I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Tarhunnas -> I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 9:42:05 PM)

I used to be OK with the 1-1 rule, I understood that it was connected to the Soviets taking higher casualties. But now I have had two examples in the same turn of situations where that rule seems to skew things a little too much.

First. I have encircled some Soviet units near the Crimea. This is after my turn.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/7A91A77811A64F10A855BEC6CC15917F.jpg[/image]

Edit: Typo in header.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 9:45:26 PM)

The Soviets naturally counterattack to free their entrapped units. I would have done so myself. The attack succeeds, solely because of the 1-1 rule, and I take a lot of tank casualties retreating.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/C9264B9DB3984FD8963564A08D7393E3.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 9:48:02 PM)

Here is another one from the same turn. Exactly the same thing! I had surrounded an advancing stack of Soviets, but naturally, they blow away my encircling units thanks to the 1-1 > 2-1 rule!

[image]local://upfiles/37384/6A415D908A50400E99FF92E649992512.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 9:51:22 PM)

This mechanism might be ok in 1941, but in 1942 and later, it leads to some strange effects. It is futile as the German to try to cut off Soviet spearheads, something the Germans were experts at. You will only incur greater casualties yourself as the German. And it is so easy to do as the Soviet. I do the same thing myself. Once you calculate you have somewhat better than 1-1 odds, it's fix bayonets and "Hurrah!"



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 9:54:55 PM)

Tarhunnas, I'm not a huge fan of the 1-1 rule myself, but...really?

You're using the wrong game to make your point here. This is the match where you are on cruise control to either win on points or perhaps even nab an autowin.

There's simply no evidence in this particular game that the 1-1 rule is having a poor effect on balance at the macro level because, well, you've basically won the game. If anything, this game is practically a poster child for keeping the rule, if you were to examine this game only.

That being said, I do think there are good games out there spotlighting problems with the 1-1 rule.




Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:00:25 PM)

I am not trying to make a case for the 1-1 rule causing problems in the macro sense. On the contrary, I am saying it causes problems in the micro sense! Tactically, it is just futile for the Germans to try to cut off Soviet spearheads, because the inevitable counterattack will succeed in most cases due to the 1-1 rule. This is not the first time this happens.



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:06:43 PM)

For me as a matter of design philosophy it's more important to determine if the rule is delivering the correct results at the macro level.

Individual combats don't matter very much. They are practically anecdotal evidence. Statistical noise, really, and they tend to be terribly subject to confirmation bias. We remember the worst ones and don't always extrapolate correctly from a handful of results.

I do think a case can be made, however, that the 1-1 rule causes problems at the macro level. (Although it is difficult to determine if the 1-1 rule is itself the problem, or it is a problem in combination with other things, e.g. forts, morale, etc.) But I wouldn't draw that conclusion from this game in particular. The opposite in fact.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:12:28 PM)

Certainly, it is important that the game yields the correct results at macro level. Nevertheless, as my point here was its effect on the micro level, it really doesn't matter what game it was in.



Pawlock -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:27:12 PM)

Not sure you picked very good examples at all, lets see both cases outnumbered at least 2 -1 in inf, 4 -1 arty and 4-1 afv's in 1 and also air support in 1. Also the attacker has taken double your casualties.

I can also dig up results showing zero , big fat zero german casualties v 1-2000 soviets.

Cant see a problem here.



Ketza -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:29:51 PM)

The thing is as an Axis player in 1942 onwards knowing the Soviets have the odds shift impacts the way you play.

Say you have a situation where you can get a pocket created and cordon it off with Panzers in open terrain. The Soviet player does not need to "pile on" to get good odds on one stack to break the ring. He can launch multiple attacks along your whole corridor with less troops and potentially retreat/rout several stacks of Axis Panzers. I do this as a Soviet Player. It makes sense from a mathematical approach. The shift allows the Soviet the freedom to launch more attacks which in turn causes more Axis retreat casualties that either even up the casualties or skews them in the Soviet favor.

Now as an Axis player after you have been smacked around like this a few times you begin to wonder why you are even risking your best troops in this type of manner. It actually makes the best sense to attack and scoot behind forts as staying out in the open is mathematically going against you.

Does any of that make any sense?



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:35:19 PM)

Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games.

It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered.

It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.)



sveint -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:45:35 PM)

Nevermind.



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 10:48:56 PM)

The rule kicked in. Any final combat odds result greater or equal to 2 or less than three will include the modifier in it.

However, what we're not seeing in this particular game is some kind of situation where the Soviet has managed to abuse the rule to create goofy results at the strategic level. Quite the contrary. The Soviet is hanging by a thread. I would therefore conclude from this game, that the Soviets need all the help they can get, if this sort of game was standard. It is not. It's an outlier.




Ketza -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 11:12:07 PM)

I think it 1942 onwards a capable Soviet Player should be able to implement proper attacks using appropriate units, leadership, refit, organization and army makeup (expenditure of APS to build units).

Part of what the shift does is "dumb down" Soviet play by allowing success when some of the above mentioned is not done properly. Now this is not so bad if you have an untested Soviet player but in the hands of an expert Soviet player you begin to see the macro impact. Someone doing everything right and fielding a corp heavy army, led by good leaders, organized and logistically sound with the shift bonus is a nasty combo.



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/27/2011 11:17:22 PM)

Yes, and an experienced Soviet player with a good intuition of the game can also contrive to maximize the number of such marginal, but successful attacks. The high casualties from them act as a break only when the Soviet has nothing in the kitty.

If the experienced Soviet player can force a stalemate, wait a while, build up a hefty replacement nest egg, and then go nuts...then, yeah, I can see things going off the rails. By the time the Red Army runs dry, the Wehrmacht will be smashed to pieces.

This is the dynamic that worries me.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:46:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Not sure you picked very good examples at all, lets see both cases outnumbered at least 2 -1 in inf, 4 -1 arty and 4-1 afv's in 1 and also air support in 1. Also the attacker has taken double your casualties.

I can also dig up results showing zero , big fat zero german casualties v 1-2000 soviets.

Cant see a problem here.


Look at the combat values. The 1-1 is there supposedly to offset the Soviets taking greater casualties, and they do, but those same losses should also reduce their combat value. In the first example, German CV goes from 138 to 64, Soviet CV goes from 135 to 92, almost similar change. The Soviets still win the battle because of the 1-1 rule, thus inflicting a lot of retreat casualties, probably the majority of the German casualties here. The Socviets don,t take twice the German casualties, they take 1.5 times the German casualties, and that is a rate the Germans can't sustain. Admittedly, the Soviets have a massive air superiority here that is probably affecting things, but the 1-1 is the crucial thing, and one might ask if the 1-1 is there to enhance the effect of the Soviet air force?

In the second example, German CV goes from 100 to 106, Soviet from 134 to 133. 1-1 kicks in and the Soviets win. In this case, Soviet losses are twice the Germans, but even losses of 2-1 is advantageous for the Soviets in the long run, especially as losses like these will grind down the German mobile units.

The effect is that from 1942 onwards, the Germans cannot risk using their mobile units in the role they were used, in penetrations and cutting off of enemy forces, not unless they have a massively superiority and can create at least a two-hex wide line of encirclement. This will have the effect of the game tending towards a grinding slugfest.

I have myself as the Soviets ground down German attempts at penetrations in 1942 by counting on the 1-1 to kick in and it is fairly easy.



misesfan -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 10:04:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Ketza, that makes a lot of sense, and is in fact the kind of macro effect I would take seriously. We're seeing this happening in some games.

It's not clear if the problem is the result of the 1-1 rule as such, or that in combination with other things, but it has to be considered.

It's the stalemated games in 1942 that are testing the game engine to destruction. This game that Tarhunnas is using here just isn't very interesting from a design standpoint, it isn't showing anything wrong or overpowered about the Soviets. (If we were looking at this game only, we might even consider the Soviets need help, or that the Germans needed to be ratcheted back. Note I do not actually believe this, but that's the conclusion I would draw from this single and very exceptional example. I don't in fact believe this is going to be a standard game result. It's an outlier.)



I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside.

What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest.



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 10:10:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwieland

I dont think it should matter if the particular game in question is one in which the Germans are rolling. If this is the game between him and Q-Ball, then Tarhunnas got smacked around fairly well by an opponent that not only lost its largest industry base in the north, but its own capital. And I bet when 1943 and 1944 rolls around the crushing manpower advantages are going to allow Q-Ball to field massive stacks of doom. Already, German spearheads are getting pushed aside.

What should matter is if the rule is needed or simply used as a fudge factor in order to generate more than the usual German casualties. I dont know, but am reading the arguments for both side with interest.


It is from my game against Gids, featured in the AAR The Wolf and the Bear. I am doing well in that game, but as you say, it is really immaterial what particular game it is from, it is the effects on gameplay that is interesting, both on the macro and micro levels.

I didn't have anything against the 1-1 rule before, but I am becoming more and more doubtful about it as I play more in 1942 and 1943.



ComradeP -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 11:12:05 AM)

The odds modifier can, and does, in many cases make it easy for the Soviets to break an encirclement that's only 1 hex wide. Now before you say "encirclements should have a ring that's more than 1 hex wide": that's not going to be possible when encircling spearheads or when wrestling your way into a Soviet carpet. The rule also turns the game into a mathematical exercise for the Soviets.

Aside from that, Axis casualties are still fairly high from those attacks. The only kind of attacks where you can get good loss ratios as the Axis are usually the attacks where the defenders have few mortars, because mortars cause the majority of the casualties and even 50 morale/experience crews can do a lot of damage. A single mortar battalion/regiment in support tends to inflict more casualties than 6 artillery regiments, even though the artillery regiments have (when full strength) 6 times as many guns, with a higher calibre in most cases, combined.



coolts -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 11:27:57 AM)

Can someone point me at a thread expliang the 1-1 rule please? I think i'm coming across something similar in my '42 GC vs JZardos Soviets. Even when attacking with overwhelming odds and winning, i'm getting 1-1 casualties! Is that what it means?

Forum search function. yada yada yada........[&:]



Tarhunnas -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 12:09:23 PM)

I don't know if there is a thread that explains it fully. I will try here: The combat mechanisms make the Soviets take higher losses than the Axis, this is to account for Soviet tactics etc. As a sort of compensation, whenever the Soviets are attacking and the final odds is 1-1, the odds is shifted to 2-1, the odds needed to force the defender to retreat. Those two things are connected. However, forcing the defender to retreat causes the defender to take retreat casualties, which are often the majority of all casualties, so retreating or not is pretty important.



Peltonx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 3:22:55 PM)

In my game vs Hoooper he attacked from north to south averaging 30 attacks per turn for 6 turns.

The first 6 ish turns of attacks were vs level 3 forts. His loses were hvy, but not that bad. Almost every single attack was at even odds but jumped to 2v1. All my hexes had atleast 30 def cv most were 40 to 50.

I posted results of attack on my thread, he was wining basicly 85% of the attacks. His losses were hvy 3-1, but he had no problem replasing them. My loses could not be replased. His army grew in strength and I was being pushed out of my high level forts. So from turn 80 to 90 he was able to break the German army completely.

So 100% because of the 1v1=2v1 rule the German army had less then 16k rifle squads on April 1st 1943!

I have been inflicting 160k deaths a turn on his army and it has grown by 1 million men. Now its turn 100 and hes got stacks of 30 to 40 attack cv and I am defending with 1 cv infantry divisions.

The 1v1 = 2v1 rule is a joke end of story.

--- Attacks --- Retreats --- Held

SHC ---186--- 160 --- 26
GHC --- 45 --- 40 --- 5

Net Hexes - 78

Losses from turn 74 to 80
------- --- Men --- Guns --- Tanks
GHC --- 330,788 --- 9,960 --- 1,315
SHC --- 964,370 --- 15,638 --- 3,985

OOB difference from turn 74 to 80.

SHC --- + 696,866 --- + 19,957 --- +360 --- +5998
GHC --- -160,288 --- -3,702 ---+120 --- +120



marty_01 -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 3:34:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

This mechanism might be ok in 1941, but in 1942 and later, it leads to some strange effects.


+1

Agree. Although if I were king, I would keep the 1:1 thingy at least through the end of the Soviet winter offensive of 41-42. I might be tempted to keep it through the end of summer of 1942 depending upon more extensive play testing results.

I'm not sure the rule is needed in 1943+ given the amount of combat power the Soviets have by that point in the game. And from a vague historical perspective their operational doctrine and the ability of the average combat formation to implement doctrine is far different in 1943 than it was in 1941. Not that the 1:1 thingy -- as far as I can tell -- is really solidly grounded in anything historical. Moreover, I'm just saying that Red Army capability, training, morale, etc. is a completely different kettle of fish in 1943 vs. what it was in 1941. A game rule that supposedly addresses doctrinal differences between the German Army and the Red Army -- operational and/or tactical contrasts in fighting styles -- would have to “realistically” be in a state of flux as the war progresses and both Armies’ doctrine and combat capabilities change. For example (and in game terms): Perhaps in 41-42 the Soviets get the supposedly high combat casualty ratios along with the 1:1 push. But by 1943 to 1945 their average combat related casualties start to decline on a battle-by-battle basis and they require 2:1 for the push.

The 1:1 thingy is a function of how the game currently depicts Soviet and German unit combat power, as well as how odds are calculated within the game engine. The 1:1 thingy arises in order to keep the Soviet player interested in the early game and to keep the German player “operationally honest” in 1941-42. As such, I think the game currently needs the 1:1 thingy for the Soviet side -- at least in 41-42. But ultimately, I think the silent majority thinks the 1:1 thingy is purely a play balance related mechanic with some vague attempts to justify its inclusion via nebulous discussions about Red Army Doctrine of the period.

Unless a complete reassessment of the games modeling of unit combat power and the CRT occurs, you can't simply toss out the 1:1 thingy without affecting many other critical aspects of game play, game balance, and game interest. Read again: Regimented-Organized-Structured (whatever) play testing needed for games that span 1941-45. And: Play testing shouldn’t be about how play testers get their favorite pet rock into the game.



abulbulian -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 4:38:19 PM)

I have posted many times in the past about play balance when the game first came out.  Some people initially attacked my issues and suggestion and personally was well.  [:'(]

It took a while but finally the devs and testers did make many changes to give the axis more of a chance to survive till 45.  [&o]

People have to remember why they are asking for changes.  Is it to give one side a historical trait or factor they should have or is it for balance. From what I have seen lately I don't think there's any issues with the game balance that people can prove with certainty.  By that I mean using the game victory conditions, which means Berlin does fall(or vic pt calc) in 45 for a draw game.  So far I've seen games mostly split on the AARs.  Somebody jump in and correct me if I'm wrong?  So until WitE comes out with a variant 'add-on' that will allow possibly a stronger axis which more troops or better production, axis players have to get use to the idea of struggling in 42 and being pushed back in 43 onward against an opponent of equal skill.

I still do believe that the axis player in a CG41 game has more of a challenge in 41-42 than the Soviet player as there's little room for error.  So far I've enjoyed every cent of this purchase.  As far as the 1-1 rule, I just don't think there's enough evidence to remove it or allow it only on certain years yet.

I do think the combat engine needs some tweaks as there too many examples of battles where a units exp/morale (German examples mostly) does not seem to contribute the way it should towards enemy loses or friendly loses. As wells as ANT units not being decimated when hit with 10:1 odds and caught in open.  Would be nice in future to see some sort of 'overrun' rule.

[8D]



Peltonx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 7:50:08 PM)

The problem as I see it is we alrdy know whos going to win the game during the summer of 1942. I am on my 12 campiagn and have read most of the AAR's. If the German army is unable to pocket units during the summer of 42 its over for one very simple reason.

The 1v1=2v1 rule. The Red army by turn 74 will be close to 8 million strong and be able to attack at least 20 hexes a turn at even odds causing retreats.

We alrdy KNOW no guessing needed the results.

1 millionish dead russian 330,000ish dead Germans withen 6 turns. The Russian OOB keeps growing and the German cant recover.

The Russian player simply keeps attacking for another 14 turns and its over game set match German army will have less then 16k rifle squad.

All the 1v1 = 2v1 attacks also lower the German moral, which will never recover.

I am hoping Q-ball doesn't sandbag it vs Tarhunnas so we have another game proving that 1v1 = 2v1 will be the death of wite or any other product that 2/3 try to put out based on this game.

Drop the 1v1=2v1 on last turn of Dec 42.

1v1 = 2v1 is a pig of a rule.

You can put a dress on a pig and make-up, but its still a pig and not a super model.

Pelton



ComradeP -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:06:08 PM)

Pelton: the way you're attacking, making charges with your spearheads that are often isolated far away from their supply sources, in 1941 is just as ahistorical as the way you're being attacked now, so keep that in mind when you're asking for changes.

The losses have little to do with the odds modifier as such. Odds don't decide the losses. The losses are often bad for the Axis in general when defending and that's in part due to retreat attrition and in part due to the losses taken in battle that primarily seem to come from mortars, although the losses when the Germans are defending are mostly high "by German standards" and usually don't come close to the losses the Soviets can take in 1941.

quote:

And: Play testing shouldn’t be about how play testers get their favorite pet rock into the game.


Luckily that isn't the case.



Flaviusx -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:17:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is from my game against Gids, featured in the AAR The Wolf and the Bear. I am doing well in that game, but as you say, it is really immaterial what particular game it is from, it is the effects on gameplay that is interesting, both on the macro and micro levels.

I didn't have anything against the 1-1 rule before, but I am becoming more and more doubtful about it as I play more in 1942 and 1943.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because the flow of the game is central to determining what to do here. I think your game against Q-ball and some of Pelton's games as well make a strong case for doing away with the 1-1 rule precisely because of the macro effects.

This game against Gids doesn't prove anything, and in fact tends to show that the 1-1 is necessary for the Soviets even as late as 1943 -- if we assume this to be a relatively standard game, as opposed to an outlier. But I think that all other things being equal, the 42 stalemate games are going to be more standard, and the 1-1 rule has to be judged in that context.

Also, it may just be possible that with a few changes elsewhere to make the 42 campaign more mobile, the 1-1 rule could be ok. But that rule in combination with premature stalemates at the strategic level is very problematic. Or we may have to change it anyways even with changes to the fort and morale rules to reintroduce mobility into the 42 situation.

The 1-1 rule imo has no particularly bad effect on the 1943 scenario, btw. That's because by that point the Soviet is mostly getting attacks well above that. It's in 42 that the problem arises. Getting this transitional period of the war right is quite the challenge.



kirkgregerson -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:26:49 PM)

I think the WWI type of combat that can occur in many games come 42 is more of a result of forts and Soviet ANT units. To me the 1:1 combat result is less of an issue for game play.

As stated the axis player just can't afford to hammer these ANT units in lvl 3-4 forts and take equal loses or almost equal loses. Like abulbulian has already mentioned, these ANT units usually just retreat or route back and can be recycled back into a fort line 4-5 hexes deep. An overrun rule will help to remove this as well as limiting fort building for the Soviets in 42 outside of city/urban hexes.

I guess for some reason this is a bigger problem to solve, because it really seems like a no-brainer to me.



ComradeP -> RE: I've necer complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:34:28 PM)

It's a bigger problem. Opinions differ on what the problem consists of, but to me it's mostly a problem of casualties.

-Even though high experience units fire more often in battle, effects of having high experience are generally underwhelming for the Axis in terms of the casualties they take from indirect fire. Soviet Rifle squads rarely hit anything even if they fire, but as soon as the Soviets get their mortars out even barely trained conscripts give the Axis infantry a pasting that tends to ruin the loss ratio for the Axis.

-Hasty attacks usually don't do a lot of damage (which is fine), but mobile units don't have the MP's to make deliberate attacks and advance in the same turn, which is a problem.

-As there's no "chase" segment for combat, casualties caused by mobile units are often a bit underwhelming. A unit with very little mobility and no safe route for a retreat, like a Rifle brigade/division in a clear hex, can just walk away with low losses from a 90 morale/experience mobile unit.

-Retreat attrition for guns is fairly high. The Soviets can take that, the Axis can't.

-There is no period for recovery for the Axis due to the constant attrition, which shrinks the Wehrmacht every turn.

The odds modifier leads to some of these problems, it's not the direct cause of any of them.



Peltonx -> RE: I've never complained about the 1-1 rule before, but now... (7/28/2011 8:41:45 PM)

I am kinda surpised you have no idea how this game works when you got 5 little starts by your name.

First off read what I am writing and not make up some fairtale BS.

I am talking about Dec 42 to the end of the game and not about 41 to Dec 42.

Did I say 1 single thing about before Dec 42?

LOl when a unit retreats it loses moral which lowers its CV value, plus you take loses. Because you LOST the battle. Guess you haven't figured that out yet.

Come on if your going to reply to something have some clue as to what your talking about.

1v1 < 2v1 = you retreat lose moral and lose equipment and men more then if you won the battle.

1v1 = 2v1 100% effects the game totaly throwing it out of balance starting in December 1942

Pelton



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625