Poll: Would you like to see a modern (1900 onwards) Total War?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 114

Thread: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

  1. #1
    The Laughing Knight Member Sir Beane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Heanor, Derbyshire, England
    Posts
    1,724

    Default A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Opinions)

    The feasability and appeal of a Total War game set in the modern era (1900 onwards) has been a topic I've seen crop up a lot recently on the forum, so I though we should have a thread to discuss, plus it kills time until Empire is released. I'm posting it here because it ties in with Empire being a more modern period, and because it might become an issue for an expansion to Empire.

    Recently in a Eurogamer TV interview a member of CA stated a game set over the two World Wars would be an interesting period for a Total War game. This seems to indicate CA are atleast considering it, which makes it a possible candidate for the next game. I'd like to see peoples oppinions on whether it's a good idea or not.

    Personally I think not. For me Total War is about massed ranks of men, fighting in large groups. Melee has to be present and important.

    A modern Total War game would have to involve to some degree: trench warfare, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery with ranges of miles or more, air combat, bombing, the holocaust, combat on a much smaller scale (squads fighting in urban conditions) and a much larger scale (tank battles, gigantic battles like the Somme) as well as long range missiles, and nuclear weapons.

    Personally I don't think any of that really fits in with what I think of as a Total War game. Total War is unique in it's blend of history, grand strategy and visceral close up melee battles. World War strategy games are not unique at all.

    But this is just one fan's opinion, so what do the rest of you think? Let CA know how you feel.
    Last edited by Sir Beane; 12-16-2008 at 22:05.


    ~ I LOVE DEMOS ~

    . -- ---------- --
    . By your powers combined I am!
    . ----------------------


  2. #2
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Exclamation Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    No. Aircraft and long-range artillery wouldn't work. Maybe up until 1899 at the latest, but no more.

    I love this time-era, I love WW2, but it just wouldn't work with the Total War engine.

  3. #3
    The Laughing Knight Member Sir Beane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Heanor, Derbyshire, England
    Posts
    1,724

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    No. Aircraft and long-range artillery wouldn't work. Maybe up until 1899 at the latest, but no more.

    I love this time-era, I love WW2, but it just wouldn't work with the Total War engine.
    I'm impressed with the speed of your reply Methuselah!

    To make it clear I to am interested in both World Wars, and by no means do I dislike the period in question. However I just don't think it's suitable Total War material.

    My ideal cut-off date would be about 1870, just before modern warfare tactics really caught on.
    Last edited by Sir Beane; 12-15-2008 at 22:24.


    ~ I LOVE DEMOS ~

    . -- ---------- --
    . By your powers combined I am!
    . ----------------------


  4. #4
    Undercover Lurker Member Mailman653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,307

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I'd love to see WWI, but I think the spirit of TW has always been formations of soldiers clashing together and bringing down the walls of a fort or castle.

    Imagine controlling whole regiments in various formations in previous TW titles, and then only controlling squads and platoons because what a modern TW will end up becoming is just that, whole units spiting up all over the place, and trying to take positions at various landmarks.

    I don't know if I explained that properly, but I just don't see how a modern setting can work with TW style of play without drastically changing it.
    Last edited by Mailman653; 12-15-2008 at 23:03.

  5. #5
    Member Member Elmar Bijlsma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Yup, wrong engine for the subject IMHO. Total War has always been dense formations hacking, stabbing and shooting at other dense formations. Modern warfare has completely different requirements. I'm still waiting with trepidation how light 18th century infantry will function. 20th century rifleman and their completely different way of functioning on a modern battlefield doesn't bear thinking about.

    If you want modern warfare I can heartily recommend the Combat Mission series.

  6. #6
    Member Member Elmar Bijlsma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I forgot to mention penetration. Any WWI and beyond game requires you model armour and the penetration thereof. That'll be whole new nightmare for CA. They could model it if they wanted to, but I hope CA stick with what they are good at.

  7. #7
    Deadhead Member Owen Glyndwr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California, USA
    Posts
    464

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I would say no. By that time, wars were faught on such a grand scale, with wide battle lines and so many troops, that it would probably come out as something similar to Civilization 4. By that point, wars were more about logistics, timing, and production than singular battles. Most strategies were general directions (i.e. We'll move our 3rd Panzer division through Belgium and cut a swath straight to Paris), rather than specific battle strategies such as those of Hannibal and Henry V (we'll meet the enemy on this battlefield and decisively defeat the majority of the army and have the entire west open to our legions). Nevermind dealing with planes, bombing, trench warfare, and finding a way to put hundreds of thousands to millions (rather than ten-thousand max) troops on a single battlefield, I think if you even start to consider Modern Warfare (By modern we mean WWI and II right? Because I wouldn't even start to think about how Vietnam or Counter: Terrorist type games would work) from a gameplay standpoint, it just wouldn't be the type of TW game we've been seeing for the last 10+ years.

    -Speaking of which, totally unrelated, when did STW and MTW come out?
    "You must know, then, that there are two methods of fight, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second. It is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man.
    -Niccolo Machiavelli


    AARs:
    The Aeduic War: A Casse Mini AAR
    The Kings of Land's End: A Lusitani AAR

  8. #8

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I'm with the rest of you. The massive scale of battles in the 20th century just couldn't be modeled with any sort of accuracy and realism on a reasonably sized battle map. And the total war series has been about nothing if not accurate/realistic battles.

  9. #9
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,247

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I completely agree with just about everything that's been said thus far. While I find both World Wars fascinating in and of themselves, they simply wouldn't fit with the Total War style of gameplay.


    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr View Post
    -Speaking of which, totally unrelated, when did STW and MTW come out?
    Shogun = 2000
    MTW = 2002
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  10. #10
    Member Member Polemists's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In the Lou
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I agree with what others have said.

    WW2 has it's fun, and on a engine like say, Company of Heroes, it has some fun strategic elements but I don't think it lends itself to the more global scale or intracies of WW2/WW1 period. I always view TW as a better reflection of the game series Universalis (Europa Universalis, Rome, may have mispelled it). The idea is more about forming things, creating things, and the further you move, the less creating there is, in my view.

    Plus I just think Tanks and soliders with machine guns have just been in FAR to many games and there are FAR to few games with swords, bayonets, archers, shields, and cannons. The possible exception being Age of Empires, whose studio recently died.

    I'm sure they could do the engine from the ground up, and make it look good, but still I'd just rather see more history and less current events.

    I'd almost rather them go into a non historical (Fantasy, Steampunk, Sci-Fi) setting rather then a ww2 era themed game. Which they have also stated a interest in some time ago.
    Last edited by Polemists; 12-16-2008 at 07:38.

  11. #11
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Am I the only one who said "yes definitely"? Wow. Think outside the box guys. ETW already has fortifications and just about every unit with a gun, so why not do a modern-day TW? It would be heck of a lot different, but so what? I could imagine a Company of Heroes-style TW. I wouldn't want the Modern-day TW to come after ETW, but after, say the Bronze Age and 150-1600 TWs are already done, than why not?

    Then again, I might just need to go to sleep.... Maybe its my sleepiness talking in me...

  12. #12
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Exclamation Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    The entire system would have to be revamped to make a modern TW. It's a lot of work, and most like wouldn't work.

    Go to sleep, Aemilius.

  13. #13
    Moderator Moderator Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,574

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    As much as I love combined arms warfare, I just can’t see it in a Total War format as it currently exists.

    It would require a complete change of scale.

    Adding airpower is very problematic in a tactical game.

    Continuous battle lines, field works, mine fields, and Gas Warfare…

    Maneuver warfare became stalled by trench warfare by the American Civil War(1861-1865), which also ushered in machineguns, armored ships, and the submarine. Not to mention repeating firearms. The lethality of the weapons dictated the abandonment of formations and the use of elaborate trenches and field works. Rail Roads became the primary means of massed movement to shuttle men and material to the front.

    The Campaign Map would also need to be the battle map…perhaps zoomed in so you could fight local engagements but the string of battles you would need to fight for a general offensive would be staggering and a single turn could last for days without auto-resolve.

    I am not saying that you couldn’t do a game but I am sure that the compromises necessary would allow you to have the same feel in the game that is currently there.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  14. #14

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I say yes. The only thing that would be difficult about it would be aircraft and this isn't impossible to add.

    Saying that this time period is against the spirit of the game is rubbish, the spirit of the game is war and it doesn't get any bigger than world war.

    The entire system would have to be revamped to make a modern TW. It's a lot of work, and most like wouldn't work.

    Go to sleep, Aemilius.
    What's with this? If someone doesn't share your view its discounted?

  15. #15

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I voted no. As for the reason why not in the modern period, see basically anyone's post before mine.

    The next TW should start in 632 ad and go till, well in my opinion it wouldn't need an end date but if I had to pick one 1000 ad. The rise of the Islamic Caliphates and the total anarchic in Europe then would make for a great game.
    I shouldn't have to live in a world where all the good points are horrible ones.

    Is he hurt? Everybody asks that. Nobody ever says, 'What a mess! I hope the doctor is not emotionally harmed by having to deal with it.'

  16. #16
    Member Member PBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I voted no. All the factors others have mentioned are certainly true, but for me the main problem with WWI/WWII Total War is that both conflicts primarily took place in Europe. In my opinion the series is in serious danger of becoming stale if the next installment does not have a non-European setting.

    We have basically had the same geographical setting and thus largely the same campaign map since MTW, and I have played the campaign map of Europe to death, I know every mountain range and river crossing and there are no longer any surprises there. The campaign map is such a huge part of the game that to keep it basically the same for yet another installment would be a great shame; frankly, any game set in the Renaissance, the Dark Ages or the Ancient period in Europe is going to feel like Empire, Medieval or Rome yet again with just a couple of cities and factions shuffled around and with cosmetically different guys in tin cans.

    I find WWI to be a fascinating conflict and one which is criminally unrepresented in gaming in favour of the (IMHO far less interesting) WWII. However, although the nature of combat in the modern period would be drastically different to earlier periods, we would still basically have the same campaign map; places in Russia would still be very far apart, the Alps would still be a very effective natural defense, the Bosphorus would still be a key strategic chokepoint, etc.

    The series needs to leave Europe, at least for one game. For me the obvious choice is medieval China, although this is far from the only option; however it certainly is a geographical region and culture which is entirely untapped and would be a refreshing departure for the series. Otherwise, I fear I will increasingly be of the suspicion that I am being asked to buy the same game I already own.

    So, to summarize:

    ASIA PLEASE!

  17. #17
    Member Member Polemists's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In the Lou
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Am I the only one who said "yes definitely"? Wow
    Well you are the only one who voted Yes definetly though another poster did say yes. So it's 19 to 1 right now against it.

    For me it's not just the whole tech thing, or graphics.

    It has to do with it being over done. Do you know how many ww2 strategy games there are? Guess, double that, your close.

    For me it no longer has even the faintest shred of interest. FPS's and strategy games have been done, redone, and overdone about ww2 so much that I see no physical means, even if they developed a moon engine, of making it interesting.

    WW 2 maybe the largest war..depending on how you factor it.

    My bigger question would be is this TW 1900-1950 or TW WW2. The idea being TW 1900-1950 you could form your own alliances, disasters and enemies and you would decide how the eventual allies v axis teams break out. WW2 TW would be the same old Americans/British/French/Russians v Germans/Japs/Italians.

    Company of heroes is real time. I don't think the time frame translates that well to turn base.

    That said, I'd assume if they did aircombat they would do it similiar to naval. IE you'd zoom into a sky scene and control individual planes that battle. Like ships pretty much.


    I just think the period is massively overdone in every other form of media out there, including games. I have no interest in seeing it in TW

  18. #18

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mailman653 View Post
    Imagine controlling whole regiments in various formations in previous TW titles, and then only controlling squads and platoons because what a modern TW will end up becoming is just that, whole units spiting up all over the place, and trying to take positions at various landmarks.

    I don't know if I explained that properly, but I just don't see how a modern setting can work with TW style of play without drastically changing it.
    This says it all. TW is based on rectangular units marching in formation onto a small scale battlefield. Modern warfare is quite obviously nothing like this and there is no realistic way of getting TW battles to work in this fashion.

  19. #19
    Member Member General SupaCrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I would vote for never! If i could vote!



  20. #20
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    For the tactical game to mesh properly with the strategic game the scale of forces needs to work. TW simulates battles covering small distances that could be controlled by one man and fought within hours to a decision. As players, we become that man. The game convincingly recreates period tactics using a few percent of the actual troop numbers typical in history. Two armies that historically might have had about 30,000 men each are fought with 2,000 to 3,000 men in the game. It works. There are no fronts that are hundreds of miles long. Until the late 19th century armies collided and outcomes were decided in a day. Perfect for the TW design approach.

    The scale of modern combat is far too vast for the TW system to work tactically. How would it be implemented? How would Stalingrad be done? How could commanding a few platoons simulate the battle of Kursk? Not to mention needing to handle aircraft somehow. A battle could start on a front 50 miles wide. Small scale skirmishes could be portrayed no doubt but how could that be extrapolated to represent a million men struggling for weeks? TW can’t do that and scale back to the map in any sensible way that I can imagine.
    Last edited by Nelson; 12-16-2008 at 17:35.
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  21. #21
    Member Member Tsavong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    258

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I would like to see a game which explores the time from 1900 to 1950 ish but done as well and fun as total war has done its games form Shogun to M2TW. though for some reason even though others have tried to do things like total war they always fall short of the mark such as Imperial Glory.

    Though i do like the idier of total war leaving Europe and going back to Asia i remember STW and thinking it was great at the time. i wonder if its vista compatible..... probably not

  22. #22
    Moderator Moderator Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,574

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I have never played a RTS game set in WWII. But knowing what I know of combat and armored vehicles I don’t know how you could maintain control of the situation if it were larger than company scale. Every element has a task and every leader fights his own little engagement as best he can. Trying to micro manage 12 to 17 tanks even without infantry support would be draining. Trying to get fire support also takes time. Artillery doesn’t just start shooting. It has to be called up, the guns have to be laid for the target area, and then they have to be adjusted to the target. They can’t see what they are shooting at.

    One person can not hope to control everything going on in such an environment. Each tank has several types of ammunition for different types of targets. Every platoon has a limited objective. This is to help maintain control of what is happening. Trying to understand what is happening over the radio net can be difficult in its self.

    Let’s just say for the purpose of this that infantry starts engaging targets at 500 meters. Tanks begin engaging at 1000 meters and supporting artillery and mortars at about 5000 meters and stops at a minimum of 250 meters. The standard interval for a tank platoon is 100 meters between vehicles. Ideally infantry is spaced at about 5 to 10 meters. Artillery is positioned one terrain feature to the rear of the battle line. You want to have air power do its attacking just as far away from your position as you can. From up there it is hard to tell who is who and the direction of attack can be crucial.

    Can you see what a wide area just a company sized element takes up? Then you add in smoke, dust, explosions, and so forth and it gets really hard to tell where anyone else is. And that is in good weather! It seems though that you never fight in good weather! And we haven’t even gotten to terrain yet.

    For this reason everything is broken down into 4 or 5. Four or five men on a crew, four or five infantrymen in a team, four or five tanks in a platoon, and so on up the line, so someone can keep a handle on what is happening.

    Now of course games are not real life so the complexity can be reduced a little but you are still not going to manage 10,000 individual men on the battlefield. If there were, it just would not be an enjoyable experience. If you have the computer control most of the units while you watch for the most part, and just make critical adjustments then you have an operational scale game, and not a tactical one. If you change the scale to go with abstract units it just is not the same game anymore.

    For those reasons a 20th century game might best be something for a different series, rather than a Total War. (or more rightly Total War as we have come to know it)

    Also I don’t think that the period exactly meets up to what they like to have. Wars in the 20th century were either small scale one on one brush wars or massive coalitions struggling over whole continents or the entire world. In effect just a larger one on one conflict.

    I have no problem with CA creating what ever game they care to in what ever time period but it doesn’t require it to be part of the Total War Series.
    Last edited by Fisherking; 12-16-2008 at 18:40. Reason: error of to or


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Undercover Lurker Member Mailman653's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,307

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by PBI View Post

    The series needs to leave Europe, at least for one game. For me the obvious choice is medieval China......
    Yes! That way I can keep China Qin!

  24. #24
    The Laughing Knight Member Sir Beane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Heanor, Derbyshire, England
    Posts
    1,724

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I think the current results have made it clear that the majority of people really don't want Total War to head in this direction. I hope CA take note (if indeed they were ever seriously considering this in the first place.)

    Also I agree with those who say we should head for Asia.

    Bring on Dynasty: Total War!
    Last edited by Sir Beane; 12-16-2008 at 19:08.


    ~ I LOVE DEMOS ~

    . -- ---------- --
    . By your powers combined I am!
    . ----------------------


  25. #25
    Member Member General SupaCrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Stone Age: Total War



  26. #26
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Exclamation Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Personally, I don't much care which timeframe it's in (as long as it's not too modern), I just want it to cover the entire globe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
    What's with this? If someone doesn't share your view its discounted?
    It's a private joke between two friends; that's why there's a little clown-smiley there, you see?

  27. #27
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    I have never played a RTS game set in WWII.
    Then I suggest you play one before you make inaccurate comments.

    As for stone age total war, that would actually be quite interesting... really, not kidding. So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece? Or an Asian TW taking place during the RTW period? Or 1500-1700 TW?
    Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 12-16-2008 at 21:22.

  28. #28
    Son of Lusus Member Lusitani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Olisipo, Lvsitania
    Posts
    265

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    I believe that a Total War series starting in the mid XIX century and ending around 1920 would provide a very wide range of conflicts and intense diplomacy opportunities ... specially in a worldwide scenario.
    "Deep in Iberia there is a tribe that doesn't rule itself, nor allows anyone to rule it" - Gaius Julius Caesar.






  29. #29
    The Laughing Knight Member Sir Beane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Heanor, Derbyshire, England
    Posts
    1,724

    Default Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    Then I suggest you play one before you make inaccurate comments.

    As for stone age total war, that would actually be quite interesting... really, not kidding. So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece? Or an Asian TW taking place during the RTW period? Or 1500-1700 TW?
    I don't see why you think his comments were inaccurate. To me his points seem valid and well made. And I don't think you have to have played an RTS set in the period to know whether you would like it or not. Anyway, traditional RTS games have very little in common with Total War.

    As for your suggested setting. I'd take it over a modern total war, but I would definitely prefer to see the series head over to Asia for the next installment. Europe and the area around the Med has been done to death.
    Last edited by Sir Beane; 12-16-2008 at 21:39.


    ~ I LOVE DEMOS ~

    . -- ---------- --
    . By your powers combined I am!
    . ----------------------


  30. #30
    Member Megas Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Prairie Grasslands
    Posts
    5,040

    Thumbs up Re: A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
    So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece?
    Dude, that sounds pretty cool! Don't forget the Nubians, too. The idea is pretty sweet.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO