Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
@huhYeahGoodPoint
Will the new dlc missions for AC7 have any effect on the quest?
Will the new dlc missions for AC7 have any effect on the quest?
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Ace Combat XCOM: Enemy Skies
- Thread starter hYGP
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere over the rainbow
Not really, no. It'd just make his information more accurate.
Depending on who you ask, it never existed, it was betrayed from the inside by a high-level official, it was betrayed from the inside by the crowds, by a Restorationist conspiracy, by a Royalist conspiracy, by a Free Erusean conspiracy, by an Osean conspiracy, by a Usean conspiracy, by a Belkan conspiracy, by a Yuktobanian conspiracy, defected to the Restorationists, the Free Eruseans, the Usean Commonwealth, continues to exist, was obliterated by Free Eruseans, was destroyed by Erusean Restorationists, etc. etc.
Reports are very confused, but it sure seems like the Directory of Rainier no longer exists.
Yes, it's just loaning. This would temporarily delay Xenobiology by a day, and then affect the research by turning it into a joint research project with XCOM OSEA, which changes the research equipment and personnel they have available.
Your developing battle doctrine. Since the emphasis is on a singular decisive battle, the agreement right now is to focus on a battle doctrine that maximizes the advantage of long range EMLs and ace units available to you, where ace units will dogfight the aliens and long range units will throw potshots into the fray. Razgriz Squadron engagement in the Battle of Granada Plains is being held up as the instructive example of the developing doctrine.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Hey, remember this post?
I've finally backfilled all the pilots that were lost. Each country called their operation by a different name, and the debate about naming and who gets to part of the memorial wall was put pretty firmly on the backburner until recently.
I haven't counted the exact percentage, but at a glance, ~30-50% survival rate among all the branches in engaging the aliens now.
I'm waiting with bated breath. Some of the setup might be contradictory, but if it's possible I'm hoping to integrate it.
Nation updates are still In Progress TM.
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
I'm more interested in the two new crazies it introduced, what's their deal and if they survive.
[x] VERUSA] Yes
[x] [ANEA] Yes
[x] [OSEA] Yes
[x] [TRANSFER] No
KnightDisciple
Love God. Do Right. Fear No Man.
- Location
- Midwest, USA
[x] VERUSA] Yes
[x] [ANEA] Yes
[x] [OSEA] Yes
[x] [TRANSFER] No
[x] [ANEA] Yes
[x] [OSEA] Yes
[x] [TRANSFER] No
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Mmhm.
And it sounds like there was probably a conspiracy, sabotage, or subversion involved somehow. Probably. Do we know who holds that territory now?
THat sounds promising.
[x] VERUSA] Yes
[x] [ANEA] Yes
[x] [OSEA] Yes
[x] [TRANSFER] No
But I seriously want to consider TRANSFER. We really do have a very lopsided supply of aces, and if we can keep the protagonists while cultivating our own crop of S-rankers, we may be able to spare a few good pilots to help reduce future losses to the other X-COM branches.
- Location
- Somewhere over the rainbow
Your information is if anything even less accurate, but just looking at geography tells you it's probably the Free Eruseans. The Restorationists would be a lot happier if that port was in their hands, after all.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Fair enough, though I think it's less lopsided than it looks at first. VERUSA is probably in the most need for Aces, since OSEA has Gryphus 1 and Falco 1, and ANEA has Talisman.
Redoing my analysis from before, in light of the fact that the Memorial Wall was from the following engagements:
-All the losses in Anea are from the battle in Nordennavic. They lost 24 pilots, and that probably explains why they only chipped in two pilots for ANEA. They also notably lost most of Grendel Squadron, but not Grendel 1.(Operation Stone Hymn)
-The battle in Yuktobania was likely Operation Empty Salient, from the names, and their do losses look pretty minimal, relative to everyone else's. They're still double ours, though.
-"Near-total losses" is a pretty good descriptor of the fight in Verusa. Assuming all wings had causualties, 16 pilots went up, and only 3 came back alive. (Operation Silent Vanguard)
-Operation Hollow Eve is likely the fight in the Nordlands. Seems like only one of their guys made it out alive.
-Aurelia actually did pretty well, though they did lose a number of pilots. Still, no full wing losses, from what I can tell, assuming 4 man wings. Triple ours, but still a pretty good showing. Lost Gryphus 4, though. (Operation Low Moon)
-For a major world power, Osea did not fair well. Probably because Trigger was elsewhere, and the Razgriz retired after their war. They lost 3-and-a-half wings in their fight. (Operation Twilight Sentinel)
It really does seem like Aces are the main factor in how well any given force did. Any force lacking an S-Rank pilot seems to have gotten trashed. Those with good pilots did a lot better. Super-weapons and fancy aircraft might be a viable replacement for an S+ Ace, but they equally might not be. Maybe the Arsenal Bird just sucks, but it didn't exactly impress me too much with its performance in our last battle. I'm guessing that Aces are still going to be a necessity, even with super-weapons, if only to help defend them.
There may have been some sort of logic behind where the aliens attacked, but I doubt it's one-size-fits-all sort of logic. The Lighthouse and Oured make some sense, as they're both of obvious significance, when looked at from space, and the fact that they hit Yuktobania too might be significant. But why they targeted Verusa, North Point, the Nordlands, and Nordennavic, I'm not entirely sure. They weren't just targeting Aces, they weren't hitting countries with super-weapons, ruined or otherwise, nor were they targeting purely protagonist/antagonist factions from the games. They don't seem to have been targeting particularly weak countries, but Verusa isn't that strong, militarily or industrially, either.
I suppose it's possible that, if Belka and the Grey Men have some link to the invaders, Belka may have influenced the choices of targets, possibly to gain allies. I'm guessing the main reason why Leasath, Estovakia, the Free Eruseans, Kaluga, Sotoa, and Belka itself all have some degree of alien support is that most of them, aside from maybe Estovakia, had bad blood with at least one of the nations the X-Rays hit. Not sure if Estovakia had bad blood with Nordennavic, but they might have approved of the hit to Yuktobania. Still, they'd probably have earned more points with Estovakia if they targeted Emmeria, and Belka would be aware of that.
Overall, I hesitate to say they attacked at pure random, but I can't see a single unifying factor in their choice of targets in their first wave. Their targets after the first wave, though, seem fairly reasonable. North Point and Selatapura were where they got trounced the hardest, so they decided to probe us a bit more. The battle over the Grenada Plains was probably an attempt to land and establish a beachhead, probably in Belka, that we intercepted and did a fair amount of damage to. Not enough to stop them, but hey, this is a max difficulty game. Can't win 'em all.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I think the Arsenal Bird's main contribution was to thicken out the numbers and make it harder for the aliens to focus and target human pilots. With some fixes to the programming that leads them to suicide-dive in front of plasma bolts that will overpenetrate them and hit the target anyway, the drones can still be effective.
The other problem with the Arsenal Bird is that its laser seems unlikely to be very useful against the aliens; maybe Osea could refit them with EML gun turrets?
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
It's also possible that we could try and armor the drones enough to stop a plasma bolt, and use them to shield our living pilots. Honestly, I feel like anti-plasma countermeasures/armor should probably be on our to-do list somewhere, but I'm not sure how best to actually pull it off with aircraft. It'd need to be light and effective. Space shuttle heat shielding could be a good place to start, I suppose. Seems like, for the highest heat resistance tiles, the borosilicate glazing did most of the work. Might be worth trying.
As for replacing the lasers with EMLs...might be a lot easier said than done. As I recall, the EML has some fairly serious recoil, and the Arsenal Bird may, or may not, be built to easily withstand that. Especially for large-scale weapons. Remember, unlike Estovakia or Belka, Osea's pretty much exclusively dealt with lasers and maybe some missiles as armaments for their aerial warships. There may be a reason for that.
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
From what we saw during initial assault whenever the aliens weren't pushed back, their targets were ports and shipping traffic. Considering if the alien motives are same as in cannon, then the purpose of the attacks was probably show of force and to isolate the countries to hinder their capability to fight back.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Uh...there's nothing indicating that either Verusa or Nordennavic lost anything other than planes and pilots, and they had losses exceeding or rivaling Osea's. Though all of the nations hit do have access to the ocean, it's not currently clear on whether or not every attack took place near the coast. Going to have to wait on more information from @huhYeahGoodPoint to confirm or deny that.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Whlie not ALL attacks hit coasts and ports and shipping, @Nixeu , if most of the attacks, especially the successful ones where the aliens could operate freely, did so... It's fair to assume that this was a high priority for the aliens, though perhaps not the only priority.
But in any event, it's Osea's problem, not ours.
I agree that anti-plasma armor sounds good, but I suspect that we simply won't be able to armor aircraft to withstand plasma bolts unless we make the skin out of alien hull armor (which has the conductivity to make a good anti-plasma armor, and indeed that is probably why the aliens use it).
The sheer physical size of the Arsenal Bird means there really ought to be something in the airframe durable enough to bolt an EML to. The recoil's a huge deal for a conventional fighter jet, but Arsenal Birds aren't built to the same scale as fighter jets, they're built to the same scale as skyscrapers or ocean liners.
But in any event, it's Osea's problem, not ours.
I agree that anti-plasma armor sounds good, but I suspect that we simply won't be able to armor aircraft to withstand plasma bolts unless we make the skin out of alien hull armor (which has the conductivity to make a good anti-plasma armor, and indeed that is probably why the aliens use it).
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
That.
True, though I think the real issue would be the field of fire. The Arsenal Bird's lasers had rather wide fof, so it greatly compensated for its slowness, especially when it came to turning. Non-turreted EMLs would be pretty useless on an AB, since the plane itself would need to turn to get the enemy in its crosshairs, and turreted EMLs face the problem of how to make something that can turn and adjust swiftly, while not tearing itself off when firing.
Of course, AC7 and the quest too just revealed a giant submarine with turreted rail guns. Yuktobanian thing, but the Oseans could most likely adapt it.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I mean, an EML has a lot of recoil by the standards of aircraft weapons. I doubt the recoil's actually that much worse than, say, a 6" artillery gun, and you could easily fit quite a few of those on an Arsenal Bird.
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
Not quite. Rail guns create equal amount of recoil force when compared to conventional weaponry of same caliber. The difference is how it applies that force. In conventional, chemically propelled ammunition guns, the recoil is applied all at once, where as in rail guns it is applied over short period of time as the weapon accelerates the projectile. Compare it to a swift kick versus being shaken very rapidly.
Of course, if we were in space, it would be most likely another story.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
I think half of the ones where they wrecked the defenders were on ports, assuming hYGP thought to mention that detail. So, we can't say most either way. Also, the use of "whenever" implies that all cases where the defenders lost should have resulted in shipping losses.
That's...not necessarily how that works. I mean, that's usually how that would work, but I've heard proposals for large orbiting spacecraft, similar in some ways to the Arkbird, that involves them being unable to land, because they'd collapse under either the weight or the pressure of being any lower than a certain height. I don't know if the Arkbird was like the vessel in that proposal (JP Aerospace was the company behind it, I believe), nor do I know how similar the Arsenal Birds are to the Arkbird, but it might not be quite as easy as it seems.
Also, while there probably should be something stable enough in the airframe to mount a railgun...nothing's stopping it from being a really bad place to mount a gun for other reasons. Could be too deep inside the airframe, could be in a spot where the field-of-fire would be limited, and it could already be mounting important gear in that spot. Like the engines.
But yeah, it's more Osea's problem than ours, and, while it might be worth making a suggestion to them, whether they follow up is their business.
At this point, at least for sacrificial drone shields, "can stop a plasma bolt, even if it doesn't survive the experience" is the goal I'm shooting for, here. Don't knock progress just because it's nowhere near perfect. If a relatively simple glaze or coating is enough to seriously reduce the amount of damage to our aircraft (and, given that some of those glazes could dissipate 95% of the heat from rentry, they very well might help), then it should up our pilots' survival rate.
Also, given how heavy they seem to be, if we're not going to research our own defensive measures, and just rely on Alien Alloys, it's probably going to be a long time before we can put them to use on aircraft. Probably not until we crack their drive tech, honestly. Reducing our casualty rate is a high enough priority that I don't think we can actually afford to wait that long. While the best defense is still probably going to be "don't get hit", something is still better than nothing.
Total recoil force is going to be about the same as a chemically propelled bullet of the same mass, going the same speed. Conservation of momentum/energy is a b*tch like that. However, there is a difference in instantaneous recoil. A railgun applies its force over a longer period of time, as compared to a chemically propelled round. Planes lacking anything to brace themselves against, I'm not entirely sure that helps much, though I guess maybe the opposing force here would be the propulsion. In which case, it should actually have less overall effect on the aircraft, not more than your equivalent chemical gun.
There is a slight caveat, though. If you want to accelerate a round beyond the limits of your typical chemically propelled gun, then you have to handle more total recoil force. Heck, you can do this with handloaded rounds for firearms, too, if you're willing to put the gun under more stress than normal. Eventually, if you crank the speed high enough, you'll actually be having to endure more instantaneous recoil, over a longer period of time. It's entirely probable that the EML has a really high bullet velocity, and possibly a larger round, than your normal machine gun. High velocity is, after all, part of the appeal of magnetic propulsion.
Projectile speed is also a factor in the recoil, alongside the caliber (or, more accurately, mass) of the round. The more force imparted, the greater the opposing force.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Yes, and I'm pretty sure that the aircraft EML isn't a 150mm weapon. The projectile doesn't have to be very massive at all to be a one-shot kill against conventional aircraft, given that it's a hypersonic slug.
The point is, an EML round doesn't necessarily have more kinetic energy than a high-caliber artillery shell... and a high-velocity low-mass projectile will have less momentum than a low-velocity high-mass one. If an EML round has, say, the same kinetic impact energy as an 8" gun, then it will have significantly less recoil than an 8" gun. I can use equations if you want me to.
I'm not sure the physics is quite that simple- in that the recoil of gases from firing a conventional artillery is not instantaneous, and since momentum is transferred from the expanding gas cloud to the shell and the gun non-instantaneously, momentum is transferred to the gun non-instantaneously.
Furthermore, transferring momentum over an extended time usually makes it easier, not harder, to withstand the forces involved, because it greatly reduces the peak force involved in withstanding the stress of the situation.
The Arkbird was a giant spaceplane. The Arsenal Bird is a giant flying wing powered by propellers that run off electric motors; it is very unlike the Arkbird as an engineering project. The point is, the thing must have internal structures strong enough that the engines don't simply push their way through the hull, and strong enough to support hundreds and hundreds of tons of wing weight. If it were fragile, then as soon as one side of the aircraft flew through a thermal that the other side wasn't in, the shear stresses would rip the thing to pieces.
Also, the Arkbird could withstand 1g accelerations and atmospheric pressures close to sea level, given its observed engine performance during the mission where you shoot it down. So it wasn't nearly as fragile as it could have been for space applications.
It's not out of the question- but my point is that if the engineers really really wanted an Arsenal Bird with EMLs, it shouldn't be categorically impossible. Maybe impossible to retrofit an existing Arsenal Bird with the railguns, but that's a totally separate question.
That is a fair point.
Notably, almost no one has ever been crazy enough to mount a large-caliber artillery piece in a fighter aircraft. Things like the AC-130 are exceptions, and are large and specifically designed and braced to withstand recoil of their guns without the stress being taken out on the airframe.
opposing force.
[/QUOTE]
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
It is not, but I was trying to keep it short and simple for everyone. The chemical reaction happens in a conventional weapon in such a short time that it might as well be instantaneous from the point of the operator. When you fire a weapon it "bucks" once, not constantly.
Recoil consists of two parts: Primary recoil (projectile leaving the barrel) and secondary recoil (hot gasses from the propellant coming out of the barrel following the bullet). Conventional and rail guns have about the same primary recoil, in conventional weapons due to controlled chemical explosion, in rail guns due electromagnetic induction with opposing magnetic fields. Induction acceleration is done over time, creating less of the recoil effect while keeping the amount of generated force same, thus it "shakes" instead of just a one strong "buck".
When it comes to secondary recoil, things get a bit trickier, since the real life practical science and utilization of rail guns is till very new concept. In conventional firearms the primary and secondary recoil are so close to one and other it comes off as a single "buck" to the operator, where as in rail guns the secondary recoil is suspected to be less powerful due to the hot gasses being just compressed air ignited by the projectile as it passes along the barrel, thus creating a stronger "shake" when the projectile itself is fired and leaves the barrel, releasing the gasses.
Nixeu
Lord of Madness, Harbinger of Llamas
- Location
- Your nightmares.
Agreed that one EML doesn't necessarily have the recoil of an artillery piece. However, the Arsenal Bird would, presumably, either be mounting a larger weapon, or a bunch of them. Or both. A single EML wouldn't exactly do much to replace their doomlasers.
I mean...technically speaking, unless it's occurring on Planck time-scales, nothing is truly instantaneous. So that's generally short-hand for "really short amount of time, especially for our purposes".
Fair enough. It looked like it was getting pretty close to the water in a few shots on the wiki page, but the perspective could have been playing tricks on me, so I wasn't entirely confident in assuming it was flying low. Now that I think a bit more on it, the Arsenal Birds were made by organization as the Hresvelgr, so it makes sense that they seem to be closer to it than the Arkbird.
Oh, it's quite possible. Just look at the Gyges. Lots of AA turrets and SAM launchers (which seems off, given that they're not on the surface), according to the wiki, and it could still fly. Still, best to assume that we're talking about a retrofit, as building and designing a whole new Arsenal Bird variant is probably not going to happen on a worthwhile timescale.
Well, yeah. Large caliber artillery tends to produce major pressure waves, which lots of smaller bullets don't tend to do, so far as I know. Or, if they do, it's more manageable. I think.
Project Dragon Dentist: Stonehenge Analysis (???)
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Project Dragon Dentist
Damage Survey Report
January 25
Damage Survey Report
January 25
Abstract
To summarize, the damage catalogued in the 2005 ISAF report on Operation Stone Crusher (attached) and the 2007 ISAF Strategic Bombing Survey (already in the base library) has been compounded by fifteen years of exposure to desert conditions, including sandstorms and extremes of temperature. All eight guns require extremely extensive repair work, or replacement of original design components with new superior systems. For example, the original array of 8192 1990s-vintage supercomputers could be reactivated by appropriately trained technicians... or much more cheaply replaced by a few rooms of server racks such as are found in a modern datacenter.
The repairs and replacements will necessarily include industrial projects that are likely to take weeks or months using current technology and equipment. This assumes a massive, maximum-effort attempt by the continent's present available resources as a whole.
We are continuing to evaluate ways to reduce the overall scope and requirements of the project- recommendations will be forthcoming in a series of reports starting on the 27th. This report confines itself to the nature of the damage to the Stonehenge Turret Network, and the requirements to repair the damage by conventional means.
Gun Four
Our initial discussion will focus on Gun Four, the weapon reactivated by Major McOnie's team during Operation Dragon Breath in the recent war, and used to shoot down Arsenal Bird Liberty.
Gun Four, itself damaged by a near miss from a minor Ulysses fragment, was largely restored by the Eruseans prior to Operation Stone Crusher. Elevation and traverse mechanisms were functional, and the gun had been locked in 'standby' mode at ninety degrees elevation shortly prior to the attack. Damage to the surrounding facilities by stray fire and falling aircraft during the offensive prevented repairs from being completed before ISAF forces overran the facility.
Uniquely among the Stonehenge guns, Four was thus left mothballed in a largely functional condition, mostly protected from the elements, but abandoned as too destabilizing to be operated postwar, even by ISAF. Four thus makes an excellent case study in the consequence of fifteen years with no maintenance on Stonehenge hardware.
Our survey of Gun Four confirms most of Major McOnie's speculation in the wake of her surviving team members' evacuation after Operation Dragon Breath.
Most conspicuously, the shock of firing ruptured many of Four's recoil cylinders, leaving the gun inoperable for a second shot. Furthermore, the use of improvised coolants rather than the (unavailable) chemical mix specified by the original Titan Program led to considerable overheating damage along the accelerator rails.
While we expect to be able to source appropriate coolants if necessary, the recoil cylinders on the other seven guns are unlikely to be in better condition than Four's were during the Lighthouse War. The entire set will have to be replaced, a formidable project given that each cylinder was the size of a small submarine.
Another critical issue with Gun Four is the alarming number of microfractures in the breech. While early software modeling suggests that a the breech could withstand anywhere from two to six more firings without exploding, the error bars on our analysis are high.
Repair Requirements
Fortunately, large supplies of spare rails remain in serviceable condition on-site, where retreating Erusean forces neglected to sabotage them in 2004. The rails damaged by overheating during Dragon Breath could be replaced in a matter of days, once the requisite construction equipment is in place. Sourcing of appropriate coolants and lubricants is similarly a comparatively minor obstacle.
The problem of replacing the recoil cylinders and the breech assembly is more serious.
Originally, the cylinders were produced at a specially built facility in San Salvacion and moved overland by heavy transport crawler. One of the three crawlers was converted into a piece of superheavy mining equipment and could be restored to its original purpose, but the factory suffered heavy bombardment during the liberation of the city later in 2004. Much of the equipment that remains is in uncertain condition, and some has been sold off or looted, complicating the task of refurbishing the gun.
Reconstruction of the gun breech will prove even more challenging. The breech assemblies of the Stonehenge guns were originally cast in a dedicated foundry in Farbanti. The facility has been fought over and extensively looted in multiple rounds of warfare, and has furthermore been immersed in three meters of seawater for the past two decades.
Other Guns
The other Stonehenge guns, in addition to being exposed to the elements in the same manner that Gun Four had before firing, and with less protection from same, also suffered at least one mission-killing weapon impact apiece. The most comprehensive analysis of the battle damage can be found in the ISAF Tactical Bombing Survey of 2007. Analysis of the various hits scored by many of the pilots that survived the early phase of Operation Stone Crusher to close with the Stonehenge facility and open fire are best found there, but the most serious damage to all seven guns was famously inflicted by Mobius One.
Mobius One's bombing runs over the facility resulted in all seven guns taking at least one 250-pound shaped charge bomb to the elevation mechanism. While in and of itself these would have been extremely damaging, the elevation mechanisms were not "fail-safe" systems. When damaged by bomb hits, they tended to release the gun assembly to pivot freely. While the guns were counterweighted to roughly balance at the pivot point, they nonetheless settled muzzle-down on the ground, in a position that placed extreme stress on the barrel, from angles that the surviving cantilever cables could not compensate for.
The typical damage vector following this involved extensive cracking of the outer weatherproofing shell around the support girders, which in turn warped and transmitted damaging forces to the railgun barrel elements themselves.
Repair Requirements
Given the above concerns, the support frameworks will have to be cut apart and reconstructed and many of the barrel elements themselves require replacement.
Fortunately, the support frames can be replaced from commercial off the shelf hardware with extensive high-altitude steelworking, and as noted, large supplies of spare rails remain. There are nearly enough to finish the repairs without further manufacturing, though this will entirely exhaust the facility's legacy supply of spare parts.
The work of refurbishing and repairing the gun barrels can be expected to be formidable, requiring a large on-site workforce to once again be supported in the middle of a hostile desert landscape with heavy equipment.
The elevation systems themselves are near-total losses, and will have to be replaced, requiring further customized manufacture. Fortunately, in this case the relevant factories in western Usea mostly still exist and retain the heavy industrial forges used in production, though readying the tooling and heavy structural elements may require weeks.
Further complicating the effort, it is probable that all seven guns disabled during Operation Stone Crusher suffered at least as much damage from exposure to the elements during the intervening fifteen years as Gun Four did. This indicates that some or all of the other guns may similarly fail to withstand the stress of firing, even if all the parts directly damaged in 2004 are refurbished or replaced. Our survey efforts are ongoing to determine the precise scope of the repairs required- see previous issues associated with repairing Gun Four for reference.
Last edited:
Icipall
Don't worry, we can fanfix that!
- Location
- Cold snow fields of Finland
Mobius One, man more destructive than pieces of a massive asteroid.
- Location
- Somewhere over the rainbow
Canon. Results in ???.
probably pretty factual nglMobius One, man more destructive than pieces of a massive asteroid.