![](http://content.invisioncic.com/r254563/set_resources_1/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
Joachim
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joachim
-
-
If yoo look only at the engine, I guess CMAK is ahead of CMBB. If the difference from CMBB to CMAK is just like CMBO to CMBB, CMAK will definitely be an improvement and not jut an add-on.Originally posted by Scythe:I'm considering buying either CMBB or CMAK (I probably can't buy both) but first I have a couple questions to ask you guys.
1) Once CMAK comes out will you be playing that alot more than CMBB (i.e. will you shelve CMBB)
2) Do you think CMAK will make CMBB obsolete or is CMAK more of an add-on?
3) Will the CMBB online gaming community suffer due to the release of CMAK? (i.e. will all the CMBB players move to playing CMAK)
Normally I'd just wait till CMAK comes out and buy that but since I'm more interested in the eastern front than Africa/Sicily/Italy I'm not sure...
What should I do?
I am interested in the epic struggle in the east, so CMBB will probably not vanish from my desk (except if it is a very big leap forward). I will decide to buy CMAK after I heard about the improvements.
If you are interested in the Med theater, then CMAK is your weapon of choice. Depending on the size of the improvements, there will be more or less, but still many CMBBers left - just look at the CMBO forum, there are still people playing it. But many will switch to CMAK - especially the Yanks.
Gruß
Joachim
-
CM: Here cost is an issue. The bang for the buck will leave you no units to exploit the suppression (maybe even the destruction of an FO). Exploiting an arty barrage might work, exploiting an airstrike is virtually impossible (which IMHO is an adequate model for a RL airstrike from level bombers. Don't wanna discuss CASOriginally posted by Holien:Scarhead I think you are still mixing scales up.
In CM terms you could justify it if you thought that for the few minutes of effect you could move your men into a better position.
In the Real life situation (bigger scale, bigger time frame, more CM points) this might be justified (wrongly as it turned out) in a similar fashion.
I know what you are saying about cost and I think that is a different issue and should not be mixed between the scale of CM (Small local Actions) and the actual battle which would have been multiple CM battles.
H
)
RL: Cost in a given Schwerpunkt is not an issue. But leaning on the barrage by an airstrike of level bombers is calling for disaster. I doubt the suppressive effect of a front line bombing on a single target of limited size - especially if the defenders on the slopes below the abbey get away pretty much unharmed.
Until the allies are up close in strength, the Germans should be able to deploy another FO in the abbey. TRPs could enable other FOs to fill the gap in the meantime, further reducing the value of reducing a good OP. The suppressive effects were not used, the barrage was wasted.
Thus except for the morale effect, the bombing was an unneccessary failure. My opinion is it was done for the morale - softening some angry voices.
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 29, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
Maybe 'cause you should be more specific.Originally posted by Bammer:Wonder why management will not answer this question ?
Scenarios (in CMBB) allow for an insane amount of points. I never found the limit, but I played an op with 20000 pts (check "To the Volga", "Fridericus", ...)
So I guess you mean the limit in QBs:
QBs normally allow for a max of 5000 pts for the defender.
If one player sets up the map in the editor, buys most of his forces there (say 15000pts for the defender), then imports the forces and map into the QB generator and allows for a huge bonus (say 300%) for the other player to compensate, you have lots of points in the QB generator, too. (in this example 20000 as a base, with a 600% bonus even more!). You have to either trust your opponent, or receive the setup + scenario after the battle ends to be able to check the spend points.
When doing this vs. the AI, you have no problem at all (except that 17k pts with combined arms will play like "To the Volga").
Gruß
Joachim
-
a) Check the weather and ground conditions in the little picture in the control panel (while you have not selected a unit, you can see a picture there.... Wet ground means mud, mud means bogging.Originally posted by NellandAndy:Hi guys, I'm the new member. Bogged tanks are the worst and in a game I lost 2 thirds of my tanks to being bogged, How can you tell when a area is dangerous to tanks so they get bogged :mad:
Even the AI tries to use roads with his T34s in wet ground conditions!
Avoid mud/wet ground tiles.
c) Avoid scattered trees (except in the worst ground conditions(?). Somebody stated that on wet ground, tanks bog less in scattered trees)
d) Avoid the low ground in anything but dry ground conditions. Higher ground is usually less muddy than the bottom of the valley. You can't see that in CM, but it's in there (as it is in RL).
Gruß
Joachim
-
If we are talking CM you are not comparing apples with apples.Originally posted by Holien:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarhead:
@Holien:
Letting loose a million points (in CM terms) to annihilate a single FO (or two)? Maybe you create some rubble, and some temporary dust (being a mountaintop, there is a strong wind clearing any dust soon). But once the smoke settles, the rubble on the mountaintop is still a good OP. Just send some other FO in. So I doubt it made sense to send in an air fleet just to erase an OP.
Gruß
Joachim
1. In a CM game it would be a Church or some such tall building.
2. There are not that many Arty OP's in a game and taking out one or two would be very useful.
3. The loss of a high point. Tall building and dust can be very useful to the attacker.
If you want to talk CM then please don't switch between the real world and the game.
If you want to talk Real world I agree that in the long term destroying the Abbey had no good points for the Allies. As my post alluded to.
H </font>
-
Yep, that's what I read somewhere.Originally posted by Chek:Just finished reading Kippenberger's Infantry Brigadier(a damn good read by the way) and according to him it was the NZ Corp who requested its bombing.They were convinced the germans were using it as an OP.
Bloody Kiwi's eh
It is a perfect site for an OP.
The Allies got a big trashing.
The English general in Command faced some accusations of wasting CW lives.
He wanted to make damn sure the CW divisions get the best support available. ANZAC wants the abbey bombed? After all they have to blame something for not being able to advance and the accurate fire on their positions. From a purely military point of view, the abey is THE target. No problem, just order in the Air Force.
And I bet afterwards nobody accused that general of not supporting the CW divisions as good as possible.
BTW:
The Germans even evacuated the art from the abbey to the Vatican! (also featured in that movie...).
And I doubt the numerous Italian partisans were unable to tell the dispostion regarding the abbey to the Allies.
The only question is whether the Allies believed that info...
@Holien:
Letting loose a million points (in CM terms) to annihilate a single FO (or two)? Maybe you create some rubble, and some temporary dust (being a mountaintop, there is a strong wind clearing any dust soon). But once the smoke settles, the rubble on the mountaintop is still a good OP. Just send some other FO in. So I doubt it made sense to send in an air fleet just to erase an OP.
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 28, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
2nd this. A tank is not the weapon of choice when it comes to taking out guns. If tanks stop to get slaughtered by guns, I'd complain.Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:If i was a tank commander, I'd hightail it pretty fast to cover if I spotted an enemy gun... If the gun has enough potency to take my armor out, then it's likely that I'll lose a shooting match.
Maybe set an infantry covered arc for the tank along with the hunt command. This *might* encourage the tank to stop when inf or guns are encountered.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Congratulations on finishing ROQC!
Doing a similar thing myself I know how much work is put into this!
Guys, whenever you play a battle and curse about the bookkeeping - What Rob has done took far more work than your bookkeeping.
BTW: Blame the bookkeeping on BFC
Rob, have you ever considered asking BFC to allow for importing custom maps into the scenario editor while keeping the forces? Or importing ended games into the editor?
I guess ROQC would profit from that as well as BCR. The next battle would be much easier to set up than now. If yes, maybe we should send them a mail.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Shouldn't that be Herr Picklehaube, you Salt wannabe? </font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
Mr.Picklehaube would like to point out that the abbey itself was never fought over.
-
Covered arcs can also be used to "protect" area fire orders from TacAI intervention. For example I had situations where I wanted to smoke a specific spot with a gun, but the TacAI always decided that it would be better to fire at a MG somewhere completely different. So I set a very narrow covered arc around the smoke target spot, and then it worked.Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:
If I set a covered arc command, then, within that covered arc I set an area target command, I do that to fire upon a _suspected_ enemy position. When, and if, I flush that enemy from cover, I want to shift my targeting priority off the area target and on to the actual unit.
