Jump to content

Immobilizations In CM And Why I Want Them Reduced


Recommended Posts

Walpurgis ,

I assume that bogging would be less likely in CMAK as it is a hell of a lot drier around the MED. smile.gif

Paul Au

I see you are a player since January and applaud your desire to see the game "improved". However as BFC have always said the deal was that it was to be a realistic game then I am afraid bogging - even if it does ruin someones day - should remain.

‘Untutored’? I can’t see any logical place for a comparison between player ‘skill’ and being happy with game-deciding random events. Being able to accept game-deciding random boggings as just part of the game is no indication of any level of ‘tutoring’, or skill.

Accepting that in war sh** happens and that this game is designed to be realistic and it happens in game is fine by me. It is a price I pay for playing a detailed game. You say that my acceptance indicates no skill or knowledge - the poster after you explained about the Russian snows and armoured cars. I know that paved roads were very rare in Russia particularly once outside towns so bogging on a "road" is not likely to be a big surprise to me as apparently it is to some.

Of course it is useless knowledge when compared against people's opinions of what makes a "fair" game and how tweaking parts of the game would improve their gaming pleasure. If I wanted a fair game I would have continued to play chess - however the delight of overcoming unfair obstacles and springing ambushes is what makes this game greater fun.

I fear that all gamers who wish to introduce tweaks to improve their idea of what makes a good game eventually lead us to the state where we no longer play the same game at all - just variants with which to argue about and disparage the parameters that others play to. For the greater good I strongly believe that the less alternatives offered the more people will settle to playing [and hopefully mastering] the realistic WWII game that exists rather than spending time tinkering with toggles trying to achieve what they believe to be a better gaming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do not think that FOW and rarity are at all the same things. People who believe that have not thought it through.

In the context that is being discussed here, they are precisely the same thing: that is – player-controlled toggles – like a ‘bog’ toggle that threaten (according to some here) to create ‘different versions of the game’. (Which, they don’t – just like a bog-toggle, wouldn’t).

If you think it through, in this context, you’ll see they’re the same.

You have control over bogging, to state that you do not have is simply untrue.

What I said, is 100% true. Unless never ever moving a vehicle, is a form of ‘control’.

Here’s what I said: “when bogging happens as described… losing your carefully moving uber-tank to bogging on flat dry ground on turn 1…With the bogging, as described….” (and Etc, in earlier posts).

No, in the situations described my myself and others, there is nil control.

You are not in fact equalising things on the battlefield, you are giving an advantage to one player, i.e. the German in CMBB.

In the cases that I was describing, this is not true. I said ‘immobilization-probability-toggle’, where the probability can be tweaked. (Just like, as I said, the fog-of-war – which is not an “off-on” switch).

In the game-spoiling situations that are of concern here, it’s completely irrelevant who-not-getting bogged on flat-firm-dry-ground (or road) advantages, because that individual game’s screwed anyway.

Your KT has just become more expensive, and your T34 cheaper. It is not a small change.

So this, isn’t true. No price change would be required if the toggle merely changed bog probabilities. The proportional effect remains the same. If the ‘proportional effect’ makes getting bogged on hard dry ground impossible – as above.

I’d be surprised, and it didn’t seem to me, that anyone was really advocating the complete elimination of bogging. That’s what soft ground and marsh etc, are for. To present tactical risks for the player to assess, and have some control over. Unlike the type of bogging that’s being discussed here.

…you can also ask for an option to remove weak spot penetrations, since they are exactly the same thing.

They’re not, as I explained, the same psychologically, with regard to ‘enemy action’. Annoying, yes, as random air-strikes are, but not as annoying as the turn-2 bog, which has nothing to do with the enemy.

Ps. It doesn’t matter whether ACs getting bogged in roads with snow on them is historically correct, unless that AC is your only, or one of few, armour-killers in the game. In which case, ‘historical correctness’ has screwed the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bogging is reduced in AK because it is reduced in AK. Not because things happen to be drier.

Kind of funny Andreas suggested a no-bog toggle would benefit Germans more than Russians. I see it as neutral across the board. In fact when I get the flashes of anger thinking of times I've bogged, it's always from when I was playing Russians . . . tanks with low psi on flat, dry ground. Russian armor has no choice but to fast move like mad in BB. That is it's main advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Paul AU:

...So this, isn’t true. No price change would be required if the toggle merely changed bog probabilities. The proportional effect remains the same. If the ‘proportional effect’ makes getting bogged on hard dry ground impossible – as above...

You are contradicting yourself a little me thinks:

1. As long as you just tweak the proportion the whole issue stays alike. I assume you would turn the overall numbers down, which makes for less games, in which your lonly Uber-tank renders useless by bogging, but it would still occur. Thus we have the same whining, just less often!?

2. If you say you tweak the proportion to an extent, that it virtually doesn´t happe on dry ground anymore, it is NOT tweaking anymore. Because as soon as one part of the numbers hits zero, we are not talking about percent chances in relation to other percent chances anymore. You can´t get below 0. It doesn´t matter if oyu go down by subtracting absolut numbers from the original chance or by altering all those chances by a factor of 10,20,30 etc %. At one point some tanks won´t mathematically bog while others will still do on the same terrain.

If you still say that is ok, you will very much end up with tanks that are totaly unaffected by bogging on dry ground, roads etc. while others are biased because of a mathematically higher and thus possible chance to still bog.

And you really think, that wouldn´t call for changes in Prices?

Hell it would even need a special description in the buy menue: Like T-34 ´43, will never fail to drive in dry and on roads...

or King Tiger, has a tiny little-bitsy mathematical chance to still bog even on dry.

3. Your idea of having tanks never fail on dry ground or roads totaly fails to grasp the whole concept of bogging. It takes into account much more then just loosing a track. It simulates failures in transmission as well as fuel pipe breaches, overheating engines or a lubricant failure. It´s the very same thing as the weapons failure for MG´s, which doesn´t say exactly what happened. Ammo stuck? MG Barrel hot? Visor misadjusted?

You will never know, except for the overall info, that something ain´t working for the moment. You aren´t even answering to this argumentation.

Again, the game isn´t about fairness, nor about obvious and clear numbers. Like my previous speakers said, stick to chess if you need that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Paul AU:

I do not think that FOW and rarity are at all the same things. People who believe that have not thought it through.

In the context that is being discussed here, they are precisely the same thing: that is – player-controlled toggles – like a ‘bog’ toggle that threaten (according to some here) to create ‘different versions of the game’. (Which, they don’t – just like a bog-toggle, wouldn’t).

If you think it through, in this context, you’ll see they’re the same.

My original point was not that they are the same or different. In fact, it's completely irrelevant. The point is that FOW is the ONLY control, except for rarity, that players are allowed over realism aspects of the CM engine.

Rarity was added for a reason as was FOW. Rarity to maintain play balance and FOW to allow players to receive more or less information on enemy units. Rarity could not be made an absolute rule because it would limit the engine's ability to model exceptional situations. FOW is similarily offered in grades.

My argument is that a bogging parameter control would only be added if it were proven to be a valid exception to BFC's long-standing trend towards realism. Obviously they do not add these sorts of options lightly. In the several years I have been watching, despite numerous attempts by players such as yourselves, they have only done it once (FOW is an original feature) in response to a serious issue (players running rampant with heavy tanks).

In my opinion bogging does not qualify. Why? Because bogging is a single aspect of realism similar to the psychological model, track hits, errant arty, friendly-fire, shells breaking up on impact, MGs jamming, etc. Bogging has no more impact on gameplay than any of these other factors.

You have control over bogging, to state that you do not have is simply untrue.

What I said, is 100% true. Unless never ever moving a vehicle, is a form of ‘control’.

Here’s what I said: “when bogging happens as described… losing your carefully moving uber-tank to bogging on flat dry ground on turn 1…With the bogging, as described….” (and Etc, in earlier posts).

No, in the situations described my myself and others, there is nil control.

So let me get this straight. You DO NOT have control because you DO have control just NOT in all situations. In the descibed situations, which are not ALL situations, you have NO control. Does that about sum it up?

In other words, in the exceptional situation where a tank inexplicably, or without apparent explanation, bogs you have no control. In other situations, which we are, according to you, not discussing, you have control. Therefore, you have no control. Please correct me if I have mistated your reasoning.

…you can also ask for an option to remove weak spot penetrations, since they are exactly the same thing.

They’re not, as I explained, the same psychologically, with regard to ‘enemy action’. Annoying, yes, as random air-strikes are, but not as annoying as the turn-2 bog, which has nothing to do with the enemy.

...in your opinion.

So, once again, I will summarize. Bogging is more annoying than other features designed to add realism to the game. Realism factors which are exceptionally annoying should be controllable.Therefore I should have control over bogging.

Ps. It doesn’t matter whether ACs getting bogged in roads with snow on them is historically correct, unless that AC is your only, or one of a few, armour-killers in the game. In which case, ‘historical correctness’ has screwed the game.
And finally, a synopsis of the above statement...

being historically correct only matters when it is not detrimental to the player.

Which logically implies, the player should have control over historical accuracy for those situations in which said accuracy is a possible detriment to their chances of winning. If aforementioned realism is provided merely as a subjective context than it is ok. Should it prove to be a nuisance it should be made an option.

Or better put...historical accuracy should only be included in the game when it is not potentially disadvantageous to the player. If it is potentially disadvantageous it should be provided as an optional feature. Unless of course it is not too annoying.

Does that about cover it?

Cheers

Paul

[ April 17, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: jacobs_ladder2 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People. Is this silliness helpful to anyone or anything? What is the bloody motivation?

There is a clear difference between bogging in soft ground or scattered trees in mud, and bogging in the open in clear. The former is a accepting a risk and willingly taking it because there is some important object that might be obtained by it - speed, access, avoiding mines, whatever. The latter is an unavoidable result of ordinary use. It is perfectly sensible for anyone's opinions about the two types of events, to differ.

Second, nobody said anything about hurting "the player". There is no "the" involved. There are two sides in every fight. Every bog event hurts somebody, and helps somebody else. But this is entirely distinct from the question, whether it hurts or helps the game, makes it more or less interesting or exciting or realistic. Bringing it up is ascribing bad motives where there is no sign of them.

Strategy games are interesting because the outcome depends on the decisions of the commanders. You could make a documentary about WW II, strap people into chairs, and force them to watch it as it played out exactly as you staged it. Your staging might be the height of realism. But that would not make it a strategy game to sit and watch your version of realism as a movie. Especially when your version hasn't got a scrap of realism in it.

It is annoying to give a pretense of command to someone, and withhold the reality. Suppose you have a new version of CM. Enter all the orders as you do now. However, in reality the AI plays both sides, completely ignoring your orders. This is arguably a far more realistic depiction of WW II command, than CM is. But it isn't a better strategy game.

Probabilistic outcomes of command decisions work fine in strategy games. There is no reason they need to be deterministic. Everything can have a risk attached, and players can be forced to fight with floppy noodles rather than crisply responding rapiers. But the noodles need to flop in some definite relation to the side orders, or there is no strategy game, only a movie script.

Now, if running through a tile of scattered trees means bogging 10% of the time, that fits. But if running over open ground means bogging 10% of the time per 20m moved, then tanks are plants rooted to the soil aka bunkers, not tanks. If the scenario is set in Anzio after a lot of shelling, with ground conditions deep mud and a crater field everywhere, with a few scraps of road - then that may be the tactical problem one is purposefully illustrating. Fine. All that implies is it should be possible to turn on bogging, or that there should be terrain and ground conditions that make it so likely that tanks will basically stick to the roads.

But pretending that is the ordinary case in WW II is pretending, and completely inaccurate.

It is not the only inaccuracy in the treatment of tracked vehicles, as clumsy plodding etc. Turn rates are notoriously completely wrong. If clear good weather bogging were as rare as it ought to be, there wouldn't be such debate on the issue, but it isn't. Actually the bit that is least accurate is the tendency of bogs to turn into full blown immobilization - minor problems for a minute or three, occasionally, would be comparatively realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

In another game (I won't say which) a certain company made a version of Battle of Smolensk. Being during Barbarossa, the company decided to add a feature modeling the actual breakdown rate of tanks. Their reasoning was simple. Russian tanks simply sucked in 1941 and that was that. A good portion of them never moved, most of the rest didn't survive the trip to the battlefield and large numbers ran out of fuel, broke down or whatever. End of story, far more were lost to technical problems than to the Germans. Crappy, but there you go.

Players were up in arms within days after watching their tanks simply disappear. Most gave up immediately when they discovered they could not freely maneuver their armoured reserve about the battlefield. In fact, they whined about it so much that the company decided to lower the breakdown rate to something more in line with 1944.

Then those same players complained about their infantry being too vulnerable. Then they said their artillery was too weak. Then they said their men walked too slow and should have more trucks. In short, they started to sound just like Russian commanders in 1941.

After spending three months trying to make everyone happy the company realized that they had ruined a perfectly good game and undid all the changes. Ten years later people are still playing and loving the game, the company is still making new campaigns on the same engine and the designer sells his new stuff to the military.

And, btw, what is all this about being outplayed and not outlucked? In short, give me a break. If you are so easily beaten then your problem is not bogged vehicles but rather poor tactics and force selection.

Sure it's crappy to lose a big tank to soft ground or a blown transmission, but that's life. You take that chance when you spend all your points on a tiger. If you were clever enough to have purchased some AT guns, for example, and then knew where to place them you would still be able to kill the other guys stuff and have points to spare for arty or whatever.

Suggesting that CM change because you can't have blazing tank battles with the unstoppable metal beasts that you want is hilarious.

Cheers

Paul

In regards to your inane flapping, the game I mentioned was a sceanrio, with all my tanks locked in place at setup. Moving them at Hunt speed across wet, open ground just to get to the road, led to three tanks being immobilized. It had nothing to do with poor tactics or improper force selection. Please, no more prattle when you have no idea what you're saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

...Actually the bit that is least accurate is the tendency of bogs to turn into full blown immobilization - minor problems for a minute or three, occasionally, would be comparatively realistic...

Granted for some cases, but a broken oil pipe and the loss of lubricant can´t really be found and resolved in a few minutes. I am very sorry for anyone who lost tanks due to this "immob" stuff, but our Marder 1A3 (modern in terms of CM, still older then me smile.gif ) tend to break down even more often then any tank in the game. And no, Germany is maneuvering in Mother Russia, nor are trying to hover over swamps. It just happens. Tiny little things, that take out your tanks for a while. And you won´t be able to even look for the problem, as long as enemy is able to spot and bring fire onto you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't care if BFC has precise statistics on how frequently tanks became immobile in the real war."

...statements which essentially say to BFC, thanks for all the hard work, years of study, passionate dedication and attention to detail but next time don't bother.

It doesn't say this at all. I feel like I'm talking to my wife. :-O
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sanok:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I don't care if BFC has precise statistics on how frequently tanks became immobile in the real war."

...statements which essentially say to BFC, thanks for all the hard work, years of study, passionate dedication and attention to detail but next time don't bother.

It doesn't say this at all. I feel like I'm talking to my wife. :-O </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS-Gud - speaking as someone who has done maintenance on M109 and M110 SP howitzers, I can tell you unequivocally no, they do not routinely break down and stop permanently when you drive them across a field. They also turn 90 degrees in half a second at 25 miles per hour with one track stopped. They are capable machines, and you are blowing pure smoke at people who know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KVI Heavy tank

"In May 1940 the yearly production plan was increased from 50 units to 200 units. The ABTU was worried that the tank had still not completed its tests and might contain many hidden defects.

The KV-1 Heavy Tank Model 1939.

So, in May 1940 the tank tests began again on the Kubinka proving ground and also near Leningrad. After running 2648 km some serious defects were found in the transmission, chassis and gear-box. The engineers of SKB offered to stop production until all the defects were eliminated. However, the production plan was already signed, so the production continued anyway. "

Thank you for your information on M109's operating in a peacetime setting Jason. Do you have anything more relevant to WW2?

