Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Which country has this law?

 

Hey, Smoke. I tried to PM you, but the message are was greyed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Which country has this law?

United Arab Emirates. I am sure other countries in the Middle East have similar laws.

 

Skype, WhatsApp voice, FaceTime, Discord, TA, and many other smaller similar apps (trust me, the whole country jumps in as soon as some minuscule similar app is created just to see it blocked after a few days).

 

And before you ask, using VPN is also against the law.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, =L/R=Shoki said:

Did you read manual?

 

The manual says:

 

If pilot crashes or bails out over enemy territory there is always a chance he will not be captured

 

The question is perfectly legitimate. There is a difference between knowing that “there is a chance” and “what are the chances of”. Plus, yesterday I was surprised for not being captured when I was level bombing the reds airfield, deep in red territory and got shot down by AAA. I was under the impression that this only happened very close to the border and with low probability. So, I second Rammzess question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, antpaisvieira said:

 

The manual says:

 

If pilot crashes or bails out over enemy territory there is always a chance he will not be captured

 

The question is perfectly legitimate. There is a difference between knowing that “there is a chance” and “what are the chances of”. Plus, yesterday I was surprised for not being captured when I was level bombing the reds airfield, deep in red territory and got shot down by AAA. I was under the impression that this only happened very close to the border and with low probability. So, I second Rammzess question.

The probability of being captured is 20%  and 35% for Allied and Axis respectively. 

On 3/13/2019 at 8:35 AM, Norz said:

 

The supply is only about 10% possible (it does not work in this mission, only one mission after that).

 

For exampe:

 

http://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=286

 

  • Airfield in Krasnodar was repaired to 48%
  • Airfield supply in Viselky was damaged. Supply level 31%
  • Airfield in Viselky was destroyed
  • Airfield in Krasnodar was supplied by air transport to 76%

 

1. AF was repaired. to 48%

2. Air transports were landed. Max is 100% and it will generate +10%. 76% will generate +7% of the repair. 

 

Or something like that. Its seems that the action log is not absolutly clear to explain how it works.

 

To repair an airfield by 5% (e.g. damage from 50% to 45%) it takes 5% from supply.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

I like the idea and had the same one myself. The only concern and it is a big one... is that it could reduce participation significantly. Also, it could lead to strange anomalies where at certain times of day, the only players on are forced to fly on one side with no opponents. (This maybe could be mitigated by an algorithm that assigns sides in-part based on a player's declared typical play time)

Yeah thats the problem, the risk of lose a significant number of participants and anomalies product of a random system of inscription. 

 

Another choices to balance TAW its being more historical accurate, with more slots for reds and more resources, planes and pilots, forcing Germany to be always outnumbered by 2:1 as maximum

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, El_Oso said:

 

Another choices to balance TAW its being more historical accurate, with more slots for reds and more resources, planes and pilots, forcing Germany to be always outnumbered by 2:1 as maximum

 

And you don't think the Blues would just go to a different server?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

And you don't think the Blues would just go to a different server?

Well as i said, thats the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

And you don't think the Blues would just go to a different server?

 

Maybe, but then again, those that have been used to flying on red outnumbered in inferior aircraft might actually have more fun switching and flying on blue outnumbered in superior aircraft :).  So it might work itself out...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Another choices to balance TAW its being more historical accurate, with more slots for reds and more resources, planes and pilots, forcing Germany to be always outnumbered by 2:1 as maximum"

 

...ofcourse LW lose all campaigns......but is fun anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, antpaisvieira said:

United Arab Emirates. I am sure other countries in the Middle East have similar laws.

 

Skype, WhatsApp voice, FaceTime, Discord, TA, and many other smaller similar apps (trust me, the whole country jumps in as soon as some minuscule similar app is created just to see it blocked after a few days).

 

And before you ask, using VPN is also against the law.

 

 

Whoa, sometimes I forget how free I am in Canada even if I complain about our free speech laws. Put's things in perspective a bit.

 

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit.

17 hours ago, redcloud111 said:

 

Hey, Smoke. I tried to PM you, but the message are was greyed out.

 

Pm sent to you bro! Always up for a chat.

On 3/10/2019 at 10:33 AM, JonRedcorn said:

Let's keep adding rules so xjammer doesn't keep gaming the server. Fun times.

