free company 2nd place in comp last weekend

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

free company 2nd place in comp last weekend

Post by expendablecinc »

In the recent West Australian comp the Free Company came second, The list is attached below

Free Company:
4 * TC

6 * mob
6 * MF Prot Sw
4 * LF Jav LSpear

8 * MF Prot Xbow
4 * HF Sup Arm HvyW
6 * MF longbowmen

6 * MF longbowmen
4 * KN Sup Undr
4 * KN Sup Undr

4 * KN Sup Undr
8 * HF Sup Arm HvyW
Lionelc62
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 449
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 9:10 pm
Location: Northern France

Post by Lionelc62 »

Hi,

Is it possible to have 3 superior Kn BG in this list ?


Regards
Lionel
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

Lionelc62 wrote:Hi,

Is it possible to have 3 superior Kn BG in this list ?


Regards
Lionel
It certainly is. You can have 12 bases of mounted and they can all be superior Kn.
BlackPrince
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:34 pm

Post by BlackPrince »

What were the other armies in the comp?
madmike111
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:20 am
Location: West Aussieland

Post by madmike111 »

What were the other armies in the comp?
My fatimids were in the comp, came in the middle.

I fought the Swiss to a draw (slight advantage to the Swiss) and had a good win over the Carthaginians.

My worst enemy was an classical Indian, it was almost at the end of the game before I killed my first Indian base.

My first attack set the standard for the rest of the game, my BG of 9 (2/3 Mi, superior Impact foot, armoured + 1/3 LF archers 3rd rank) charged into a BG of 8 unprotected indian archers. Despite having a larger BG and fighting with ++ POA I was routed after only a couple of rounds. The Indians were fighting with machine guns, seemed every roll was a 5 or 6. Like I said that set the standard for the game with me only winning one combat at the end of game.

My feeling on the Fatimids is that the superior armoured horse archers are over priced. The single MI armoured impact foot the best unit.

Archery fire is rubbish, my army had heaps of bow and managed to kill a single base over the weekend. Even disrupting an enemy was hard work, once the target adds in rear support, command range and IC.

Also I don't think much of the scoring system, a LF unit of 4 is worth the same as a 6 BG of super drilled knights. With a limited time comp the smart thing to do is to pick off the easy units without taking on the enemies main force.
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Post by timmy1 »

Mike

A couple of your points require a response.

'Archery fire is rubbish, my army had heaps of bow and managed to kill a single base over the weekend. Even disrupting an enemy was hard work, once the target adds in rear support, command range and IC.'

I would say that your opponent played very well if your archery did not disrupt because of the counter measures that he took that you listed. Once quick question. Were you concentrating fire from 2 or more BG on one target BG or were you matching one for one? The former is usually more effective over the long run.

'Also I don't think much of the scoring system, a LF unit of 4 is worth the same as a 6 BG of super drilled knights. With a limited time comp the smart thing to do is to pick off the easy units without taking on the enemies main force.'

I would say that this is historically accurate. The LF are not totally expendable, they harass the enemy on his his way in, withdraw behind their supports or into terrain when the enemy approach, and then dance round the edges, picking off the enemy on the margin. Making a BG of LF have the same VP cost encourages historical use. Some other games do not.
madmike111
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:20 am
Location: West Aussieland

Post by madmike111 »

I would say that your opponent played very well if your archery did not disrupt because of the counter measures that he took that you listed. Once quick question. Were you concentrating fire from 2 or more BG on one target BG or were you matching one for one? The former is usually more effective over the long run.
I have played a few games now and know most of the tricks but I still feel that archery is a waste of time. Could be a combination of my rubbish rolling the other side always passing their tests.
Also I don't think much of the scoring system, a LF unit of 4 is worth the same as a 6 BG of super drilled knights. With a limited time comp the smart thing to do is to pick off the easy units without taking on the enemies main force.'

I would say that this is historically accurate. The LF are not totally expendable, they harass the enemy on his his way in, withdraw behind their supports or into terrain when the enemy approach, and then dance round the edges, picking off the enemy on the margin. Making a BG of LF have the same VP cost encourages historical use. Some other games do not.
:lol: sorry, but no way can you make me believe that a unit of 6 poor javelin men costing 12 pts is in anyway the same worth as a knight unit costing over 150pts. I am not saying make the cheap units worthless for victory purposes, just weight them a bit realistically.
madmike111
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:20 am
Location: West Aussieland

Post by madmike111 »

Here is my Fatimids I fielded for the comp 796pts

1 * FC
2 * TC
3 * 4 bases armoured horse archers/swords superior
2 * 4 bases armoured horse lancers/swords average
2 * 6 MF defensive spearmen prot/average, 3rd rank light archers
1 * 4 base LH jav
1 * 4 base LH bow
1 * 6 base Dailami armoured impact foot super, 3rd archer LH
1 * 6 bases average protected macemen heavy weapon
1 * 6 bases average unprotected bow

When facing armies that were close formation based like pike or knights I maxed out the number of fields and used my Mi foot as the main attack force. While it slightly disadvantaged my horse overall it caused much more problems to the other side.

The heavy weapon unit was my worst performing unit. In one attack it was overrun in a single turn and destroyed by elephants, its best performance was to last 2 turns. I am thinking of rebasing it as a mob and not one of those tough protected mobs :lol:
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8813
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

sorry, but no way can you make me believe that a unit of 6 poor javelin men costing 12 pts is in anyway the same worth as a knight unit costing over 150pts.
But this encourages people to use them unrealistically. e.g. They're worthless so I can use them to soak up the enemy elite and not skirmish. They'll die but I won't care.

Its still the same number of bases/people/citizens being crushed.

Kill all the peasants and the rich people starve 'cos they don't know how to farm. I think that happened to the Mongols in China.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

philqw78 wrote:
But this encourages people to use them unrealistically. e.g. They're worthless so I can use them to soak up the enemy elite and not skirmish. They'll die but I won't care.
This is, I believe, pretty much the approach of the writers. By making all BGs worth the same in terms of victory points it provides a simple mechanism to incentivise players to use the troops more historically. In the case of light foot types this means keeping them out of the way of "proper" troops - historically they didn't play too much of a role on the whole but if they are relatively worthless they will get used in a historically inappropriate manner.
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
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

madmike111 wrote:My feeling on the Fatimids is that the superior armoured horse archers are over priced. The single MI armoured impact foot the best unit.
I got a comment from a number of players at the Scottish round of the doubles that cataphracts were not worth the points yet the army that placed second had 24 bases of undrilled cataphracts.

I suspect that the issue was not that cataphracts not being worth the points but drilled cataphracts when used in exactly the same way as undrilled ones such that you pay 20 points a base but only ever use 18 points worth of capability. It is possible that you effectively used your superior horse archers in a role that would have been beter suited to other troops. Without detailed battle reports and photos it is difficult to say. My experience of superior drilled armoured bow cavalry is that they are great troops but that they are not light horse replacements.
Archery fire is rubbish, my army had heaps of bow and managed to kill a single base over the weekend. Even disrupting an enemy was hard work, once the target adds in rear support, command range and IC.
The key is to concentrate on the better targets. If you divide your fire and mainly hit rear supported troops in command radius of an IC you are playing to your opponents strengths not yours. If the only place you can attack has rear support and an IC then the terrain is unpleasant and perhaps you should have looked at an outflanking march.
OhReally
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:19 pm

Post by OhReally »

nikgaukroger wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
But this encourages people to use them unrealistically. e.g. They're worthless so I can use them to soak up the enemy elite and not skirmish. They'll die but I won't care.
This is, I believe, pretty much the approach of the writers. By making all BGs worth the same in terms of victory points it provides a simple mechanism to incentivise players to use the troops more historically. In the case of light foot types this means keeping them out of the way of "proper" troops - historically they didn't play too much of a role on the whole but if they are relatively worthless they will get used in a historically inappropriate manner.


There seems to be allot of FoG rules designed to punish the lowest common denominator of miniature gamers. Several areas of rules seem designed to fix bad behavior by people who were devious in DBM.

Historically the French rode through their own missile troops to get to the English faster, I don't think they or their commanders would have cared if every group of skirmishers and foot in the army were crushed and left on the field to rot and it certainly doesn't make sense that they would factor towards an army break point at the same rate as a unit of Knights.

A system where the cost of the battle groups is factored into how much they contribute towards the breakpoint makes more sense. I mean a unit of Superior Knights are made up of individuals who trained since childhood to fight, they are going to be a huge loss on the tabletop and difficult to replace. Poor slingers on the other hand are running around practically naked with a piece of leather and some round rocks or bullets. It just makes no logical sense that they contribute the same towards the army break point.

Pulled out of my butt here with no real thought, why not something where the break point is actually the value of the army in points, and each unit destroyed is worth it's point value towards that point. So you kill a unit of Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Drilled Lancers/Swordsmen they contribute 104 points towards the army break point. If a unit is fragmented it counts for half or something.
Lance
-----------------
Atlanta, GA

"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."
expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Other Armies present and notes

Post by expendablecinc »

1st Place: Geoff Marshall with Later Swiss
2nd place and Rising Power award to Glen Saunders with free company
3rd place to Graham with his Seljuk Turks.

The mayhem (tooth and nail award) was won by Glen Saunders who
equalled Graham in number of bases killed due to death rolls, winning
the tie breaker on army size.

The top three army lists are:

Swiss:
(Secret Army not to be revealed)
ie I dont have the list at this time
actually I can probably recount it from memory
about 5-6 Bgs of 8 pike (no 12s)
about 4 Bgs of 4 halberdiers (all 4's)
some small groups of xbow and handgunners
4 lorrainer knights as a mobile reserve.
It had about 15 or so BGs so was difficult to get through in the time.

Free Company:
4 * TC

6 * mob
6 * MF Prot Sw
4 * LF Jav LSpear

8 * MF Prot Xbow
4 * HF Sup Arm HvyW
6 * MF longbowmen

6 * MF longbowmen
4 * KN Sup Undr
4 * KN Sup Undr

4 * KN Sup Undr
8 * HF Sup Arm HvyW


Seljuk Turk:
1 * IC
3 * TC

6 * Mob
6 * LF avg bow
8 * LF avg Jav LtSp

4 * LH Bow SW(turcoman)
4 * LH Bow SW(turcoman)
4 * LH Bow SW(turcoman)

4 * Cv Bow SW Prot (turcoman)
8 * MF Impact Sw Sup (Dailami)
6 * LH Lance Sw (Bedouin)

4 * Cv Bow SW Dr Arm Sup (Ghilmen)
4 * Cv Bow SW Dr Arm Sup (Ghilmen)
6 * Cv Lance Sw Undr Arm Sup (Ex Fatimids)

For what its worth my Latin Greeks had:

3 * TC

6 * LF poor Bow
6 * MF poor Bow
4 * LH Bow SW

6 * LF Avg Bow
6 * LF Avg Bow
8 * MF Avg XBow Prot

8 * MF Avg Bow
4 * HF Avg DefSp Arm
8 * MF Avg LtSpear Prot

4 * KN Sup HArm Lance Sw (drilled)
6 * KN Sup HArm Lance Sw (undrilled)
6 * KN Sup HArm Lance Sw (undrilled)

Special mentions:
- Special mention to Glen Saunders who came 2nd despite being beaten
25-0 against Geoff in the final round. No-one else was within
striking distance. He could have sat back and played for the draw,
wasting time and running away from the Swiss for three hours. If he
has lost by 15 points he still would have won the comp. To his
credit/craziness he went for the win never entering 'tournament mode'
and unfortunately the previously rock-hard superior men at arms
turned to butter the face of the phalanx. He had played two games of
FoG before the comp.

- Special Mention to Graham's Seljuks for getting 14 shooting hits on
a single battle group in round 2.

- The Hungarian Royal banderium who spent most of the game two
running away from 4 classical indian elephants, but with their backs
to the table edge and inches from their own camp turned around and
promptly annihilated the elephants in a bound.

Thanks to:
- Dave Barker and Geoff Tindall the - one day players - who balanced
out the numbers, ensuring no byes.
- Richard and Michael from outside the club contributed significantly
to the competition. It is really great to have gamers from beyond
the club coming along to these events. They bring fresh ideas,
beautifully painted armies and fresh playing styles, adding variety
and numbers. Looking at Michael's Fatimids I was berating myself for
not including a 'best painted army' this time. Richard was looking a
little worse for wear at the end of day one so I hope the
encouragement award - a new set of 12 chessex dice - improved things
on day two.
- Essex Australia and Olympian Games, and Tactics as sources of
prizes. With Fog armies being slightly larger than dbm ones I
imagine a bit of a flurry of miniature purchases over the coming 6-12
months - myself included (all hail the szekeler Hungarians).

Amazingly the entirely random door prizes of sets of custom cohesion
markers were won by Geoff Marshal, Glen Saunders and Graham who came
first second and third - whats going on there?

Generally there was some concern that the classical period armies
would struggle against the abundance of knights and armoured foot in
the later lists. I am not sure if this was due to game imbalance
between periods or some other factor (bad dice at critical times). I
saw the poor fatimids raining missiles into the Swiss to no effect
for a few turns so perhaps the latter is true. The seljuks had to
rely on the same approach and seemed to be doing the number on the
slower moving medievals. Personally I think it is just that the
game is quite new in this region and the players of larger, poorer
quality armies are not yet into the game of flank-a-rama and evade-a-
thon.
Last edited by expendablecinc on Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8813
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

the French rode through their own missile troops to get to the English faster
This is not going to destroy the unit. If you use your own skirmish troops for the enemy to ride through it most likely will.
It is comparatively easy to do this if you wish to have the skirmishers stand against knights. Pass a CT with no minuses. The loss of attrition points stops people doing it. The rules could be made more complicated to stop this happening. Extra minuses for standing, depending upon what you are standing against, where you are, how many enemy are close, where they are.
Poor slingers on the other hand are running around practically naked with a piece of leather and some round rocks or bullets. It just makes no logical sense that they contribute the same towards the army break point.
this may be Communist of me but over a campaign the poor blokes that look after the pigs are just as important, especially if you want to recruit other pig herders or eat pigs.
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

We are wandering rapidly off the topic of this thread but it is interesting so why not :twisted:

Essentially there are a number of different ways you can work out victory or defeat.

One is to treat all troops as equal for this purpose which is what FoG has done and is also to some degree what DBM did.

Another is to make certain troops more important and others less so or not at all. DBMM makes some troops worth 2 and others worth 1/2, one rather odd side effect is that if you get cheap 2 point troops and reasonably effective 1/2 point ones you just fight the game with the rubbish and if it dies it doesn't matter.

Armati has key troops and non key ones and only key ones count for defeat. This means you can throw your non key troops away willy nilly which I don't seem to recall being the case in the real world.

If you went with a system where you used point values for break then what is to stop someone making up an army with a number of minimu sized units of the cheapest worst troops they can find and then letting them die to your supermen just to pull the supermen into a situation where they get charged in the flank by your much better troops?

Any system of victory or defeat has its flaws. Treating all BGs equally while not perfect is also not as bad as several of the alternatives.

What would you suggest? I am sure that I can find a gamey way to exploit it.

In FoG the 'gamey' way to exploit things is to do the fighting with the good troops while the rubbish tries to hide. It isn't as easy as you might think to hide BGs of poor light foot against a determined enemy.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

OhReally wrote:
Pulled out of my butt here with no real thought, why not something where the break point is actually the value of the army in points, and each unit destroyed is worth it's point value towards that point. So you kill a unit of Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Drilled Lancers/Swordsmen they contribute 104 points towards the army break point. If a unit is fragmented it counts for half or something.
The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it will just lead to very ahistorical use of troops as the incentives are all wrong.

With all BGs rated the same there is a definite incentive to get the expensive stuff stuck in so you aren't defeated by losing the chaff, so you end up fighting with the troops that really would have done the fighting in real life. However, if you make the chaff essentially worthless it will be used unhistorically more as the loss is irrelevant - this will be especially so in army mist-matches where the player on the wrong end will do all he can with trash to stave off "real" fighting.

I'm afraid, IMO, that the logic that you can rate the chaff as pretty much nothing will not do anything to the historical representation in FoG. The FoG approach may not be perfect, however, it is IMO better than this option.
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
OhReally
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:19 pm

Post by OhReally »

nikgaukroger wrote:
OhReally wrote:
Pulled out of my butt here with no real thought, why not something where the break point is actually the value of the army in points, and each unit destroyed is worth it's point value towards that point. So you kill a unit of Knights Heavily Armoured Sup Drilled Lancers/Swordsmen they contribute 104 points towards the army break point. If a unit is fragmented it counts for half or something.
The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it will just lead to very ahistorical use of troops as the incentives are all wrong.

With all BGs rated the same there is a definite incentive to get the expensive stuff stuck in so you aren't defeated by losing the chaff, so you end up fighting with the troops that really would have done the fighting in real life. However, if you make the chaff essentially worthless it will be used unhistorically more as the loss is irrelevant - this will be especially so in army mist-matches where the player on the wrong end will do all he can with trash to stave off "real" fighting.

I'm afraid, IMO, that the logic that you can rate the chaff as pretty much nothing will not do anything to the historical representation in FoG. The FoG approach may not be perfect, however, it is IMO better than this option.
Well again I didn't really put a great deal of thought into it, but honestly isn't point values fairly ahistorical, as are fair and equal forces. It's not really historical to go "well if I go break those garbage units all those elite trained men at arms will run away in fear of how we defeated a peasant boy with a speedo and some rocks."

I think my idea, with some testing and polish, fits better with the idea of the point system, and my half thought out idea makes more sense with FoG math than everything being the same value for attrition. The whole idea of the point system is to create a fair and balanced battle, all troops being worth the same when fragmented and destroyed doesn't really make sense with this model IMO.

The current system just leads to people cheasing out their # of battlegroups, which doesn't make any historical sense either. It's not like armies broke because of a % of their troops breaking, I'm sure we can all think of battles where one decisive push won a battle and started a rout, and those where armies fought on until they were slaughtered.
Lance
-----------------
Atlanta, GA

"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

OhReally wrote:The current system just leads to people cheasing out their # of battlegroups, which doesn't make any historical sense either. It's not like armies broke because of a % of their troops breaking, I'm sure we can all think of battles where one decisive push won a battle and started a rout, and those where armies fought on until they were slaughtered.
So far there is little evidence that having more BGs makes a significant impact on an armies performance. I posted some stats in another thread on the average size of BG in the tournaments at Britcon. Granted if you look at the 15mm comp then the largest army in terms of BGs won but looked at another way a player who has won the Britcon DBM tournament 5 times in the last 6 years won so what does that say. In the 25mm comp the army with the least BGs of any of the armies in the period won so on that basis small numbers of really hard BGs are best.

It is still early days but I can assure you that if there was a system where by sacrificing a BG of 6 poor medium foot light spear (or 12 points out of your 800) you could pull your opponents best BG into a possition where you could destroy it that we would see this 'tactic' all over the tournament tables.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

OhReally wrote:
Well again I didn't really put a great deal of thought into it, but honestly isn't point values fairly ahistorical, as are fair and equal forces.

Of course they're complete cock in terms of historicality, they are just tools to allow us to have a certain type of game. However, should that mean that the game should not have incentives to use troops historically? I suggest not.


It's not really historical to go "well if I go break those garbage units all those elite trained men at arms will run away in fear of how we defeated a peasant boy with a speedo and some rocks."

All back to the incentives point - if somebody allows you to do that they are not using their troops properly or historically in all probabiliy and so suffer for it. Again I suggest that this is reasonable.

I suspect we are not going to agree on this. I'm more or less happy with the way FoG deals with this - you, of course, can use a different system with like minded people so we can both be happy :P
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
Redpossum
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:09 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact:

Post by Redpossum »

nikgaukroger wrote: I suspect we are not going to agree on this. I'm more or less happy with the way FoG deals with this - you, of course, can use a different system with like minded people so we can both be happy :P
You know, nik, with all due respect, that's not really a very nice thing to say.

People here are trying their best to offer constructive criticism and viable alternatives, and you essentially just told the poor guy, "If you don't like it, bugger off."

We all have our bad days, bro, but...c'mon. You're supposed to be, like, restrained and stuff, eh? That's part of the obligation that comes with using the fancy avatar, no?

No offense intended here, just a gentle word of friendly admonition :)
Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”