Topic: Whitepaper: Proposed Operational Area (OA) Rules & Rationale (Read 8977 times)

SghnDubh · « **on:** February 11, 2003, 08:54:25 pm »

This whitepaper provides a simple and expanded rule-set, (very) preliminary server settings proposal, and rationale behind the proposal of using an "Operational Area" instead of Line of Supply rules.

This is version 1.0.

My thanks to the many people who contributed through this forum on the topic. Your discussion, support, and rebuttles helped me refine these rules. Note: Acrobat replaced my MSWORD bullets with ? question marks. Please diregard these.

Now we need a server to put them in practice!

I welcome further comments & questions. Enjoy!

Whitepaper: Operational Area (PDF, 450kb)

.

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2003, 02:54:55 pm »

only problem I see with it is that bases or planets will HAVE to be no further than 5 hexes apart all over the map

Cocomoe · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2003, 03:03:03 am »

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB3&Number=19596&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Follow it up interesting discussion on it in the D3 forum.

Holocat · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2003, 04:03:36 pm »

as long as you build 'lines' of bases every X hexes (X being the radius the server admin sets) they won't then have to be all X hexes apart from one another.

My question is, isn't this largely the same as LoS? I mean, you have to build bases, yes, but the same "put your best men forward and flip hexes faster than the other guy" seems to be no different here.

Let's play a bit of a paper dragon here; Let's say the feds form a base line deep into lyran space, using the normal LoS massive player assault. The lyrans, by both LoS and OA, only really have three theoretical choices:

1) cut the supply line (by making a line of your own in LoS or by making a base line of your own in OA): Other than the LoS being a skipping X hex base 'islands' instead of a line of hexes, I don't see a difference here. Think of LoS as simply OA with the infulence of a sector on another set to 1. (Planetary routes do LIMIT the number of corridors, but ppl making baselines would tend to invalidate this.)

2)counterattack the blue plague: Again, the same as in LoS.

3) Strike for Earth: And thus it becomes, once again, a hex flipping contest. LoS.

You COULD try to raid cleverly along some natural planetary route the federation hasn't seen, but with all planets being high DV regardless, this would probably take longer than the giant fed taskforce would take to seize all of Lyran space.

Your goals with this admin ruleset is to a)promote strategy, and b)promote pvp. I propose three things.

1) Natural OA be much, much larger than artificial OA. By this I mean having planatary systems have a much larger OA than bases. If a starbase had, say a three radius OA while a planet had a whopping twelve OA, people would look at planets far more strategically than they did if bases=planets OA wise.

2) DV be modified by players, just by being there. By this I mean that if a player is sitting on a hex or near a hex, the hex should become harder to flip by AI missions. If the DV doubled when a player was near, that would strongly encourage an opposing player to deal with the player instead of ignoring him.

#2 can't be done purely by computer, as I am currently led to believe, so we can do this:

2a) Fleets DECLARE their operational HQ (a planet or a base) to the admin. The admin will then raise the DV of those squares automatically (and what ever else he wishes to do with them) If a hex is in a fleet's OA (which would again be different than planet or base OA) then there are positive advangages to those hexes (like raising DV, admin prohibiting flipping until the HQ is destroyed, etc.) The reverse can be done as well, meaning lowering the DV of hexes not under fleet control so that they can be taken with more ease.

3) Players have different tatical options open to them DEPENDING ON SHIP CLASS. Let's say, just for the sake of proposition, this:

BB's, and DN's must be within two hexes of a starbase or planet.

War variants (cw's and dw's) must bw within five hexes of a starbase or planet.

CA's, and DD's (and equivlants) must be within eight hexes of a starbase or planet.

CL's must be within twelve hexes of a starbase or planet.

FF's and may attack any hex freely.

You immediately come across some intresting strategic features, that FF's can raid deep in enemy territory, while BB's must obey strict line of supply. CA's can strike somewhat deeply into territory, but not outragiously so. This opens up strategic options to the point of relivance, where deep strikes, raids, harrasment, assaults etc can take place and look qualitativly different on the hex map. (in this example, alot of base building would be the sure sign of an assault, while alot of FF's crossing the line would mean rear area raid.)

in summary,
1 makes the natural strategic map far more strategic, bases now being a stopgap solution when no other options are available.
2 makes the taking of non player held territory simpler, encouraging players to defend taken territiory instead of 'everyone on the LoS front' mentality.
3 encourages the players to use something other than the DNH, by opening up significant strategic options for someone willing to go behind the lines.

I hope i've demonstrated my criticism of the OA as simply island hopping LoS well enough, and provided a efficient solution to your wishes of pvp and strategic play.

Thinking strategically about how to catch mice and birds,

Holocat.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2003, 10:51:51 pm »

Please....no more rules.....its hard enough to get the few independants left interested in extended campaigns...and for every layer of rules added...we lose another few players.....enough is enough allready......

I'm am certainly not trying to tell you how to admin a server should you decide to host one.....but SFC2.net looses a few players just for having a modded shiplist....and looses a few for the CNC rules...and a few dont like the missions....or the updates.....and drop out....and thats a few players too many IMHO.

Besides....a counter arguement to the tiers of ship range are that the effective ranges are upside down.......the largest ships are capable of carrying more supplies and spare parts...thus they can operate in space for extended periods of time....and range farther than frigates before having to hit a space dock....

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2003, 06:50:10 am »

Crimminick, I agree, too many rules spoil the broth. We are now used ot the C&C and LOS rules. Everyone is pretty much familiar with them. Let's leave well enough alone.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2003, 12:08:26 pm »

I would ask that you consider carefully the "no more rules" cry...OA isn't just a rules set--it's a different way of playing.

Change is good.

More soon--I am working to refine the concept and want to respond to earlier posts here...when I have a free moment.

Thanks, and "watch this space" ...

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2003, 12:24:43 pm »

I don't see much difference between LOS and OA rules.

Change is not always good.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2003, 01:32:50 pm »

Ok Holocat, you've made some excellent points, but unfortunately I'm worried they are based on a problem with OA that has since been modified. To be fair, I haven't edited the ruleset yet to reflect this more fully, so let me do so here.

You said,

Quote:

as long as you build 'lines' of bases every X hexes (X being the radius the server admin sets) they won't then have to be all X hexes apart from one another. My question is, isn't this largely the same as LoS?

No, it's fundamentally different. Here are my thoughts on the limitations of LoS:
LoS concentrates offensive forces at a predictable spot. It concentrates defensive forces at the most obvious "weak point" in the LoS. It limits tactics to hammer-versus-hammer, and disallows players from taking full advantage of "terrain" and movement capability of the ship on the strategic map. Further, it creates an unfair advantage for the team with the most number of players. And finally, it completely invalidates the strategic need for star bases.

OA (under the updated ruleset) allows fleets to diffuse forces inside of an OA. Under OA, a defending fleet must strike at the base to remove the OA, not the fleet. There are current limitations to this, such as the fact that bases are too easy currently to destroy. But consider that it allows the offensive fleet additional options when defending the OA. They may form a "baracade" of ships inside the OA, forcing attrition on the enemy fleet. Can't do this effectively in LoS; the structure is too limiting. This is one creative example, there are others.

OA allows players to penetrate into enemy territory withouth having to defend a silly "line of supply." There is no need for a line of supply in space. Bases and planets supply all necessary elements of war. A "line of bases" can be cut and there is no derogatory effect on the invading empire. People criticize OA for this, saying it increases planet munching. I say, what's wrong with planet munching? It is what would happen if we were looking at a "real" galaxy-wide map. Just take care where you place planets, and take care to beef them up. They are precious to your cause, so defend them. LoS stymies this because a race with fewer players can't 'flip hexes' fast enough to require the bigger empire to go on the defensive.

OA makes base-building missions much more interesting and vital. An enemy may not be able to stop your hex flipping, especially if you have a big fleet. But in a base building mission, they dont need to take out your whole fleet--just a few freighters. MUCH more realistic use of guerilla tactics that a smaller force would apply to a bigger, stronger force.

Quote:

3) Players have different tatical options open to them DEPENDING ON SHIP CLASS. Let's say, just for the sake of proposition, this: BB's, and DN's must be within two hexes of a starbase or planet. War variants (cw's and dw's) must bw within five hexes of a starbase or planet. CA's, and DD's (and equivlants) must be within eight hexes of a starbase or planet. CL's must be within twelve hexes of a starbase or planet. FF's and may attack any hex freely.

I like your thought, but instead of range restrictions, we should consider MISSION restrictions. Given that a FF can get anywhere on the strategic map via warp drive just as easily as any BB, it doesn't make sense to try and limit movement. BUT--if you can limit the missions available for a given class of ships, now THAT makes sense.

So only a fleet with at least a BB could draw planet attack missions. Only a fleet with a DN or above could draw a base-building mission. And only a CA & above could draw a shipyard mission.

I appreciate your thoughts on this and hope to hear more from you & the rest of the folks!!!

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2003, 02:16:52 pm »

I would like to read the new ruleset, but it is not available. I also note that you are applying OA to EAW with SFC3 in mind. Not the same animal. Also some of your conclusions are not valid. More when i can get back on.

Holocat · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2003, 06:55:32 pm »

Alright, I can see where OA gets some strategic value and inherent difference from LoS, by "Planet Munching" as it seems to be called; As long as planets are placed with care on the map this shouldn't be a problem; It acts alot like my HQ idea, though you've obviously thought about this much more than me.

The base line still bothers me; It seems to me that you're implying in D3, a bunch of freighters are dispatched to a hex to build a base. In D2 (I think for both EAW and OP) there's a problem with this:

1) the players carry the bases themselves, and is often used as a trick to avoid mandatory missions.
2) In OP at least, the mission seems to be bugged; As long as you don't die, the mission is a success (you can have the base destroyed, run off the border, and still win, somehow).
3)regardless of mission outcome, if you do a base placement mission, the base is placed.
4)no matter how many base destruction missions are run after this, the base is NEVER DESTROYED, even if the hex if flipped (the base simply belongs to the enemy now).

To be succinct, in D2, unless carefully (read: painfully) monitored, a base is a permanent object that can be generated an infinite amount of times by a player; placing a base means very little, and if bases are equal to planets in OA, then by placing base lines one can easily turn it back into LoS.

To argue a more academic point exaustively, I don't find LoS silly on the grounds that 'space is a big place.' So was the sea, in the 14th-18th centuries, but SOMEHOW if you were in enemy waters a frigate would find you. It wouldn't find them all, or even most of them, but it caught enough of them that travel wouldn't be safe, and most captains from the merchant marine wern't exactly risktaking, enterprising privateers (or they would become privateers, and hunt merchantmen

). An economical view that planets supply everything, when scrutinized, isn't valid either. If a planet already had everything required for space travel, it wouldn't need to trade for anything. This is called a closed system in economic theory and was one of the reasons for the imperial doctrines of colonization at the time. It's fairly clear that empires in this fantasy world trade, for some reason, though what they're trading is largely unknown. Some infrences can be made however: Firstly, it can't be for indeginious consumption, as the natives of any given planet must have had what they needed to survive on a planet there already, or they wouldn't have survived. The most logical conclusion is, then, this trading that is going on is for space travel, and that like earthbound economies, a closed system is in practice impossible to achive. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that a single planet must almost always never have all the nessisary output required for space travel, and thus the need for supply lines. In short, freighters exist, so trade exists, so closed systems don't exist, so supply lines exist.

To argue another academic point, the point in making a difference to BB's and FF's is (for me) to encourage smaller ship use; Everyone's well aware what a BB can do that a FF can't: Blow (more) stuff up. My questions are what a FF can do that a BB can't, and if that answer is nothing, why bother producing anything other than a BB at all? This academic excersize was to point out the lack of tatical variety in D2 servers, and that tatical variety is important to interesting strategic gameplay. FF's DD's CL's and CA's should have SOME importance other than a player's placeholder for before he assembles his three DN fleet. BB's and DN's should be rare, rather than the norm. The empires wouldn't produce them otherwise.

As i've indicated the last two points are largely academic, and the very last point probably complicates the game more than people want. Since the fact that an OA itself has to be taken to extend OA has been kindly mentioned, I can now easily grasp the differences of OA and LoS; The need to defend strategically important sectors, blockades. As i've pointed out however, gurellia tatics like freighter ambushing won't work due to how D2 works, leaving tatics other than assaulting (more strategically intresting assaulting, yes, but...) almost impossible to execute, which leaves the underpopulated empires as yet unresolved. Perhaps you could place planets in a manner that makes more obscure emprires harder to assault... yes, perhaps that would work.

Now that I realize the strategic implications of OA, I feel you should disregard my more academic points and test this thing now, and see who likes it/doesen't like it/says as an aquaintance of mine once put succinctly, "Get stuffed" and leave. I still stand by the 'bases should be worth less than planets' however.

It's a strategic step up (with no additional complication from what I can see), and i'm eager to see how this ruleset turns out.

As I understand it, it's easy to flip a hex against the AI, and players aren't always on 24/7, so mabey you need to stiffen up the rules for when a OA can be taken (perhaps owning the surrounding sectors before taking the planet?) This, of course, has been mentioned before in this thread.

Strategic center for mousing,

Holocat.

Holocat · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2003, 08:22:05 pm »

On the point of an OP D2, there's hardly any point of doing that right now, OP D2 in the current state it's in being so, incredibly screwed.

To continue the pointless but extremely amusing argument concerning supply lines, you're forgetting the fact that despite the fact that space is vast indeed, the fuel on which a ship runs (whether that be grog or antimatter (is there a difference?) ) is not. It has a limited number of courses it can take to reach its destination, and the more backwater the destination is, the less routes he can take, just like on the sea. You can hide practically anywhere, but there are some places those merchantmen will have to be if they want to reach their destination in living condition; The trick, of course, is when. In addition to fuel, there is the factor of fear, and luck. Weather your merchantman is an Indiaman or a Federation Merchant Marine, the chances of making it back home for any one run are pretty good even if you cut accross a little bit of contested territory. So are two. But eighty? Even the fabled Millenium falcon eventually ran out of luck and had to join the Rebels, eventually. Many merchantmen won't take those chances and instead ply safe routes; The fear of being caught drive many away, which reduces trade, I will argue, even in space, to the extent where the supplies coming in won't outfit the army of CA's extracting supplies out.
Be clear i'm not arguing about hex flipping and LoS specifically, but just supply lines themselves, and that supply lines aren't invisible, even in space.

This cat obviously has had alot of free time on it's hands lately,

Holocat.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2003, 09:02:29 pm »

Claw, I respect the time you took to go through my statements; frankly I've rehashed this argument in the D3 forum quite a bit.

I appreciate that it's limiting to "discuss" this via a BBS, but I think just a straight "I said you said" isn't going to get either of us very far. I certainly won't try to impress upon you how many years I've been playing SFB and now SFC --from 1 to OP to SFCIII. In fact, it's years of experience that have led me to gripe about LoS.

LoS is comfortable. It's ancient. It's a fixture in the crusty annals of SFB lore, and of course grizzled veterans are loathe to change--be it LoS to OA, or K-rations to MREs. I accept that I can't "take down" a near-universal ruleset like LoS overnight, nor do I wish to do so.

But I DO wish to find a way to play, within the limitations of the code and willingness of the players, that doesn't remind me of Space: 1914.

I remain optimistic that with the help of a capable server admin and an OP patch, we can try new ways of bringing much more realistic strategic thinking and playing to this otherwise outstanding series of games.

Fluf · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2003, 02:46:44 am »

Unfortunately, EAW & OP differ so much from the D3 in server settings and missions scripts there is no comparing them. The D2 will never be able to handle and OA type arrangement, because of server settings, such as manditory missions, being set on enemy space, neutral space and the difference in the D3 , where there are no manditory missions and you can roam free on the map, as long as you dont get caught by an AI. OA is possible in the D3. I dont see any way for it to work in the D2, and I have worked with both server kits and am probably able to judge this better than anyone as I play more than anyone here on the dynaverse. Base missions and bases themselves are way to much different from D2 to D3.

Bottom line is the 2 dynaverses are vastly different in server settings and mission scripting. EAW & OP have to use the LOS because that is the way the D2 is designed. D3 has the possibilty of using OA. Mainly because it is too hard to take a hex and create a LOS with the way the state the D3 is in now, due to lack of missions, forfeit bugs, and lack of AI to attack unless you set the server settings unbelievably high, which really makes the DB crawl. My only problem with OA right now is how useless bases are in the D3 pre-patch, and that fact that OA could fall a underplayed empire to quickly. Most of us have learned that a good campaign doesnt involve the homeworld grab, or conquering another race. This brings the server to and end much to quickly, with one race leaving when they are loosing. Some of the best campaigns in recent months on the D2 have been VC related campaigns that draw the races toward the center of the map, going after specific targets, and then creating "hot zones" for exciting PvP.

My last campaign on the D3, left players open to roam the neutral zone and attack any target they wanted. LOS was not required to attack a target. LOS was only used to double your points and expand your empires econ. In that respect it worked well on the D3. The D2 doesnt have that option. Yes you could turn mandatory missions off in the neutral zone, but then you are hard pressed to even get a mission. The D2 is trench warefare. And I prefer it that way. AOTK was a testament in trench warfare. Strategy took a great deal of planning and communication. And the PvP was the most intense I have ever had. This is one thing that I think the D3 lacks in somewhat. Without a campaign that drives the empires to a target for PvP, its just wandering around looking for planets to kill.

Cleaven · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2003, 02:46:49 am »

Please don't discuss these silly LOS arguments and make reference to EAW-D2. When you have compulsory missions in all non-friendly space the potential for free ranging is more limited. Admins have seen fit to apply rules to base placement and so be it, but LOS (or AO) for general play IS NOT REQUIRED.

Of all the rules that some admins have chosen to use, LOS is the single worst.

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2003, 07:02:10 am »

SghnDubh,

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is a good one. I, like Fluf, just don't think it will work in D2.

D3, on the other hand, does provide that possibility, and as I said, it could be tried once the D3 is fixed or maybe on a closed server.

As for time in gaming with SFB and SFC, I started back in the very early 80's as well. I also own all four titles as ytou do. This is also not unusual for this crowd, I think many here are SFB folks who own all four titles (of course, I could quite well be wrong about this). Besides, nothing like a well spoken debate without flames amongst rabid (opps, I mean avid

)gamers. As for being open to change, you have to be to stick around here. We have seen quite a few changes since the D2 started. Some good, some not (depending upon your point of view).

The biggest problem (as I see it anyway) with the whole thing is in trying to get the number of people for each race balanced. This is something that has been ongoing since the D2 started up. I do realize it will probably never happen. There are too many factors. We can only try and balance the teams with alliances. An example is the Feds. They will most likely always have the most players. This can't be helped and is not their fault. Many who originally start the game do so as a Fed. This may sound great if you stay Fed but it brings its own set of headaches for them. Lyrans, on the other hand, are traditionally an underplayed race(usually the least in numbers). Not sure why as they have some of the best ships in the game. Probably due to unfamilararity and popularity.

Cleaven,

I do understand your position as well. I do feel that LOS helps in that it keeps a team of nutters from destroying a race within one day of a campaign starting. KAT/KOTH enjoy that position. We are not a large group, but when we do decide to participate in a campaign we bring a larger percentage of nutters (and super-nutters like Fluf) to the game. Without LOS rules, we could virtually destroy a smaller race in no time by wrecking their economy. This may be a reality in war, and war is not fair, but we also want this to be fun for others as well. This may not be overly realistic, but it keeps the campaign going for those lesser played races. I would never want to play a campaign that doesn't give folks like the Lyran a chance to compete. Where would this community have been without guys like them?

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2003, 08:21:48 am »

Sorry, couldn't say. I was not able to participate in them.

Cocomoe · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2003, 04:42:04 pm »

Wow I thought this was a dead horse.

My problems with OA based in EAW/OP would be as Claw pointed out.

1. No easy way to enforce it. (Admin Hell.)

2. Starbses not being removed from the map after being destroyed. (So no way to knock off an offensive.)

In OP/EAW this so favors a large race or a group of nutters that the goal is to get the bases out there and boom you win because you can go anywhere and you KNOW they can't do anything to destroy your bases.

Fluf · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2003, 10:46:34 pm »

Gentlemen, bases can now be set server side, to be destroyable or not, due to one of the recent patches. Then with the combination of scripts written by NW, which reconize which base was actually put in the hex, the script can determine if a base is destroyable or not. In AOTK, base stations were destroyable, but Battlestations and Starbases were not.

Both Campaigns did not have an LOS rule as such. However, both had the rule that you had to have a LOS to place a base. This was reasonable, as a base should have a line of supply to be built. Not having an LOS rule, allowed for deepstrikes to occur which made both campaigns fun. Where in D2, one or 2 people can sneak behing the lines, doing missions in every hex on their way to their target, the D3 allows groups of 3 players fleeting up and being able to fly unmolested behind enemy lines. OA could be done in the D2, but is not needed because of the mandatory missions and the inability to "fleet up". LOS is also not required in the D2 depending on the map and campaign structure, but is needed for a race to move without impedence and mandatory missions, hence the reason they are done.

Bottom line is the two dynaverse are compelety different, so different rulesets must be applied.

Holocat · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2003, 11:08:21 pm »

D2 bases... Destroyable?

Flabbergasted,

Holocat.

Cocomoe · « **Reply #24 on:** February 24, 2003, 12:14:09 am »

Cool glad it was fixed.

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #26 on:** February 24, 2003, 08:51:53 am »

Just found this in the dictionary, here is part of it:

Fluf

1. He who never sleeps. 2. To accumulate ungodly amounts of prestige. 3. Kzin RM.

Fluf, thanks for the update on bases. LOS with regards to bases is good, glad to see this was worked out. Mandatory mission setting can be a good thing.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #27 on:** February 24, 2003, 10:44:01 am »

Ok, ya'll are gonna have to make me roll up my sleeves, dust off OP, and download a few patches, aren't ya????

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:21:12 am »

Yup.

Fluf · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:03:56 pm »

SghnDubh, load up EAW. OP is still broken lol.

Get on the SFC2.net 7.35 SQL server and check it out. (small download of a shiplist from AOTK)

What still cripes me is how poorly the D3 was put together, after all that was done here in the last 2 years with EAW and OP., and what was requested by the fans and many admins over time and the many fixes that were done, most of this was not even considered for the D3. Whether in its haste to get the product out in time for Activision or not, these things, like the option for destroyable bases or not should have been included in the basic D3 server kit. Unfortunately, with the one and only patch being released today for SFC3, we shall never know what a true campaign might have been on the D3. It will be up to the admins there to try to work with what they have and try to come up with interesting campaigns. I also dont see Activision supporting the access servers for the game, due to poor sales and such, much longer than the end of the year, if that, considering the current situation between Taldren and Activision. The same thing happen with Interplay, and Taldren took up the slack and spent their own money, setting up their own directory of servers. With the bad taste Taldren has now for the SFC series in general, and the money they already have tied up with SFC3, I doubt they would want to do this again with the D3.

It looks like the D2, because of the fans and community, will still be the place to play, for the best war-gaming campaigns.

I hope I am wrong. I hope we have the ability to play EAW, OP and TNG for along time. But I just dont see it in the stars.

KOTH-Steel Claw · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:34:37 pm »

What can I say, Fluf? I think you are right about this. On the bright side, EAW is still a killer game. Yeah, I know, it is getting old, but that doesn't make it bad.

With all the work that folks have put into this game to keep it alive and kicking, I hope to see the campaigns still coming to us for some time. Hopefully, we can get a good web ring going of the EAW fleets and D2 sites.

News:

Topic: Whitepaper: Proposed Operational Area (OA) Rules & Rationale (Read 8977 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

SghnDubh

TOCXOBearslayer

Cocomoe

Holocat

**DONOTDELETE**

KOTH-Steel Claw

SghnDubh

KOTH-Steel Claw

SghnDubh

KOTH-Steel Claw

Holocat

SghnDubh

Holocat

KOTH-Steel Claw

SghnDubh

Fluf

Cleaven

KOTH-Steel Claw

SghnDubh

Cleaven

KOTH-Steel Claw

Cocomoe

Fluf

Holocat

Cocomoe

Cleaven

KOTH-Steel Claw

SghnDubh

KOTH-Steel Claw

Fluf

KOTH-Steel Claw

Topic: Whitepaper: Proposed Operational Area (OA) Rules & Rationale (Read 8977 times)

DONOTDELETE