Jump to content

The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling


Recommended Posts

Tom,

I say "good bit", you say "little bit", whatever. I don't chide folks without doing so politely / constructively (I don't post anything that I wouldn't say to someone face to face) and I see nothing to chide about in your post (or my prior post either, for that matter) at all. I'm sure the change is a "crowd pleaser". I'm just wondering how Steve arrived at the threshold level. For instance, did the beta folks who are combat veterans say "okay, that's about pushing the max ... beyond that you're looking at supermen", or just how it was determined. That's all I'm asking. I played a scenario and a couple of quick battles last night trying to get a *feel* for the change. I have no empirical data to support the gut feel that my comment "good bit more room" is based upon. I make, no representations that I do.

To be more specific in description (though, no more empirically based than my "good bit more room" comment), my perception is that I was able to really *push* troops forward with advance orders and didn't have to concern myself with suppression fire as much as I had with v1.0. Also, it didn't seem that the troops were tiring as easily (which may partially explain the heightened panic threshold - as, I believe fatigue affects morale).

[ November 22, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Agua:

Tom,

To be more specific in description (though, no more empirically based than my "good bit more room"

comment), my perception is that I was able to really *push* troops forward with advance orders and

didn't have to concern myself with suppression fire as much as I had with v1.0. Also, it didn't seem

that the troops were tiring as easily (which may partially explain the heightened panic threshold - as, I

believe fatigue affects morale).

OK smile.gif

We agree

I only played one game and it did feel different than v1.0

I agree...

"my perception is that I was able to really *push* troops forward with advance orders and

didn't have to concern myself with suppression fire as much as I had with v1.0. Also, it didn't seem

that the troops were tiring as easily (which may partially explain the heightened panic threshold - as, I

believe fatigue affects morale)"

OK

I too am curious and wonder if Steve is interested in answering your questions.

-tom w

[ November 22, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

murpes,

I don't know if it's the patch or me paying carefull attention to tactics in these forum - or a combination of both - but I played a most enjoyable game last night.
I think it is probably mostly tactics, partially the 1.01 patch. The tweaks we made probably gave you just enough room for error that your new tactics really took hold well. I bet that if you tried that game with 1.0 you would have had similar, but perhaps not as spectacular, experience vs. previous games.

Ben

A question for Steve (which I suspect I know the answer too...) Does the TacAI have any concept of supressive fire?
Yes, it does. However, it also weighs supressive fire benefits to ammo expendature. It is true that if you shoot at something, even if it is a bad shot, you might have a limited positive result. The thing is that the TacAI has to be careful about not being too trigger happy. Also, several units firing at the same difficult target also has an accumulative effect that is greater than each individual unit's capabilities. But this is something the TacAI can only do a limited about of guess work about (it does think about accumulative fire to some extent).

The only occasions I have had trouble with over watch units not firing is when advancing on an area where troops haven't been spotted yet. new enemies appear (at some fairly low spotting level) and pin my advancing troops, while the supporting troops usually just watch (I'll try to keep a saved game the next time I see it happen).
Try using Cover Arc commands for such actions. That is primarily what the order was designed for. It basically tells your units to pretty much shoot at just about anything they can see within the arc. Ammo usage goes way up and your units will be spotted more easily, but if that is a tradeoff you feel works for you then use the Cover Arc command.

Is the TacAIs idea of a 'good shot' is one that has a decent chance of causing causlties?
As sated above, the answer is "yes it understands that covering fire need not necessarily cause casualties, but unless it thinks there is a good chance of keeping the enemy unit pinned, it won't fire at it". To do a test, put an enemy squad in a foxhole in woods at 200m. Put another enemy infantry unit in open ground at 300m. Have a couple of HMGs sitting around with no orders and a friendly infantry squad or two in order to draw fire. Start up the game and move your sacrificial squads forard to draw fire. You will likely see both HMGs open up on the enemy squad in the open, but not the one in the woods. If you don't see that, try moving the enemy squad in the open to the side.

Now repeat this test without the enemy squad in the open. It is likely that your HMGs will not fire at it. Then repeat the test but give one of your HMGs a Cover Arc command and see if things happen differently.

Agua,

I realize the chance of going back to v1.0 infantry morale-under-fire model is slim to none (and "Slim" has left the blah, blah) but, could you explain how, or why you determined the v1.01 threshold level for panic, break and rout of troops under fire to be appropriate?
The values are just plucked out of our butts smile.gif The truth is that there is absolutely no statistical refferences for how much fire will make such and such a unit in so and so situation behave in this or that manner. So we basically have to make it all up.

So why did we change things? Even supporters of the new infantry modeling suggested that good quality troops were just a tad bit too likely to Panic even when handled propperly. We felt there was room for some small tweaks in this way so we did that. I expect Conscripts and Greens won't notice much of any benefit from the changes. Likewise, Crack and Elite troops aren't likely to behave that much differently either. This is primarily a Regular and Veteran tweak as it plays out.

I also don't think tactics can be that much sloppier than 1.0. Sure, you might retain control of a unit or two you might otherwise have lost to Panic, but it is unlikely that the attack attempt or defensive position will in the end be more effective. In other words, a platoon goes out into the open and then turns around for cover, hits the dirt, and takes casualties without effectively doing what you wanted it to do. Maybe the minutia of the bogging down of the attack is a bit more forgiving, but in the end your attack still failed.

At least that is the way it is supposed to be smile.gif

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It was one heck of a battle but I got a Minor victory. I would say the infantry model is still bordering on brittle (but I don't mean that in a bad way smile.gif ). The Russian units were Veterans and they did panic when they took NO casualities but this only happened on one occasion in the whole battle that I could see. I would say that is an improvement over last night.

I also replayed DoVG last night with the new patch. I can't say I noticed units being any more effective in an open advance of 100 meters against a single MG - they still panicked and routed quite quickly. Though the MG seemed to actually do more damage =) and loosing more guys justified the panick and routing. So oddly enough, that works for me =)

I actually saved the game right before the advance and tried various techniques: giving my maxims cover arcs,or having them lay area fire on the buildings while my 'toons advanced, are two examples. I tried splitting the plattons and sending the SMGs on the advance while the riflers covered along with the maxims. I retryed about six times in all. Every time the result was the advancing plattons getting nuked.

In the end nothing worked and I have to accept that it just isn't a workable strategy under the circumstances. I toyed with the idea of posting the game on here asking for people to look at it and suggest what would work or confirm its not a sound approach. I may still do that but under a new topic.

I've been playing CMBB assuming the Move command hadn't changed from CMBO - that Advance and the others were speciality commands intended for unique conditions. I'm finding however that where the Move command will repeatedly result in a platton being pinned and clawing in any direction for the nearest cover;with the Advance command the platoon will press on toward their intended destination even when pinned they'll crawl, and even under heavy losses. So where before my human wave or move orders were resulting in maybe a casualty and then a panic or routed platoon - with advance a platoon pushed on that last 15m to the cover I intended despite five casualties.

Long story short, Advance is what I use to move units if there is even a remote chance of them coming under fire. Where Move was once a fairly versatile command, it is now imho a specialty command. The only time to use it is when your way from combat.

[Edit: Apparently this is all in the FAQ which I hadn't read yet]

I've also I guess been assuming that units were equally likely to fire at questionable targets without having to specify covering arcs being assigned. So I guess I've been somewhat handicapped by relying on what I had already learned in CMBO. Perhaps the hard core types who had little trouble adjusting to CMBB from CMBO were/are just more aware of how orders changed from their being actively following the forums.

I want to suggest that the manual could have done a better job of conveying the usage of the orders.

Hell the manual could have done a better job on conveying the usage of some of the more uncommon units.

And the manual's tutorials are nearly impossible to follow without some pictures and I believe the Advanced Tutorial has a mistake where its suggesting Team A move right, then later says something along the lines of Team A should now be nearing the Left side Hill. huh?! Yeesh.

