RE: The historical test

RE: The historical test (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 4:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations. I see no deception in the title as you do. It's a game about the Civil War. Guess we'll see if the next patch brings what people are clamoring for. Be careful what you wish for though. If they truly provide an accuarate simulation then it should be unwinnable for the South. They had no chance really. I think you are overly pessimistic. True, they had virtually no chance of "winning" militarily..., but they did have some chance of simply outlasting Northern "Will". If Sherman had still been stuck outside Atlanta the way Grant was at Richmond. then the election of 1864 could have lead to a compromise peace. It was the South's best "real hope" historically...., and would be a real "challange" for a Confederate player. Otherwise I'm with Jonathan..., if it's called "The American Civil War" then at least ONE basic scenario of the game ought to be totally historically accurate. You still have the "+" and "-" buttons to adjust it with---it would just be easier to "adjust" moving away from "reality" than it would be "trying to find reality". If the designers then added in their version of a "fair and balanced scenario" as well, good for them. Two for the price of one, and something for all tastes (or most of them---I'm sure the "modders" would come up with several more for their own favorites)

Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 11:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey People expect that because it's a reasonable thing to expect. The game is entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865". If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations. If the game could be made historically accurate just by changing a setting, this would be only a minor quibble (though still a valid complaint in principle). In fact it's rather more complicated than that. But Western Civ seems to be taking the problem seriously and I hope that future patches will bring improvements. The game seems good enough to be worth improving. I see no deception in the title as you do. It's a game about the Civil War. Guess we'll see if the next patch brings what people are clamoring ofr. Be careful what you wish for though. If they truly provide an accuarate simulation then it should be unwinnable for the South. They had no chance really. I keep hearing this, but I think that is simply not true. The problem is that people seem ot have this ahistorical idea of what "winning" means. The South and the North ahd very asymmetric victory conditions. Granted, the North had a hugely greater economic/power base, but also much greater goals. To win, the South simply has to survive. Much like Washington and the Continental Army, as long as the South had an army in being, they were per force winning. The North had to invade and conquer, the South simply to survive. I don't think that was a foregone conclusion, becasue I don't think Northern will to fight at any cost was a foregone conclusion. More improtantly, from a game perspective, it doesn't NEED to be a foregone conclusion. So, you can represent the victory conditions in three different ways, that give the South a chance to win without the need to mess with actual history: 1. Instant win for massive Confederate early success. The conflict in the first year or two is so much in the Southern favor, that Lincoln is compelled to seak a peace leaving much of the South (if not all of it) intact. 2. Instant win as a result of the 1864 elections. Inadequate succcess by the North has resulted in the defeat of Lincoln at the polls, and a pro-peace Democrat is elected. The South in some state will survive, at least for a while, after negotiations to end hostilities. 3. The South loses, but the Southern player wins - if the South can hold out until some end date (end of 1865 would be good) then the Southern player wins the "moral victory". You could even throw something in there that would relate to foreign recognition. It is NOT necessary to artifically empower the South in order to make the game balanced.

Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 11:27:41 PM)
Berkut, quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut 1. Instant win for massive Confederate early success. The conflict in the first year or two is so much in the Southern favor, that Lincoln is compelled to seak a peace leaving much of the South (if not all of it) intact. This is certainly possible, however, it seems that what makes this possible is also what makes the South too strong in the default scenario from some reports I've seen. quote: 2. Instant win as a result of the 1864 elections. Inadequate succcess by the North has resulted in the defeat of Lincoln at the polls, and a pro-peace Democrat is elected. The South in some state will survive, at least for a while, after negotiations to end hostilities. This is already in the game, the South gets a 15VP bonus for the turn of November, 1864. If this pushes it over the amount required to win, or the difference required to win, that's that. So the Union has to make sure it's within 9 points of the South before this happens. quote: 3. The South loses, but the Southern player wins - if the South can hold out until some end date (end of 1865 would be good) then the Southern player wins the "moral victory". Also already in, the South starts getting "time" victory points in the late game. quote: You could even throw something in there that would relate to foreign recognition. Already in - the South can gain VPs and the North can lose them based on how Europe is going. Moreover, if the North should be lax enough to allow the possibility, there can even be intervention, though I don't see this happening in any game where the Union player is paying attention. Nevertheless, there's the chance that the Trent Affair spirals out of control, or something similar. quote: It is NOT necessary to artifically empower the South in order to make the game balanced. Sure and that's why all those others were also included, along with options to let you choose how strong or weak the South and North are. I understand some folks wish the defaults were more historical, but good grief people, all it takes is changing a few options on the in-game screen to find the balance you like. With that said, our emphasis in post-release development based on feedback has been to make things more historical where possible, so we are hearing you. Regards, - Erik

rook749 -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 11:54:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins With that said, our emphasis in post-release development based on feedback has been to make things more historical where possible, so we are hearing you. Regards, - Erik Erik, Thanks for the feed back and the attention from the developers. I’ll chirp in here in your defense. If you do use the Union +3 Power setting I have seen a far more historical feel and to me fun game – playing as either side). Granted, I would have preferred a starting default scenario to be more historically balanced as opposed to balanced with the +3 Power but over all I think they did a great capturing the Civil War era and feel. Any way Erik you can list the bug fixes and feature enhancements for the next patch? [:D] Rook

Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/9/2007 12:04:37 AM)
Well, that is kind of my point, isn't it Erik? That if all those things exist, it sould not have been necessary to "buff up" the South. If it is necessary to buff the South in order to make them capable of winning even with those kinds of voctory conditions, then I submit that they need to be further tweaked, or the game has failed to simulate some other aspect(s) that would, or should, slow the Union effort to conquer them. I suspect part of the problem is the Southern fanbois who want the South to be "balanced" by letting them fight on equal terms with the North, rather than fighting a delaying action to stave off the inevitable. That, and the testing focus being on Human vs. AI, which covers up a lot of balance issues. You just see Hard Sarge kicking ass on either side, and it seems all good... Still want to know what the deal is with the staff ratings, btw...do you have any insight on that Erik?

Maltsensation -> RE: The historical test (1/10/2007 12:17:20 AM)
I have looked this post over and have gleaned the real question to be; What settings within the context of the current version and options will approximate a reasonably accurate start for both the north and the south? I like the idea of being able to start with the conditions historically available and make decisions that will effect/change history. Can I do a better job than Jeff or Abe with the resources they had to begin the war? This thread has suggested that the starting settings need to be tweaked up for a better Union economy and down for the CSA. The biggest advantage that the south had during the war was early recognition of quality leadership and a zeal of the troops for a cause. I want to manage this small advantage and expand an economy that might sqeek by and even make a foray into the north. I want to struggle militarily as the union due to a largely inept war department and leadership. I want to manage a southern economy and hopefully keep things together long enough to fend off a northern offensive that is sure to come. I want to build a northern economy that will create an army to invade the south. Any suggestions for getting a reasonably historically accurate start? Is there a mod that does it? (I have downloaded the William Amos July 1861mod - seems reasonable, but this mod only changes a few unit and starting building issues.)

Gil R. -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 2:13:32 AM)
So I was away from the forum for a week while attending a conference, and you guys created a 9-page thread?!?!?!? After two days of putting it off, I finally read/skimmed through the whole ##!&$!#^ thing. (I hope my Moderator powers won't be stripped away for using the word "##!&$!#^.") I'll only respond by saying that for the next patch we hope to have a new, "historical" standard scenario to complement the current standard scenario. Erik is correct that changing settings should help to create a more historical disparity when playing the game currently, but it does seem that having a scenario that is imbalanced to start with and can be tweaked further would be the way to go. As I've written elsewhere, we would very much value SPECIFIC input on what changes should be made for such a scenario.

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 6:37:03 AM)
Specific change.... Population of all cities such that with all options on, one can build historical troop levels. Increased chance for muster ( both sides) Decrease the political hit for muster ( some suggest no hit, I would suggest drop it to 2 rather than 5) Increase the allowed pools from 500 to 1500. decrease the cost of Mansions, decrease the cost of containers. Increase the base starting horse setting for the Union. Decrease the max allowed research gift from european powers ( max shouldnt exceed 25 in a single turn) eliminate most of the starting Confederate navy ( leave both fleet counters each with one ship counter) Move one fleet counter to the gulf. I dont know the specifics on economy but my take is the North should have more money and more Iron then it has. How is that for a start?

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 6:51:10 AM)
Give the main confederate army in Virginia the 40,000 men it had instead of the 103,000 men the game gives them now.

hotdog433 -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 3:11:07 PM)
well it would have been reasonably closer to 90,000 as it would have included the richmond garrison troops in the shennodoah valley

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 3:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes Specific change.... Population of all cities such that with all options on, one can build historical troop levels. Increased chance for muster ( both sides) Decrease the political hit for muster ( some suggest no hit, I would suggest drop it to 2 rather than 5) Increase the allowed pools from 500 to 1500. decrease the cost of Mansions, Put a couple of "forts" in New York to match the rest of the Eastern seaboard decrease the cost of containers. Also make them basically the same "ratings" for both sides..., with the Union perhaps having a slight edge in "logistics". Increase the base starting horse setting for the Union. Decrease the max allowed research gift from european powers ( max shouldnt exceed 25 in a single turn) eliminate most of the starting Confederate navy ( leave both fleet counters each with one ship counter) Move one fleet counter to the gulf. Eliminating the whole thing would be better and more realistic. The South just didn't have anything that could function as a "Navy" in game terms. I dont know the specifics on economy but my take is the North should have more money and more Iron then it has. How is that for a start? And if you guys are "up" for a system change..., "Conscription" should not be available as a choice to start---and it should create political problems if/when you want to pass the "Conscription Acts"

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 5:21:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hotdog433 well it would have been reasonably closer to 90,000 as it would have included the richmond garrison troops in the shennodoah valley Those men are already there. I'm talking about the main army at Manassas.

rook749 -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 5:38:43 PM)
Specific change.... Polulation numbers are incorrect. White Free Colored Slave Total Military Union* 21,475,373 355,310 0,432,650 22,339,989 4,559,872 CSA 05,447,220 132,760 3,521,110 09,103,332 1,064,193 *includes MO and KY, DC, and territories KY 919,484 010,684 0,225,483 1,155,684 180,589 Notes: [1] Total includes other racial/ethnic groups. [2] White males aged 18-45 [3] VA includes the present state of WV [4] White includes "half-breeds." Which gives a 4.5 1 edge if you count slaves for both sides. In game the Union has 162 Population points versus 74 Population points for the CSA. Which gives the Union a 2.1 to 1 edge. Now, I do understand that the CSA did mobilize almost all of its men of military age and the Union not near that percentage (I can’t find any stattitics for this at the moment) as a large number of men we used to support the war effort or were against the war. So how much of edge they should have is debatable but I think 2.1 to 1 is too low. I’d prefer to see that the edge was closer to 4.5 to 1 and have the population modifers option be used to contain the Union (maybe make this so this option can apply only the the Union?) Anyone else have any ideas? Rook

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/13/2007 7:35:35 PM)
Actually I have no problem with making the population versus production option only apply to the Union IF the numbers were right. Make it so that at about half the population gone the Union begins to feel the effects in production scaling from there.

Mr. Z -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 1:34:54 AM)
Yes, these population and resource figures are right in line with our original research, i.e. what we're considering including in a "historical" scenario.

TNVA -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 7:16:20 AM)
True historical accuracy can never be achieved by those who already have the hindsight of history if the knowledge changes the accuracy of the history. Such is the situation with the Civil War. If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart. How can a simulation be considered historically accurate if the players can exercise decision with knowledge and hindsight not available to their historical counterparts, where those decisions have a significant impact on the outcome of the war? In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world. In short, we can't have our cake and eat it to. A tradeoff must be made.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 8:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNVA In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world. Yes. I really could care less whether a game faithfully recreates the number of horseshoes present in the Union depot at Poughkeepsie on February 13, 1863. Better to try to capture of the fog of uncertainty that surrounded the guy who was trying to figure out what to do with them.

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 8:56:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNVA True historical accuracy can never be achieved by those who already have the hindsight of history if the knowledge changes the accuracy of the history. Such is the situation with the Civil War. If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart. How can a simulation be considered historically accurate if the players can exercise decision with knowledge and hindsight not available to their historical counterparts, where those decisions have a significant impact on the outcome of the war? In order to simulate the strategic leader's position, the game must create uncertainty where historical hindsight and knowledge already give us the answer. The only way to do that would be to modify (change) that which we know to be historically true. In so doing, we would no longer be historically accurate with regard to actor and particulars, but we may achieve historical accuracy in modeling the complexity of the leader's decision in an uncertain world. In short, we can't have our cake and eat it to. A tradeoff must be made. Yes, I see your point, rather then make a game that allows one to follow the actually war, lets arrange the game so the loser actually has all the advantages. Lets strip the winner of his advantages BUT still require him to do what he had to do historically ( now with much less). Lets buff up the loser so that instead of trying desperately to hold on against a numerical and economically superior enemy, better organized to boot, lets fix it so that they can in fact go on the offensive and actually run all over the north. Giveing the North what they had historicall? bad idea, not good for game balance. Providing the south with advantages they didnt have? Great Idea.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 8:56:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNVA If you choose to make the actors (and other particulars) historically accurate, a player's knowledge of those actors and particulars will give a player advantages not given to the player's historical counterpart. True, but this is true of all historically-based games. I don't really see it as a problem, and there's only one way to avoid it, which is rarely if ever used: to vary the basic parameters of the game at random with every gamestart. For instance, the real commanders had little idea of the practical effect of the new rifled weapons their troops started to use. To model this, you'd have to vary the characteristics of each weapon type at random with every gamestart. If the game parameters are not historical, but are the same with every game, then the players will soon learn what they are, from experience (and perhaps from reading the manual). So you might just as well make them historical. I'd be content with a game that gave me the parameters as they were historically, and allowed me to take whatever benefit I could from hindsight. With the exception of the leaders: to know the skills of each general in advance removes such a major element of the war that I prefer to have some way of avoiding it.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 9:10:10 AM)
Maybe there can be a game about Gemany vs Poland in 1939 and we can give Poland 6 armored divisions and 2,000 planes to even things out.

TNVA -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 9:42:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey to know the skills of each general in advance removes such a major element of the war that I prefer to have some way of avoiding it. That was one of the things I had in mind. It's pretty easy to pick the right generals when you know their EXACT qualities. If only Lincoln had such insights. But it goes beyond just generals. The simple knowledge of force size (or lack of knowledge thereof), both strategically and tactically, played a critical role earlier in the war. Although the basic industrial capabilities of each side was known, the ability of each side to mobilize an army, train it, equip it, and get it moving were wildcards for both sides...in all theaters of war, at the start of war.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 9:43:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. So I was away from the forum for a week while attending a conference, and you guys created a 9-page thread?!?!?!? In fact the thread started two weeks ago, at the end of December. quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. I'll only respond by saying that for the next patch we hope to have a new, "historical" standard scenario to complement the current standard scenario. Erik is correct that changing settings should help to create a more historical disparity when playing the game currently, but it does seem that having a scenario that is imbalanced to start with and can be tweaked further would be the way to go. Thanks, I'm sure the new historical scenario will be much appreciated. I don't see it as primarily a game balance issue. It's possible to have a historically-accurate and balanced game -- and the game already has a mechanism to achieve that, by giving the South extra victory points for holding out longer than it did historically. The main issue is that things that were possible in reality should be possible in the game, and things that were impossible in reality should be impossible in the game.

sven6345789 -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 11:22:28 PM)
put this into another thread, but it better its into this one The war had four turning points 1)summer 1862 (Lee and Bragg->southern counteroffensive stopping an early Union victory) 2)Fall 1862 (Antietam and Perryville; South is stopped, no recognition by europe, democrats do not win a land slide victory in the mid term elections, also provides basis for emancipation proclamation) 3)summer and fall 1863 (Gettysburg, Chattanooga and Vicksburg; North on course towards Victory again) 4)summer 1864 (horrible losses of the union and standstill in front of Richmond/Petersburg and Atlanta almost lead to democratic victory in 1864 election) Only after the capture of Atlanta and the Shenandoah campaign of Sheridan against Early Lincolns reelection was assured, leading to the only now inevitable outcome of a Northern Victory all this is about battles and the home front reacting to it (esspecially on the union side) a victory at Antietam/Sharpsburg or Gettyburg or a longer standstill in front of Atlanta could have resulted in recognition of the confederacy by europe an eventually a democratic Victory in the 1862 and 1864 elections The population bonus of the north did not really help. since the union had difficulties finding people who were willing to fight; actually, during all of 1861 the armies of USA and CSA were about the same size. regarding economics, the union had to import arms up until 1864. in early 1862, most of the troops on both sides were still equipped with muskets;during 1862, this changed on the union side; the CSA followed in 1863; the rifle meant that the attacker needed at least a 3:1 advantage to succesfully win (at Fort Fisher, the ratio was 4:1 (8000 union against 2000 "rebels", with the union loosing 1000 men in the attack, and this after a gigantic 800 ton bombardement by 60 warships); so if you attack often, you loose more men. up to what i have seen now, the game copies this rather well. The only thing not well presented are the possibilitys opened by naval warfare (historically, by april 1862 all ports except Charleston and Wilmington were closed to blockade runners, try to accomplish that in the game) but then again, i haven't seen a single game capable of accomplishing that (VG Civil War, For the People, they all fail) regarding the availability of generals, there is a chance to randomize and hide the stats. you still get good generals, but it takes a while to find them

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 11:40:21 PM)
quote: The population bonus of the north did not really help. since the union had difficulties finding people who were willing to fight; actually, during all of 1861 the armies of USA and CSA were about the same size Wow. Where do you get this stuff? The North had no trouble finding men to fight. They got more than 2.5 million while having a huge increase in production. The union army had 575,000 men at the end of 1861 and the south had 326,000, That's a long way from 1 to 1.

sven6345789 -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 11:47:59 PM)
the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized. The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/14/2007 11:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sven6345789 the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized. The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority How about something to back that up. What source says the confederates had more men than the Union in june 1861?

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 12:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 quote: ORIGINAL: sven6345789 the total number of the union men capable of taking up arms was much larger than the number of men actually mobilized. The superiority was 3.5:1 in total number of white men capable of taking up arms the actual superiority of men wearing uniforms were 2,5:1. in June 1861, the CSA had a larger army than the union, this slowly changed during 1861 (that is what i meant, boy are you guys picky), and by 1862, the union actually had the 2.5:1 superiority How about something to back that up. What source says the confederates had more men than the Union in june 1861? This is not at all unlikely. Lincoln called for 75,000 "3-Month Volunteers" to help the US Army put down the rebellion. But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South. But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states. And when in spite of inferior numbers the South won at Bull Run, complacency set in in the South while the shock of reality hit the North. At that point the numeric edge shifted to the North and never looked back.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 12:28:25 AM)
The US military had a strength of about 24,000 men in april 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in April. He called for another 42,000 in May and increased the size of the regular military by 38,000 in May. In both calls for Volunteers the states exceeded their quota. That's a minimum of 179,000 by june.In mid July the Union had 64,000 men in Virginia facing 39,000 confederates. That's not counting the men in the Washington defences. Surely the confederates would've sent more men to defend their capital and most populous state if they had them.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 1:04:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 The US military had a strength of about 24,000 men in april 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in April. He called for another 42,000 in May and increased the size of the regular military by 38,000 in May. In both calls for Volunteers the states exceeded their quota. That's a minimum of 179,000 by june.In mid July the Union had 64,000 men in Virginia facing 39,000 confederates. That's not counting the men in the Washington defences. Surely the confederates would've sent more men to defend their capital and most populous state if they had them. All true..., but remember that most of the 24,000 "Regulars" were on the "frontier" and would remain there. And the 75,000 "3-month" volunteers of April would have "gone home" by August. And both sides had Governors who wanted to keep "their boys" home to protect the State (though this was much more prevelant in the South where so many states had vulnerable coastlines). That at some point in the Spring of 1861 the South might have had more men "on the rolls" than the North is not unimaginable----but as you point out the North was virtually always superior in numbers along the border "conflict zones". Lacking a Navy, and with substandard internal communications lines, the South had no choice but to spread units all along it's vulnerable coasts. The "skimped" a bit in the Winter of 1862 and lost New Orleans as a result. They were truely between "a rock and a hard place".

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 1:09:13 AM)
Most of the 75,000 3-month men reenlisted and almost all of the regular army fought the confederates. Look up the regimental histories.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9677734