Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

ZEBBEEE

AO mechanics: proximity concept feedbacks

AO-related feedbacks  

25 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

ZEBBEEE

As you know, the current roadmap mentioned an upcoming change to AO placement mechanics. This work is still pending and some details are still not set in stone.

In order to help with some internal brainstorming, or better anticipate our community expectations, could you please share your opinion on these different (proximity) AO-related questions?

I didn't make any reference to the amount of simulatenous AOs, so consider that the current limit (underpop-based) will still apply.

Also, I don't know if there would still be a hybrid HC/proxy system. The questions remain valid for any scenario.

Thanks again for your participation! (And happy armistice to those celebrating it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I'm not going to answer on the grounds that proximity AOs with the above potential criteria will just make pop neutrality problems worse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
8 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I'm not going to answer on the grounds that proximity AOs with the above potential criteria will just make pop neutrality problems worse.

Please expand 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecam

I don't understand the need to even go toward the Prox AO, as stands now AO placement is 90% of the time strategic, HC are not just randomly picking towns out of a hat. If we remove the Strategic side of AO placement to go on top of the already removed brigade system (more strategy removed) then i'm not sure what the direction the game is going in? Do you just want to have mass battles shooting and fighting with minimal objectives? Because i think if we go down that route we have a FPS similar to COD/PS and Hell let loose only with far worse Graphics and bugs. What makes this game stand out and so different is its not just a shooter like all the others are

What if the players want a prox AO on "X" and all mass gather to trigger it but the supply is drained?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

Please explainable how proximity AOs are going to work. My initial reaction is “ what a croc of [censored]”.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurosats

I want to be dispassionate here but I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the mechanic being proposed.  What goal are we trying to achieve or problem are we trying to solve?  AO's being placed when enough people get together and go to a town, but when there's no HC online to place the AO? 

I think the general consensus here agrees that AOs are meant set an objective on a target that's strategically selected, and in-turn focus playerbase attention on that objective.  The only thing I can gather from the survey is that a Proximity AO mechanic seeks to base this decision off of EWS.  If that's the proposal, then unfortunately that puts the cart before the horse when it comes to strategically selecting an objective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

The best aspect of the current AO system is the strategic layer that it adds to the game  and that the it allows to funnel players into the action.   

 

I can not see any advantages of  a prox AO system over our current system.   Frist of all  it would strip out the stagregic layer of the game which is the single biggest intresting aspect of the game. Lose that and world war 2 online just become a less glossy version of of Hell let loose or Post Scpritium and why should I play a ww2online version of those.  Secondly I can just see it scattering players to the wind  all with there own ideas of what they want to do and nobody gets an AO.  Thirdly as @Kilemall pointed out I can see it compounding the already bad overpop issues. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I'm not going to answer on the grounds that proximity AOs with the above potential criteria will just make pop neutrality problems worse.

Yeah, the poll is awful, I'm not answering a push-poll.

"2. How could a new "proximity AO" mechanics best work?"

Then you list zero options I would vote for, and the last is "no opinion," but I HAVE an opinion, it's just none of the lousy options.

Lousy poll is lousy.

I agree with everyone else asking "What are proximity AOs FOR?"

 

Let's start over. The attackers are the defenders in terms of EZ mode in ww2ol. In RL defense is easier than attack, not in ww2ol assuming even numbers (the more numbers the attackers have the easier attacking is, not in the RL sense of force massing, in the game "EZ mode" sense).

Attack is all carrot, no stick.

1. Troops magically appear at the FB, and they are not at risk if it is blown.

2. Troops magically appear at MSPs, 360 degrees from target, and if that "massing" of forces is taken out? Nothing is lost.

3. The unit that places the magical teleporters is cheap, and indeed so cheap players place an FMS, then drive the truck around as a distraction, suicidally. No risk. If they get to a better place for a teleporter, they place one, then repeat.

We need a different paradigm first, THEN consider prox AOs.

1. Setting an AO needs to ensure combat in the target town so that defenders can take the required time, and it is not wasted. Attackers can spend as much time as they care to—since they KNOW there will in fact be an attack. Defenders spend time... then no attack materializes, and their game time was in fact wasted.

2. Moving forces up to the jump off point (the FB), needs to have consequences, and it needs to take time. The troops should be "in town," until they are moved to the FB. That move should trickle supply into the FB, and if the FB gets busted, those units should be removed in some fashion. When the BDE is at the FB, the BDE is NOT back in the town, so the town has no BDE. If the Garrison was moved to the FB, the town should literally be empty of troops (that or only a fraction gets moved to the FB). Moving to the FB should in short risk the town unless it has more supply (if it has a BDE and garrison, move BDE to FB, leave garrison at town, move both to FB and paras can take the town with zero resistance). Before supply is moved to the FB, it is just an outpost with a depot spawn list.

3. Moving troops to an MSP should have the same risk in many cases. Within some range of the truck's spawn point (below a typical FB-town distance by ~1km), FMS can be as they are now. Past that range, every MSP a truck places should be ONE TRUCK FULL of inf, no more. The truck should have those men "loaded" on it, and when it places the FMS, the FMS is loaded with that truck full of men, and the truck is now empty. If the truck is killed, those men are KIA from the supply. If the FMS is blown, any remaining men are KIA from the supply. Trucks get ONE FMS placement, so driving around an empty truck as a distraction will still be a thing, but if they already set they are just noise, and if they haven't, they are risking X infantry from the spawn list, not just a truck.

Then we have a situation where the AO is enabled by moving forces to the FB. Maybe the FB changes visibly when this happens (supply tents/etc get added, before that it's just the inf/veh alone?). Setting the AO starts this move, and there is no FB spawning right away. Unlimited FMS cannot set close to the target from the town per #2 above (say that only allows the truck to drive 1-2km before setting an FMS like we have now), so if the attackers want to rush the AO, they send trucks from the town linked to the FB, but each truck is a single truckload of men, no "endless" FMS until the FB has supply.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

This game is doing to suffer "death by polls". Especially the sort of question 1, where the only possible answers are that proximity AO's are advantageous or that you have no opinion on them. If you think the idea is crazier than a box of frogs, tough, your opinion won't be recorded, because the poll admits no negative answer, merely degrees of "advantage". 

"No opinion" is entirely too anodyne to describe what I think of proximity AO's.

FFS, if you're going to use polls, at least offer the same negative range of views as positive, so that the an accurate(ish) measure can be taken, rather than a manipulated rubber-stamping exercise. This is becoming a bit noticeable with some of your polls.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
14 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, the poll is awful, I'm not answering a push-poll.

(snip)

We need a different paradigm first, THEN consider prox AOs.

(snip)

Superb post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
2 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Please expand 

Good grief Zebedee, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of posts (not all them written by me! <grin> ) which describe the issues of the TZ3 game. The only thing Prox-AO's will do, is to permit faster TZ3 map-rolls, because an organised side with 9x the players (as recently measured) can make multiple false pre-AO's and therefore despawn the majority to concentrate on one leaving the defenders strung out over 9 potential AO's. At least with the current set-up, the AO tends to get placed earlier, conferring a slight benefit to defending players to spawn in to the "correct" battle. Morever, unless the Bde system is got rid of in it's entirety, you'll have AO's placed where is successful, moving a bde in may not be possible or could simply be very unwise. HC will assuredly get the blame when such an unwise Bde placement causes a catastrophe - not of their making.

A pox on Prox-AO's.

A far better scheme is to have a pre-AO task, with numbers required to achieve varying with both overall server-pop and imbalance ratio, with low server-pop and high imbalance requiring the most attackers (as a %) on the same task at the same time, in non force-multiplying units, IE not in tanks. The task should be midway between town and FB, and be infantry only, and also prevent attacking FMS's being set-up forward of the "task" before it is completed. Probably also preventing spawnage of armour from AB or FB, or blowing of the FB, until the AO is placed, which requires the "task" to be achieved. 

The above scheme makes the current standard attack of "roll trucks and follow up with massed armour" before defending players know even where to spawn in, unworkable. AO's need to last much longer, these fast cycling AO's promote very poor gameplay, more work for HC's and ultimately do the game very few favours.

 

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Proximity AOs is part of the ongoing roadmap announced two years ago... This is a poll to help brainstorm the initial setup.

The mechanics isn't defined yet but the options could be listed as (@xoom can correct me) :

1. Just adding a constraint on the current HC AOs, i.e. first EWS then AO. So that there is more pre-AO activity allowing more initiatives, denser battles and defense preparation.

2. Just applying it to system-placed AOs when no HCs are online or when there are spare AO available. The leader that takes initiative can get one AO.

3.  Mix of the two. 

4. Proximity-only activation mechanics, anytime. 

My questions neutrally apply to all of these. Asking here before doing an online poll allows me to check if I missed anything in the options or if the question should be asked differently. You know that...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, some interesting points like always, but mostly one-sided view so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
2 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Proximity AOs is part of the ongoing roadmap announced two years ago... This is a poll to help brainstorm the initial setup.

The mechanics isn't defined yet but can basically the options could be listed as:

1. Just adding a constraint on the current HC AOs, i.e. first EWS then AO. So that there is more pre-AO activity allowing more initiatives, denser battles and defense preparation. 

So we still want the paradigm where the attacker has the ease of the defender?

OK.

Because reasons.

First EWS means that the trucks roll, and the town is precamped, THEN the AO is placed allowing reactive defenders to get killed by ei next to their spawn points. Because "attacks" in ww2 were the attackers being in the location "defended" by their opposites, with the "defenders" having to eject them after they were already there.

 

2 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

2. Just applying it to system-placed AOs when no HCs are online or when there are spare AO available. The one that takes initiative can get one.

Ie: the side with substantially more players has more choices.

2 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

3.  Mix of the two. 

See above.

2 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

4. Proximity only activation mechanics. 

The fundamental problem here is that an "attack" on a "town" in ww2ol is a "map level" event. Proximity in this case should be the proximity of the BDE. Honestly, a new mechanic should be that "Garrisons" are entirely defensive forces (maybe no garrison forces are available at FBs or spawnables in other towns), and BDEs are offfensive. Regardless, the "proximity" is the proximity of an attacking BDE, not the existence of X infantry spawned in alone, but a combo of those 2 factors (offensive supply, plus actual players). Minus the supply requirement, it's merely a mechanic that requires warm bodies, and more = better.

 

2 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

My questions neutrally apply to all of these. Asking here before doing an online poll allows me to check if I missed anything in the options or if the question should be asked differently. You know that...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, some interesting points like always, but mostly one-sided view so far.

The view is one sided because the poll assumes an outcome. Every single one of those answers almost needs the exact opposite answer as an option...

I'm "unsure" about what it should be, but I know what it should NOT be.

How an AO is generated/placed is an interesting question. But FIRST you need to absolutely define why AOs are a thing in the first place (what is the goal?), then you need to define what "attack" means, and what defense means.

Fix what needs the most fixing FIRST, then mess with the AO mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

If light inf or armor EWS sets off AO, then we get many possible AOs, diluting defenders. This is bad. All the usual bad aspects of attacks apply, too.

If the requirement is heavy EWS, then there are fewer prox AOs, but only the side capable of heavy EWS gets to do anything, and the attacks are all bass ackwards as they are now with massed attackers coming from all directions at defenders in a known direction (in front of the attackers), and the defenders spawn in with the enemy literally everywhere with zero ability to actually create a defense.

I'm not seeing any benefit at all during low pop periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
44 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

...but mostly one-sided view so far.

Odd...it seems sometimes as if CRS sees the current game's worst mechanics shortcomings as its best features.

I'm at a loss as to why the responsive analyses provided so far aren't conclusive. What would the "other-sided" view be...that 9:1 gameplay is good, resemblance to historical combat mechanics is irrelevant, and attacks **should** come from all directions...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** First EWS means that the trucks roll, and the town is precamped

Hence, why change truck EWS to 1k, gives defender bit more time.

Or, just change all units EWS to 1.5k maybe.

 

I would see proximity AOs for when there are no HC on, or there is a dead AO with no EWS and a group of players attack a different town.

Then the dead AO would auto clear and be placed on the heavy EWS tow.

 

HC, if on, should still have priority for placing AOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
7 minutes ago, delems said:

*** First EWS means that the trucks roll, and the town is precamped

Hence, why change truck EWS to 1k, gives defender bit more time.

Or, just change all units EWS to 1.5k maybe.

How fast do trucks move? 20 kph? EWS from 750m to 1000m is a 45 second difference. 750 to 1500m is a 2.5 minute difference.

If 1-2 minutes makes a difference, the game is broken, and the changes need to be far more profound.

Remember that the beaseline for any even slight sense of realism is that the defenders are ALREADY THERE, all the time. Meanwhile, ww2ol defenders have to spawn in, get the lay of the land, then somehow move out to good defensive positions (with zero expectation about where the enemy might be) in that precious extra minute.

Ugh.

 

7 minutes ago, delems said:

I would see proximity AOs for when there are no HC on, or there is a dead AO with no EWS and a group of players attack a different town.

Then the dead AO would auto clear and be placed on the heavy EWS tow.

The AO system only makes sense to the extent it concentrates play, and allows defenders the ability to occupy reasonable defensive positions BEFORE the enemy is within combat range.

Reasonable defensive positions requires that a front be a thing at some level. If trucks can drive around to the rear in the ww2ol universe? Fine, so be it—then a reasonable defensive position is such that trucks can be interdicted before that happens. Ie: if you had a garrison of ww2ol size, everyone spawned in 24/7, where would you place them all? A wide, forward screen such that any enemy truck coming from their forward base would literally hit the screen from another town before they could flank you.

What we have instead is truck noises way out on the flank, driving at highway speed, and no possible way to interdict them before a magical army drops out of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
2 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Proximity AOs is part of the ongoing roadmap announced two years ago... This is a poll to help brainstorm the initial setup.

The mechanics isn't defined yet but the options could be listed as (@xoom can correct me) :

1. Just adding a constraint on the current HC AOs, i.e. first EWS then AO. So that there is more pre-AO activity allowing more initiatives, denser battles and defense preparation.

2. Just applying it to system-placed AOs when no HCs are online or when there are spare AO available. The leader that takes initiative can get one AO.

3.  Mix of the two. 

4. Proximity-only activation mechanics, anytime. 

My questions neutrally apply to all of these. Asking here before doing an online poll allows me to check if I missed anything in the options or if the question should be asked differently. You know that...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, some interesting points like always, but mostly one-sided view so far.

Dear Zebedee,

I presume this was written in response to my reply. Either way, you're getting a fairly clear message from the player-base, that prox-AO's are at the very least, not workable within the current game without a significant downside. It may have posted in a road-map 2 years ago, but it doesn't mean it's a good or bad idea. That you're receiving fairly reasoned push-back, should induce a "pause for thought" at the very least. 

Player numbers management is a far more pressing issue, and were it properly addressed, as opposed to another "MVF" such as SD (which is predicated on there being a sufficiency of players on both sides to work as intended), then we might be putting the game into adequate order where changes such as prox AO's could be considered as viable.

Those of us posting versus prox-AO's can forsee a train-wreck, which we're trying to prevent. But you do, decidedly, need to improve your poll questions to allow for opposition to an idea, each question should have an inverse answer. Eg:

"FB's with roads to the main road are a good idea"

"FB's with roads to the main road are a bad idea"

Polls without the ability to oppose any given idea are completely worthless in gauging actual support for change, and lack the "come off it" sanity check the player-base could offer to modify or cancel a change that is foreseeably going to cause, or exacerbate problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Historically, the sightlines and fields of fire of the respective "front line" positions were functionally complete. No gaps. Each side's "front line" was a line...not a series of disconnected strongpoints.

The game OTOH only provides mechanics for defenders to be around each of the magical capture points.

The game includes AI to function as selected defensive forces that must be present for realistic gameplay...as ground defenders around towns, though incomplete; and as AA.

In-game, the front lines between towns don't exist.

As we've been discussing for years now, this is the #1 realism shortfall in the game's original design. Continuous front lines must be present for realistic gameplay. But, we know that players cannot provide them. We don't even want players to provide them. The whole point of having the front lines to either side of a town is to eliminate unrealistic attacking-in-the-round.

So, why aren't there AI front lines between towns? 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

*** First EWS means that the trucks roll, and the town is precamped

Hence, why change truck EWS to 1k, gives defender bit more time.

Or, just change all units EWS to 1.5k maybe.

 

I would see proximity AOs for when there are no HC on, or there is a dead AO with no EWS and a group of players attack a different town.

Then the dead AO would auto clear and be placed on the heavy EWS tow.

 

HC, if on, should still have priority for placing AOs.

I'd rather see the reasons for no HC being on addressed, which is actually  solving the problem, rather than creating a map-roller's charter in TZ3 for whichever side has the numeric advantage. My favoured solution is to suspend captures and AO's when a TZ's ratio of players exceeds a given value, (4:1 ?) but allow the prosecution of non-capture missions which are fun to do, realistic military objectives, the success of which are equivalent to capturing towns, meaning, you have fewer towns to capture in order to achieve a victory. These of course can be off-set by the opposition performing similar tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
2 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Historically, the sightlines and fields of fire of the respective "front line" positions were functionally complete. No gaps. Each side's "front line" was a line...not a series of disconnected strongpoints.

The game OTOH only provides mechanics for defenders to be around each of the magical capture points.

The game includes AI to function as selected defensive forces that must be present for realistic gameplay...as ground defenders around towns, though incomplete; and as AA.

In-game, the front lines between towns don't exist.

As we've been discussing for years now, this is the #1 realism shortfall in the game's original deign. Continuous front lines must be present for realistic gameplay. But, we know that players cannot provide them. We don't even want players to provide them. The whole point of having the front lines to either side of a town is to eliminate unrealistic attacking-in-the-round.

So, why aren't there AI front lines between towns? 

Ai is flakey, if it's too weak it doesn't do it's job, if it's too lethal and capable of "seeing" through cover, it's frustrating. AI is almost never a good solution IMHO. I completely agree with what you've posted, just not the conclusion.

The only use I see for AI is to keep attackers well clear of town, before a reasonable number of defenders can spawn in, afterwhich it either degrades in accuracy and lethality. or disappears. That's about the only use I can see for AI where the benefits outweigh the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the battle dynamics. But you forget there are two sides , one attacking VS one defending, and not all players can play 20 hours a week or more.

The priority is to find easy-to-implement mechanics that will more often generate battles where both sides have the time to deploy, and where the probability to win will mostly depends on leadership and tactical skills; NOT balance numbers, gameplay exploit or bugs...

Launching AOs without any significant forces ready on the attackers side will only results in ninja depot capping and thus playing cat and mice. You cannot prevent attackers to setup their ZOC or people will no longer try anything, but you can ask them to regroup first. So introducing EWS as a constraint makes sense. The different timers are enough to keep things balanced for defenders.

About the question whether HC officers should be the only ones to initiate attacks, no it shouldn't as long as there aren't enough officers online 24/7. If good (HC) officers are online they will always keep the lead anyway.

Regarding answer options: sometimes life will ask us to decide between different options that don't fit any of our preferences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
12 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the battle dynamics. But you forget there are two sides , one attacking VS one defending, and not all players can play 20 hours a week or more.

There's never been a defending side in this game, at least not for a LONG time, anyway.

There have been countless posts about possible ways to make defense more possible, while allowing attacks. My personal take is that respawning is pegged to relative supply within an attack. If the attacking forces are 3:1, and a town had 10 defenders, attacking players can respawn at spawnables and FMS until they are at 3:1 within the AO. There are other possibilities.

 

12 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

The priority is to find easy-to-implement mechanics that will more often generate battles where both sides have the time to deploy, and where the probability to win will mostly depends on leadership and tactical skills; NOT balance numbers, gameplay exploit or bugs...

Numbers always win, attackers are always at an advantage if sides are roughly equal or better for them server wise.

12 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Launching AOs without any significant forces ready on the attackers side will only results in ninja depot capping and thus playing cat and mice. You cannot prevent attackers to setup their ZOC or people will no longer try anything, but you can ask them to regroup first. So introducing EWS as a constraint makes sense.

EWS is garbage.

Trucks drive off road at full speed. How fast are trucks in ww2ol? 20 kph? That's 5.5 m/s. 80 kph? That's 22 m/s. Somewhere in between? 10 m/s? 10 m/s makes an EWS change of 1km equal to 100 seconds. What's inf speed, 2 m/s?

A truck can cut off engine, and glide in averaging maybe 5-10X the speed of inf and set an FMS a few minutes from town (3-5?). Any defender that spawn in the instant EWS goes off has under 5 minutes to "prepare a defense." Alone.

Realistically, a few defenders trickle in over a few minutes at which point ei are already inside town.

When was the last time you saw an attack. Meaning defenders are in a place, and an enemy comes and takes it from them? It happens sometimes, rarely and when it does, it's literally "best ww2l gameplay."

 

12 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

About the question whether HC officers should be the only ones to initiate attacks, no it shouldn't as long as there aren't enough officers online 24/7. If good (HC) officers are online they will always keep the lead anyway.

Regarding answer options: sometimes life will ask you to decide between different options that don't fit any of your preferences.

You'd expect if this was randomly true, they would sometimes match preferences.

They pretty much never match preferences, so the polls tend to be not so great IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

Here’s a stupid idea, so shoot me:

AOs are only allowed from brigade towns. Garrisons are defensive only. 
FBs are limited to infantry and guns (screen baby screen). 
If you want wheels and tracks, you must bring them from the AB (columns!).

And increase vehicle EWS range.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
19 minutes ago, BMBM said:

Here’s a stupid idea, so shoot me:

AOs are only allowed from brigade towns. Garrisons are defensive only. 
FBs are limited to infantry and guns (screen baby screen). 
If you want wheels and tracks, you must bring them from the AB (columns!).

And increase vehicle EWS range.

not a stupid idea.............your thinking out loud...

 

The problem with this is we have 3 divisions, 3rd Pnzr, 4th pnzr, and 16th Inf. each have 3 brigades, so thats 3 X 3 equals 9 flags. If other side knows AO can only come from one of these, pretty easy to figure out where and what is going to be attacked. 

To your point however, nobody is surprised by an attack....lets be clear. The talk of spies running amok fills the forums, when actually, it wasnt all that hard to figure out, and all i had to do was run 300 meters outside of town and wait.

 

The best fights are when you have two sides both having a fight, root hog or die, toe to toe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...