If I set only an area target, then, no matter what else (other than an immediate, direct threat to my unit) I want to continue to fire on that area for the entire turn.
If I set only a covered arc, I only want to fire on any enemy unit which may appear within that covered arc.
Ken
Your suggestion would make this use of covered arcs almost impossible because my gun would switch to any unit within the arc.
I guess we can't have everything.
Dschugaschwili </font>
-
Flags are only for static operations! In Assault or advance ops only terrain counts. Set the according parameter to "static"Originally posted by Von Birnstock 1:Hello,
I am in the process of creating my first campiegn and i cant seem to figure out how to place the objective flags on the Map. Im sure I am missing something real easy but I just cant figure it out.
Also, I am trying to imput 1 or 2 captured T34 / 43 into the German units but I dont see them listed as an option. The campiegn I am creating is occuring in the fall of 1944.
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Von Birnstock
Gruß
Joachim
-
It is not yet finished. Currently it can generate new battles, but I want to have the Battle group sheet and the favor sheet working with it.Originally posted by Robert Olesen:Hi,
I just wanted to say thanks. Mostly to Biltong (if he reads this), but also to everyone who keeps BCR alive.
BCR was what set me on the path towards ROQC. I played BCR and found that while it was fun and interesting, it wasn't quite what I wanted. The fact that BCR could be done inspired me to do a campaign to suit my own tastes. So I did.
Scarhead, check out my spreadsheet if you haven't done so already. It's quite nifty and might provide some inspiration to yours. Which reminds me - I should check out yours. Is it available?
Guess I'll send the preliminary results to you guys tonight. To Rob for some ideas, to Jim to decide how we can put his battlegroup sheet (which I started copying and toyed around a bit) and my rules sheet (plus the favor sheet, but this is minor work) together to create a solution.
Biggest problem as of now for the rules sheet is how to add favor (for more ammo or different troops). Maybe I'll change the rules to ease that...
General Design:
I have a "Calcs - Battle" sheet where the random effects and the rules are. Another sheet sees the ouptut, the "Roll Battle Button", probably (ToDo)some "add favor here" buttons plus finally the "Roll After Battle Button", which copies the "Calcs - Battle sheet" to a "Calcs- Last Battle" sheet.
@Rob: Thanks for allowing me to copy ideas from your sheets
. I avoided looking at it too closely for fear of copyright violations.
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 27, 2003, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
Depending on the size of the enemy forces, the time to compute the AI turns is very long.Originally posted by JasonC:Horsefeathers. It is not processing or program size (modern desktops can run a Mars mission, easily), it is just time spent programming it up, debugging, and refining routines. It is the input time that takes work, not the number crunching.
I guess the problem with the AI is that each unit plans its own mission, unaware of the others. Resulting in n calculations. If you plan it calculating what all the other units are doing, you will get from n calcs per turn to n*n calcs. So with 100 units, you will spend on the order of 100 times longer than now.
If you use formations and sub-formations for movement and do the calcs based on them, you might get less calcs, but I guess it would still be a lot of calcs more (say you have 25 plts and 100 unit´s. Guestimate is 25*25+100 calcs).
I have done some work in optimal control of stochastic dynamic models (ie trying to get the best result over several time periods (aka turns) where you don't know the exact behaviour of things and have some added uncertainty). There are some approaches now adding game theory (ie another player). But then optimization is even more complicated.
The AI behaviour JasonC wants (especially considering for one unit what happens to the others) could be modelled that way. I guess "Bit Battles" would be the favourites of 99,9% of players then - all others would take hours to compute 1 turn.
If AI programming was so far ahead, it could solve our problems, too. Then we could stop research...
BTW: I want that good AI, too. But I believe BFC when they say it will take lots of computational time.
Gruß
Joachim
-
1. Dunno. but Japan considered the US to be a top threat to its expansion plans in SE Asia. So I guess it is a "Yes"Originally posted by Hans:Assuming a change of government in Britain and a negotiated peace.
1. Would the Japanese and Americans still clash?
2. Would the Germans still go for the Soviets?
3. Other possibilities?
2. "Der Lebensraum liegt im Osten" (Mein Kampf, A. Hitler). The West was never the target of Hitler. It just got in the way after he invaded Poland. Neither the French nor the Brits are "Untermenschen (sub-humans)" in Hitler's eyes that are to be destroyed or used as slaves. The Brits do count as "Herrenmenschen", he would have preferred to have them as Allies.
Ultimate goal: Extinct all sub-humans and rule the world with the "Herrenmenschen". You need lots of those to rule the world!
He envisions a Germanic state consisting of workers and farmers (and prison-guards for the slaves). Academics or universities are not that important.
So women are encouraged to give birth to many children to increase the population. Orders are awarded to women who give birth to several children. Grandma got one with 8 children, and there was one for even more children. Programs were started before the war. Imagine all generations twice the size of their predecesors. Population doubled after 50 years, then again every 25 years.
You need some room for all these people!
Hilter wants the vast spaces in Eastern Europe for the Germanic race (after all the Germanic tribes came from there before the middle ages).
Hitler's logic:
There is only one solution to this problem: War.
If won, it results in more land and slavery for the so-called sub-humans.
(Disclaimer. I don't share any of Hitler's views. If any of the above sentences is written in a way that could stir the idea I would support any of Hitler's views, this sentence is not as it was intended. Blame it on my bad English.
If you wonder why I write this disclaimer:
a) I'm German,
I don't want to be accused of certain things in this forum
c) There are some laws over here. While I am not a friend of these laws (laws don't change people, education does), I support the ideas why those laws were made (yet IMHO can't achieve) and don't want to spread or stir racial hatred in any form.)
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 24, 2003, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
Hey,
8 posts already and I second each!
The AI is the best AI (for its genre). But the best sometimes just ain't good enough.
Most of my games are GE vs AI soviets (QBs).
I play them along BCR rules, usually the AI has a bonus.
A list of some scenarios where the AI does a good job:
a) setup for defense on custom-made maps with medium cover (ie defendable terrain). Placement of units is not outstanding, but solid work.
setup for defense on maps with good cover - mainly because you just don't know where the AI will put his troops and can't bomb likely positions.
c) Human wave infantry attacks with lots of higher HQs and a bonus to the AI. Any waste of ammo by the humn player is punished. Abundant higher HQs help the AI in maintaining some command structure.
d) Dynamic flags with AI attacker!!! This is a real gem! The AI does not attack the nearest but the only valuable flag. It is much harder to outguess the AI then. The dynamic flags are often overlooked in custom scenarios!
Any battle with a very huge AI bonus
Things that don't work. Some of them might be able to change.
AI defense: If the flags are too far from the AI map edge, AT gun placement is bad - especially if they can't even see the areas around the flag.
AI defense: Counterattacks. Piecemeal, too early. Maybe tweak it so the first captured flag does not always trigger the counter. "Capture 1 outlying flag ASAP, wait for counter, slaughter counter, advance further" is faster than advancing into the counter. Sometimes you can just slaughter the counter and win without any other flag.
AI attack:
I'd like some more probing by the AI to see which flags are defended
I'd like to stop the AI from taking the flags in a fixed pattern (the nearest flag to the start line, then the second nearest flag to the start line - even if it is on the other flank. Parading parallel to the front line is a recipe for disaster. The original plan is probably to roll up the flanks, but if the human player abandoned the forward positions, the AI is doomed. Penetrate deeper, then roll up the flank!
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 24, 2003, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
But green troops under the command of a leader with all +2 bonusses behave like vets only while in command.Originally posted by tailend bryan:probably me just being daft but as i'm hopeless at creating scenario's are there any that show what a difference leadership can make to squad's i.e. green troops with a outstanding commander beating the living daylight out off veteran troops with a poor leader
Vets are vets even out of command.
With equal numbers the vets would still be better.
With equal points, you get approx 30% less vets. If all greens have all bonusses and the vets have none, I'd expect a good player to win with the greens.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Man! That's amazing! I've always wondered why the MGer couldn't be looking out for infantry while the main gun was shooting.Originally posted by GreenAsJade:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarhead:
The covered arc is only cancelled when you area target outside it. Setting the target area first then the covered arc does work. Area targetting inside the covered arc does work.
Every day you learn something!
GaJ. </font>
-
Eh? Where and how did you pick up this tidbit?Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarhead:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarhead:
BTW: Borg spotting only happens between turns.
:confused:
Michael </font>
-
2nd this. Maybe Michael D. has a chance for some close encounters now after he run the gauntlet out in the open, but his troops are neither in good shape nor order. I guess even I would not need SMG squads to defend vs the odds we now see in the city.Originally posted by GreenAsJade:So now, to really prove the point, someone needs to attempt the same defense but _without_ SMG squads.
I mean, this whole defense might have been a piece of cake with pistol platoons, for all we know
Either use a bonus for the attacker (+50%) so the force ratio is still in his favor (1.5:1 or better) when he comes to town. Or use a setup with covered approaches.
Fionn's Sunken Lane AAR comes to mind. The effects of a few SMG plts or a few 1SMG/1LMG9 rifle plts instead of the 2SMG/2AR/2LMG/xRifle plts would really show up there.
(BTW: The JC-MD AAR is excellent, with JC-GF still good. The setup is not optimal to show the point.)
Gruß
Joachim
-
Eh? Where and how did you pick up this tidbit?Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarhead:
BTW: Borg spotting only happens between turns.
:confused:
Michael </font>
-
It is possible. The covered arc is only cancelled when you area target outside it. Setting the target area first then the covered arc does work. Area targetting inside the covered arc does work.Originally posted by GreenAsJade:It sounds like you think that you have been able to order both area fire and a covered arc from the same AFV. Is this what you are saying? I think that this is not possible at all. Either you tell the AFV "fire in this area" OR "shoot any infantry that moves in this arc" but not both...
(I completely agree that the behaviour you describe is hard to avoid and not good at all).
GaJ.
a) The T34 did not spot the TH team - despite the LOS. Crew too busy inside shelling the wrong area. Probably buttoned, as they were fired upon before.Originally posted by GJK:Yes! This same thing happened to me in a PBEM, playing CMBB. I was just going to contribute it to the crew experience or something...anyways, my scenario:
Friendly T-34 has been fired upon by a tank hunter team in a building who has now retreated back into the building and is out of LOS. I lay area fire to flush the team out. Out they come alright, straight towards the T-34, in plain LOS of the tank crew. Instead of adjusting targets to this obvious threat, they keep popping away at a now empty building. The pzfst team takes out the T-34 just seconds later.
Is there not a case of "self-preservation" there? What doofus doesn't say "screw the order to fire at the building, there's an AT team heading straight for us!". No mg fire from the tank either, which really gets me.
And yes, there was a covered arc set (non-armor) and the AT team was well within it and got as close as 20 meters to take out the T-34.
The TC spotted them, but the TH team was already in dead ground for his coax MG. His driver did not understand Russian, and the ropes directing him to drive left or right could not deliver thet message to fire the bow MG to the right.
BTW: Borg spotting only happens between turns.
Gruß
Joachim
-
So this is how the double posts are done...
[ October 22, 2003, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
Which model of the PzIIIj ? The late model with 50+20 frontal armor and the 50L60 is a good match for the T34 M41 or M42.Originally posted by Knaust:What is the best tactics for German tanks against Russian ones in 1942?
In the Stalingrad Pack scenario “When Worlds Collide” the PzIIIJ’s are no match for the T-34’s…simply they cannot penetrate them while being easily penetrated by the Russkies.
I tried to counter the T-34’s with the StuGIIIF’s at a distance of 1100-1200 mts being confident that their superior optics would have helped, but the duel between 2 StugIIIF’s and 4 T-34’s ended with the loss of the Stug’s and 1 T-34 being penetrated twice.
I’m not sure that the optics is consistently modelled, simply I haven’t found any great advantage for the Germans.
The better optics allow for a faster acquisition of targets. Once the Russians zero in, the advantage is reduced.
IIRC the T34 has a higher ROF than the StuGs. So 4 T34 have (at least) double the amount of shots vs double the hit probability of the StuGs. Expect an equal amount of hits!
The T34s have big HE loads as AP, so the effect after penetration is just boom. The StuG's shots may just ricochet on the sloped armor of the T34.
Which outcome do you expect? There is even a mathematical law for this effect (search some old JasonC threads).
The content of that law:
Never ever start a shooting match with superior numbers of tanks if they are not outclassed.
You can face several T34(76mm)s with a lone Tiger. A pair of StuGs with 80mm frontal armor will make a stand vs a few T34(76mm)s at above 500m. PzIIIj(late) will hold their ground vs an equal number of T34s.
My tactic would be to keep the T34s fixed with the PzIIIj (if late model) at 600m, then go for flank shots with the StuGs at above 750m. Angle between firing lanes should be 120°. Fixing does not mean you start dueling it out. Shoot and scoot with the PzIII till the StuGs arrive if you have to keep the T34 occupied. Preferably show your PzIII to the T34s so they just have time to turn around and face the PzIII when you arrive for flank shots with the StuGs. Should the T34s decide to face the StuGs afterwards - well, turning tanks don't fire in CM and even the 50L42 has a chance to penetrate the sides of a T34.
If all of your StuGs are gone, use a PzIII plt for flanking. Keep your armor concentrated on the target. Do not use them piecemeal. Try to attack small numbers of tanks. Keyholing your flank attack might work even better.
In another game there was a "Chinese pincushion" tactics: Have your tanks in positions so one group A (good armor, weak gun) can see all targets once in firing position. These tanks are just out of range for frontal kills. Another Group B (weak armor, gun good enough for flank shots) can see only a part of the enemy. Which ever has flank shots to the enemy shows up first. A presenting targets as they are relatively(?) safe, B keyholed on a small portion of the enemy, probably using shoot&scoot. Enemy turns to face threat. When enemy has turned, the threat breaks contact.
Enemy tanks out of sight to group B may change direction to move into better firing positions once Group A is out of LOS. When Group A appears again it might even get rear shots.
Make sure you establish and break LOS with all tanks of a group at the same time. The distance to two tanks just 40m apart is almost the same. So when switching targets, the 2nd target is acquired much faster as you already zeroed in. So when the first disappears, the 2nd one gets all the incoming...
Keep you armor apart, only concentrate on the target area.
Gruß
Joachim
[ October 22, 2003, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]
-
Are those Campaign rules? (With campaign rules I associate things like the old Steel Panthers (long) campaigns.)Originally posted by markl:Hi,
Are you after CMBO o CMBB Rules. There are more for CMBO starting with Fionns 75 + 76 rules going up the Nippy's and RedWolfs rules which are about the latest. Biltongs rules look good but a little complicated for most.
If you need any e-mail me with your e-mail limit if you can not find any that you need.
Rule sets I have seen are:
CMBO
Dr VonCools
Fionns 75 + 76 (ry first fo rCMBO)
Franko's Combat Rules
Robs historical Rules
Scorpio's Rules
Sardaukar's rules
CMBB
Band of Brothers
Biltongs
Nippy's (look good and are simple. try these first for CMBB)
Redwolfs Rules
Smopes rules
and lastly ???
Poor old spikes rules (see locked forum threads)
Cheers
Redwolfs armor rules or Fionns Short 75 /Panther 76 rules are for fair PBEMs. As they are for one battle only, they are less complicated than a set of rules trying to keep track of a series of battles.
For BCR '41 there is a Java Program Biltaid to do most of the calcs, BCR '42 will soon be available as excel spreadsheet doing most of the calcs(Expect it to be ready just before CMAK
). IIRC ROQC has an auto-spreadsheet.
Gruß
Joachim
The one German AFV that BTS did not model
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Gruß
Joachim