general weapons discussions

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Akalabeth
05/16/16 01:14 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Nope.
In the real world, weapon advances don't go from "inaccurate" to "pin point precision" in one iteration. Even accounting for Artemis IV and Improved SRMs, the jump from "some of them hit" to "all of them hit the same location" is unreasonable.
ghostrider
05/17/16 03:25 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Odd thought came up.
How do non vehicle flamers work?
The new theory of fusion plasma cools as soon as it is removed from the magnetic bottle that holds it. This is how they explain fusion engines do not explode anymore.
How would you be able to throw the discharge at another unit if it cools that quickly?
Karagin
05/17/16 10:08 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I disagree, weapons tech advances faster when there is a need, look at the airplane, went from a barley flying motor powered glider to jet technology in 30 years. From single shot rifles to magazine feed ones that could do both single shot to full auto in roughly the same amount of time, and we have gone from a few hit to all hit in the last 20 years. So really real life offers far more then BT allows for, prime example, the PTB claim a cupola, which is part of the turret, weighs 1 ton ( if I recall correctly, not at my computer right this minute to check the books,) and yet in real life the item is not even close to that weight, but yet as we once called FASAonmics calls for it to be that way. Battletech has another flaw, look at the AC ranges, the smaller gun aka the AC2 has the longest range, but yet in real life that is not the case, weapon systems that would be lumped into the same category as the AC2 have far less range then the ones that would be lumped in the same category as the AC10 or AC20. So really it is the game's demand for balance and play ability on a scale of the table top vs the front yard that limits things. And having something hit is a matter of aim and getting the first shot off. Something game fails to take into account as well.

Flamers pull their payload from the fusion reactor of the mech or vehicle since you can mount both the ammo feed flamers as well as normal flamers on both mechs and vehicles. As for the ones troops carry, very similar to flamethrowers of WW1 and WW2 era.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/17/16 10:47 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Supposedly, we currently have icbms that can hit a dime on a pitchers mound 1000 miles away, if you believe the propaganda.

And I did not say improved or artemis systems, I said streaks. The ones that all hit if it locks, with the exception of ecm. The idea of a spread across the unit makes you wonder how some don't miss.
The broad chest area of an assault verses the smaller area of a light mech is a difference. With the speeds some of the lights go at, hitting will all missiles across the entire mech starts making me ask why don't any miss?
Not sure the targeting mechanism, but if they use visual identifying, it the black and blue painting on the arm, it would figure they would all target that.

But you are correct in that weapons tend to have accuracy problems for a few models. Star League had them over 300 years ago, and the clans only 'lost' them during their civil war and rebuild. And the current era is over 100 years in the future with that. They have streak lrms now.

The vehicle flamers use chemicals to burn.
The fusion flamer pulls it from the engine. Yet they say the fusion material cools rapidly if not in the magnetic bottle, in the engine definition. This is supposed to keep the engines from exploding.
This very definition would negate using the material in the fusion reactor as a weapon. It should cool to a point of non use before it even leaves the flamer nozzle.
Akalabeth
05/17/16 02:27 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech has lots of flaws. Who cares? You either like the game or you don't. There are more realistic games on the market if it doesn't meet your standards. I don't see the value in complaining about one thing after another ad naseum until the end of time, never satisfied, always searching for something to find fault with. At some point most players would either accept the game, as it is, or find a new one.

And the main point I was making is that going to Streaks from SRMs+Artemis, where Streaks suddenly hit with all and all hit the same location is an unrealistic iteration (evolutionary step). If you want to say "Hey Streaks are cool, but I have an idea for a NEW weapon more advanced than Streaks where the SRMs all hit the same location" then it's another story. Want to make up new advanced weapons which ADD to the game? Knock yourself out, go nuts.

And by the way, Streaks don't care about ECM. At least not standard models.
ghostrider
05/17/16 02:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess they changed that one as well. Used to be all ecm stopped the streak ability. You could still fire it normally, but to hit and number of missiles needed to be rolled. Hell when both came out the standard guardian was the ONLY ecm out.

Asking about things to get answers is what the whole idea of a forums is about, isn't it?
Also, it might help get ideas to anyone that works with the game to fill in loop holes and maybe come up with some ideas for modifying weapons for the next series of rules.

And I said it before. Using facts and such to say something can't be done, while ignoring those facts to allow the same thing for another concept is crap. But I can see where closing some of these issues will prevent further abuse of them.