 

If one player is causing so much grief...... Remove the problem. While I know I can be a grumpy opinionated jerk I do not go out of my way to ruin a good time in server for others. Once someone has made the choice to cause grief intentionally..... Removal of said player should be on the table for discussion.

On 3/10/2019 at 11:04 AM, AirshowDisaster said:

I think when it boils down to it TAW is glorified roleplay for a lot of the people who participate in it - but for some it's just a competition. The two different attitudes are destined to butt heads no matter what.

 

 

Why can't it be both? I prefer it being both for myself. A larpy competition and a good way to make new friends.

On 3/11/2019 at 1:28 PM, =2ndSS=KRIS_ said:

 fly to the team. At the same time you have 12 deaths. What are downed? What are you about. Учите силуэты

 

 

 

Ahhh, this explains why he didn't understand an English apology. No google translate in chat.

On 3/12/2019 at 2:59 AM, I./JG62_Knipser said:

Guys, could you please stop flooding this thread with all this nonsense and personal discussions!! Do you really want the TAW devs to go through all this bullshit? what is this, a f***in' kindergarten?!?

 

 

Guuuuuuuyyyyyyyysssss stoooooopp iiiiiiittttt.

 

Sounds like a 5 year old girl while telling us to stop acting like 5 year olds. 🤣

On 3/12/2019 at 7:44 AM, =VP=Alex-ru_en said:

 

Moreover, the server is becoming less and less popular for REDs. I don't know why...

 

 

We've told you why over and over. We're not playing target for the 109 whores anymore. When some of them decide it's okay for permanent red to have a blue turn by switching we might come back. Sign up sheets based on time zones is the ONLY fix.

 

When a side is full choose the other side or sit out. Balance in numbers is key so that there is an actual competition over the baby seal clubbing exercise we find ourselves in. It got boring. The thread fight is more fun than flying TAW. Our balance gripes have been clearly laid out so many times a boycott until a fix is in has been my choice along with many other forced RED pilots.

2 hours ago, LLv24_Oke said:

 

...ofcourse LW lose all campaigns......but is fun anyway.....

 

 

Perhaps this is actually a solution. Re-enact the war with set battles and see how it plays out but the end result will always be the same. Luftwaffe will lose.

 

It actually is fun. ACG has had this format for many years. I've flown on the losing side for a long time and still have fun. The outcome will always be that Germany loses and we have a ball.

 

INB4 stop spamming ACG stuff. Sharing information on how things are done between groups is how you improve. Take what you like from others, discard what you dislike. Coconut shares code for example. There is room for all sorts of campaigns. I used to love TAW and still hope to come back to it. I'm not playing BLUE target permanently anymore so until that elephant in the room is addressed I will play in the thread instead of the server.

 

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 часа назад, LLv24_Oke сказал:

"Another choices to balance TAW its being more historical accurate, with more slots for reds and more resources, planes and pilots, forcing Germany to be always outnumbered by 2:1 as maximum"

 

...ofcourse LW lose all campaigns......but is fun anyway.....

I think the devs tried already addressed the local time zone superiority of one side by making the front line AFs unavailable for some time. I think it's a good approach, we just need more thoughts in it. So when one side has an advantage in numbers, we might add some more challenges for that side to work harder to realize its superiority. For example to make some planes locked until the numbers get equal again... something like that. Dictate people what side to use is not a good approach. For example if I like red planes for any reasons I wouldn't switch sides anyway.

Edited by 72AGs_Obi
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

I think the devs tried already addressed the local time zone superiority of one side by making the front line AFs unavailable for some time. I think it's a good approach, we just need more thoughts in it. So when one side has an advantage in numbers, we might add some more challenges for that side to work harder to realize its superiority. For example to make some planes locked until the numbers get equal again... something like that. Dictate people what side to use is not a good approach. For example if I like red planes for any reasons I wouldn't switch sides anyway.

+1

 

Also, if one side has a marked advantage in numbers, the capture of airfields via paratroopers on the larger/outnumbering side should be suspended (since the defending side has little if any chance to defend such an operation).  It’s hard enough to defend airfields, depots and tanks and attack same while outnumbered, it’s a tall order to do that as well as also protect a closed airfield from paratroopers!  Come on! :)

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question on gunner AI logic.

 

I was flying a bf-110G and my gunner called out a bandit and then a few seconds later said 'out of range'. My butthole unclenched as I pulled into the clouds when all of a sudden my aircraft exploded and my pilot was killed. Evidently the bandit was sitting just below my 6 and got within point blank range before firing at me. Just curious as to why my gunner said 'out of range' and did nothing? Anyone had this before? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Darbzy said:

Just a question on gunner AI logic.