If we want to extend the arguement to realistic speeds turn rates etc I will leave you to it. We know the game is far from perfect. However it does have a set of rules within which we all operate and play the same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And..

"This was the debut of the new British Crusader tanks,and their mechanical unreliability would prove their undoing.By the 17th the British had withdrawn south,and possesion of the battlefield went to the DAK.In a desperate attempt to ensnare the British armor,the 15th Pz.Div. looped south,but Wavell was one jump ahead.Two squadrons of Matildas held off the German armor for the better part of a day,while their Cruiser tanks withdrew south."

Edited to remove useless line breaks.

And BTW Guderian in France drove in a Czech tank as they were more reliable than the German tanks.

Not that anybody apparently cares on historical grounds. : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

GS-Gud - speaking as someone who has done maintenance on M109 and M110 SP howitzers, I can tell you unequivocally no, they do not routinely break down and stop permanently when you drive them across a field. They also turn 90 degrees in half a second at 25 miles per hour with one track stopped. They are capable machines, and you are blowing pure smoke at people who know better.

Well,

the question was not about the routine, but rather how fast you could resolve the problem.

You say it should be over in 2-3 minutes. I say no. You must be rather potent mechanics to get the machine back to run within that short time, especially in sight of the enemy. I never said it would stop permanently, it ain´t destroyed.

And back to the propabilty of irregular stops for my Marder tank. Yes it is rather high.

Of course not the rule, but far away from being an exception either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walpurgis

"Kind of funny Andreas suggested a no-bog toggle would benefit Germans more than Russians. I see it as neutral across the board. In fact when I get the flashes of anger thinking of times I've bogged, it's always from when I was playing Russians . . . tanks with low psi on flat, dry ground. Russian armor has no choice but to fast move like mad in BB. That is it's main advantage."

I am with Andreas on this - German tanks should be more prone than Russian tanks. I am still surprised that you can recall these boggings you suffer - over 60-70 games must have been CMBB and I cannot recall one specific incident at all. I am sure it happened but obviously not crucial - or worth remembering. Is it that I see it as a game and overcoming the enemy and fate to win. Perhaps others need to re-affirm their smarts and only winning will do it for them, and every thing that happens to prevent this win .. ..... who knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking down crossing all of France is one thing, and breaking down crossing a field 400m wide is another. As for fixing times, not much is going to go wrong on dry open ground. You might stick something in one track driving over stuff, that is about it. If you want special bogging in mud, or for obsolete tanks that are especially unreliable, or as a scenario special - all those are possible with a switch. What happens these days is, you drive a platoon of T-34s across one field, one of them stays in the field. Or, you drive a Tiger up to a crest line, and it remains forever in a reverse slope position 60m shy of th crest. No history or realism in it at all, just pure crapshoot silliness, leaves me laughing at the monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Walpurgis

I am with Andreas on this - German tanks should be more prone than Russian tanks. I am still surprised that you can recall these boggings you suffer - over 60-70 games must have been CMBB and I cannot recall one specific incident at all. I am sure it happened but obviously not crucial - or worth remembering. Is it that I see it as a game and overcoming the enemy and fate to win. Perhaps others need to re-affirm their smarts and only winning will do it for them, and every thing that happens to prevent this win .. ..... who knows

Perhaps you weren't inclined to use your advantages with Russian armor in all those games! ;)

Yes of course the higher psi kraut armor should be more susceptible . . .

I really can see both sides of this discussion. I just think it would be nice for those of us who tend to play smaller games, to have the option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is always interesting how long discussions go on before someone realises that size of battle matters as to whether breakdowns are crucial to the game or not : )

I get tired of mentioning it as it seems fun not to rationalise the points of view that people are arguing past each other on. Of course the vast majority of my games will be 2000+ as I think it offers more of the real deal in terms of a greater range of forces and tactics.

That I think it is fair that the same breakdown probability applies throughout the game is so that it remains uniform in effect.

Jason - as a man who has fielded plenty of T34 platoons I cannot recall ever having one breakdown travelling over a dry field - even that would have been noteworthy to me. As for a Tiger breaking down ... I thought that was a Tiger feature that they were unreliable. Just to refresh my memory I had two platoons of Tigers and a platoon each of MKIV's and StugIII's. After thirty minutes of fast over battlefield movement I had lost two Tigers immobilised and the others fine.

Reminds me why I so very very rarely used them : ) - and bought the lesser tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

Bogging is reduced in AK because it is reduced in AK. Not because things happen to be drier.

Kind of funny Andreas suggested a no-bog toggle would benefit Germans more than Russians. I see it as neutral across the board. In fact when I get the flashes of anger thinking of times I've bogged, it's always from when I was playing Russians . . . tanks with low psi on flat, dry ground. Russian armor has no choice but to fast move like mad in BB. That is it's main advantage.

Unfortunately, flashes of anger are not worth much. My flashes of memory are of German tanks getting bogged. Are they worth the same as your flashes? Probably, and the value is approaching '0'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Paul AU:

I do not think that FOW and rarity are at all the same things. People who believe that have not thought it through.

In the context that is being discussed here, they are precisely the same thing: that is – player-controlled toggles – like a ‘bog’ toggle that threaten (according to some here) to create ‘different versions of the game’. (Which, they don’t – just like a bog-toggle, wouldn’t).

If you think it through, in this context, you’ll see they’re the same.

I have, and they are not. German Ubertanks should on the whole be more vulnerable. You can buy fewer of them. Ergo you are better off with a lower bogging score. The Soviet player can afford more tanks, and they have a lower bogging value to start with. His gain is smaller, by comparison, because his risk is lowered by a smaller degree, since it is distributed more widely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

Bogging is reduced in AK because it is reduced in AK. Not because things happen to be drier.

Kind of funny Andreas suggested a no-bog toggle would benefit Germans more than Russians. I see it as neutral across the board. In fact when I get the flashes of anger thinking of times I've bogged, it's always from when I was playing Russians . . . tanks with low psi on flat, dry ground. Russian armor has no choice but to fast move like mad in BB. That is it's main advantage.

Unfortunately, flashes of anger are not worth much. My flashes of memory are of German tanks getting bogged. Are they worth the same as your flashes? Probably, and the value is approaching '0'. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

1) People. Is this silliness helpful to anyone or anything? What is the bloody motivation?

2) There is a clear difference between bogging in soft ground or scattered trees in mud, and bogging in the open in clear. The former is a accepting a risk and willingly taking it because there is some important object that might be obtained by it - speed, access, avoiding mines, whatever. The latter is an unavoidable result of ordinary use. It is perfectly sensible for anyone's opinions about the two types of events, to differ.

1) It is an interesting philosophical discussion about game play, and how we view the game.

2) Yes there is. So, we come to the same point that we reached in the cowering thread. How much of an issue is it really? So far we have had:

a) Seemingly every time my tanks enter scattered trees they bog. By the most unlucky CM player in the universe, or someone who's memory is tricking him. Not an issue.

B) My AC bogged in a road in snow. Not a bug, a feature. ACs should bog there.

c) Tanks bog and then break down completely on dry ground. Yep, could be a problem. Care to tell me how often it happens? Every game? Every second game? Every tenth game? Could it be you just remember it because the 'flash of anger' is putting the adrenalin into your brain that imprints it? Of all the girls I have seen in Oslo since yesterday, the cutest one was the blonde 20-something with the nice smile behind the 7-11 counter. If you ask me in a few years, I am going to tell you that girls in Norway are nice, many blondes with cute smiles there. Because that's what I will (want to) remember. The overweight brunettes, I don't really see. That's how memory works, you remember the exciting bits (your tank breaks down/cute blondes), not the mundane ones (your tank works/overweight brunettes).

No equal opportunities officer was harmed in the writing of this post.

Ps. Whether tanks bog more or less in CMAK is not much of an answer to anything, since they are by and large different tanks.

Edited b/c I should really read all the posts next time.

[ April 18, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...