Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming 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.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 10:26:10 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Contradictory information regarding the civil war is something you have to get used to. The bias of the researcher factors in, they can scew there research numbers to show what they want to show. I was in combat, and the histories of the battles I was in are so screwed up its not funny and thats today. I imagine how things were back then the only thing you could count on is yes the North did win, and yes Lee and Grant were generals.

No not quite that bad but always keep that in mind when reading said researchers data. And the information they are using is from reports that were made by people with, in many cases, there own agendas. Sounds familiar doesnt it? You can read newspapers from back then for some information but keep in mind we know how reporters always tell the truth.

Always keep that in mind. Think like Sherman, you will not be far from the truth.


I know. This applies to many things and situations, not just the ACW.

I was in an ACW reenactment unit in about 1969 or 1970, just before I went in the US Army, Infantry. Bow-wow. Line-doggies.

Never underestimate your enemy. Think as your enemy thinks. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Never assume ANYTHING. Blah, blah, blah.

AAA-0, Anything, Anytime, Anywhere, Bar None! 39th Infantry Regiment, Paddy's Gang, WWI = part of the 4th ID Poison Ivy, WWII = 9th ID the Old Reliables, Vietnam Era = 9th ID and 8th ID, Today = 2nd Bn/39th IR at Fort Jackson, SC.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 331
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 2/5/2007 2:39:09 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artmiser

Im trying to figure out what you were saying in regards to the 28th. What furlough? reading the very detailed account of the regt I dont see anythign about it, which is typical of regimental histories. I do know that if 28th reenlistments was average for the northern 3 year units that would be around 30%. And 30% of 1552 is 450, plus 1100 brings it back to Strength. The Regt was never more over Str then it originally was, and the 1100 is the number of men it took to bring it back up after most of the orignal discharged.




The furlough is mentioned on the website that you linked.

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 332
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 3/30/2007 6:14:03 AM   
Artmiser


Posts: 179
Joined: 12/4/2006
Status: offline
Actually is Said this.

The campaign ended, the division went into winter quarters at Bridgeport. In December the Twenty-eighth, with many other regiments, re-enlisted for three more years, and soon aftertook their departure, on veteran furlough, for their distant homes. Upon the expiration of this time the command again concentrated at Bridgeport, whence it proceeded on that long and toilsome march and unparalleled career of military brilliancy which terminated only with the overthrow of the rebel army and annihilation of the Southern Confederacy.

On the 18th of March, 1864, Colonel Ahl resigned and was mustered out of the service, and on the following day Lieutenant Colonel John Flynn was commissioned Colonel.

Does not really say how many reenlisted.

During the four years' service of the Twenty-eighth Regiment, its casualties were about equal to the number of its original muster and, although in its organized condition it served in twelve different States of the Union, and was engaged in as many skirmishes and battles as any regiment in the United States army, it never lost a single wagon or ambulance or any other description of property, by allowing it to fall into the hands of the enemy. The officers were frequently changed in consequence of deaths, resignations and promotions, the regiment having had four Colonels, four Lieutenant Colonels and nine Majors. It also produced one Major General and three Brigadiers; viz: �Hector Tyndale, Ario Pardee, Jr, and John Flynn.
The members of the regiment who remained at the end of the war were mustered out of the service on the 18th of July, 1865, and were heartily welcomed home, their privations, sufferings, labors and gallant services having endeared them in the warmest affections of the highly gratified and truly grateful loyal people of the country. Their soiled, torn and tattered flags, carried triumphantly through so many bloody battle-fields, attesting the unfailing courage of the men who bore them, have received a hallowed place in the archives of the Commonwealth, whilst the brave and noble soldiers who fought beneath and around them, have returned to the peaceful pursuits of life and the enjoyment of the multiform blessings their struggles and triumphs have secured to their country and the world.

Of course it also says..

Regiment lost during service
6 Officers and 151 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and
3 Officers and 124 Enlisted men by disease.

Total 284

The Standard 10 to 15%


Was getting tired of this back and forth but could not let it appear that I had conceded anything.

_____________________________

Former Marine
Retired Deputy Sheriff
Wargamer untill I die

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 333
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 2:03:52 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
Bought the game a few days ago. The computer wargaming genre has been missing a good Civil War game and this one fills the void.

I been playing a few games as the South and it is striking that the economy is what need to be improved in the game.

1)
Even with poor economy setting, the economic growth is simply HUGE. The factory, mine, horse camp is what build the economy. If you have those 3 you can practically get all the rest.

Since factor and mine cost 40 units and horse camp 30 units and they produce +2 (+4 for mine if having iron works though!) the leist productive of these 3 is factory which

means 40 , +2 and that is 5% profit per turn. One year is 24 turns so 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 24 times will be 3.23!

In 2 years it is 10.40, so you can get grow too fast.

Even with poor economy option, the profit would be 0.75 out of the 5% so it means 3.75% proft and in 2 years that is still 5.85 which is still an enormous growth.


1 year(24 turns) ,, 2 years ,, 3 years
5% growth ,, 3.23 ,, 10.40 ,, 33.5
3.75% growth ,, 2.42 ,, 5.85 ,, 14.16
2% growth ,, 1.61 ,, 2.59 ,, 4.16


You can see that with the higher growth numbers, the conomy will explode in 1864.

Solution should be that the resource bulding cost more so that they give less % profit. Another solution would be to make mansion and plantation ALOT more expensive and that would mean initially you can build economy fast but when your cities hit thier support limit you have a tough slow barrier to break to expand. A combo of both would be good.

Solution Alternative a) mint, mine, horse camp, factory cost 100% more to build

Solution Alternative b) mint, mine, horse camp, factory cost 70% more to build, mansion and plantation cost 100% more to build


2) Manpower
There is no real manpower limitation since you only need men for new units? Correct me, but can I not reinforce hundreds of thousand casulties using camps without using a single "men" resource?
I would LOVE to see manpower usage when reinforcing anda penalty system where say you have

Richmond 10 pop
Atlanta 5 pop
Baton Rouge 2 pop

When you reinforce it first takes from the largest richmond so Richmond will eventually be 9/10 pop
then after that Atalanta will become 4/5 pop
if you reinforce more Baton Rouge becomes 1/2 pop

If you see 9/10 is 90% left so Richmond will have no manpower penaly
Atlanta is 4/5=80% and gets a small manpower penalty next man they recruit
Baton rouge is 1/2=50% so they will get a heavy penalty for future reinforcement.

Worth to be noted is that the usage is in priority of those with highest % manpower left so baton Rogue large penalty will not bs used for a while since first Richmond for instance would need to be at 4/10 (lower than 50%) before Baton Rouge is used.

The manpower penalty sets in and increases for new recruits depending on what you have left, so when Richmons is down to 4/10 for instance they will have quite a manpower penalty (quality?) since they are starting to recruit young men and old men instead of the prime manpoer, also they are forcing recruiting hence using the less motivated part of the population.

Currently it is easier for south to reinforce than north since they have so much horses. Maybe camps should also cost some mint to build to somehow restrict this exploit (since soldiers want wages) and also REINFORCING SHOULD USE UP MANPOWER and there needs to be a manpower penalty when you recruit a too large part of your population.

Worth to be noted is that since the economy is flexible, the horse advantage of south is more of a starting block effect, in long term you will build production of the resources you lack so it will even out. The total economy is what is important. Weapons and Mint work abit different since you cannot turn them into the other resources while you can use workforce, iron, horses producing weapons and mint.



< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/7/2007 2:49:28 PM >

(in reply to Artmiser)
Post #: 334
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 2:43:54 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
1) It would be easier for the player to start most Western Gens. out west, including having Lyon and Fremont in St. Louis and Price in SW Missouri and McCullough in NW Arkansas at the Start of the July and coming Fury and Standard Scenarios. It's just easier, whether 100% accurate or not. Perhaps put McCullough in Austin, TX.

