than 'occupy'. I blew through the border crossing and lost the points because at scenario end, I didn't have anyone at the border crossing, IIRC. Setup - Pretty tight and close for blue on startup but that is a reality of the map. At least allow blue to organize his forces in the start area rather than be the jumble of vehicles one can't move around, even if the start area is so constrained. I agree 100% with Paper Tiger. For the initial push into the enemies defences, support assets will be at priority call and topped up. That means blue should have arty assets available at the start. The border area will most likely be mined, so the IEDs are suboptimal. That is assuming of course if you have the Syrians 'making a stand' at the border or 'making a show of it'. From a scenario viewpoint, minefields will offset the fire support (arty) advantage of blue. Blue will have the firepower advantage but will be constrainted by limitations on manuever (at least until they push past the minefields). Red doesn't have the firepower advantage but can freely maneuver. I would suggest minefields over IEDs because it make sense unless the Syrian intend to put their main defensive zone beyond the border area. Minefields justify having engineer assets at startup or as early reinforcements. I concur with the assessment that there needs to be more teeth on the ground at startup. If the Syrians are defending the border, the teeth are going first since intelligence gathering will already establish where the Syrian defensive positions are. The recce assets will come into play after the breakthrough, when the situation is more chaotic and fluid. I would therefore suggest replacing the recce forces with infantry forces. The force ratio was quite reasonable, so the scenario was not a walkover for blue. The location of the AT assets will account for blue vehicle casualties if blue is not cautious (as it should be). I would allow for more time to cautious players. I found myself constantly checking the time remaining and gauging my progress but didn't feel the time pinch, but I know that some players are going to feel that pinch and be more reckless to finish in time. My two coppers worth.
  22. I'll be your huckleberry. I am trying to first scenario now. Do you want feedback via forum or private email?
  23. Also make sure that there isn't another tasks running on your machine like having other programs minimized, downloading or having your virus checker running a background virus scan.
  24. Hmmph. More a big screwup in defining the victory conditions rather than a big mystery, I suspect. I assume, of course, that the game engine does what is expected of it when it evaluates victory thresholds and conditions and if the outcome is not what is expected, then something about how the victory conditions are defined or aggregated is what is at issue. Based on what you said, it appears that victory of any sort is, indeed, impossible. I wonder why this was not caught in the playtest/Q&A process, unless it was the intent to 'predetermine' the outcome because of how the campaign 'branching' was designed.
  • Create New...