Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by questioneer on Sat 11 Apr 2009, 01:19

Yoper wrote:While I favor the use of the NO's for driving of the game in certain ways, I have seen that the infusion of the extra cash can have serious side affects, like this one stated by Questioneer.

The lowering of the prices of different units by us (playtesters and Larry) was done long before the idea of NO's came about. It may be that there is too much of a swing in the one direction when both are used.

Leave it to Ben to come up with a killer strat. That man is a machine!

Craig

Excellent point Craig. Nobody at the AA.org forum plays without NOs- people like them too much. If you do play without them though, I think Italy becomes very weak and a liability to even have around.

Bids aren't necessarily the answer either because they unbalance the game greatly. Setup adjustment may be nessessary and Ben says don't allow SBRs period. He really thinks the game may be broke.

Don't replace Revised with AA50 just yet folks, after some time it may be realized that Revised is still the better game. By the way Larry is made an updated version of Revised coming out August of this year!!!

Questioneer
confused
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by questioneer on Sat 11 Apr 2009, 01:32

A possible counter to the mentioned strategy earlier is to bring back the AA rule from Revised- AA guns fire upon aircraft passing in/out/through territories. I personally liked this rule and I think it would justify the higher $6 price tag on them now in AA50.

You would still have to eliminate SBRs completely though- they are way too powerful OR make the hits be limited to the value of the territory not "twice" the value.

Suspect
There's either gonna be a lot of adjustments to this game for tourny purposes or it will just go down as a novelty game. The game mechanics of AA50 are just not as smooth as Revised, but we still have to give it some time- which was Ben's assumption also.
Neutral
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 17:18

questioneer wrote:A possible counter to the mentioned strategy earlier is to bring back the AA rule from Revised- AA guns fire upon aircraft passing in/out/through territories. I personally liked this rule and I think it would justify the higher $6 price tag on them now in AA50.

You would still have to eliminate SBRs completely though- they are way too powerful OR make the hits be limited to the value of the territory not "twice" the value.

Suspect
There's either gonna be a lot of adjustments to this game for tourny purposes or it will just go down as a novelty game. The game mechanics of AA50 are just not as smooth as Revised, but we still have to give it some time- which was Ben's assumption also.


When I first seen this, I thought Ben was going to SBR Germany round 2 with 4bombers. That was the bait, what he did was take those 4 bombers and sunk the Italian navy in one shot. It was expensive for him but more expensive for me. Now without an Italian navy (or barely any European navy at all), Africa would be lost, the threat of Cauc attack gone and Italian/German expansion shrunk very early. In otherwords, w/o the Italian navy, Italy is no threat at all and a liability to the Axis. (This is really an indirect KGF- could really turn into a KIF)

Now after some observation, there was a counter to stop this in round 2, but nearly impossible to stop by round 3. By that time Britain could have 4 bombers in Cauc (ready to sink the ships) and US will have 5 bombers in UK ready to clean up the ships or SBR like crazy. This opens an expressway of ships to France or NWE or Alg or Italy.

Neutral

The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by questioneer on Mon 13 Apr 2009, 21:35

squirecam wrote:
The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

the fighter escort rule helps, but I don't think they help enough. Gotta get rid of that rule that says that you can bomb and IC "twice" its value- should only be to the value of the territory- twice the value is too devestating.

With the Italian fleet problem. A carrier is not gonna be enough because by round three you can have 9 bombers possibly in range! In the 42 version its like 6-7 bombers ready by round 3. Also, bring back the AA rule from Revised where planes get shot at each time they pass through a territory with and AA gun! That will make the AA guns worth the $6 price tag at least.

Any time Axis puts money in the water it favors the Allies hands down!
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 02:52

questioneer wrote:
squirecam wrote:
The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

the fighter escort rule helps, but I don't think they help enough. Gotta get rid of that rule that says that you can bomb and IC "twice" its value- should only be to the value of the territory- twice the value is too devestating.

With the Italian fleet problem. A carrier is not gonna be enough because by round three you can have 9 bombers possibly in range! In the 42 version its like 6-7 bombers ready by round 3. Also, bring back the AA rule from Revised where planes get shot at each time they pass through a territory with and AA gun! That will make the AA guns worth the $6 price tag at least.

Any time Axis puts money in the water it favors the Allies hands down!

Then move the jap fleet to sz 38, then 34, then the med R3. In 42 Japan goes first.

Think OTB. No strategy is flawless.

Ben's not too bad, but he's not unbeatable.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by Yoper on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 10:17

Nobody is unbeatable because there are dice in the game, but there are those who are very good because they really are great at analyzing all the permutation.

The Revised SBR rules would be the best way to go. That would limit the SBR strat. As for the use of bombers on naval units, Squirecam is right. (As much as that pains me to say!) You must get the air cover going.

Shiloh, while we are playing this weekend in Cincy, you get in another game with Eric since he isn't able to come down.

How did the game go with him on this last Saturday?

Craig
avatar
Yoper

Posts : 61
Join date : 2008-07-07
Age : 48
Location : That state up north.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 14:32

Yoper wrote:As for the use of bombers on naval units, Squirecam is right. (As much as that pains me to say!) You must get the air cover going.

Craig

Shocked

The gathering should be alot of fun.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by questioneer on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:31

Craig,

I don't know if I will get in another game with Eric or Ben this weekend, however, I am playing 3 games by forum. 1 of which I am trying out the new strategy from Ben. I will try it with some other very good players on the forum soon also. I like to play Axis versus Ben because he is very good with the Allies and has a knack for anaylsis- he is a computer tech analyst (or something) after all.

Squire,

You really gotta play this out and see the troubles you will have. Its not as easy as you think. You may be able to delay this move with some swift Japanese help but you cannot stop it unless the Italian fleet leaves the Med for a while. Even with some Japanese help. The US/UK will be willing to risk several bombers to take it out- and yes it will be worth it! You guys should play test it this weekend.

On the first UK and US turn buy as many bombers as you can. US shifts everything east. UK attacks Italian navy on turn 2 (or SBR Italy/Germany) or fly bombers to Cauc. US on turn 2 flies all planes toward UK. By turn 3 UK/US can have 9 bombers (7bombers in the '42)ready to SBR the European Axis to death AND/OR wipe out the entire Axis navy.

Your answer- build an Italian carrier to put planes on? Japanese naval help. Ok, stall
to turn 4- now UK/US will have 14+ bombers. In the meantime you're investing too much in the air and water while Russia gets stronger- sure, try it.

No
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Tue 14 Apr 2009, 19:03

questioneer wrote:
Squire,

On the first UK and US turn buy as many bombers as you can. US shifts everything east. UK attacks Italian navy on turn 2 (or SBR Italy/Germany) or fly bombers to Cauc. US on turn 2 flies all planes toward UK. By turn 3 UK/US can have 9 bombers (7bombers in the '42)ready to SBR the European Axis to death AND/OR wipe out the entire Axis navy.

No

In 1942, you can move the jap fleet to SZ 38 (turn 1) to SZ 34 (turn 2) to the med (turn 3). Japan going first, adds 2 carriers and BB (plus whatever else lived from R1 attacks).

That, plus the IT fleet (plus a R2 IT carrier) is more than enough to destroy 7 US bombers. Thats 6 fighters, 2 carriers, 2 BB + 2 cruisers + other potential help/fodder.

So lets delay an attack to R4 or R5. Isnt that enough for Germany?

Germany is buying nothing but land units. Japan is attacking USSR too (besides moving the fleet) and UK/USA is buying nothing but bombers. If you delay any land unit help to USSR, they should be hurting by R5.

I'd ignore 41. That scenario is poorly timed/balanced, especially for tournament play.

But I'll happily to do a "run through" with Yope (since you wont make it) at the gathering. Give Yope the standard moves, and we will take an hour and move the pieces and see what's available and what the options are. Both 41 and 42 if you like.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by SwampHQ on Wed 15 Apr 2009, 12:30

Great discussion guys. Thanks for keeping it up. And on Ben's unbeatable strategy? I agree with Yoper...and I disagree with the idea that there should not be a bid. Bids are the easiest ways to balance out a game based on the level of play of the people playing...and not to mention there is a strategy in that as well. and last on the bid, it always helps in determining what side is who plays... Suspect

And all those bombers, very risky. What happens if he doesn't sink all the ships?

Peace, Sleep

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Wed 15 Apr 2009, 14:52

Despite the fact I think this particular bomber startegy is flawed, I DO agree that the SBR part is overpowered.

Bombers should never have been reduced in price. Because of this:

AAAv requires territory turn limits (Like AAR)
CAP should be required (optional rule)
AA should fire at any planes overhead (Like AAR)

I said this to Larry back when AAR hit the AH boards, and it bears repeating today.

Bombing a country during WW2 NEVER reduced the capacity/production of a country to 0. Especially in 1942, and even during the height of the campaign Germany was still producing.

Bombing is being allowed to dominate the game when it was historically impossible for bombing to "win the war by itself".

The three rules above are going to have to be a part of "LHRT-AAAv" if tournament play is going to succeed for this game.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Wed 15 Apr 2009, 17:15

Now after some observation, there was a counter to stop this in round 2, but nearly impossible to stop by round 3. By that time Britain could have 4 bombers in Cauc (ready to sink the ships) and US will have 5 bombers in UK ready to clean up the ships or SBR like crazy. This opens an expressway of ships to France or NWE or Alg or Italy.

While Yope and I are at the gathering, if you play Ben here is what I want you to do.

First, you say USA abandons the Pacific. If so, I want you to kill the India fleet (wipe it with no losses, and move that carrier/BB off the coast. I want the rest of your fleet in SZ 38. Ignore Pearl.

Germany is going to sink the UK ships off France/Gib with subs, and air. The rest poised to strike Egypt G2. German DD+trans to IT fleet.

Germany/Italy must secure the canal by I2 so that Japan can move into the med J3.

Italy buys just enough to save for purchase of carrier I2. Do what you feel is best for Germany, but push so that Germany is trying to gather to strike Moscow or Caucus. (NUK I think). Go south, not north to Lenningrad.

When you have delayed an attack long enough (say R4-5) Germany should have a force poised to strike Moscow or Caucus. With nothing but USSR forces and allied bombers for defense. That is when you dump japansese fighters in NUK. Either Russia attacks at bad odds, or is forced to leave cauc to defend moscow, or tries to defend both. The total lack of anything but allied bombers wont do much on defense. And Germany will attack after USSR but before UK and USA can move.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by questioneer on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 17:17

squirecam wrote:Despite the fact I think this particular bomber startegy is flawed, I DO agree that the SBR part is overpowered.

Bombers should never have been reduced in price. Because of this:

AAAv requires territory turn limits (Like AAR)
CAP should be required (optional rule)
AA should fire at any planes overhead (Like AAR)

I said this to Larry back when AAR hit the AH boards, and it bears repeating today.

Bombing a country during WW2 NEVER reduced the capacity/production of a country to 0. Especially in 1942, and even during the height of the campaign Germany was still producing.

Bombing is being allowed to dominate the game when it was historically impossible for bombing to "win the war by itself".

The three rules above are going to have to be a part of "LHRT-AAAv" if tournament play is going to succeed for this game.

Bingo- the problem with the game is the SBRs.

That is what makes the Brit bomber gambit interesting- you always have the option to SBR out of your mind instead of go for the navy right away. UK/US invests in the bombers for the 1st round, wait to see if the Axis do anything about it. If they don't- kill the Italian navy. If they recognize it, you SBR like crazy and built your shuck route in rd2. Either way there is lots of options. If you SBR Germany and Italy with 7-9 bombers a turn they will only be building HALF those ground forces you propose. Join that with a nice IC in SAfr and take out Norway and Finland and you give the Russians breathing room to build. In the '42 the Japanese are slowed down much more because of the setup.

If Japan tries to move ships to the Med to help you can easily go with KJF in the '42, freeing Solomans and picking off islands with an IC in Australia. There are many options. However, if SBRs are tempered, the game will balance out better.

If Italy's navy is the weak point, then you threaten it and find imbalances elsewhere in the Axis- they do show up if they have to be reactionary to Allied advances like this.

To temper SBRs you will have to either eliminate them or add the Revised rules to them with fighter escorts- its gonna take a lot!

I am still researching this strategy and its variants. Ben was not the first to observe this. Some other players discovered this a month earlier and I am still studying the anaylsis to this opening. More later. We'll share more thoughts on this after the weekend.