2) Based on my game play and personal historical but unavoidable and very slightly subjective analysis of the weapons in the Guns.txt file, it does seem some weapons such as the Lorenz and others may be a bit too steep in cost and have an effectiveness far beyond historical reality. Arty. costs are alos high.  Anyone with any reasonable knowledge of ACW weapons would state the same thing, that is the weapons' effectiveness in the Guns.txt filke are a bit off, and enough so to affect games in a negative and unhistorical manner.

3) For the ships ditto 2).

4) Mints, I like them as is, but if the time to build them is lengthened somewhat slightly, then perhaps they could be made to give 3 Money points instead of 2. Also, to weasle in something like a computer CSA victory or defeat in Arizona and New Mexico would be interesting, with a victory giving the CSA an immediate influx bonus of maybe 50 Money and perhaps a 10 - 20 Money per turn income. This would reflect or model CSA control of the silver and gold mines out in the Far West. if a CSA defeat is generated, then perhaps any CSA troops stationed in Texas would be hit with a one time 10 or 15% loss in manpower. If a USA victory then the USA gets the same Money bonuses as in the CSA victory, and if a USA defeat is computer generated the same troop deductions in Topeka as the CSA gets in Texas.  Something simple but interesting and fun.

5) Infantry and other Combat Arms units running about the HW screen just completely ruins the HW aspect of the game for me. Those little baloons are just so cute, and ridiculous. Perhaps make an Engineer unit for both sides that can have Baloons, and also Naval Riverine Gunboats.

6) Turtledove: It wan't me that first mentioned Turtledove, but rather about 10 or so other people. However, there are some similarities apparent.

7) Brigade sizes: a) Huge Early War Brigades with max strength of 3,500 or 3,600 or 4,000; b) Large Mid-War Brigades with max strength of maybe 3,000; c) Small Late War Brigades with max strength of maybe 2,000 or 2,500 or 2,600.  When these time periods start and brigades are reduced in size, the excess troops are assigned to depleted troop units regardless of Arm of Service and any remaining excess troops are simply dispersed to Cities to fill up the City manpower Icons, and any further remaining excess troops are simply discharged and vanish.

Chris




_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 335
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 5:23:29 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
I realise I can set the "power adjustment" in the main menu to low levels to get a slower economy (especially since the new buildings you build will produce less and be less profitable) but that will also make science facilities slower as well? Also it would put even more emphasis on getting the early blockade runners to succeed since the starting income of everything is so low.

I think for now I will just double the prices of mine, horse farm, mint, labor   and get a nice fun game with struggling economy for the south instead :)

A further effect this will have is that buying military stuff early on (like ironclad for instance) will be more appealing since the payoff is no longer so huge investing in economic growth

By the way, great game! 

< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/7/2007 5:26:14 PM >

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 336
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 5:55:26 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
firwepoerjohan,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I'm wondering, though, whether you're playing the released version of the game (with patch 1.23), or are using the public beta patch? I get the sense that you might not be using that patch, in which A LOT of things have been changed. (See the sub-forum for more details.) Once Eric (= programmer) and I know which you're playing we'll be able to address your posts better.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 337
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 6:07:48 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

firwepoerjohan,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I'm wondering, though, whether you're playing the released version of the game (with patch 1.23), or are using the public beta patch? I get the sense that you might not be using that patch, in which A LOT of things have been changed. (See the sub-forum for more details.) Once Eric (= programmer) and I know which you're playing we'll be able to address your posts better.


The 1.23 normal version I am playing, yes.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 338
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/7/2007 6:16:40 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
I thought so. You should read over the description of what's in the beta patch, even if you don't want to play with it until it's officially released: you'll see a TON of changes. One of them, you'll be happy to see, is that the costs and function of camps has been significantly changed, so that they require fewer horses AND have a chance of depleting population levels in a city. There have been various other economy-related changes, too. Also, several western generals now start out west (Polk, Grant, etc.), so you don't have to waste two turns moving them from Richmond. The Guns.txt file has also been changed with respect to several weapons.

The New Mexico idea (#4) can't be done for this patch, but please add it to the Wish List so that it won't fall between the cracks. (As for changing build time and output of mines, that can be modded (as you seem to have discovered).

I think I've covered all of your points. Let me know if you have further questions.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 339
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/8/2007 3:51:22 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I thought so. You should read over the description of what's in the beta patch, even if you don't want to play with it until it's officially released: you'll see a TON of changes. One of them, you'll be happy to see, is that the costs and function of camps has been significantly changed, so that they require fewer horses AND have a chance of depleting population levels in a city. There have been various other economy-related changes, too. Also, several western generals now start out west (Polk, Grant, etc.), so you don't have to waste two turns moving them from Richmond. The Guns.txt file has also been changed with respect to several weapons.

The New Mexico idea (#4) can't be done for this patch, but please add it to the Wish List so that it won't fall between the cracks. (As for changing build time and output of mines, that can be modded (as you seem to have discovered).

I think I've covered all of your points. Let me know if you have further questions.



I have registered now and downloaded the Beta patch. It seems there is alot of great improvements and it seems you are working hard for perfecting the game and listening to customers, I am impressed

Now, I have seen that still Resource Development buildings are way too cheap and it gives a too sttrong exponential growth that makes CSA very wealthy despite being blockaded.

If something has a profit of 5% per turn and you can reinvest that profit without much restriction you will get an exponential growth. The difference between having 5%, 3.75% or 2% will be enormous after 3 years.

As I said before, the poor economy option or power +/- options in the main menu can slow down that growth drastically and make the game balanced but it would also mean that the countries starting production levels are very low, so you cannot affort buying any military units for the first 1-2 years i.e until you have properlyu industrialised.

I think I will make all resource development buildings 80-100% more expensive in the Bldgs.txt script and have myself a great game


< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/8/2007 3:52:28 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 340
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/8/2007 8:42:26 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
firwepoerjohan,
I'm glad you like the new, improved version of FOF. Regarding the resource development issue, you're right, except I'd point out that if you do reinvest those profits you won't be buying enough for your war effort. When I play the CSA, and I've played it in all three scenarios, I find that I can't build nearly as many of these economy-boosting buildings as I'd like, since I need money for all sorts of things, labor for hospitals, etc. etc.

I'd be curious to hear how the game goes with your modded version. Please let us know your impressions.

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 341
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/10/2007 3:53:14 PM   
firepowerjohan


Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline
I have now been testing the game with my mod.

1) Buildings
These ones in Bldgs.txt I changed and roughly doubled the building cost of them thereby halving the profitability.


name money labor iron horses buildTime
Factory 0 45 30 0 4
Horse_Farm 0 60 0 0 4
Plantation 0 100 0 130 12
Bank 400 10 0 0 4
Mint 0 15 65 0 4
Mine 0 80 0 0 6
Iron_Works 200 200 0 0 24
Mansion 150 10 0 20 4

I played CSA and with these numbers I still got a great economy. I had like 15 factories and 15 mines and that is the key. Building plenty of those in the first 12 months is vital to success and enabled me affording loads of camps, RR stations and hospitals in 1863.

Maybe hospital, arsenal and especially RR station need to go up in price as well.

Still, one problem with this is that BANK now become a huge factor. With buildings having a 2.5% profit per turn and while CSA start with 4 banks and USA 9 banks they can get 4% or 9% pre turn in interest profits and that has to change.

One way would be to set "MaxInterestIncome 50" in Acwconstants.txt


2) AI:
Is the AI dependant on diffculty level? Its aggression?
I found in the normal patch that US navy blockaed my ports and that had bad effects on my diplomacy and runner economy.

SEA AI:
The beta patch AI SEEMS more focuses on hunitng runners but it does not spread out much and sometimes it gangs up (afraid of counters?) and just put ships in the ocean instead of blockading. In 1862 it had like 20 naval units outside South Carolina and my 3 runnders could freely collect their revenue elsewhere.

To me it should be 4 evident naval tasks for US navy
1) blockade port , most effective task early on
2) hunt runners , most profitable later on if CSA has alot of runners and when USA has alot of navy to fight any CSA counters
3) naval invasion , should be used from time to time
4) destroy enemy navy , need naval superiority

When US has huge navy they should be more aggressive and spread out more to get most effect. Only counter to this is that CSA can gang up on and defeat portions of the USA navy but US navy can then use strategy 4 at times and then switch back again.

A nice distribution would be that depending on the number of naval units USA has it gets different distribution between the 3 strategies (number 4 is just a temporary thing when CSA navy show up). Strong navy then you are going to have more % using strategy 2 and weak navy then you will use strategy 1) mostly, but there should be some random involved.

LAND AI:
Also in 1862 the US AI (owning fredricksburg) is more passive After a "On to Richmond strategy" in 1861 that failed, the East theatre US AI just sat somewhere near Washington and waited. Western US attacked Memphis and later on ft.henry plus ft.donelsson. USA held fredricksburg though. Not until I send great numbers of forces to Memphis in late 1862 it seemed to trigger them to attack and they took Lynchburg swiftly. I ofcourse lost, but next time I will be more careful.

There is a "AI_IdealOddsx100 160" in the Acwconstants.txt
Is that for the grand scale or tactical?
What I mean is, I had large CSA army group in North Carolina awaiting any US invasion in the East. Does the "160" means they need to have a theatre superiority to conduct invasions or is it more for closer distance (1-2 territories away?) and could that been why the USA did not even try to walk to Richmond until I went West?

It is much harder for CSA if the USA press on Memphis, Richmond at the same time since their numbers are greater.

3) Resource limits.

LaborCap 1000
IronCap 1000
HorseCap 1000
GunsCap 1000

I found those abit more fun and I did not quite understand the meaning having the previous low limits, especially CSA would have to throw horses away within a year


< Message edited by firwepoerjohan -- 4/10/2007 6:19:14 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 342
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/10/2007 4:14:47 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
Ehh. I will make everything a bit cheaper, including weapons and ships and some buildings, and adjust some of the resource types used to buy these goodies. Being cheap is fun, and if you change the 'p' in 'cheap' to a 't', then you have 'cheat' and that can also be fun.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to firepowerjohan)
Post #: 343
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 4/25/2007 11:03:12 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Frankly, I'd like to at least have an option to just have historical production and development (ideally, affected by gains and losses on the battlefield). I just don't see Lincoln or Davis or anyone else having much effective control over what was developed or not developed in the course of the Civil War.

Of course, ratching up the demand for guns, money, and troops should make the states howl -- but there's a certain air of unreality in building up various cities as if you're Joseph Stalin and this is the first Five-Year Plan (Chattanoogagorsk, Selmagrad, Raleighopol). Being able to choose between tactical developments is even stranger. After all, it was Cleburne who decided his division would be drilled to deliver effective, accurate fire, not some higher-up in Richmond.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/25/2007 11:06:36 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 344
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 7/2/2007 6:59:27 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Just to let you all know, I've unpinned this once mighty thread. It will slowly slip away to pg. 2, then pg. 3, and so on...

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 345
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 7/2/2007 8:02:48 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
... old threads never die.... they just fade away....

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 346
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 7/2/2007 9:47:37 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
Reminds me of the old game of "Hot Potato". Oops!

_____________________________

You've GOT to hold them back!

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 347
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 7/2/2007 11:16:52 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
So what's this? We're treating this thread as a hacky sack, trying to see how long we can keep it up?

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 7/3/2007 6:49:10 AM >

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 348
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 7/3/2007 6:47:11 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

So what this? We're treating this thread as a hacky sack, trying to see how long we can keep it up?


Four score and seven posts ago
Our moderators brought forth in this forum
A thread conceived for suggestions
and dedicated to the proposition that both sides be equal


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 349
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141