 

I was flying a bf-110G and my gunner called out a bandit and then a few seconds later said 'out of range'. My butthole unclenched as I pulled into the clouds when all of a sudden my aircraft exploded and my pilot was killed. Evidently the bandit was sitting just below my 6 and got within point blank range before firing at me. Just curious as to why my gunner said 'out of range' and did nothing? Anyone had this before? 

 

 

Never happened to me, but IIRC some said that sometimes gunners were ignoring enemies and did not react at all when under attack. So, sounds like a bug. Do you have a track of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Never happened to me, but IIRC some said that sometimes gunners were ignoring enemies and did not react at all when under attack. So, sounds like a bug. Do you have a track of it?

 

Unfortunately I'd just stopped recording when it happened. I'm sure the bandit was sitting right behind me in formation when he opened fire at point blank. Disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Darbzy said:

Just a question on gunner AI logic.

 

I was flying a bf-110G and my gunner called out a bandit and then a few seconds later said 'out of range'. My butthole unclenched as I pulled into the clouds when all of a sudden my aircraft exploded and my pilot was killed. Evidently the bandit was sitting just below my 6 and got within point blank range before firing at me. Just curious as to why my gunner said 'out of range' and did nothing? Anyone had this before? 

 

 

To cut it short - yes the clouds obstruct gunners view and they dont fire.

 

as it was reqested a longtime ago to the devs and was implemented,  The clouds obstruct the AI gunners view so when you enter the cloud he is calling "out of range" as this is the only line he has (he hasnt a line such as cant see him, or cant see a shi …)

Same is with night flying when the gunners dont fire till the enemy becomes visible to them which happens only after the fighter opens fire.   

 

Anyway acc to my experience to have best results is to shoot yourself. the gunners shoot short bursts even when enemy is close , etc...

 

Anyway apart from above mentioned view obstructions Unlike rof where You can sneak in outside gunners viewer under the tail in box the gunners see trough aircraft parts. For example in 110s the gunners shouldnt see what's under the aircraft

Edited by Carl_infar
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

as it was reqested a longtime ago to the devs and was implemented,  The clouds obstruct the AI gunners view so when you enter the cloud he is calling "out of range" as this is the only line he has (he hasnt a line such as cant see him, or cant see a shi …)

Same is with night flying when the gunners dont fire till the enemy becomes visible to them which happens only after the fighter opens fire.   

 

I did not know this.  I have always cursed the fact that it is impossible to sneak up on an AI gunner but maybe I am wrong.   The ground gunners don't seem to follow that logic as you will often see them tracking an attacker who is above the clouds.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

as it was reqested a longtime ago to the devs and was implemented,  The clouds obstruct the AI gunners view so when you enter the cloud he is calling "out of range" as this is the only line he has (he hasnt a line such as cant see him, or cant see a shi …)

 

Good to know. I thought ‘out of range’ meant the bandit was a certain distance away and you were out of immediate danger, not just ‘out of my gunners line of sight’.

Maybe they need to look at expanding the gunners’ vocabulary to “I’ve lost sight of him - you better start doing some of that fancy pilot shit or we’re dead!!” or something else appropriate ;) 

Edited by Darbzy
  • Haha 6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darbzy said:

“I’ve lost sight of him - you better start doing some of that pilot shit or we’re dead!!” 

 

😄   Funny but true nonetheless 👍

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/14/2019 at 1:12 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

To repair an airfield by 5% (e.g. damage from 50% to 45%) it takes 5% from supply.

Can you explain it with more details?

 

For example, the mission #320

http://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=320

 

1. I finished 2 cargo flights (2xJu52) . Why is it in the log only 32%?

15.03.2019 13:34:12 Stalingrad_Center #320 LANDED 0h 23m 31s 0 0 Ju 52 3mg4e +1CM
15.03.2019 13:02:00 Stalingrad_Center #320 LANDED 0h 25m 15s 0 0 Ju 52 3mg4e +1CM +Bf 109 G-6

 

  • Airfield in Ventsy was supplied by air transport to 32%

 

2. The AF had the damage 77% before. Why is it now 72%? 77% - 32/10 = 74%.

or is it 77% - 57/10 = 72?

  • Airfield in Ventsy was supplied by a truck convoy to 57%

I don't understand how it works.

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Norz said:

Can you explain it with more details?

 

For example, the mission #320

http://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=320

 

1. I finished 2 cargo flights (2xJu52) . Why is it in the log only 32%?

15.03.2019 13:34:12 Stalingrad_Center #320 LANDED 0h 23m 31s 0 0 Ju 52 3mg4e +1CM
15.03.2019 13:02:00 Stalingrad_Center #320 LANDED 0h 25m 15s 0 0 Ju 52 3mg4e +1CM +Bf 109 G-6

 

  • Airfield in Ventsy was supplied by air transport to 32%

 

2. The AF had the damage 77% before. Why is it now 72%? 77% - 32/10 = 74%.

or is it 77% - 57/10 = 72?

  • Airfield in Ventsy was supplied by a truck convoy to 57%

I don't understand how it works.

Ventsy after mission #319 damage:77% supply:7%

 

During the next mission #320 Vensty was repaired by 5% (damage 77%-5%=72% and supply 7%-5%=2%)

 

Then it was supplied by air transport by 12 pilots by 30% in total, so supply 2%+30%=32%

 

Then it was supplied by truck convoy by another 25% so supply 32%+25%=57%

 

I hope it's clear now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?


There are available. Dunno what you are doing, but I met many 109s with gunpods. Maybe you mean the Fw 190 A-5. If you do its probably not available due to depot damage or so.

 

2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 


Yes. That is the obvious conclusion. Not that Ju88 1k bombs are locked now for like 2 years on TAW.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?

G4 is with gunpods, I flew it the other day. Nothing to do with A-20.

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Venturi I would be happy if you wouln't shoot me next time as I try to clear your six.

image.thumb.png.7246a96662f45408d82020147e270ddc.png

But congrats, clean kill

Edited by DerSheriff
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was mentioned before but the red plane sets in late maps needs some love in future TAWs. The critism might be obsolete with coming changes to TAW, but I thought I mention it anyway.

image.png.4d8f752c0103ad0822300b625e037000.png



we have to many types of planes. The airfields look more like the flying circus and not an airfield of the eastern front in 1943.
But thats not even my core critism. 

Lets say you want the La-5FN but you have no P-39, no Yak1-b and no Spitfire.
In such a case you need 12 CMs to the FN. That's very tedious and annoying. Furthermore its super hard to get a squad in the air which are all flying the same plane.
Everybody in the group is like "oh I have no 1B, I take the spit" "oh I have no Spit I take the 39".
Resulting that your squad looks like a kindergarten at toys r us. everbody picked something different.

maybe let the player pick one of the base planes (La-5 (F), Yak7B, or the LaGG) which get 2/2 with CM+1 And let him choose two-three higher tier or special planes. with 0/1-2.

So in the end we have something like this
Yak-7b 2/2 CM+1 (can be swapped for the LaGG or La-5(F))

Yak1b 1/2
La-5 FN 0/1  
Spitfire 0/1

one of the three can be swapped for the P-39.

This way we have a core eastern front plane as a base fighter and a solid plane to fall back to and a more condensed planset. And we have the La-5 which is a pity that it gets fully removed with the introduction of the FN. the current late red planeset feels to broad.








 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

I know it was mentioned before but the red plane sets in late maps needs some love in future TAWs. The critism might be obsolete with coming changes to TAW, but I thought I mention it anyway.

image.png.4d8f752c0103ad0822300b625e037000.png



we have to many types of planes. The airfields look more like the flying circus and not an airfield of the eastern front in 1943.
But thats not even my core critism. 

Lets say you want the La-5FN but you have no P-39, no Yak1-b and no Spitfire.
In such a case you need 12 CMs to the FN. That's very tedious and annoying. Furthermore its super hard to get a squad in the air which are all flying the same plane.
Everybody in the group is like "oh I have no 1B, I take the spit" "oh I have no Spit I take the 39".
Resulting that your squad looks like a kindergarten at toys r us. everbody picked something different.

maybe let the player pick one of the base planes (La-5 (F), Yak7B, or the LaGG) which get 2/2 with CM+1 And let him choose two-three higher tier or special planes. with 0/1-2.

So in the end we have something like this
Yak-7b 2/2 CM+1 (can be swapped for the LaGG or La-5(F))

Yak1b 1/2
La-5 FN 0/1  
Spitfire 0/1

one of the three can be swapped for the P-39.

This way we have a core eastern front plane as a base fighter and a solid plane to fall back to and a more condensed planset. And we have the La-5 which is a pity that it gets fully removed with the introduction of the FN. the current late red planeset feels to broad.








 

I´m most than agree with you, here always said about "close to historical" but please try to give us some balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DerSheriff yeah it's a problem with the variety of planes the VVS used, and if we had a more complete late war set up it would be worse even (with all those Yak-9s xp).

Instead of choosing (which would negate the possibility of using the planes you didn't choose) I think what we could have is a split up in the fighter hangar so the players can prioritize which group of planes they want to have their CM allocated to in their profile page (like when the attacker category was created). If at some time they want a plane from the other category they change the priority in their profile and start unlocking those.

So we could have "Indigenous fighters"  and then "Lend Lease fighters".

Yak-7B as +1

Yak-1B
La-5
La-5FN

P-40E
P-39L
Spitfire MkV

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@DerSheriff yeah it's a problem with the variety of planes the VVS used, and if we had a more complete late war set up it would be worse even (with all those Yak-9s xp).

Instead of choosing (which would negate the possibility of using the planes you didn't choose) I think what we could have is a split up in the fighter hangar so the players can prioritize which group of planes they want to have their CM allocated to in their profile page (like when the attacker category was created). If at some time they want a plane from the other category they change the priority in their profile and start unlocking those.

So we could have "Indigenous fighters"  and then "Lend Lease fighters".

Yak-7B as +1

Yak-1B
La-5
La-5FN

P-40E
P-39L
Spitfire MkV

 


ok as well. was just one idea of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about this idea,

 

For a give fighter unit, they usually stuck with a single manufacturer - less training time when it came time to upgrade.

 

JG52 flew only messerschmitts. Until the late war when they converted to Fw 190D-9s.

3 Gv. IAP flew only Lavochkins. 

 

So if I were given 8 fighters at my disposal, I can choose between what make I want i.e. Bf 109 or Fw 190 or both even (...not model because an Bf 109F-4 in 1944 is just stupid. Not to say I wouldn't want one, but that is a different discussion).

 

Giving someone access to 2/2 of an aircraft they won't fly/own is really a waste.  I will not buy the MC.202 so having 1 isn't important to me  let alone 2.

 

Giving us have the  ability to select our own aircraft set would be great - but that also requires programming which takes time effort. 

 

 

 

  

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

How about this idea,

 

For a give fighter unit, they usually stuck with a single manufacturer - less training time when it came time to upgrade.

 

JG52 flew only messerschmitts. Until the late war when they converted to Fw 190D-9s.

3 Gv. IAP flew only Lavochkins. 

 

So if I were given 8 fighters at my disposal, I can choose between what make I want i.e. Bf 109 or Fw 190 or both even (...not model because an Bf 109F-4 in 1944 is just stupid. Not to say I wouldn't want one, but that is a different discussion).

 

Giving someone access to 2/2 of an aircraft they won't fly/own is really a waste.  I will not buy the MC.202 so having 1 isn't important to me  let alone 2.

 

Giving us have the  ability to select our own aircraft set would be great - but that also requires programming which takes time effort. 

 

 

 

  

 

It depends on the Gruppe and Staffel you are referring to as the 4./JG52, for example, stayed with 109s throughout the whole war and never converted to a 190 but I get what you are saying. I think is a good idea and I'm pretty sure Kathon has suggested something like that. Having the player pick a line of fighter models ... For example: If you pick the LaGG3 line you would fly i16 in the first maps, LaGG3s, La5s, and finally La5FN. Pick a lend lease line and you would be with a P40, P39, and Spitfire later on.  Lets see what the others think ...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

It depends on the Gruppe and Staffel you are referring to as the 4./JG52, for example, stayed with 109s throughout the whole war and never converted to a 190 but I get what you are saying. I think is a good idea and I'm pretty sure Kathon has suggested something like that. Having the player pick a line of fighter models ... For example: If you pick the LaGG3 line you would fly i16 in the first maps, LaGG3s, La5s, and finally La5FN. Pick a lend lease line and you would be with a P40, P39, and Spitfire later on.  Lets see what the others think ...

 

Cheers

 

If you aren't able to change lines this is going to be horrible in my opinion and will make VVS even less attractive to play.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...