Very Happy

Questioneer
avatar
questioneer

Posts : 73
Join date : 2008-07-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Thu 16 Apr 2009, 17:56

You dont have to move every ship from japan to the Med to help. Its just what I wanted you to do since Ben was leaving the pacific.

You would only be able to add 1 BB and 1 carrier (from India), leaving the rest behind in the Pacific, but it still is helpful to Italy.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by KurtGodel7 on Mon 10 Aug 2009, 13:09

BushidoBlitz wrote:As for National Objectives, yeah needs some more playtesting, but you might be right on a closer look...My initial thought was that both sides are getting about the same bonuses, so that the net is just a faster game, not a more unbalanced game. But when you do the math, seems like Axis is getting +30 to +20 on Turn 1, and +35 to +20 on Turn 2 (see math/assumptions below). Not sure whether that gap is sustained or whether the Allies turn the tide at some point...

Turn 1
J-10
G-15 (Assuming it takes Karelia)
I-5
Axis bonus turn 1 = 30

Turn 1
R-5
UK-5 (maybe 10 if, like last night, Japan loses too many fighters to hold Burma)
US-10 (assuming US takes Solomons turn 1)
Allied bonus turn 1 = 20, maybe 25

Turn 2
J-10
G-15
I-10
Axis bonus turn 2 = 35

Turn 2
R-5
UK-5 (maybe 10 if it can liberate Egypt after it falls to the Germans)
US-10
Allied bonus turn 2 = 20, maybe 25

BB
Just to add to what you've written: the single biggest Axis beneficiary of that bonus money is Germany; which is *very* well positioned to plow that cash into a land war against Russia. On the other hand, the biggest beneficiary of the Allied NO money is the United States. It generally takes a few rounds for an increase in American income to alter the course of the game.

Also, the 5 IPCs the Soviets are getting from NO come with a serious string attached: no other Allied units on Soviet soil! If things start looking bad for the Soviet Union, you'd almost have to start shipping in British and American units to help defend Moscow. Which, by taking away those 5 IPCs, would in some ways make a bad situation worse!

Overall, I feel the NO's decidedly favor the Axis; at least early game. Later game is a bit trickier to analyze. In the one game you looked at in a later post, did the Allies start winning the game because the NO's swung in their favor, or did the NO's start swinging in the Allies' favor because they started winning the game?

KurtGodel7

Posts : 21
Join date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by KurtGodel7 on Mon 10 Aug 2009, 13:55

squirecam wrote:Despite the fact I think this particular bomber startegy is flawed, I DO agree that the SBR part is overpowered.

Bombers should never have been reduced in price. Because of this:

AAAv requires territory turn limits (Like AAR)
CAP should be required (optional rule)
AA should fire at any planes overhead (Like AAR)

I said this to Larry back when AAR hit the AH boards, and it bears repeating today.

Bombing a country during WW2 NEVER reduced the capacity/production of a country to 0. Especially in 1942, and even during the height of the campaign Germany was still producing.

Bombing is being allowed to dominate the game when it was historically impossible for bombing to "win the war by itself".

The three rules above are going to have to be a part of "LHRT-AAAv" if tournament play is going to succeed for this game.
I completely agree WRT the price reduction of bombers. In AAR, a strategic bombing run would do, on average, 3.5 IPCs worth of damage. You'd expect to lose 15/6 = 2.5 IPCs worth of bomber. So it was a good move if you didn't mind the added risk factor.

With the price reduction, a strategic bombing raid is still expected to do that same 3.5 IPCs of damage. But the expected loss is now 12/6 = 2 IPCs; making bombing an even better deal than before.

Perhaps the most irritating thing about bombing is that it's so luck-based. If someone begins a massive SBR campaign against you, there is literally *nothing* you can do about it, except hope you get lucky on your AA gun hits. I realize luck is always a factor in wars, but this aspect of the game takes the luck element way too far. War also gives people opportunities to make their own luck.

In the real war, Germany attempted to counter Allied strategic bombing raids by building more fighters (and, later, jet fighters), by building more AA guns, and by using its Wasserfal guided anti-air rockets.

I realize a board game represents a simplification of a real war. But, at least from the defender's perspective, the simplification of strategic bombing raids has entirely eliminated the strategic element, while retaining the luck-only element. This is probably something that should change, especially for tournament play.

The simplest option is to implement the "Lolordofwar Rule." (The name derives from one of the people on the TripleA site--it was his idea.) Strategic bombers are not allowed to conduct strategic bombing raids against a territory with an AA gun, period.

Another option is to modify the rules for AA guns. When a territory is being strategically bombed, each defending AA gun fires once (not once per enemy aircraft). However, the AA guns fire on a 3. And each AA gun in the territory gets to fire. This would help solve the feast or famine problem. If you had three AA guns in a territory, you only have a 12.5% chance of coming away without at least one hit when being strategically bombed.

A third option (which could, if desired, be implemented in combination with some variant of the second) is to create a dogfight phase before the strategic bombing phase. The dogfight phase would last for one round, with all aircraft present on both sides firing at their defense values. Defending AA guns would fire as well. Probably they'd fire on a 2; with one shot each. After the dogfight phase had ended, the remaining strategic bombers would be allowed to bomb.

KurtGodel7

Posts : 21
Join date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tech and NO...

Post by SwampHQ on Mon 17 Aug 2009, 09:18

Well,

After an incredible showing at GEN CON for the AA50 tourney...I really don't believe there is much argument for having both of these in a tourney unless someone can come up with a revised set of rules for them...and I believe after discussing it with Larry, he is looking into it, but in the meantime, the tourney ran extremely smooth, WITHOUT both of these game changing aspects/rules...

There was one player who argued that he never played without them and had a hard time wrapping his game play around not having them, but then, I told him, just try it. It all worked out in the end...

Comments from those that played are welcome...

Peace, Idea

_________________

Greg Smorey
Axis & Allies EO/GM - ORIGINS/GENCON/SPRING GATHERING
http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton
avatar
SwampHQ
Admin

Posts : 190
Join date : 2008-07-02
Location : Batavia, Ohio

View user profile http://aaswampform.forumandco.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by BushidoBlitz on Mon 17 Aug 2009, 12:58

Greg,

Fantastic job as usual running the flurry of AA events at GenCon. Seventeen years under your belt now, way to go!

I thought the AA50 tourney format went very smoothly. Every game I played got 6 rounds in, so I think your 6-hour time limit is right on. And IMHO you made the right call on nixing Tech as well as NO for the tourney. Simplicity is a good thing, as I feel the extra board spaces and pieces and Italy as a sixth power add the right amount of challenge and complexity, without throwing Tech or NO into the mix. Plus, you included the CAP rules, so I think that's a fine answer to the SBR issue.

BB

BushidoBlitz

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by squirecam on Mon 17 Aug 2009, 13:26

I've said this from day 1.

The best thing is to make sure that the basic version of AAAv is balanced. That mean w/o tech and w/o objectives.

With the escort rule, the basic version of the game is balanced. Without escorts, the game is not. The allies have a bombing advantage that the axis cant match.

National objectives do favor the axis (and are a way to help the axis w/o a cap rule).

Tech is what it always has been. Random luck rolls.

The tournament worked fine w/o tech or NO's.

squirecam

Posts : 71
Join date : 2008-07-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by KurtGodel7 on Mon 17 Aug 2009, 15:35

BushidoBlitz wrote:Greg,

Fantastic job as usual running the flurry of AA events at GenCon. Seventeen years under your belt now, way to go!

I thought the AA50 tourney format went very smoothly. Every game I played got 6 rounds in, so I think your 6-hour time limit is right on. And IMHO you made the right call on nixing Tech as well as NO for the tourney. Simplicity is a good thing, as I feel the extra board spaces and pieces and Italy as a sixth power add the right amount of challenge and complexity, without throwing Tech or NO into the mix. Plus, you included the CAP rules, so I think that's a fine answer to the SBR issue.

BB
I agree with BushidoBlitz across the board. Great job running the tournament; and good call on the 6 hour time limit, getting rid of techs and NO's, and on the CAP. And as Squirecam pointed out, the '42 scenario without NO's is balanced, as long as you include CAP. Good calls all around! Smile

KurtGodel7

Posts : 21
Join date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by Guest on Thu 22 Jul 2010, 09:32

It is like a BB getting to drop buys in an amphib and then getting to continuously fire throughout the battle!

_____________

Free Dating Services
Clipping Path

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum