barkhorn45
Corporal
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:10 pm

last post

Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:35 pm

I know no one will really care but this will be my last post.I am removing aacw and will move on to another cw game.
Having studied military history since I was 10 and played more than a few ww2 boardgames I always dreamed of being able to play a good solitaire game since it was always difficult to get someone to invest their time in a game like Third Reich or Squad Leader.
When comp.games came along I could'nt afford the computer to run them till a dozen years ago.And wanting to play at my own pace an ai was important and so was historical accuracy.
The civil war has been an interest in the last 15 years but there has been a dearth of that genre available,cw gen.2, being one of them[i wish it would run on vista]
So when I ran across this game I snapped it up and have enjoyed it to a point.But the ai behavior and certain liberties in historical accuracy ie conscription from day one and the ability to create corps early bugged me.
I know that the combatants COULD have done these things if they had chosen too but this is not a fantasy game,they did'nt historically.
Having to garrison all your cities to counter the enemy launching deep attacks is not only ahistorical it is rediculous,why should the north put a strong garrison in reading pa for example the union could'nt have done this and still attacked in the many locations it did.I know for a fact that when Lee took chambersburg in his drive north there was no garrison to speak of and that town was located less than 50 miles behind the "front"[there were no "fronts "in the cw as we use the term}
As for the ai I have been informed that modifying it is a low priority among the developers,why, since I have read in this forum that the MAJORITY of players play against the ai.You would think given this fact it would have a slightly higher priority would'nt you, since it has been said that it COULD be done albeit with some difficulty.
It was also said that it is a low priority thing because this is a 2 year old game and the dev.have moved on to newer projects and this program has been placed on the back burner so to speak,if so why has'nt the price dropped like BoA did after basically the same amount of time? Because people are still purchasing it in fairly substantial numbers perhaps?
As for the fact that it is 2 whole years old I also play SP WAW and it has been around a whole lot longer than this game and it is still being updated and it is free.
I know some people are working on this game voluntarily and I appreciate it and i will stop grousing,this game is a piece of art the map is the best i've seen{one of the reasons i hate to stop playing it}and the building of units is really fun but this is offset by the above.If the term "historical"is used in a description whether it be a game,movie or whatever should'nt it be just that?I know some of the things i mentioned ie historical conscription would slow the play but this is a historical turn based game not a console click fest!

User avatar
Mosby
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:03 am

Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:43 pm

Eh, the game comes and goes on my comp. I get in the mood to play it for a bit, and then grumble at something or other and take it off.

Sorry to hear that you'll be leaving...but who knows, the last patch did some pretty big stuff, so maybe the next one or two will change the game up even more.
"Have you got the rascal?" "No but he has got you!"

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:17 pm

deleted

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:35 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:Another idea I was exploring was a cohesion/health hit for those units performing deep raids in order to simulate desertions etc.


How about a movement penalty to move into any region with 100% enemy military control? That would simulate the extra caution required to move in enemy territory, and it would make it easier for mobile defense force to catch the raiders.

Also, raiders should not be able to loot ammo supply from a structures other than depots.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:38 pm

deleted

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:45 pm

barkhorn45 wrote: As for the ai I have been informed that modifying it is a low priority among the developers,why, since I have read in this forum that the MAJORITY of players play against the ai.You would think given this fact it would have a slightly higher priority would'nt you, since it has been said that it COULD be done albeit with some difficulty.
It was also said that it is a low priority thing because this is a 2 year old game and the dev.have moved on to newer projects and this program has been placed on the back burner so to speak


Are we speaking of the same game?
of AACW whose last patch published ten days ago include all this AI improvements??

AI
================================================== ============================
- Naval missions: Commerce, Blockade, Escort, Naval Superiority improved.
- Long range Defense mission can’t borrow anymore units set for Garrison Duty.
- Break Siege Mission had a bug rendering it not enough interesting to do.
- AI will see much less interest in doing Attack missions in winter.
- AI much more prudent when moving troops with riverine move.
- In some rare cases, the Defend Mission could have his path aborted. Fixed.
- Depot destruction much more rare.
- AI slightly less prone to make distant operations (attack-defense).


Your statements are both unfair and false. :non:

Really, few (if any) developer puts half the time and effort AGEOD puts of patching and improving his games (including his AI) for free two years after its release.

If you find a better ACW strategic wargame, more realist, with better AI and better support, please come aroudn and share the good news with us.
But i bet it won't be soon ...
Bye

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Aacw

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:04 pm

B45: No game worth its salt could just create the exact historical result every time!! It would have NO value at all except to historians! This game creates a realistic situation having a real feel for the situation at the beginning of each Scenario/campaign! That is the best we can hope for!! Wake up and smell the roses. This game is the best you are going to get. t

User avatar
Redeemer
Major
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: Eastern US

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:13 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:I am working to try to come up with some realistic penalties for deep raiding, but for now, the best defense is garrisons, since city structures themselves do not have any sort of built in defensive capabilities. Before you ask, this has already been asked about and though it would be possible to do, it is loaded with bug possibilities and the fix would be the artificial introduction of a garrison unit during the game processing phase, then the removal of the same garrison unit at the end of the turn (an invisible process) to the player. The same effect is already possible by the player placing garrisons in his rear area cities himself.


What about just adding one fixed garrision unit per size of the city to represent local defenses? ie, York gets 2 militia type units, Lancaster 3, Philly 10, etc. This would keep one Cav regiment from being able to seize larger towns and cities.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Another idea I was exploring was a cohesion/health hit for those units performing deep raids in order to simulate desertions etc. but this has not worked out just yet and for now most of this more complicated work has taken a pause until I get my main working system back from DELL. (4th motherboard in 6 years). Dell does not have a good track record with me at all.

Buy HP
Gray_Lensman wrote:To sum it up, just check back from time to time, you'll slowly see some of these ideas worked into the game. It's just not going to happen as fast as you would like.

Never does :-), but we still appreciate it.

BTW, while I like historical, I will settle for realistic.

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:15 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:Remember, even though you may have just purchased AACW and it seems new to you, the game itself is now 2 years old and has has already had a considerable amount of work done to it with new changes/enhancements added much more frequently than any other game that I've ever been associated with. There's more to come, but the majority of it has to be provided by volunteers and modders with side support coming from AGEod.


You're right, I did just get the game for Christmas so it's new to me. But I've read through all of the patch notes and I'm absolutely amazed at how much has been added to the game, and continues to be added on a regular basis. I agree, I've never seen this in any other game, to have so much new content added after two years. I've also noted how much of the improvements to the game have come from modders and other volunteers.

This is my first Ageod game, but won't be my last, since I know I can count on continued supprot and improvement. I'm already trying to decide which one to buy next, and I'm still obsessed with AACW!
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Nial
Colonel
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Hotel California

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:20 pm

While deep raids into the north were certainly not common place. Morgan raided deep into Ohio on one occasion. And I'm pretty sure Mosby got close to Washington DC. So while I agree it was not common place. It was not totaly unheard of for souther partisans to raid into northern territory.

Personaly I'm not a huge fan of deep raids by the AI. Mainly because they usually end in disaster and make it too easy. But I find that to be a minor inconvenience when compared to the overall enjoyment of the game.

The less control given to the player. (Read no deviation from history) The less fun for me.

Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:32 pm

When I read these comments about deep raids, I do wonder whether the issue is poor USA defense (i.e. poor garrisoning etc), leading to opportunities that, in real life, the south would also have taken advantage of had the northern leaders been equally inept.

User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:38 pm

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:33 pm

barkhorn45, cw gen.2 is Civil War Generals 2?


I use Vista x64 bits and though this game is quite old, just managed to make it run here. Of course looks strange as the resolution is very low, but at least it started fine

[ATTACH]5976[/ATTACH]



The game seems to be abandonware right now

There is a download link here

http://groups.msn.com/CWG2/_whatsnew.msnw


The link is this

http://www.cwg2.org/


Downloaded this file

http://www.cwg2.org/files/CWG2.rar


There is a readme with a somewhat complex installation procedure, you must follow it


Needs wing32.dll, the installation file included is not working here, but the dll file is available here

http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?wing32

The game request that wing32.dll must be located in Windows\System32
But it did not work till i put it in Windows\SysWOW64, perhaps because my vista is a 64 bits OS


Hope this helps. Regards
Attachments
CWG2.jpg

stegosarus_army
Sergeant
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Az

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:36 pm

so you think this is a fantasy console click fest game?
and you think you know what this game is?

thats the problem right there, not the game. It says nowhere that AACW is an exact representation of the Civil War and it is a game, so there has to be ways so both sides can win.
no game or movie is ever going to be an exactly replication of any war because they are entertainment first
if you want exact replications, read a book, or build a time machine.

if you hate the game so much, and the main thing you like is the map, then take a picture of it and stop playing this game.
i wouldnt continue to do something i hate.

User avatar
Carnium
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Slovenia

Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:36 pm

I agree that deep raids and a constant management of garrisons is a real pain in the .. behind,but almost demanding immediate changes with threats to leave is something that was have sadly already seen on this and other forums dedicated to AGEOD games...
Remember that we simply can't get everything we want (right away) and that AGEOD is probably the only computer gaming company who constantly upgrades and patches its games for FREE.Maybe the main problem lies here, as people are too used to this system and they demand more and more from the developers and the volunteers ??
Many companies simply make a change or two and release a "new" game every year (EA anyone?).
I think that everyone can suggest changes and help the developers in the way he/she best can, but NOBODY should be able to demand anything or even force the changes by threats.
Sometimes a break from a game can only have positive effects and I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised when you realise that you miss this game and decide to check these forums again :thumbsup:

User avatar
Nial
Colonel
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Hotel California

Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:41 pm

Nikel wrote:barkhorn45, cw gen.2 is Civil War Generals 2?


I use Vista x64 bits and though this game is quite old, just managed to make it run here. Of course looks strange as the resolution is very low, but at least it started fine

[ATTACH]5976[/ATTACH]



The game seems to be abandonware right now

There is a download link here

http://groups.msn.com/CWG2/_whatsnew.msnw


The link is this

http://www.cwg2.org/


Downloaded this file

http://www.cwg2.org/files/CWG2.rar


There is a readme with a somewhat complex installation procedure, you must follow it


Needs wing32.dll, the installation file included is not working here, but the dll file is available here

http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?wing32

The game request that wing32.dll must be located in Windows\System32
But it did not work till i put it in Windows\SysWOW64, perhaps because my vista is a 64 bits OS


Hope this helps. Regards


I loved that game. Spent many hours on the campaigns. :)

Nial
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:57 pm

Nial wrote:I loved that game. Spent many hours on the campaigns. :)

Nial


No doubt.
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

Sarkus
Corporal
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:43 am
Location: Seattle, USA

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:08 pm

No game is perfect but there are two other recent Civil War strategy games out that you can try if you think this one doesn't hold up. Having played one and deeply investigated the other, I suspect neither is going to deliver what you want, however.

Wargames are, after all, games. That means that the designers sometimes sacrifice realism in order to make the game an enjoyable experience and not a confusing exercise in micromanagement. For example, the replacement system as it applies to the North is not really accurate. But if you did it more realistically, players would be confused and annoyed by what they would be dealing with. So I don't begrudge the designers of this game for choosing to handle it the way they did.

Also, as others have noted, you seem to value historical accuracy above all else. Wargames are about exploring alternatives and getting a sense of the tactical and/or strategic issues facing the decision makers. That has value when considering the historical events but there would be no fun (the game part) if you were forced to do things the historical way every time.

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:14 pm

Sarkus wrote:That has value when considering the historical events but there would be no fun (the game part) if you were forced to do things the historical way every time.


Bingo. May as well just watch a documentary.

User avatar
Deca
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:22 pm

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:26 pm

So let me get this straight.


You've been searching, waiting, dreaming for nearly your entire life looking for a game that by your very own criteria (some of which are diametrically opposed) making it nearly an unattainable Holy Grail quest. Moreover, whilst on your travels through the barren wasteland you come across a well-crafted chalice containing refreshing water to help satiate that parched thirst of yours; however, due to a few misshaped ice cubes, you not only refuse to drink it but instead pour the water out while tossing aside the cup?


Irony knows no bounds.
"In times of war, the Devil makes more room in Hell."

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:34 pm

Deca wrote:So let me get this straight.


You've been searching, waiting, dreaming for nearly your entire life looking for a game that by your very own criteria (some of which are diametrically opposed) making it nearly an unattainable Holy Grail quest. Moreover, whilst on your travels through the barren wasteland you come across a well-crafted chalice containing refreshing water to help satiate that parched thirst of yours; however, due to a few misshaped ice cubes, you not only refuse to drink it but instead pour the water out while tossing aside the cup?


Irony knows no bounds.


:mdr: :mdr: :mdr:

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:51 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:However, since the game is not meant to be an exact reproduction of the Civil War in the way it plays out, it would not be right to actually restrict by code to prevent CSA raiding of the North. Yeah, you could jump up and down and say it didn't happen in the Civil War, etc. blah, blah. But guess what, the South didn't WIN the war either, but in this game, in order to be entertaining the South can WIN the war, given the right circumstances. Suggesting that raids should be stopped altogether in the game because they didn't happen in the historical war is kinda like suggesting that the South should never win in this game, because it's not historical.... Kind of a ridiculous set of conflicting expectations you have.

To sum it up, just check back from time to time, you'll slowly see some of these ideas worked into the game. It's just not going to happen as fast as you would like.


I disagree. The South both could have won without invading the North (as it did not) and almost did win. The CSA was not seeking to conquer the north. This was not a civil war in the sense that the two sides were fighting to see who was going to control the whole country. The CSA was seeking to establish its own independence in its own national territory. The way the CSA could have won was by forcing the north to stop invading its national territory, through provoking exhaustion and a political change of heart in the northern civilian population. They almost did this in the summer of 1862, and again in the summer of 1864.

I liked the victory conditions in the Victory Games game Civil War - the north loses if it hasn't achieved a certain level of territorial conquest by certain break points, representing political decision points in the US - the congressional elections of 1862 and the presidential election of 1864. More significant Republican losses in 1862 might have made it impossible for Lincoln's government to pursue the war, and presumably a McClellan administration would have made peace in 1865 if he had been elected.

And IIRC, in Civil War the CSA is not permitted to enter the free states of the north except under limited circumstances. Most of the territory of the northern states is not even depicted on the map, though again IIRC southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are.

But saying that the south cannot invade the north is not like saying that the south cannot win. The south wins by defending itself successfully. Invading the north was a way to do that defending on northern soil, or so felt the rather small group of CSA officers (including Lee) who supported these very controversial invasions.

By "blah blah" do you mean that historical discussions are not to the point here? I thought that was what we were trying to do? Otherwise, we could just make an imaginary game about a struggle in Lower Slobbovia between the eastern and western forces and have a blast fighting it out in our fantasy world. I have played some very fun imaginary games, like Civ for example.

I found your suggestions very interesting. I agree that intrinsic garrisons are not the way to go. In truth, most northern cities were not garrisoned in any meaningful way, with the exception of the few that were major logistical bases like Cairo IL or Cincinnati OH. There weren't any brigades of militia hanging about in Rome IN or York PA. There might have been small militia forces but nothing to impede the movement of large armies. The Union army had very significant garrisons spread out around the southern territories they had conquered, both to keep civilian populations in line and to defend against Confederate raiders. But they knew as well as I do that the CSA was not about to invade the north. Even when small raiding forces did sneak in, like Morgan's raiders in Ohio, militias were organized but they played little role in the defense. Regular troops from the main army chased Morgan down. I think one key to this problem is to make supply more of a constraint. I remember one PBEM game, playing as the north, where a southern player sent a force into western Pennsylvania in the early going, fall of 1862. I sealed off behind it, and waited confidently for it to starve. They spent a couple of months behind my lines, about four turns, before finally fighting their way through my cordon in West Virginia, in the snow. Those guys should definately have been wiped out for lack of supply. The problem with the current supply rule is the great expense in raising wagon trains. If they were cheaper and carried fewer supplies, people would use a lot more of them, and then you could illustrate the historical situation, that most units only carried about ten days' rations with them. Any longer than that, you need to have a logistical tail behind you or be in pretty fertile country. I think that provinces should become devastated more quickly, too. Maybe you can have them spring back quicker - like have a chance at least in a few months rather than automatically waiting for the next harvest. But one important constraint on northern attacks in Virginia historically was the difficulty in getting supply in or through northern Virginia, which was pretty much depopulated by the end of 1862.

Anyway, please don't the idea that I oppose or don't appreciate your work. I think this is a great game, or I wouldn't spend so much time trying to critique it. My goal is to improve.

For EUIII, I played it for a week or two and posted a farewell message on their website. I actually gave my EUIII disks to a friend. I couldn't imagine just tossing this game away like that.

User avatar
squarian
Brigadier General
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:54 am

The support given to the game by AGEOD is astonishing and I honor them for it. But if there was one advantage to the paper wargames of yore, it was that if you didn't like something, you could just invent an "optional rule". You didn't need to be a programmer or have to wait for a patch - you just jotted the new rule on the back of an envelope or explained the idea to your opponent. There's hardly a wargame box in my attic which doesn't have some house rules in it. Course, there's the rub - those boxes are in my attic. I never have the time to set them up or track down an opponent. AACW is the closest I've seen to the sophisticated board wargames of the last century, but "modding" it to be even better is mostly out of the player's hands. It's a price I'm happy to pay, but it can be frustrating to the old-style tinkering grognard - and with his references to old AH games, I gather barkhorn is one such.

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:48 am

squarian wrote:... but it can be frustrating to the old-style tinkering grognard - and with his references to old AH games...


Nice to know there soe old school wargamers around. My first was Avalon Hill's Gettysburg, circa 1972, age 10. Yeah, I was precocious, but I had older brothers who were wargamers. Anybody remember Strategy & Tactics magazine? They used to publish game supplements -- I still have Blitzkrieg with all of the S&T add-on rules and units, lovingly pasted onto cardstock, dyed with food coloring, and cut out.

But you're right...as a grown-up working stiff, where are you going to find the time or opponenets for tabletop wragaming, either the boardgame or miniatures variety? Without computer games, wargaming for me would be nothing more than a fond memory of younger days.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Redeemer
Major
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: Eastern US

Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:56 am

Major Tom wrote:Nice to know there soe old school wargamers around. My first was Avalon Hill's Gettysburg, circa 1972, age 10. Yeah, I was precocious, but I had older brothers who were wargamers. Anybody remember Strategy & Tactics magazine? They used to publish game supplements -- I still have Blitzkrieg with all of the S&T add-on rules and units, lovingly pasted onto cardstock, dyed with food coloring, and cut out.

But you're right...as a grown-up working stiff, where are you going to find the time or opponenets for tabletop wragaming, either the boardgame or miniatures variety? Without computer games, wargaming for me would be nothing more than a fond memory of younger days.


Ditto, it took almost as much time to set up World in Flames as it did to play it.

ghostlight
Private
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:45 pm

Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:10 am

Sarkus wrote:No game is perfect . . . there would be no fun (the game part) if you were forced to do things the historical way every time.


2 different things here. yes, no game is perfect, and idealistic gamers often criticize great games because of that. which is ridiculous.

however, the critique here is that the game allows winning csa strategies that would have lost the war in reality. an extreme but realistic solution would be to eliminate vp's for all northern cities except a few border cities. capturing new york via a deep raid would not have helped the csa win, any more than v-rockets made a strategic difference for germany. in fact, the surge in conscripts and pop. support would prob. quicken a union victory.

the problem isnt that the game doesn't turn out historically every time, but that to a certain extent it doesnt present players with the same strategic decisions faced by lee, lincoln, etc.

but no game is perfect, and this one is really good. hopefully work by modders and developers will continue to make improvements in this area/

User avatar
bigus
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:43 pm

Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:24 am

This game will be a classic if they get the following 3 commands working as designed.

AI.SetAggro (with the ability to set theatres in the cities tab)

AI.ChgLocalInterest

and

AddGarrison



http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6006




http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9752

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:55 am

deleted

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:16 am

deleted

User avatar
bigus
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:43 pm

Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:39 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:It would be nice, but the complexity of a Campaign game with changing objectives over time vs a simplified small scenario with limited objectives means that trying to work up anything that would work for an entire campaign would take months if not a year to properly design and test for functionality. This is not something I'm interested in doing until I run out of all other items to finish first. I welcome anyone else that wants to take a stab at it however. Be my guest.




Wha?.....right....I gave you the "Change objective" . I'm glad it works.

I still have " Terrible Swift Sword"

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:52 am

deleted

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests