Jump to content

Talk:Medal of Honor: Airborne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMedal of Honor: Airborne was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Untitled

[edit]

The weapons section doesn';t state if you lose your weapon's experience/upgrades if you dump it in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.33.21 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep your upgrades, even if you pick up a different weapon. Geekboy72 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Installation Problem

[edit]

Many users have reported many installation issues with Medal of Honor: Airborne such as:

1/ Protection Technique Restarting System Upon Disc Insertion:

From EA game forum: "When the DVD disc is put in the tray and if it starts auto run, it checks for imaging tools and if it detects anything it will restart your system. So before you insert the DVD make sure to disable any program that might be running that will cause this to happen."

2/ AGEIA PHYSICX version PROBLEM:

AGEIA Physicx driver is designed by developer to be installed BEFORE the game is. They design the installer in such a way that the game won't install if user has a newer version of the AGEIA driver than the one provided on the DVD disc. (mostly from the newer NVIDIA display and CUDA Physicx package) The installer will just quit without letting consumers know what the problem is and many people have been kept in the dark for why their games have not been installed (consumers go on assuming DVD disc corruption, thus exchanging discs in stores, or copying the whole disc content to hard drive etc...) Why do the developers have to assume that their version of AGEIA Physicx is the ultimate and last version? Why don't they give consumers the choice to install the game first and then pop up a notice/warning informing consumers to install/upgrade/degrade their AGEIA driver? Why don't their apply the routine that most games do to nowadays with Directx: "Installer has detected that you have a newer version of Directx Installed, therefore there is no need to install it now" etc...

3/ Windows Firewall:


There is a specific error occurring where MOHA installation rolls back right at the end. If you're having that error, follow the instructions below: 

PLEASE NOTE: During the install, the installer
attempts to add MOHA to the firewall exception list
regardless if the firewall is enabled or not. This
depends on the firewall service being available to
windows. This service is enabled by default on XP and
continues to run, even if the user sets the firewall
status to off. If it is disabled completely in the
services list, then we see the failure.

To enable the service: Start Menu - run -
"services. msc"

The name of the service is "Windows Firewall/Internet
Connection Sharing (ICS)"

To start it, right click on the service name and
click "Start" in the menu. Then proceed to install
the game normally.

If you are unable to start the "Windows
Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)", ensure
these services which it depends on are started,
checking in this order:

- Remote Procedure Call (RPC) (The next two depend on
this service)
- Network Connections
- Windows Management Instrumentation"

Again why do they assume that all people in the world will enable their Windows Firewall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.249.74 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

All the stuff recently added is a cut and paste from many web sites. See this google search: [1] Thunderbrand 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free-Roaming Segment

[edit]

I added that. I've done research on the game and EA says it is considering adding it. 65.255.130.104 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)VonV[reply]

Re-edit

[edit]

I have re-edited the page in a way I think everyone will be happy with until EA officially comments on this issue. I've taken steps to try and get an official response. Please read it thoroughly, don't just erase it outright.

Firstly, please sign all comments. Secondly, please add proper formal wikipedia referencing to all uncitated comments. According to the official website, and the creators of the game itself, EA, Medal of Honor: Airborne will only be released in 2007 on the XBOX 360, PlayStation 3 and PC. Without conformation from a first party source, the comments about the Wii do not belong on the wikipedia article. Medal of Honor: Airborne will not be released on a console that is incapable to support its engine. Therefore, a slimmed down engine was used to produce Medal of Honor: Vanguard. I have removed mention of the Wii on the article. Unless EA officially state that the game is comming to the Wii please do not in future add it again. Thanks. Stickeylabel 07:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Wii is not capable of running the Unreal 3 engine; therefore any Airborne game on the Wii would be substantially different to the version on the PC, 360 and PS3. It doesn’t make sense to me that EA would develop the same game for such different hardware platforms. HalHal 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Playable Character

[edit]

In the article that mentions the Unreal Engine, there is evidence of a second playable character. Perhaps we can incorporate that into the article? Knight45 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include such information, unless there is clear evidence that the developers intended for a second playable character. As far as can be told, there is only one character, so such information should not be included at present. GUtt01 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne is definatley not coming to the Wii

[edit]

Stop adding the Wii as a platform for this game. Airborne uses the Unreal Engine 3 which is not compatible with the Wii, therefore it is pretty much impossible for Airborne to be released on the Wii, aside from the fact that EA just released MoH:Vanguard for the Wii, and you generally don't release two games from the same family at the same time.

See: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/08/mark-rein-says-no-unreal-engine-3-for-wii/

"Ummmmm, well, this is kinda a high definition engine. Designed for a certain level of graphics card and certain amount of CPU. You know, I'm sure one of our licensees will squeeze it down into the Wii. The way Ubisoft squeezed Unreal Engine 2 into the PSP," he explained in a little bit more detail exactly why the Wii and Unreal Engine 3 won't become best buddies, "Unreal Engine 3 is designed for a high level shader architecture and the Wii doesn't have that. I mean, you know, it's just not what we've been aiming for, so it's not something we're looking to do or support." -Mark Rein

And:

http://gamespot.com/wii/action/medalofhonorairborne/index.html

"Release Date: Canceled"

And:

http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/751/751607p1.html

"Medal of Honor Wii Clarified Nintendo's newest is getting the WWII shooter, but it's not Airborne. by Daemon Hatfield

US, December 19, 2006 - When it was announced last summer that Electronic Arts was bringing Medal of Honor to the Wii, many assumed it would be a port of the forthcoming MOH: Airborne, which is debuting on every other system next year. Not so, apparently, as today EA announced the Wii's MOH title will be called Medal of Honor Vanguard."

-HalHal 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, can't get much more official than this:

Medal of Honor goes only for PS3, Xbox360 and PC. How about Nintendo Wii?

Patrick Gilmore: No, we have just released Medal of Honor Vanguard for the Wii. I think that Wii is such a unique platform, that we wanna do something unique with the controllers with the franchise.

From here: http://www.mohcenter.pl/wywiady-interview-with-patrick-gilmore-r228.htm
-HalHal 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source engine?

[edit]

Calling the graphics/game engine the "Source engine" makes it sound like a Source engine game. It should be renamed to avoid confusion. HertzaHaeon 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I used the same article template as featured articles such as Half Life 2 and that's where it came from, I'm not too great on the technical stuff :-) --Joowwww 09:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is already renamed to game engine. --SkyWalker 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I have proposed that the articles Boyd Travers and Medal of Honor: Airborne Soundtrack be merged back into this article. Both articles have been simply copy/pasted out of the main article and are not really notable as per WP:Notability, as they do not provide real-world context, sourced analyses, or details of impact or historical significance. Furthermore they have not been wikified and do not conform to WP:MOS, and contain little or no references as per WP:Attribution. --Konasr 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Boyd Travers but not the soundtrack. The article of the soundtrack is perfectly fine. I really think that merges are sick. It really spoils wikipedia and the content of it.--SkyWalker 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them both; Boyd Travers isn't notable, the information on the soundtrack article can be put into a section on the Airborne article, however if a lot more information about the soundtrack is provided then it could be worthy of its own article. --Joowwww 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack article is perfectly fine. I created for two reasons 1). To cut down the size of the main article. The 2nd) reason is for the article to join this club [2]. What sort of notable this soundtrack needs?. Is this enough?. What sort of more info do you want to add in soundtrack?. There is already more info avaliable in that article. --SkyWalker 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've added a basic overview to the old section while saving specifics for the article. --Joowwww 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health System is Not Unique

[edit]

The health system used in Airbourne is not unique. It was also used in Pariah in exactly the same way. If no one has any objections im going to edit the article. Nikzbitz 12:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the same as the health system in resistance fall of man, or at least very similar
It's similar, in Pariah, you don't need to find cover and hide, all you need to do is run around and you still get healed, but it's only if you get damaged in the third, second or first bar. It doesn't happen in the fourth. (I think, I haven't played in a long time) Pvt. Green 03:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You get healed no matter which bar you are down to in Pariah, are there any objections to me modifying the article to show that this type of ealth system has been used before? Nikzbitz Talk Contribs 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, all Medal of Honor games have included a health system in the past, since the first title, so there is no need to make mention of it being used, regardless of what style of system is employed; making mention of its aspects is fine, but just leave it at that. GUtt01 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon Experience/Levels

[edit]

In the current Weapon sub-section, the weapon upgrades are described as being part of ranks in "Marksman" for regular weapons and "Sniper" for sniper rifles, along with a reference. Is this actually correct? It seems that all weapons have the same Marksman, Sharpshooter and Expert Sharpshooter ranks, parallel to that of US armed forces marksmanship levels. --Scottie_theNerd 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. There is no sniper commendation, at least on the PC.
Even though there are ranks to each level of upgrade for a weapon, such details are not relevant for the article. When I rewrote the Gameplay section of the article, I just took down the notable fact that weapons have three levels of upgrades, but without mention of rank names since it might have been problematic, and questioned over what proof there is to prove those are what they are in every version of the game. GUtt01 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA

[edit]

I was quite surprised when I read this article and found that it's not even a Good Article. I think that with a bit of expansion it could be a Featured Article. In the meantime, this article is certainly worthy of a good article. --Simpsons fan 66 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for GA. --Simpsons fan 66 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finale

[edit]

The article states that the finale takes place during Operation Varsity, while the PC version's last level is actually Der Flakturm. Would it be possible to get the article unprotected so I can add this info? 144.135.138.40 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mission title is "Der Flaktrum", but it still takes place within the real-life Operation Varsity campaign, even though MOHA's mission is a fictional event. --Scottie_theNerd 07:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that Der Flakturm can be mentioned? It is a little misleading Bizzmag (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to make mention of mission titles within the plot summary of the game. All versions of the game will include the same missions; while each one is earmarked by an operation linked to it, the final mission is a part of Operation Varsity (if only a fictional event). GUtt01 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

As this article has supposedly been "under review" for 2 weeks i will review it for you.

  • "And the 11th installment of the critically acclaimed Medal of Honor" - critically acclaimed glorifies the the subject and is WP:POV
  • Please add fair use rationales to each of the copyrighted images describing why you believe it is covered by fair use (Look at Halo for examples]]
  • as opposed to previous linear FPS games where the start point and direction is already laid out. - Giving an example of previous MOH games which had linear play would help re-enforce the developers were going for something different as this article focuses a lot on the paratroop drop. Make sure to reference it
  • The game begins in 1943 with a drop into a small walled village as part of Operation Husky, the costly Allied invasion of Sicily, followed by Operation Avalanche, the invasion of mainland Italy, where Travers is inserted into an operation near the Greek ruins of Paestum, which was used by the Axis as a staging area to counterattack the advancing Allies from the beaches of Salerno. This is one sentence, trim it down to 2 or 3 so it doesn't drag on so much.
  • The main gameplay element of Airborne is the jump - i don't like this sentence how about something like - The main gameplay element which is introduced in Airborne is the paratroop jump/drop - so its clearer to understand and introduces the topic
  • The picture of the jump can have an expanded caption to like 'Airborne introduced the gameplay element which allows players to choose where in the map they land by steering their parachute' As fair use is getting stricter and better reasoning for pictures is required.
  • Players can also instantly - remove redundancy
  • A wide range of historically accurate weapons is available in Airborne, Is quoted incorrectly, the reviewer says "sounds, accuracy, recoil, damage, and rate of fire for the weapons all seem well done, historically accurate, and relatively balanced." So he isn't saying the weapons (look) accurate but the way they act. Also, I'm not sure how one review saying they are accurate allows such a statement to be made. For example if someone reviewed a CD saying it was "the best cd ever" then i could write" 'CD' is the best CD ever in the article right? Say something like, Bob of website.com believed the recoil etc etc were all historically accurate. removed it
  • However it was felt that they didn't, didn't -> did not - to remove the contraction
  • Anti-cheat - a one sentence section is not written well, it needs to be expanded or merged with another section
  • summit in July 2007, Linking July 2007 is pointless as the article does not mention this
  • musical scores - please link this to the appropriate article
  • award-winning Michael Giacchino, what award? is it notable enough to be calling him award winning?
  • who also composed scores for some of the previous Medal of Honor games, Why not tell us which games?
  • Airborne soundtrack has been said to be, by whom?
  • The See Also section is to introduce wikilinks which do not exist in the article - EA, WWII. FPS, MOH Series are all linked in the first sentence of the article thus making this section pointless. I don't know what list of video games has to do with this article..?
  • Not required for GA but alphabetizing the categories keeps it organized
  • References 34 to 38 need formatting for publisher, date and retrieve date
  • I notice none of the web references have retrieve dates

Add |accessdate= and just use today, this is for web archive purposes

  • Dates should also have their own separate line and not be on the publisher line

|date= , when adding a date (such as today as an example) 2007-11-01 and wikilink the date and it will turn out as November 1, 2007 when viewing the references.

If you disagree with any of these feel free to comment, i gave it a more thorough review as it could soon be up at WP:FAC and people will point these things out. M3tal H3ad 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the minor things but we need more dedicated people to address the bigger stuff. --Simpsons fan 66 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the article to address the points above. It still needs a bit of updating but I will do that today. --Joowwww 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the patches section and added lots to the reception section. I've tried to keep it as NPOV as possible, just stating the facts of how people feel, and tried to reference everything I can. Please take a look at it to include it in the GA review. Thanks --Joowwww 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section was very threadbare, I was wondering if someone was going to pick up on that. Excellent work on the expansion and other tasks.Someone another 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing the GA review, but I will caution that looking at the references, there's a few questionable items:
  • None of the references cite authorship of the original work. Some of these are obviously impossible (gametrailer videos, for example). However, reviews and news from IGN, 1up, etc. have authorship and should be added (either "author = " or "first = | last =" tags in the cite web templates.
  • There's a few references citing forums as key support. This is not recommended, even if they are factually accurate. Unfortunately, finding verifiable sources for some of the complaints that forum users have had will be difficult, but to make the article better, it may be better to drop these complaints if none can be found. --MASEM 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer scale of dissatisfaction with the game is certainly worth mentioning, however I understand that forums aren't the most reliable of references. I will try to find some better sources. --Joowwww 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every game has people complaining on forums, and i do mean every. The reception section doesn't seem to discuss the critic's response to the paratroop drop which seems like a big part of the game. M3tal H3ad 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo.... M3tal H3ad 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've lost all motivation to write about this game any more. It really is rubbish. I guess I should have waited until I actually bought it before spending any significant amount of time researching and writing. A mistake I won't be making again. I know this is awaiting a GA review and I'm sorry for abandoning it, but I can't write about something I don't want to. --Joowwww 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the only remaining problem was using fan forums as a source to point out problems in the game, which are not reliable sources. M3tal H3ad 05:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

multiplayer

[edit]

I'm confused about how many players can play together online. A website ad I think said 32 for the PS3. Is this right?--Playstationdude 13:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

I think the plot section needs to be imrpoved more upon, as currently, it only generally mentions each of the battles Travers take part in, and I also think the historical inaccuracies ought to be put in a separate section. 81.235.171.21 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it a little bit. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No its wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.141.151 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The section of this article that discusses the weapon upgrades that can be unlocked, and later, the entire "controversies" section, are written in a style of wording that is biased against the game. In the upgrades section, the realism of the game is attacked. In the "controversies" section, the part of that text that dicsusses the Nazi heavy soldier also appears to be biased against the game. In fact, there's no reason for the "controversies" section to exist, because there's no controversy. A more appropriate title for the section would be "innacuracies", as the errors mentioned are technical and historical innacuracies, and the section title should reflect as much. Dreadnaught (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section title has been changed from "controversies" to "historical innacuracies" (though it is a same thing...). Section controversies aka historical innacuracies is really needed because we have a couple of serious situations which took place in the game and weren't in real life. Some people "educate" themselvs based on the computer games... "POV" tag is not needed. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I used the POV tag because there really weren't any other tags that were appropriate, and the point of view did in fact appear to be biased against the game. 65.54.154.153 (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section seems entirely unnecessary, and there are certainly weasel words present in the section. I'm going to try and clean it up, but I think it best to remove the section entirely. IMWeazel (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, if there were historical inaccuracies in this game, the question would be if they were intentional or not. If the former, its likely that EA Los Angeles created fictional elements into the game, in which case there is no need to make a section to comment on this. In addition, anything that is not neutral in tone, such as being biased against this game, is not helpful or constructive for articles made for Wikipedia. GUtt01 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

In the Infobox, the "Platform(s)" field includes "PC". I think that the "Platform(s)" field should specify a value or values from the " Supported platforms" section of the Vgclegend template. For example, if Medal of Honor: Airborne only runs on MS-DOS, then Medal of Honor: Airborne's Infobox should specify "DOS" in the "Platform(s)" field. ProResearcher (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last WW2 Game In MOH Series?

[edit]

Uh, no. Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 is supposed to be the last WW2 game in the MOH series. It came out a few months after Airborne. 64.228.214.125 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medal of Honor: Airborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Medal of Honor: Airborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medal of Honor: Airborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor: Airborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medal_of_Honor:_Airborne&oldid=1203953367"