V4!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

V4!

Post by ChrisTofalos » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:52 am

Well, V3 is here and, after using the final draft for only a few months, I'm convinced the authors have come up with a relatively simple revision, which both speeds up play and adds spice to the game. The best just got better! But could anything else have been added to improve things even further?

One of my opponents at Bayfog this weekend mentioned MeG's interesting Flexible troop class. These are troops trained to fight in loose or close formation (depending on the terrain), such as Thureophoroi or Roman auxiliaries. WRG introduced LMI (and LHI) way back in an attempt to represent this troop type and MeG has gone one further with Flexibles, which can apparently change mode during the game. But is it realistic and, if so, can it be included in the next version of FOG (or added in an amendment sheet)?

I'd like to propose a new troop class, 'Adaptable', or better still Light Heavy Foot (LHF). One of the problems with LM/HI or Flexibles is that the frontage doesn't reduce when troops close up to move from open to close order. To reflect this change, LHF would move and fight as HF if 3 ranks deep and in the open. In bad terrain or when two deep they would count as the normal MF they're derived from. They'd cost a point more and, now that javelins cost extra for foot, why not allow them to be equipped with weapons they actually carried?

Any comments or, better still, other ideas to enhance the game?

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:09 pm

Personally I'd rather get rid of the whole MF idea as not really being based in history.

Blame the rules writers in then 70's (well, OK, Phil Barker mainly) for deciding that the troops mentioned in the Hellenistic manuals who were not phalagites or light infantry must be some sort of intermediate troop type - a decision based on nothing in particular from the historical record that I can see. Add to the mix the Victorian (and maybe earlier) idea that Roman auxilia are "light troops" and we get a made up troop type. (We may wish to reflect that a real historian who has also written rules - Phil Sabin - has no such category, and another wargaming historian - Adrian Goldsworthy - thinks it is cobblers as well).

What I would suggest is that certain "weapons systems" are more vulnerable to disruptions in formation than others, and this may be a better approach to the effect of terrain than having the HF/MF dichotomy. To pick an obvious example Hellenistic pikemen suffer badly as the formation requires a close formation and cohesion, break either of those and they are in trouble. By comparison the pila + sword equipped Roman legionarius is less dependent on the cohesion of a close formation and so can still operate effectively in more broken terrain.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8510
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: V4!

Post by philqw78 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:05 pm

I'm with Nik. Troops would change formation if trained or just do what comes naturally if not. If they were 'poor' they'd be run/ridden down for doing stuff badly in or out of terrain, and if troops were in some sort of debilitating terrain they'd all be a little bit less effective and some a lot less effective, so poorer troops would hold up longer against better troops
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: V4!

Post by hazelbark » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:08 pm

While I would normally be all in on criticizing Phil (a position that Slitherine should not take given their recent inability to proof properly) and I normally would agree with the medium infantry or LHI type feature is over done in games...

Then Paul Georgian wrote me roughly the following as part of longer comments about Byznatines. In the Sylloge Tacticorum Byzantine military manual in the 10th century specifically refers to an intermediate troop type as Medium Infantry neither skirmishers nor the heavy battle infantry. Now he point out their armor is often very similar to the heavy infantry. I would expound but I don't have the original source nor do I have enough depth on Byzantine matters. So some distinction is valuable.

From what I see I think FOG among other rule sets have this Medium troop type correct. These troops could operate in ways that made sense to them in terrain that was more broken. They could and did also fight in the open. But probably had some sturdiness issues against enemy foot and mounted that operated in more dense formations.

If I remember the old LHI and LMI from 5th edition these were in fact more armored medium infantry in there practical application of combat modifiers and speed. Back then type designation included armor. Then that was converted into superior, inferior, etc in DBM and now in FOG we finally have armor as a different thing from formation type. Which is good for variety.

Lastly the Roman early imperial Auxilia (I don't have a view on the later empire) probably should have an option to be medium or heavy. (hey they do, don't they!) Maybe even allowing that to shift from game to game. What I don't favor is the player operationally changing types in mid game. I think that giving the player that flexibility starts down a bad path and troops were unlikely to change behavior in a battle. Rather they would do what they were trained to do or what centurion johnnius on the spottius decided for good or ill. It was a historically uncommon thing to have an army commander changing troop doctrine...except William Wallace who taught scots about pikes on a 5 minute notice according to the documentary Braveheart.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:39 pm

hazelbark wrote: Then Paul Georgian wrote me roughly the following as part of longer comments about Byznatines. In the Sylloge Tacticorum Byzantine military manual in the 10th century specifically refers to an intermediate troop type as Medium Infantry neither skirmishers nor the heavy battle infantry. Now he point out their armor is often very similar to the heavy infantry. I would expound but I don't have the original source nor do I have enough depth on Byzantine matters. So some distinction is valuable.
Be interesting to know what the actual term used was (and the context of how they are supposed to be used) - I doubt it was actually medium infantry, but I could be in for a surprise :)

From what I see I think FOG among other rule sets have this Medium troop type correct. These troops could operate in ways that made sense to them in terrain that was more broken. They could and did also fight in the open. But probably had some sturdiness issues against enemy foot and mounted that operated in more dense formations.
I think the issue with this idea is that the latter weaknesses are not evident.

Lastly the Roman early imperial Auxilia (I don't have a view on the later empire) probably should have an option to be medium or heavy.
I would suggest that the evidence is that they were just another form of HF - budget legionarii effectively - and (initially) used manpower from peoples that might otherwise cause problems so acted as a safety valve which was useful to the empire. Goldsworthy is a usefully accessible source for a study of this amongst others.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

PaulByzan
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:40 am

Re: V4!

Post by PaulByzan » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:55 am

Nik, you can doubt the source evidence all you want but that's a personal opinion. First, no one alive today can actually say how ancients fought. So we extrapolate based on the best historical evidence we have. and sometimes different historical sources disagree. So this leaves us with option. Denying an army troop options they may have had is not the right way to go. For example, the quote on medium Byzantine infantry is based on the recent translation of the Sylloge Tacticorum manual. If you have a problem with the term medium infantry, well that's an argument you have with the translator who almost certainly knows medieval Greek better than anybody on this list. It's very clear from the manual that the medium foot is definitely a different troop type from heavy infantry. Therefore based on the manual medium foot should certainly be a option allowed the Byzantines.

As for Roman Auxilia, the greatest likelihood is that they were trained and could operate in both close and loose order depending on the tactical situation. Again either option should be allowed as there is no definitive information to deny it. Again look where these troops fought. Both the Byzantine and Roman armies were long term professional armies who fought in both good and rough terrain. To suggest that these armies had no answer to enemies who excelled in rough terrain is just dead wrong. Both the Byzantines and Romans studied their enemies and always had an answer to their tactics. Sometimes they lost due to careless in higher command who misused the troops they needed (Varus at Teutoberger Wald, Nikephoros I against the Bulgars in the Balkans come to mind).

So again you mention one modern source as the definitive decider on Roman Auxilia but refuse to look at what the alternatives are and suggest they not have options they could have had. This is the wrong way to develop army lists. If the option is possible and even likely then let the player decide what he believes the option should be.

Paul G.
nikgaukroger wrote:
hazelbark wrote: Then Paul Georgian wrote me roughly the following as part of longer comments about Byznatines. In the Sylloge Tacticorum Byzantine military manual in the 10th century specifically refers to an intermediate troop type as Medium Infantry neither skirmishers nor the heavy battle infantry. Now he point out their armor is often very similar to the heavy infantry. I would expound but I don't have the original source nor do I have enough depth on Byzantine matters. So some distinction is valuable.
Be interesting to know what the actual term used was (and the context of how they are supposed to be used) - I doubt it was actually medium infantry, but I could be in for a surprise :)

From what I see I think FOG among other rule sets have this Medium troop type correct. These troops could operate in ways that made sense to them in terrain that was more broken. They could and did also fight in the open. But probably had some sturdiness issues against enemy foot and mounted that operated in more dense formations.
I think the issue with this idea is that the latter weaknesses are not evident.

Lastly the Roman early imperial Auxilia (I don't have a view on the later empire) probably should have an option to be medium or heavy.
I would suggest that the evidence is that they were just another form of HF - budget legionarii effectively - and (initially) used manpower from peoples that might otherwise cause problems so acted as a safety valve which was useful to the empire. Goldsworthy is a usefully accessible source for a study of this amongst others.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:58 am

PaulByzan wrote:Nik, you can doubt the source evidence all you want but that's a personal opinion. First, no one alive today can actually say how ancients fought. So we extrapolate based on the best historical evidence we have. and sometimes different historical sources disagree. So this leaves us with option. Denying an army troop options they may have had is not the right way to go. For example, the quote on medium Byzantine infantry is based on the recent translation of the Sylloge Tacticorum manual. If you have a problem with the term medium infantry, well that's an argument you have with the translator who almost certainly knows medieval Greek better than anybody on this list. It's very clear from the manual that the medium foot is definitely a different troop type from heavy infantry. Therefore based on the manual medium foot should certainly be a option allowed the Byzantines.
Rather why I asked what the term used actually was and the context of their intended use as this would allow a judgement to be made on whether they are "Medium Infantry" in the FoG sense or whether, as I suggested, an alternative approach would equally or better give the right results in their portrayal. Alas, I have not got the recent Sylloge Tacticorum translation - cannot justify the cost compared to other things I want alas :( hence hoping you can supply the info.

Also just a thought on translators. It is usually a good idea to check the terms used by translators when they translate what might be called technical terms, no matter how good they are they may well use a translation that itself loses some of the technicality. We only have to look at the C19th translations of classical texts to see this - they often used terms that were common and understandable to people of their day, but which do not properly convey the technical meaning. Even an excellent translator such as Dennis has suffered from this occasionally as Haldon's commentary of Dennis' Taktika of Leo shows.


As for Roman Auxilia, the greatest likelihood is that they were trained and could operate in both close and loose order depending on the tactical situation. Again either option should be allowed as there is no definitive information to deny it. Again look where these troops fought. Both the Byzantine and Roman armies were long term professional armies who fought in both good and rough terrain. To suggest that these armies had no answer to enemies who excelled in rough terrain is just dead wrong. Both the Byzantines and Romans studied their enemies and always had an answer to their tactics. Sometimes they lost due to careless in higher command who misused the troops they needed (Varus at Teutoberger Wald, Nikephoros I against the Bulgars in the Balkans come to mind).
You seem to have rather missed the point of the suggestion I made. It would not remove the army's capability of fighting in rough terrain as I am suggesting that the "weapon system" is not disrupted in the way others are in bad terrain - what it means is that there is no requirement for the HF/MF dichotomy (a false one IMO). This covers their flexibility through training.

So again you mention one modern source as the definitive decider on Roman Auxilia but refuse to look at what the alternatives are and suggest they not have options they could have had. This is the wrong way to develop army lists. If the option is possible and even likely then let the player decide what he believes the option should be.
Well I actually mentioned 2 - Sabin and Goldsworthy - mainly as they are reasonably accessible, Goldsworthy especially. However, you'll be happy to know that I didn't just rely on them and have gone through the historical sources such as Tacitus, Ammianus, etc. to draw out what they say about the actual performance of the auxilia and legionarii on which to base my thoughts :D
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: V4!

Post by hazelbark » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:37 pm

Nik

Is your idea of no medium infantry. Could you expound, because I am missing your detail and trying to understand the short hand. Various options below and to be clear I am not assigning any of the below to you just trying to lay some options out to help tease forward the answer.

a) Do away with MI and basically all HI is ok in uneven terrain?
b) specific types of HI are not effected by terrain.
c) Some Medium get left as medium but that is more of semi-rubbish type. Good Auxilia would function be HI types.
d) How would you differentiate Pike from legion if at all in this.
e) Earlier say biblical infantry like asharittu or immortals even would be rated how?

jfnavarro
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Zaragoza (España)

Re: V4!

Post by jfnavarro » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:04 pm

Perhaps a different treatment of the terrain and its effects on the different types of troops could open a new way to this subject.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:24 pm

hazelbark wrote:Nik

Is your idea of no medium infantry. Could you expound, because I am missing your detail and trying to understand the short hand.
Hi Dan.

No worries. Appreciate that I have done this rather shorthand as you say - as this is all idle speculation as v3 has only just been released I'm not really inclined me to spend too much time on it. If it were a project that might result in something it'd be different - as you know I'm happy to pontificate on subjects like this :lol: :roll:

Various options below and to be clear I am not assigning any of the below to you just trying to lay some options out to help tease forward the answer.

a) Do away with MI and basically all HI is ok in uneven terrain?
b) specific types of HI are not effected by terrain.
My thinking is a combination of these. I should say that I've mainly thought about this in the classical period context (sort of the traditional core of ancients) and as a couple of your questions below show it would need thinking hard about for outside of this, although I think it may broadly work.

OK, so in simple terms my thinking is that there would be no MF category and that the existing MF would become HF. Disorder from terrain for these HF would be dependent on their weapon capabilities. For example troops such as Impact Foot/Light Spear, Swordsmen would not be disordered by Rough but Spearmen and Pikemen would be. In Difficult the former would be disorder and the latter severely disordered. So in the way MF and HF receptively currently are really.

c) Some Medium get left as medium but that is more of semi-rubbish type. Good Auxilia would function be HI types.
It may well be that Mob would cover these. Although rarely done in the lists there is no reason why Mob cannot have the usual range of capabilities. May well need them adding to the types mounted get a PoA at Impact against though. hey, you could rename Mob as MF perhaps :lol:
d) How would you differentiate Pike from legion if at all in this.
I think that should be covered by the above.
e) Earlier say biblical infantry like asharittu or immortals even would be rated how?
Very good question - and an area I haven't pondered much on (as I suspect you have guessed :D ).

One thing I would note is that Immortals and Sparabara are currently MF mainly because the FoG "list rules" did not allow HF archers. IMO it would be well worth looking at whether their interactions with their historical matchups would be broken if they were HF. It would certainly stop them skulking in terrain which seems to be the fate of the sparabara at least, and get them in the open field as well as the terrain.

The eastern infantry who are MF to make them vulnerable to mounted would also need a close look at. It is a bit of a blunt tool and again tends to leave them skulking in terrain all too often opening up "won't come out, can't go in" scenarios which can be dull. The v3 changes to Impact combat may well have provided the solution which could see a lot actually be HF.

Biblical infantry are probably in the same boat, perhaps with the 2nd rate stuff being Mob as mentioned above.

Hope that all helps.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: V4!

Post by petedalby » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Perhaps a different treatment of the terrain and its effects on the different types of troops could open a new way to this subject.
I was thinking pretty much the same. I'm not very well read on these subjects but I vaguely recall an Ancient Chinese military manual that I will paraphrase horribly.

"When you're out in the open - close up. When you're in the rough - spread out a bit. When the terrain is really bad - spread out a lot!"

We know (think we know?) that even Phalangites were given different equipment and weapons to fight in terrain when required.
Pete

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8510
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: V4!

Post by philqw78 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:31 pm

And had formation changes to move through terrain with pike
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:38 pm

petedalby wrote: We know (think we know?) that even Phalangites were given different equipment and weapons to fight in terrain when required.
Alexander's certainly were on occasion - there is even something in the list for it IIRC :-)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:42 pm

philqw78 wrote:And had formation changes to move through terrain with pike
IIRC it goes something like 6' frontage when manoeuvering, 3' when fighting normally and 18" in some circumstances when exceptional cohesion/resistance was needed.

Just passing through a lot of types of terrain probably should have too much effect*, it is when you're fighting in it that it is important I suspect.


* in many cases it probably shouldn't even slow, although speaking from personal experience weight of kit + terrain can slow you down more than just the terrain :!:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: V4!

Post by hazelbark » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:14 pm

agree this is all blather for version 42.

I see what you are saying let me counter slightly but with more agreement.

Where I think you have a point to reinforce your argument on a battle scale how much did terrain actually impact steadiness? To overstate it is a modern concept to put troops into terrain. Agincourt. Sending 50 soldiers through the wood down each side.... Thermopylae. Having been there the mountains have very steep grade 70 degree as a made up number. But they also were broken and have vegetation. Could an army of 100,000 have found 200 guys to successfully scramble along? Well they all would have died because behind the 300 Spartans there were like 6000 other greeks. So moving on...

But the large point is way up even through renaissance, seven years war, Napoleonic's and American civil war troops stayed clear-ish of bad terrain or went into exactly like they would if it was clear. (ACW every other one was in woods). So that half bolsters your point. It also suggests we don't fully do terrain right, which is an even longer thing.

So having terrain being an impact on both the weapon type and I would argue on attacker would be interesting to explore.

But I rather like the notion of less sturdy infantry. There are a lot of way to achieve this. One thing perhaps along your thinking is do away with the MI suffering versus HI. But essentially make the primary thing of MI is they are more vulnerable to mounted. Which I think is important.

The Chinese I would seriously evaluate the steppe cataphracts as sort of heavily armored impact cav (which may be practically what they are in FOG) if the Chinese infantry was vulnerable to mounted. But if you strengthen to Chinese softer infantry then I think you create problems as they feared the steppe horse. I think FOG is sort of currently on track with that.

Biblical is actually a giant other kettle of fish. The chariots were wicked fearsome to even trained foot. In list and/or POA revisions you need to let biblical armies come out of period as that will add to the color of the tournaments.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: V4!

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:24 am

hazelbark wrote:agree this is all blather for version 42.

I see what you are saying let me counter slightly but with more agreement.

Where I think you have a point to reinforce your argument on a battle scale how much did terrain actually impact steadiness? To overstate it is a modern concept to put troops into terrain. Agincourt. Sending 50 soldiers through the wood down each side.... Thermopylae. Having been there the mountains have very steep grade 70 degree as a made up number. But they also were broken and have vegetation. Could an army of 100,000 have found 200 guys to successfully scramble along? Well they all would have died because behind the 300 Spartans there were like 6000 other greeks. So moving on...

But the large point is way up even through renaissance, seven years war, Napoleonic's and American civil war troops stayed clear-ish of bad terrain or went into exactly like they would if it was clear. (ACW every other one was in woods). So that half bolsters your point. It also suggests we don't fully do terrain right, which is an even longer thing.

So having terrain being an impact on both the weapon type and I would argue on attacker would be interesting to explore.
Good points on terrain, and I'd agree that we probably aren't doing terrain right - and that is a whole new can of worms.

But I rather like the notion of less sturdy infantry. There are a lot of way to achieve this. One thing perhaps along your thinking is do away with the MI suffering versus HI. But essentially make the primary thing of MI is they are more vulnerable to mounted. Which I think is important.

The Chinese I would seriously evaluate the steppe cataphracts as sort of heavily armored impact cav (which may be practically what they are in FOG) if the Chinese infantry was vulnerable to mounted. But if you strengthen to Chinese softer infantry then I think you create problems as they feared the steppe horse. I think FOG is sort of currently on track with that.
It is certainly an area that would need closely looking into. I think the current position in FoG may overstate things, especially with the v3 3 dice/base at Impact as opposed to the 2/base of previous versions. It will be interesting to see how that pans out in practice for "MF armies" generally - I have a concern that it may exacerbate "can't come out, won't go in" situations :(

Biblical is actually a giant other kettle of fish. The chariots were wicked fearsome to even trained foot. In list and/or POA revisions you need to let biblical armies come out of period as that will add to the color of the tournaments.
Biblicals are always an issue :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

player
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:41 am
Location: Manchester England
Contact:

Re: V4!

Post by player » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:16 pm

Interesting to note that the 1st edition of WRG rules back in 1969 only differentiates medium and heavy infantry with only metal armour for the heavies; but that both troop types 'fight shoulder to shoulder'.
Base sizes, albeit in inches, are the same as today. see p4: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/OL ... ent001.pdf

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory 3.0 Beta”