Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 6:17:50 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

HI,
so far, I have 3 suggestions:

1- better sounds on strategic map mode (i'd like to listen to my units moving, bugle, drums, boots :-)

2- movement arrows visible in the strategic mode. I'd appreciate to see deployment arrows to gave a visual of the global picture.

3- a button in detailed combat to swith to "instant auto resolution"f I start to be bred with a battle or simply, if I have to stop urgently the game.

Guys, continue the wish-list :-)

Post #: 1

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 6:32:48 PM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

HI,
so far, I have 3 suggestions:

1- better sounds on strategic map mode (i'd like to listen to my units moving, bugle, drums, boots :-)

I'll pass on this. That kind of stuff seems pointless.

quote:

2- movement arrows visible in the strategic mode. I'd appreciate to see deployment arrows to gave a visual of the global picture.

Seconded. It's important to see where I'm moving my units from. And an UNDO key would be nice also. Currently you cannot undo orders.

quote:

3- a button in detailed combat to swith to "instant auto resolution"f I start to be bred with a battle or simply, if I have to stop urgently the game.

Hit 'q'. It will not instantly auto-resolve, but it will play the rest of the battle out automatically.

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 2

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 6:42:27 PM

SLTxDarkknight

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/4/2005
Status: offline

an undo button hmmm, i guess that would be like sending a rider after the courier you sent out with the orders, wouldnt that take away from realism?

< Message edited by SLTxDarkknight -- 7/1/2005 6:44:26 PM >

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 3

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 6:51:59 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

no, because when you are planning your orders i strat. mode, the unit doesn't actually move before the turn's resolution phase. So, before to press "end turn button" you theoritically still have time to cancell the order. no ?
and anyway, gameplay would be much better with this button (it's not a RTS !!!) until validated (by "end turn" it should be possible to change orders.

(in reply to SLTxDarkknight)

Post #: 4

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 7:11:57 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLTxDarkknight

an undo button hmmm, i guess that would be like sending a rider after the courier you sent out with the orders, wouldnt that take away from realism?

Yeah well there are times when you mis-click too and that has nothing to do with changing your mind. I HATE when I spend a long time doing a turn, accidentally click somewhere and miss and have to reload or eat it (as Spain one time, I accidentally had my Fleet picked up after checking its status and went to pick up a Merchant and misclicked and sent my entire Fleet to it's doom against the Brits...)

_____________________________

(in reply to SLTxDarkknight)

Post #: 5

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 7:27:16 PM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

I agree with Uncle_Joe - it is simply too easy to mis-click. I am not big on role-playing that I am a commander, so the alleged "realism" objection doesn't bother me in the least, but if the intention were to make players "send couriers" I would expect each order to have a confirmation dialogue: "Send Grande Armee I to Flanders? OK/CANCEL". This would obviously be pretty clunky so I'm glad that hasn't been done. But the fact that it's easy to accidentally click the mouse and then have an entire carefully-planned turn ruined (and have to go back to an auto-save - how "realistic" is that?) makes the lack of an Undo button a real problem.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 6

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 7:37:01 PM

Cyrano

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/28/2001
From: USA
Status: offline

Took a day off to play at home :):

Nukkxx et al. are absolutely correct. Many undo buttons are needed, not just for movement orders, but notably also for treaties. If, as I understand it, this is all built around WEGO, there should be no limit to the amount of changes you can make before hitting the "resolve" button...THEN you're stuck.

2: I strongly second Nukkxx's suggestion that movement arrows persist after moving a unit. One area (and there aren't many) where I prefer the EUII presentation (yes, I realize it's RT) is that movement arrows would slowly "fill" as a unit moved. No need for that here, but arrows to a province would be a welcome reference.

3: You guys are aware of the text that pops up in the options box, viz.: "still under development", right? No harm, just looks messy.

4: While the mini-map zoom is nice, having more than one level of zoom on the main map would be even better. Particularly zoom OUT.

NOT a request, a compliment: LOVE the fullscreen mode. Well implemented.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

_____________________________

"Gentlemen songsters off on a spree, damned from here to eternity, God have mercy on such as we..." -- The Whiffenpoofs

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 7

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 7:47:13 PM

SLTxDarkknight

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/4/2005
Status: offline

LoL Joe been there several times move my dutch fleet and accidently send them all to davey jones locker vs the Brits...so I can see that line of thinking and have been converted

(in reply to Cyrano)

Post #: 8

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 8:27:03 PM

Beorn

Posts: 134
Joined: 6/24/2005
Status: offline

It might be nice to have either a tutorial on detailed battles, or an option to set up a practice battle. As it is, you inevitably mess up your first game when you come to your first major battle, just learning the basic workings of the thing.

(It might also be a good idea to have a simple message saying "Quick battle due to less than 30,000 combatants)

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 9

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/1/2005 8:47:48 PM

Hanal

Posts: 2312
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline

As mentioned in another thread, the ability to easily save the game during a tactical battle is a must!!!!!

(in reply to Beorn)

Post #: 10

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 3:57:22 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I have finished studying the manual and will start my first game tonight. The rules that jumped out at me as maybe needing a second look are:

1. On page 24 it states that Depots are free to build but have an upkeep cost. On page 28 on the build chart it lists Depots as costing 50 money.

2.This is simply opinion, but I think that the chance for Lancers to break an infantry square is to high. Instead of 40% maybe 20-30% unless the infantry is disordered. Also when it is raining I think this chance goes up to 60% for Lancers and 40% for other regular types of cavalry. Again, I would lower these chances a bit. I could agree with the percentages against disordered Infantry.

3.Likewise, I think the Artillery penalty of 80% is to high for firing at targets that are lower than the firing unit. I think that 60% would be plenty of penalty.

4. I think that the non-French nations are able to produce Corps to easily and to early. Historicly, non-French nations didn't embrace Corps organization until after 1806. Being able to produce Corps so early in the game has to diminish one of France's advantages early on.

5. As I understand it, Austria and Prussia get both Feudal Militia and Landwehr that are tied to their Feudalism level. I think that Landwehr should be separate and opposed to Feudalism as the Landwehr reforms were a liberal reform used to create large national armies, as opposed to the former autocratic type military establishments. To create Landwehr, Prussia and Austria should have to lower their Feudal dues and risk the civil unrest. That is the reason that Austria was very loathe to embrace the Landwehr reforms since it couldn't really trust an armed and ethnicly poliglot citizenry and only raised large numbers in 1808 and later; these being mostly German. Prussia, being much more ethnicly cohesive, made a better go at it, but only raising large numbers in 1813 and later.

6. Finally, a nation that Surrenders must do so to a nation and all it's allies. With a Limited Surrender, it can peel off certain nations and unravel a coalition and be left only fighting the ones it chooses, potentially. I don't see any severe repercussions for the relations between a nation that abandons it's coalition and leaves its allies holding the bag. There should be some very bad blood generated. Also, it seems that in Raleigh's AAR for Spain that Austria made a separate peace with France and left Spain still at war with Austria. I thought that France got a Surrender but this should have meant that Spain would have been at peace as well as France and any other allies of France in that war.

Granted, I have only read the manual thoroughly once and haven't played the game more than a few minutes, but from a rules/system perspective, this is all I can find to even question. Also, after I actually play a bit some of my slight objections might go away. I would appreciate and comments from the testers on these topics. Overall, this game seems like a dream come true.

< Message edited by Arinvald -- 7/2/2005 6:10:09 AM >

(in reply to Hanal)

Post #: 11

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 4:09:00 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

I have finished studying the manual and will start my first game tonight. The rules that jumped out at me as maybe needing a second look are:

1. On page 24 it states that Depots are free to build but have an upkeep cost. On page 28 on the build chart it lists Depots as costing 50 money.

Per turn, in upkeep.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 12

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 4:13:27 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Depots are listed as costing 50 to create and 15 per turn upkeep on the chart on page 28. On page 24 it says that they are free to create with only the 15 upkeep I assume. Which is it?

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 13

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 4:24:01 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

I believe it is free placement, 50 gold per turn.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 14

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 4:38:16 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Yeah, I just placed one and my money didn't decrease. Thanks.

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 15

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 6:09:27 AM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

6. Finally, a nation that Surrenders must do so to a nation and all it's allies. With a Limited Surrender, it can peel off certain nations and unravel a coalition and be left only fighting the ones it chooses, potentially. I don't see any severe repercussions for the relations between a nation that abandons it's coalition and leaves its allies holding the bag. There should be some very bad blood generated. Also, it seems that in Raleigh's AAR for Spain that Austria made a separate peace with France and left Spain still at war with Austria. I thought that France got a Surrender but this should have meant that Spain would have been at peace as well as France and any other allies of France in that war.

Absolutely. I clamoured about this a number of times during the beta. If you think its bad with the AI, I hate to see how human players would abuse this ability.

The biggest things I'd like to see are:

1) More econ data displayed in-game rather than on paper. Also, agree on a consistant number to be displayed. For the econ generation, its shown in multiple places as different numbers with some being net, others gross, and others I dont know. Consolidating the info and displaying it consistantly would dramatically help people understand the econ.

2) The Surrender system could use some looking at. As above, I think a surrender to one should be a surrender to all. Note that 'full' surrenders DO work that way now. But currently the points given to each nation that you surrender to will often devastate your nation so its rarely (if ever) worth it to even consider a surrender. Historically, Austria surrendered a number of times to preserve the army. I cant imagine wanting to do that here.

Also on the surrender front, you should be able to create the 'terms' and send them to a party you are at war with for acceptance or refusal. For example, France can say to Prussia, "We can have Enforced Peace for 12 months and in return, you give me the province of 'x'....yes or no?". On the flip side, it would be nice to be able to offer something for peace rather than having to fight it out to the bitter end or else be forced to drop 'em, bend over, and wait.

On the bright side, I believe that many things (including the above) are being looked at for the future. Hopefully the first patch will address these types of issues and others that will undoubtedly be uncovered now that its being played by 100's or people instead of 10s.

_____________________________

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 16

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 12:13:52 PM

Rowly

Posts: 14
Joined: 6/6/2005
Status: offline

Folks,
I'm new to Matrix games but would like to see the following: (I've only just started on the game so be gentle)
How about in detailed combat mode) the ability to orientate the map to yourself. i.e. view it from your perspective (chess, tabletop battles some other computer wargames)

The Appendices on which buttons to use were a bit lacking. I jumped straight into the game and couldn't work out how to skip a unit. (pressing the space bar)

Lack of options when in a detailed combat. Couldn't work out how to end the game when dinner was called!

I'm sure I'll come up with some better suggestions the more I play it....
Cheers

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 17

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 4:18:51 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

After absorbing the manuel and returning here to read all post-release threads, I am too exhausted to propose any tweaks or enhancements. Just one sentence: make the patch(es) available asap. ^(~,~)^

(in reply to Rowly)

Post #: 18

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 5:57:43 PM

Zan

Posts: 21
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline

Appears like cancellations in COG was not an issue for the devs.Like none of us make errors.Movement and unit production cancellations is my request.

Also an option to speed up or slow down battles.I like to look at the casualty numbers, but find they disappear too quickly.

Having to slide the production bars in the production screens is a bit of a pain.Why not have a + or - at either end of bar?Would make fine adjustments easier.

An explanation of each upgrade on the upgrade popup would be nice.

< Message edited by Zan -- 7/4/2005 6:03:00 PM >

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 19

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 5:59:28 PM

El Vis

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

1) More econ data displayed in-game rather than on paper. Also, agree on a consistant number to be displayed. For the econ generation, its shown in multiple places as different numbers with some being net, others gross, and others I dont know. Consolidating the info and displaying it consistantly would dramatically help people understand the econ.

I fully agree.

Additional I wanna say, that the percentage slider in the province management is imho not a good idea. I would prefer to distribute real manpower than their percentage.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 20

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 9:00:35 PM

shoevarek

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline

It seems to be great game. However here is my widhlist:

1) Undos - add it to some screens (like production, unit movement) and fix the other. For example on treaty screen when I choose to make counter proposal and than change my mind the cancel button actually results in rejecting the treaty.
2) It would be great to have ability to select other nations - especially in scenario that start from 1792. If Sweden or Spain are treated as a major powers of this period (and they were poor guys lucky to exist on the suburbs of Europe) why I can't select Polish&Lithuanian Republic? I remember in UE through simple edit of config file it was possible to change selectable countries? Is it possible in this game?
3) Sorted lists - this is what all games sold by Matrix lack.
4) The pseudo animations on the game selection screen could be removed.
5) The area of the game option screen seems to be not refreshed properly when end game option is selected.
6) Fonts are fency but not easy on the eye.

By the way - could anyone tell me how to make unit upgrades? In manual I found the section about upgrades but nowhere I can find how to actually make them in game

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 21

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 9:51:18 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

2) It would be great to have ability to select other nations - especially in scenario that start from 1792. If Sweden or Spain are treated as a major powers of this period (and they were poor guys lucky to exist on the suburbs of Europe) why I can't select Polish&Lithuanian Republic? I remember in UE through simple edit of config file it was possible to change selectable countries? Is it possible in this game?

By the way - could anyone tell me how to make unit upgrades? In manual I found the section about upgrades but nowhere I can find how to actually make them in game

For playing other nations, I'm kind of against that myself. Thats what causes problems in games like EU2 IMO. If you allow people to play 'minor' nations, then they still want it to be interesting and possible to win. Trouble is, for the most part these nations had no chance to 'win', so adjusting the game to allow for it (and to make it so playing them isnt boring), you are screwing around with the feel of the majors. YMMV

As far as Upgrades...improve your Barracks and Culture and you get upgrade choices. Look on the Military upgrades tab on the Econ advisor. It shows what you know and your 'upgrade level' when you have more 'level' than picked upgrades, you will given a selection to choose from.

_____________________________

(in reply to shoevarek)

Post #: 22

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/2/2005 10:14:52 PM

Franz von G

Posts: 36
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

-Change the "weight" of the Free Passage in treaties, it's too much; u can bring quite every nation on your side of a war simply offering 5 years of free passage on your land.. and if u are, for example, Britain, is not really a problem

. Maybe change the weight between nations: less for Brit, Russia,Spain and Sweden, more for France, and more for Austria and Prussia.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 23

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 12:53:25 AM

kerguelen

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline

suggestions

-detailed treaties with minor countries
-not only unconditional surrender
-ai should know what to look for in peace treaties and not take provinces far away from their country.
(e.g. in my games France �n 1792 took Silesia from me (Prussia) and Tyrol and Croatia from Austria (they took the 'illyrian provinces' in 1809 (when there was not much else left to take) and Tyro they gave to Bavaria in 1805. - So having order surrendering Paty to give a Province to a minor ally should also be possible and used by the AI, it would be historical), on the other Hand France wasn't interested in the Rhineland and in the Austrian Netherlands (it might be a Problem that they are listed as protectorate, historcally they wre simply part of the Hapsburg Empire like the rest of Austria, unlike Tuscany, which was a secundogeniture) although those were the first provinces France took in the revolutionary wars.

(in reply to Franz von G)

Post #: 24

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 1:09:24 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Heh you guys have some "great expectations" for a mere "patch". Patches are mainly to fix "bugs" remember? And sometimes a little "minor tweaking". Many of you are asking for complete new changes or workovers for this game. Not likely to happen. Maybe in the "next game", but, some of these wishes are just too far fetched to even consider in a patch. Remember WAD. It's the way it was designed to play. ;)

(in reply to kerguelen)

Post #: 25

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 1:12:39 AM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

Don't know if I'm missing something but there doesn't seem to be an option for deploying your troops prior to a detailed tactical battle.

I've had a few detailed battles tonight and they're much more detailed and involving than I thought they might be. Especially since I turned the delay up so the speed of the messages and casualty counts is slower. However I really miss the ability to deploy my troops prior to the battle.

In Rome Total War that was half the fun of the battle and getting it right could make all the difference. In CoG your units are just placed on the battlefield in seemingly random order.. it's not even entirely obvious where the enemy is going to appear from. I'm sure in most cases historically the opposing force commanders would have an opportunity to arrange their forces prior to the battle and I really miss this feature. I would love a patch to allow me to place my divisions.

< Message edited by Banquet -- 7/3/2005 1:14:09 AM >

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to kerguelen)

Post #: 26

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 1:18:51 AM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

There is no opportunity to deploy your units. Units are placed on the battlefield roughly in organizational order, so if you have two corps, the units of that corps will be placed closer to each other than they will be to the units of another corps. Thus, it is bad to keep the "Reserve Artillery" corps as it is for France at start, because that means the artillery will be placed together all by itself. That is the reason for the need to create combined-arms corps. But you have no direct control over how the units are palced on the map.

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 27

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 2:12:19 AM

shoevarek

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

for the most part these nations had no chance to 'win', so adjusting the game to allow for it (and to make it so playing them isnt boring), you are screwing around with the feel of the majors

That was not what I meant - there are different ways of winning - it can be conquering the world or just survival. Anyway that is what the players that choose Sweden, Spain, Turkey or even Prussia will do anyway. Those countries are either old and sick or wanna be European powers (Prussia). Still they are not in the same league like France, England, Russia or even Habsburg's empire. Adding few other countries would make it more interesting. Another way of choosing difficulty level

Anyway everything depends on the flexibility of this game design. In EU it was fairly easy to change scenario setup.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 28

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 2:20:26 AM

Chaldkydri

Posts: 11
Joined: 7/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Don't know if I'm missing something but there doesn't seem to be an option for deploying your troops prior to a detailed tactical battle.

I've had a few detailed battles tonight and they're much more detailed and involving than I thought they might be. Especially since I turned the delay up so the speed of the messages and casualty counts is slower. However I really miss the ability to deploy my troops prior to the battle.

In Rome Total War that was half the fun of the battle and getting it right could make all the difference. In CoG your units are just placed on the battlefield in seemingly random order.. it's not even entirely obvious where the enemy is going to appear from. I'm sure in most cases historically the opposing force commanders would have an opportunity to arrange their forces prior to the battle and I really miss this feature. I would love a patch to allow me to place my divisions.

quote:

is no opportunity to deploy your units. Units are placed on the battlefield roughly in organizational order, so if you have two corps, the units of that corps will be placed closer to each other than they will be to the units of another corps. Thus, it is bad to keep the "Reserve Artillery" corps as it is for France at start, because that means the artillery will be placed together all by itself. That is th

I don't recomend that. mainly becuase when you head into a province you don't know where the enemy is and i supose the battle begins when scounts detect the other force and really you're just out of the marching collum and in RTW it might have been more realistic for soem battels if you jsut moved along and had to form up under attack.. Not all battles.. Though it does suck when your supply carrsion are on the other side of the field. you have to ssarcfraice a few divisions to get them...

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 29

RE: Wish List: Suggestions for a future patch - 7/3/2005 2:33:49 AM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaldkydri
in RTW it might have been more realistic for soem battels if you jsut moved along and had to form up under attack.. Not all battles.. Though it does suck when your supply carrsion are on the other side of the field. you have to ssarcfraice a few divisions to get them...

That did happen in RTW sometimes (ambush)

It's difficult to judge how accurate it is to be able to deploy your troops before a battle.. but just about every game I can think of (Total war series, SPWaW and all Steel Panther games, Combat Mission, etc) give you the opportunity to have at least some control over where your units are deployed.

The only exception to this is historical battle's where your units are placed where they actually were. In other cases (like HttR) your forces are predeployed but you usually start the game sufficiently far from your opponent to sort things out.

In CoG it seems to all kick off before you have any input into positioning and this can lead to some confused battles. That's great and realistic in some situations, but I don't think it should be that way all the time.

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Chaldkydri)

Post #: 30