Probably it sounds like i'm just lashing out at the manual now since the game has been established as perfect but really I'm just too lazy to mention this in another thread and organize my points better.

And Steve... well I'm too lazy to convince you that you do sound patronizing when you begin using metaphors like rain getting people wet to illustrate the complexity of an AI problem. Then again your only really guilty of misjudging your audience.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: somazx ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agua:

I'm sure the change is a "crowd pleaser". I'm just wondering how Steve arrived at the threshold level. For instance, did the beta folks who are combat veterans say "okay, that's about pushing the max ... beyond that you're looking at supermen", or just how it was determined.

I don't see why it should be assumed the 1.01 thresholds were arrived at in a manner much different than 1.00. I'm sure the patch was being used by the beta test team long before we got it. Having said that, I would be surprised if there are any beta testers who have been in a squad that broke under fire in combat.

I also question the notion that sloppy tactics are now easier to use. Units will still pin as easily as before, they just don't panic as quickly. For reasons I spelled out in a post earlier in this thread, I believe this is more realistic.

DOH! Steve posted while I was typing.

[ November 22, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments.

Originally posted by James Crowley:

If we assume that the more realistic infantry model “slows” the pace (to allow more suppression, move to contact and so on) then why is the default time for QB’s still only 30 minutes and why do the designed scenarios still have average times similar to CMBO?

With an infantry attack, or worse still an assault, on a small map with difficult terrain 30 mins is hardly enough; a medium map starts to be a struggle and the large and huge maps close to impossible. (I know you can manually increase the time, just puzzled as to why the default hasn’t been altered)

Surely we should be looking at longer times to allow those historically correct tactics to be replicated?

I think that is a great point. If the new infantry model slows the game, then we are going to need more time. A village that took 30 turns to capture in CMBO, might now require 45 or 50 turns to capture in CMBB.

My limited play to this point leads me to believe that some scenarios on the CD did not really take this into account, and are too short. My advice for scenario designers - please consider making games longer to allow for prudent tactics.

With respect to the Sneak behavior, I have not yet seen it as a problem. If anything, my experience to date leads me to believe that the AI has improved with respect to sneaking to cover. Sometimes in CMBO, I would have a squad 0.0005m from entering a heavy building TURN AROUND when fired upon, and run back to some trees 50m away. Under CMBB, the same squad seems to hit the dirt and Sneak into the heavy building for cover.

If your squad gets wiped out under fire because it is Sneaking back and forth in a large open area, shame on you. Keep your squads out of fields and open areas to the greatest extent possible.

I have never been hesitant to critisize CM when I think something is wrong. That said, I have yet to see anything in CMBB which seemed 'wrong'.

Put me in the Functions Almost Flawlessly camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the new infantry model slows the game, then we are going to need more time. A village that took 30 turns to capture in CMBO, might now require 45 or 50 turns to capture in CMBB.
I have found that adding five turns plus the variable game ending works out well with a CMBB scenario compared to a comparable CMBO scenario in most instances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I don't see why it should be assumed the 1.01 thresholds were arrived at in a manner much different than 1.00.

I see nothing in my post which indicates an assumption that determination of the panic threshold was made in a different manner for 1.01 as compared to v1.0.

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I would be surprised if there are any beta testers who have been in a squad that broke under fire in combat.

I have no idea. I do recall Steve stating previously that vets who had experienced the v1.0 infantry model expressed that that they thought it was "about right". Now, here, I'm going off of memory, but I believe Steve's "about right" comment(s) was (were) asserted in the context of the recurring complaints about the "brittleness" of infantry. I assume by "brittleness", the forum participants were referring to the v1.0 infantry tendency to reach a "panic and beyond" state while under fire. Trusting Steve's integrity on the matter, I had to assume that the veterans whom Steve was referring to had at least some basis for expressing that the infantry model was "about right". I don't know that would necessarily include being a member of a squad which "broke" under fire.

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I also question the notion that sloppy tactics are now easier to use. Units will still pin as easily as before, they just don't panic as quickly.

As I related in my immediately preceding post, my *perception* was that I was able to advance troops rather quickly, without them tiring as easily, and without them breaking. If I had tried to push the infantry through the scenario / QBs at the same pace in v1.0, it is my personal belief that they would have panicked (sp?) and / or broken / routed. I do note that I was surprised how quickly the scenario concluded for me with the a/i surrendering. I utilized the word "sloppy", maybe "not as careful" would be more accurate? In terms of specifics, I'm referring to a lack of need to maintain *close* overwatch support, and it did not seem that the troops fatigued as quickly as in v1.0 - In v1.0, *close* overwatch and short advance orders were extremely important for success (or at least in my experience).

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

For reasons I spelled out in a post earlier in this thread, I believe this is more realistic.

I have no opinion as to whether it is more realistic, or less realistic, because, as I stated in a previous post, I have never been in combat.

Steve,

Thanks for the response. The infantry I played within the scenario I tried last night were mostly regular with a smattering of vets and greens). The two QBs I tried involved all reg / vets as well, so your comments concerning the experience levels which would display the most effect of the tweaks are completely consistent with my experience.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agua:

I see nothing in my post which indicates an assumption that determination of the panic threshold was made in a different manner for 1.01 as compared to v1.0.

Agua:

I'm sure the change is a "crowd pleaser".

I do recall Steve stating previously that vets who had experienced the v1.0 infantry model expressed that that they thought it was "about right".
I recall the same. However, "about right" is not the same as "exactly right". We may be argueing semantics here, but I do not believe the changes in 1.01 are drastic.

I have no opinion as to whether it is more realistic, or less realistic, because, as I stated in a previous post, I have never been in combat.
Then you are advocating a return to 1.00 parameters basic solely upon game difficulty. My personal belief is that realism should be the bellwether for what is too sloppy and what is not. I have not been in combat either. My opinions are based only upon my general impressions from reading about combat. If a combat vet were to say "this is a step backwards in my experience" I would take his POV seriously, but I have not seen that yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Agua:

I see nothing in my post which indicates an assumption that determination of the panic threshold was made in a different manner for 1.01 as compared to v1.0.

Agua:

I'm sure the change is a "crowd pleaser".

I do recall Steve stating previously that vets who had experienced the v1.0 infantry model expressed that that they thought it was "about right".
I recall the same. However, "about right" is not the same as "exactly right". We may be argueing semantics here, but I do not believe the changes in 1.01 are drastic.

I have no opinion as to whether it is more realistic, or less realistic, because, as I stated in a previous post, I have never been in combat.
Then you are advocating a return to 1.00 parameters basic solely upon game difficulty. My personal belief is that realism should be the bellwether for what is too sloppy and what is not. I have not been in combat either. My opinions are based only upon my general impressions from reading about combat. If a combat vet were to say "this is a step backwards in my experience" I would take his POV seriously, but I have not seen that yet.</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agua:

As to the "crowd pleaser", that comment was in response to aka_tom_w's question as to whether I thought v1.01 was a "crowd pleaser" (hence, the quotes). I don't see where that has relevance to your comment concerning an assumption that v1.01 panic threshold was determined in a different manner from the v1.0 threshold.

I took your comments as a suggestion that the 1.01 changes were made in response to popular demand. Insofar as that would differ from what I think the 1.00 parameters were created in response to, i.e. a desire for increased realism, that would constitute a substantial difference in at least motive, if not procedure.

As to "about right" and "exactly right", I don't believe I stated v1.0 was "exactly right" either.
I never claimed you did.

Finally, I'm not advocating a return to anything for two reasons: (1) in my estimation, in light of the complaining that has gone on in this forum, it would be entirely fruitless to do so; (2) I don't *know* that v1.01 is any less realistic than v1.0. I have nothing to base an advocacy upon.
"Advocating a return" was a poor choice of words. However, you have suggested that you preferred the 1.00 parameters. I'm simply saying I prefer the new ones, and why I prefer them. That's all. No reason to get defensive about it.

You appear to be jumping to conclusions concerning my post(s) which were neither stated by me, nor intended by me that the reader should reach.
Semantics aside, I do not think I have misrepresented your points in any substantial way.

[ November 22, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, several units firing at the same difficult target also has an accumulative effect that is greater than each individual unit's capabilities. But this is something the TacAI can only do a limited about of guess work about (it does think about accumulative fire to some extent).
You can see this quite clearly in Wolfe's sample scenario. No orders and the HMGs don't do anything. Give 1 or 2 Cover Arcs and they fire, but don't do much good. Give them all Cover Arcs and they will start pinning German units.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

someaz

And Steve... well I'm too lazy to convince you that you do sound patronizing when you begin using metaphors like rain getting people wet to illustrate the complexity of an AI problem. Then again your only really guilty of misjudging your audience.
We'll just have to agree to disagree smile.gif I have 10,000+ people that I have to communicate with. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of them haven't a clue how complicated AI programming is, not to mention programming in general. And in any case, patronizing can only be a valid charge when it is intended. I don't think ill of this Forum's ability to understand the issues, but it is a proven "fact" to me that people simply can't grasp how difficult it is to move from identifying a problem to addressing it. I have nearly as many posts as there are members, so assume I have some experience to base this opinion on smile.gif

Runyan99

I think that is a great point. If the new infantry model slows the game, then we are going to need more time. A village that took 30 turns to capture in CMBO, might now require 45 or 50 turns to capture in CMBB.
The default 30 turn recomendation for QBs is just a number we plucked out of the air in CMBO. It worked fairly well, but I agree it should be bumpped up even though players can judge for themselves what it should be. I asked Charles to boost it to 40 for 1.02.

Vanir,

I did not see any mention of units being less snobbish about open terrian in the 1.01 readme. An undocumented change? Are there any other undocumented changes?
This is the kind of thing we generally don't document because people might make too much of it smile.gif The change should make the AI a bit more likely to use open ground when mounting attacks or moving in general. I have no idea how obvious this change is to players. Only time will tell.

I recall the same. However, "about right" is not the same as "exactly right". We may be argueing semantics here, but I do not believe the changes in 1.01 are drastic.
This is a good sum up. From what we could tell, vets (combat and non combat) all thought 1.0 was a huge increase in realism over CMBO 1.12. However, several vets and non vet supporters of the changes felt that it could use just a tad bit more kindness towards the middle range quailty troops. We don't think we went too far, but we'll see what people have to say smile.gif

Agua,

As to "about right" and "exactly right", I don't believe I stated v1.0 was "exactly right" either. I don't think Steve would tell you either 1.0 or v1.01 are "exactly right".
You got that right smile.gif As far as Charles and I are concerned, NOTHING in CM is "exactly right". "About right" is generally good enough for us. However, if we feel we can (easily and safely) do a bit more to get towards "exactly right", we'll do it.

Tarqulene,

You can see this quite clearly in Wolfe's sample scenario. No orders and the HMGs don't do anything. Give 1 or 2 Cover Arcs and they fire, but don't do much good. Give them all Cover Arcs and they will start pinning German units.
Yup. And in CMBO units were far more likely to all blaze away at whatever showed up. This resulted in the Yellow Lines of Death. I found myself constantly going about either telling units to knock it off or redirect their fire because ammo was being wasted. This is something others found a problem too.

In addition, you can now let units sit around and not worry about them firing and giving their positions away. In CMBO you had to use the HIDE command to do this, and that has some negative consquences on spotting.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

HOWEVER, a Cover Arc command is, basically, a "cover this area" command and therefore puts the unit into a more shooting friendly mode.

Wow!

A behaviour critiziced by me, too, turns into a much more realistical improvement! :rolleyes:

But this should be mentioned in the manual's chapter for former CMBO players.

BTW: just played a scenario and saw a AI-controlled tank getting under fire from 2 Panthers. The IS2 withdrawed and 2 turns later it came around the other corner of the building and knocked out one Panther with a flank shot.

What an excellent AI this "game" has!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Semantics aside, I do not think I have misrepresented your points in any substantial way.

It appeared to me you were basing your disagreement with my post upon semantics. This discussion between you and I really is getting pretty pointless now so I'll move on to discussions of cheese in a Monkeybutt thread if you want to let it go as well.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agua:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Semantics aside, I do not think I have misrepresented your points in any substantial way.

It appeared to me you were basing your disagreement with my post upon semantics. This discussion between you and I really is getting pretty pointless now so I'll move on to discussions of cheese in a Monkeybutt thread if you want to let it go as well.

;) </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Said:

"2. Sneak - CMBB's infantry is too likely to use the SNEAK function when coming under fire. Instead of

shrugging off the enemy fire or doing something else "intelligent", the unit reverts to Sneak and

attempts to get to cover too often. Cover either already ordered to or new cover that the TacAI

designates. Sometimes this cover is not in the "right" direction or propper for the current situation."

It would seem Redwolf and a few others have pointed out expamples wher Heavy weapons crews that are no longer under fire automatically revert to sneak (no matter what order the player gives them) and then auto exhaust them selfs in no time.

Has anyone got a save game file of this they can send to Steve or Matt where this behaviour can be replicated and studied?

looks like this issue is a candidate for tweak in v1.02 for sure (we can only hope).

I am confident if it is a REAL bug and they can study it and replicate it, that Steve and Charles will try to address/correct it in v1.02.

Thanks smile.gif

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the AI side use move to contact? From what I see it doesnt seem to, so correct me if i'm wrong. If not I think it should use MC as the first natural reaction of moving infantry coming under fire is to stop and fire back, not stop only when its suppressed. It would also encourage the AI infantry to give a better firefight instead of too much movement and not enough returnfire. The movement to contact order should definatly be used by the AI in meeting/probe battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by James:

Does the AI side use move to contact? From what I see it doesnt seem to, so correct me if i'm wrong. If not I think it should use MC as the first natural reaction of moving infantry coming under fire is to stop and fire back, not stop only when its suppressed. It would also encourage the AI infantry to give a better firefight instead of too much movement and not enough returnfire. The movement to contact order should definatly be used by the AI in meeting/probe battles.

thats a good question??

my guess would be that the AI is not coded/programed/smart enough to use MTC.

but I could be wrong :confused:

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does the AI use MTC? I would really like to know this one. If not it cant be that hard to replace the Move order with MTC?

The non defending Strat AI does seem to give repeated move/fast/advance commands to its infantry towards the VL's despite incoming fire, resulting in unessessary casulties and not enough return fire. In most cases, except all out assualt, infantry battles in reality are firefights - ie they seek to win by the gun not the bayonet. Ok you cant change the Strat AI's continual orders forward, but surly MTC could replace the move/fast commands it gives.

What would be the result you ask. I've solo played some hotseat games and used repeated MTC orders for infantry advanceing towards a VL thus simulating a Strat AI giving MTC orders. Ok the AI inf MTC's towards a VL blocked by your force. Your side opens fire and the AI's side stops immeadiatly and returns fire, the suppressed squads going for cover. Next move the Strat AI renew's it forward orders - those squads still in contact with your side reciving a fresh MTC order carry on returning fire while those squads out of contact MTC forward until they see/come under fire - stop and return fire. As the moves progress an intense firefight develops and as more of your squads become supressed and drop out the AI's sight the more the AI squads on MTC will advance. In other words the advancing AI inf seeks to outshoot the enemy and take advantage of the fleeting opportunities presented by your suppression to manover closer even if a couple of yards a time.

Now is this not how infantry realistically engage intead of continually trying to rush into incoming fire? As an AI opponant would the cautious behavior of an AI inf that fires back more than it moves not be a greater challenge to you the player? Is it practical to tweak the otherwise unaltered Strat AI to replace its fast/move commands with MTC?

[ November 24, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: James ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...