Not sure if others have thought of issues like this. I would like to know if others ran into these issues while playing or not. As well as just thinking about it.

Added:
I guess enough people complained about things to get them changed like this, as well as infantry damage and other things. They have changed alot of things to make any history of it obsolete.


Edited by ghostrider (05/17/16 02:45 PM)
Akalabeth
05/17/16 03:31 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I guess they changed that one as well. Used to be all ecm stopped the streak ability.



That has never been true as far as I know.
You want to dig out your 2750 TRO and quote the relevant portion?

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I would like to know if others ran into these issues while playing or not.



Believing that Streak Launchers should behave in a manner counter to the rules is not an "issue" with the game, it's simply your opinion.

The only "issue" that anyone is going to run into while playing the game is when the ESTABLISHED mechanics of the game create gameplay problems. Like Pulse Lasers and Targeting computers being too powerful. Which has been resolved. Or the issue your group felt the LAM rules were not clear, which has also been resolved.

But many issues you have are not with the game, but with the background material. But guess what, it's fiction. The authors wrote it how they want and discussing the merits of the fiction is like discussing the nature of Tolkein's elves. If you don't like how Tolkein represents elves, then don't read Lord of the Rings. Similarly if you don't like how Streaks work then create a new weapon. Don't like how Fusion Engines get free heat sinks then create your own units that don't get free heat sinks. But finding fault and asking for explanation on one thing after another is just kinda monotonous because at the end of the day the answer to 90% of your questions is "It's that way because it is".
CrayModerator
05/17/16 06:18 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Odd thought came up.
How do non vehicle flamers work?
The new theory of fusion plasma cools as soon as it is removed from the magnetic bottle that holds it. This is how they explain fusion engines do not explode anymore.



That's not what I meant in Tech Manual. I indicated that the plasma in the reactor cools *below fusing temperatures* when it hits the massive reactor walls or is quenched by a lot of air rushing into the reactor, so (to address some fans' theories) you cannot have a nuclear fusion explosion.

You can have other spectacular fireworks when a fusion engine gets punctured. The plasma is still very hot, hot enough to wreck the interior of the engine and (in the case of flamers) damage armor. But the difference between 100,000C plasma torches and 100,000,000C fusing plasmas is a lack of nuclear reactions.

There are limits to energy flamers, though. Their plasma jets are quickly quenched in air, hence the 3-hex range. To get more range and more damage you need more mass for the plasma, which is why plasma rifles and plasma cannons use "ammo" (big slugs of polymers that are zapped by lasers to form plasma jets with ranges of up to 18 hexes.)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.


Edited by Cray (05/17/16 06:19 PM)
Karagin
05/17/16 08:21 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Who's complaining? Wait no one is, funny how we are talking about Ghostriders questions and such and some how that involves complaining, guess I was off world and missed the memo on that part. And BT can have realism and still be fun, guess that depends on the maturity of your group and how they want to play, so mileage will vary from group to group.

Yet Cray, both type of flamers have the same range so both have the same burn rate limits.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
05/17/16 08:36 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now here is a question, would flamers be useful on aerospace units?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Retry
05/17/16 08:51 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That would probably depend upon how many space whales you want to barbecue.
Karagin
05/17/16 11:50 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

That would probably depend upon how many space whales you want to barbecue.



Stop bring Star Wars and Star Trek creatures into the game. Wait, I think their idea of Ion Engines would be cool for the game...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/18/16 12:51 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. That cleared up the flamer question. Wish they would have done that during the original release of the game. Lost alot of characters to fusion explosions.

Again, you suggest one statement covers everything, akabaleth. First off, your interpretation of the rules does not make it so. A lam in flight mode can not fly backwards or turn without piloting rolls if they don't move the amount of required spaces. Launching and landing are part of flight mode. Landing facing the direction you came from violates that rule. ESTABLISHED RULES. Just because almost everyone has ignored that, doesn't mean it is isn't against the rules.
Now maybe rereading that question might make you realize, I asked if streaks shouldn't hit the same spot. NOT IT MUST. Nothing in that suggested it was wrong. Now I would suggest you follow your own advise and read and study the questions before assuming things, like you said about the rules.

I do find the heated responses kind of funny, as this game was changed from it's original form. I mean it is not battledriods. Guess they didn't like most of what was happening and changed the whole premise. Could have been the lawsuits. Could also have been things weren't working out right. So far there is only one person that seems to have issues with the questions. I know most have been quiet on any of this questions. As with mech designs, questions on how things are working and if they need a change is part of the whole thing. As much as you have the right to dislike what is here, I have the right to ask things.

And as for space whales, they used to have them in D&D in their spell jammers set.
As for if Flamers would be useful, I would think the cold in space would make them extremely limited in range if they could even do any damage outside of the fighters projectors.
I would think the fighters exhaust would be more effective as a flamer set up.


Edited by ghostrider (05/18/16 12:53 PM)
ghostrider
05/18/16 01:11 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Have to look for the other books. I want to say it was in the 3050 part that was removed in newer additions, but can't say for sure.
But while on the subject of streaks, should they be allowed to use a c3 network to lock?
The system itself has it's own system to lock and guide the missiles, would that extend to the c3 network?
I would think not.
Karagin
05/18/16 05:51 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes they removed the weapons tech and other things about the Clans from the later version of TRO3050. Which has lead to folks getting upset over things. Like Clans using lighter weight and size IS weapons as stated in the ORIGINAL TRO3050. IF I recall correctly that lead to a very heated debate around here at one point.

Then again they also changed that Gauss Rifle and it's ammo as well as vehicles at one point could not use XL engines then they could, so yes things change, some for the better others not so much.

I believe Streaks can work with the C3 system, but I would need to look things over again to be 100% on that. Now I will say that I have played in groups who allow different things to happen and for different takes on the rules. For example my group was treating the AMS as you marked on slot of ammo every time you fired it, just like every other weapon system, it worked for us, but we all knew that if we played with other groups we would follow the rules as written. Group play is fun and fine with it's own rules and such, but keep in mind not all play the same way and yes we all wish folks would agree with our own ways of playing but that's not going to happen either.

Now does having TAG and a C3 Network allow you to spot better for units that can use the TAG or is it not worried about? That has always been an interesting sundry for many folks.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/18/16 01:09 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. The post isn't here, so I guess I need to try this again.
The ams was changed from the original release as well. You rolled 1d6 to determine the missiles destroyed then (1d6)x2 for ammo usage. So it was possible to use 12 shots of ammunition for 1 missile. Run out of ammo quickly as well.

I know under the description of the c3, that is also functions as a tag unit. What it does not say is if it has to be part of the c3 network or can be outside of it. So the question of the tag/c3 does seem to be a hole in the rules.
Since the c3 network helps target things in the network, it might help the tag lock on, but this could go either way. I can see where it might have to be it's own separate targeting system.
And as a secondary question, can a c3 by used to help target other c3s and still work as a tag unit in the same round?


And a side note. If streaks can use c3 systems to lock, use streak lrms with a lam doing the targeting. Almost guarantee you can not take it down before the other 11 units with hordes of streak lrms takes down units. Each unit can target a different unit with the streaks. So you can spread the damage around some.
CrayModerator
05/18/16 06:05 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Ok. That cleared up the flamer question. Wish they would have done that during the original release of the game. Lost alot of characters to fusion explosions.



The original game - at least BT 2nd (1985), 3rd, and 4th editions - emphasized in their sidebar fluff text that fusion engines do not explode. It was novel authors (notably Michael Stackpole) that introduced the exploding fusion engine to BT.

Because of the popularity of "the Stackpole," Maximum Technology introduced a purely optional rule that allowed fusion engines, assuming players wanted to use it in their game. The same rule is maintained as a non-tournament optional rule in Tactical Operations. Standard rules have never included exploding fusion engines, then or now.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
05/18/16 07:45 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To bad many confuse optional with normal rules and will argue that the optional rule is indeed a standard rule.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/18/16 09:12 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Guess they missed that in the mechwarrior video games as well. Hell the mercenaries as well as mech commander had mechs blowing up like crazy. I remember the opening sequence of one where an atlas blows up taking a timberwolf/madcat with it.
Do you happen to know what page that was on?
It may have been something we glossed over reading the rules. Then again, I don't think we thought they changed that. So many characters would have lived.

More then a few schrek tank crews died from this. Oh well.

2nd edition? Is that the boxed set or mechwarrior 2 books?
ghostrider
05/19/16 12:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is the silver bullet gauss rifle, hell even all gauss rifles supposed to be the 'replacements' for ac?
For almost no heat, with a ton more, 5 less damage, but 2 to 2 1/2 times the range.
Not worried about ammo explosions, only 20 points if the weapon gets hit. That is only one shot with the ac 20.
This does not really fit with the unlikely concept of keeping weapons balanced with the rest of the game. There should be weapons no one wants to be without, but can't be used in some units. Granted the heavy gauss can be said about light mechs. Too much weight to be used by them.

I think the developers need to come out with more designs that push the range issue. Otherwise, this is a little much. Maybe extended range ac's far a little more weight at first, then come down and phase out the old cannons.
Akalabeth
05/21/16 08:37 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Who's complaining? Wait no one is, funny how we are talking about Ghostriders questions and such and some how that involves complaining, guess I was off world and missed the memo on that part.



Complaining:
1. to express dissatisfaction

Quote:
Ghostrider writes:

I would like to have some of the impossible for players to do things to be eliminated from the game.

Seeing some information on the partial wings is annoying.


Quote:
Ghostrider writes:

Would sweeping a laser across an infantry pack mean the beam meant to destory hardened steel would not cut through a person with ease?
It is very stupid to say that is no longer does the same thing it did because we need infantry to live longer



Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
It almost sounds like the game is pusing the lbx cannon. What other weapons does crits like it, as well as makes it easier to hit.
Its highly effective against air craft and infantry.
I really hate this garbage about them.



And this is only the first few points.

It's fairly apparent that Ghostrider is dissatisfied with nearly every aspect of the rules. The latest in a long list of "Things that are wrong" or things that need to be explained is now Gauss rifles.
ghostrider
05/21/16 10:53 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually that door swings both ways. I have asked why some things have not followed the same logic they put forth to promote other ideas. And it seems someone is trying to complain as those questions meant to get some ideas flowing, but failed.
They don't like some of the ideas of the game being questioned.

I half think they know someone personally that worked on the game and taking it personally.
It may well be no one has asked these questions while discussing issue. And yes. I will say it now. I was not there. I know a few here worked on, or talk with those that worked on, these very issues.

As you suggested about reading and studying things. I asked if they were supposed to replace the ac?
They do not fit the real balance of the game with ballistic weapons, as range and damage are opposite of each other for the acs. They need to add in more weapons that do this, or the gauss rifle ends up looking like a miracle weapon in the field of ballistic weapons.
Now unless you just like arguing, how is that needing to be explained?
OR are you asking for me to explain why I think this is the case?
If so, just ask.
ghostrider
05/22/16 02:13 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In city tech, page 20 under critical hits, center torso, engine, it states that the third hits destroys the engine, destroying the mech.
It does not say blows up, but the implication there suggest so. Removed mech from play would have been better, and that is probably where, as well as a few adventure pacts suggest only the mechs legs remain after an engine explodes is where this came from. Might have been stackpole writing for the novels before I realize it.
I will admit I probably overlooked the other books saying it didn't happen, though it is just as likely only the newer copies have that in there.
So I admit it is probably just putting in my interpretation in there instead of just having it shut down. Granted with the new rules, hindsight is better now then it was back in the 80's when the book came out.
Karagin
05/22/16 02:19 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Again no one is complaining, we are talking about the rules, and how things could be different, and how weapons and other stuff could be different, now the complaining comes in when folks get irritated when they feel they have answered Ghostriders' questions and he still has more, so maybe a bit of looking at it before comment or accusing him of not getting something would be more helpful.

So Akalabeth if you are so dissatisfied with Ghostrider's questions then why do you keep answering them or offering YOUR opinions and thoughts or take on the rules? I mean it sounds more like you are complaining about Ghostrider then offering new ideas to allow his questions to be answered.

Actually Ghostrider folks for get that this media of communication cuts out body language and tone and leaves only the written words and thus allows folks to take things how ever they want good or bad. SO many get upset when they should not and others miss the meaning of things since their is no actual human interaction going beyond reading text on a screen.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
05/22/16 02:20 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The rules did seam a lot simpler in the early days and folks wanted more realism etc...well that is what we got over the years and now we have 5 core rule books and growing. Not sure that was such a great idea really.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
05/22/16 06:56 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:
So Akalabeth if you are so dissatisfied with Ghostrider's questions then why do you keep answering them or offering YOUR opinions and thoughts or take on the rules? I mean it sounds more like you are complaining about Ghostrider then offering new ideas to allow his questions to be answered.



Because some days I'm generous enough and naive enough to think throwing him a bone will satisfy him, but fact is in the very next post he'll just complain about something else. Half of the time he'll complain about rules he's never read. Other times, with the Gauss RIfle, he'll demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game actually works. Such as saying that a 20-point ammo explosion is no big deal, when an exploding Gauss Rifle will in fact cripple or destroy many of the Inner Sphere mechs it's mounted on. Or mistakenly believing that ECM affects Streak missiles, when it never has since its very inception.

If you're going to call into question how a system works, at least do your research and read up on the device prior to posting. A person has an unspoken obligation to at least do their due diligence in researching the topic before posting questions about it if they're going to be asking other people to do the same thing on their behalf.
Karagin
05/22/16 07:20 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Do you realize that folks interpret the rules differently then others? For example, was at a local convention in Grand Rapids, MI. Simple game of each player running two mechs, go smash through the other team get the objective item and get off the board.

Now there were two guys who seemed to know the rules and things were going great until they tried to fire their ACs multiple times in the same turn, when asked, they noted that the sheet listed the AC in the arm several times thus did they not have several of them to fire, needless to say that upset a lot of folks, but the difference was we didn't get mad and stay mad or throw them out, we explained things, handed them the rule book, and continued with the game. And the two learned something and ended up gain a better understanding of the game. Now following your logic they were not following the rules and thus not worthy of the time the GM took to explain things and let them learn.

Clearly Ghostrider has not been playing the game itself for a long time and clearly he has not use or had to experience the weapons and such he has questions about, now would it not be the better course of action to explain things, answer the questions and allow the debate to happen verses getting upset and attacking him?

Have you not had folks who are learning to play ask question or had someone who is only familiar with the BT universe and games from only playing the computer or Xbox games? Another case of two DIFFERENT versions of the game if there ever was one. And can you really claim to 100% on top of every rule with out the need to look up something?

I learned the game when it was called BATTLEDROIDS and made a ton mistakes in learning said game, even after getting the 2nd Ed, and learning the changes there were still things that didn't always make sense. Yet those playing the game with me helped figure it out and as I met other who played I further learned more about the game. Clearly you have no intention of cutting him any slack and based off your comments you wonder why I question your input on this topic. But at the same time maybe he is learning something or maybe not.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/22/16 01:00 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Have you even had an ac 20 ammo be hit long before you could fire a shot off?
Or worse, most 20's normally have more then one ton of ammo. Chain reactions? Lose the entire mech in one hit.
20 points for the capacitor in a gauss rifle is nothing compared to the 100 points for a single ton ac ammo.
But I guess if you don't have perspective of things, it must seem like the concerns aren't based in reality.

The streaks may have been someone else telling me that was true. Kind of like someone saying they solved the lam issue of landing any direction as they use the jet rules, yet the very person that wrote the quickstart rules say they used the wige rules. Which does NOT allow you to do so. I am not omitting information to make it sound like my way is the correct way. I do admit there are times when I am wrong. And with that saying to look up infantry weight, then the next statement saying there is no where in the rules they have that information only adds to this.

I don't mind people showing me when I am wrong, but condescending comments as well as the facts being WRONG when used to show me this being, causes alot of issues. The misreading of statements seems to be one of the base issues with this.

Half the time the rules still have holes in them, while the other half have fixed them. Or attempted to.

And it doesn't help when you play the 'official' video games and you can fire the acs until they run out of ammo before the lasers recharge for the first time. So as much as I chuckled at the example of the people not realizing it was one unit taking multiple slots, I can see that being something that people might think if they are just playing the game. Buy the already made mech sheets and go from there.

And the idea of the gauss rifle had more to do with the unbalancing of the game for power, weight and range then the explosion. A charged ppc doesn't explode when hit. None of the energy weapons do. If you actually read the whole statement, you would see I had asked if they planned to add in more ballistic weapons to push the range issue.
Now adding to that, this makes the gauss rifle look like a magic weapon that doesn't follow there own guidelines.

One more thing. It has been said that this is also done to get some thoughts on the matter. I can not be the only person to ever wonder why things can't be done with one thing but can with another.
Throwing me a bone. Try to make sure your information is correct. I know some of what I have thought was accurate may be at fault. I need to find the other books.
Not everyone believes the sky is blue because water is. I do know that is wrong. Both are clear.
CrayModerator
05/22/16 05:16 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since this thread seems to be going off topic to discuss poster behavior instead, I'm going to lock it down while everyone chills a bit.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 32 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 48345


Contact Admins Sarna.net