Jump to content

I miss the AI behaviour of CMx1...


Recommended Posts

I'm really into CMx2 and but I find QB's against the AI not super challenging or exciting.... Especially when you are doing a prob/attack/assault.  I recently played a QB in CMAK and forgot how challenging and dynamic the AI can be.  Fifteen min into the battle a tiger rolled in from a far flank.  I engaged it with 4 shermans, but the tiger ultimately won despite my efforts to attack it simultaneously from 2 different directions.   It was changing direction, rotating it's turret, coming in and out of cover and intuitively reacting to the biggest threat in each moment.  On top of that, after the first line of infantry defending the objective were overwhelmed, a second wave of defenders seemed to activate from deeper inside the map to fill holes in the initial defense and counter attacked.   

Sure, in a scenario/campaign in CMx2 you are likely to see similar behavior from the AI depending on the creativity of the scenario author...  I understand the scenario editor allows for some very creative and complex programming of the AI but something is seriously lacking for the AI plans and behavior for QB's.   Defending AI infantry and armor seem very static as the battle progresses and I don't ever recall seeing anything close to the behavior that I saw in CMx1.   And on a side note, computer generated force selection for QB's often results in awkward forces even when 'mix' is selected.  I recall many times getting mainly half tracks full of infantry for example.  And in my most recent QB I got a whole bunch of 50 cal teams and a sherman.... and after playing several QB's in CMx2, force selection becomes predictable, even with rarity set to loose.

I'm guessing it's probably too unrealistic but wonder if CMx2 could ever be patched so that you can have the option of creating and going with premade AI plans for QB's or going with an automatic AI routine similar to CMx1?

I think AI plans for meeting engagements and the AI plans for probes/attacks/assaults is good but the behavior for the AI defending just seems very flat.  How do others feel about the defending AI in QB's for CMx2 vs CMx1?

-Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MisterMark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you're playing too many US assault defending German maps. Mix it up, play random more, play meeting engagement where you have to rush into a town or area before the enemy.  Are you playing real time or turn based? Don't forget you can pause real time Single Player battles to make choices. Reduce the size of your maps and forces while you increase your time to complete them. I truly believe smaller battle areas are more fun. CMX1 was like that.  I have all 3 CMx1 games.  The older quick battles from beyond overlord are so much better than CMx2. I have noticed that CMBN has far far less QB maps,   LESS OPTIONS compared to Combat Mission Beyond Overlord. I am unsure whether they used auto generated maps in the older one or it was just the amazing effort some of the team and community map builders made for the scenarios. The only thing I hated about overlord was no individual soldiers, I could play with the quality of graphics because the gameplay was just that good to say gameplay over graphics in overlord. I have tried the battle creator in normandy but It was pretty confusing I have to admit. If you don't have the older Combat mission ww2 games pick then up at battlefronts store!

PS I still can't play QB mix with US armor automatic until they fix it. It calls missing units from the pool, priest, scott missing from QB etc. forcing a hard crash.

Edited by user1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the QB AI had gotten steadily better as the CM2 series has developed.  I think the CMFB AI is really good...in both defense, offense, and meeting engagement.

@user1000

Are you having this crash problem in CMBN?  I just loaded a US/Ger Army Armor Only QB automatic selection with an automatic map and it loaded just fine...are  you using CMBN 3.12?  I remember this bug and I thought 3.12 fixed it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grunt_GI said:

I find the QB AI had gotten steadily better as the CM2 series has developed.  I think the CMFB AI is really good...in both defense, offense, and meeting engagement.

@user1000

Are you having this crash problem in CMBN?  I just loaded a US/Ger Army Armor Only QB automatic selection with an automatic map and it loaded just fine...are  you using CMBN 3.12?  I remember this bug and I thought 3.12 fixed it....

It was not fixed for 3.12. We are still waiting. I found the problem was internal coding problem within the game, and was nothing on my end that I could do to fix it., which was calling on missing units in the QB like priest, m8 scott possibly other troops or hts. causing the crash. I posted my finding and there is a  whole thread on it over at the support area. Many people are having it.

Edited by user1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the AI in CM2 much tougher than CM1.  I still play CM2 vs the AI.   I stopped enjoying CM1 vs the AI as it became too predictable - ie: one learned to play vs the system.  However, I still enjoy playing H2H in CM1 tournys. 

Someone said that smaller scenarios are better.  Maybe in CM2.  However, the advantage that CM1 still has over CM2 is the ability to play on 8Kx4K maps with a Regiment of inf plus a Battalion of armor plus dozens of other vehicles on each side.  CM1 enables one to play at close to an Operational level in addition to the tactical level that CM2 features so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, user1000 said:

Are you playing real time or turn based? Don't forget you can pause real time Single Player battles to make choices.

Sorry, but why should this have anything to do with his question?  IMO, WEGO is superior to real time and the only way to use this wargame.

Reduce the size of your maps and forces while you increase your time to complete them. I truly believe smaller battle areas are more fun.

I do not agree.  I like all battles, but large maps, lots of units and lots of turns are what I like the most.  Large Campaigns are my favorite.

 

Edited by Blazing 88's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMX1 AI attacked flags - you took flags AI then went for it lemming like. very predictable. As a scenario designer you could do several things to 'fudge; it but nowhere like the degree of 'intelligent' plan you can create in CMX2. You want to see the CMX2 AI shine - I'd suggest play a scenario. By their very nature QB AI plans in CMX2 are generic and work better in certain situations - that in itself is testimony to the ability of the derringer in creating serviceable plans. You really want unpredictability. creativity and challenge from your QB opponent - you'll need to play a human. Given the current state of play with AI in computer games that'll be the case for a while to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2016 at 4:43 AM, MisterMark said:

...Fifteen min into the battle a tiger rolled in from a far flank.  I engaged it with 4 shermans, but the tiger ultimately won despite my efforts to attack it simultaneously from 2 different directions.   It was changing direction, rotating it's turret, coming in and out of cover and intuitively reacting to the biggest threat in each moment. On top of that, after the first line of infantry defending the objective were overwhelmed, a second wave of defenders seemed to activate from deeper inside the map to fill holes in the initial defense and counter attacked.   

Fluke. The TacAI in CMx2 has no "intuition". It was directly, mostly randomly, reacting to your multiple-axis threat. It got lucky; not that a Tiger has to get that lucky vs the M3 gun. Some arbitrary decisions created an illusion of subtlety. This also occurs upon occasion with CMx2's TacAI. The second wave of infantry is also an illusion; the "operational" level of the AI isn't that sophisticated. Some other factor must have intervened.

Sure, there are potential avenues to explore to improve the QB AI in CMx2, and there are some glitches around force placement and orientation, but even the creators are clear that the CMx1 AI was simple-minded compared to the CMx2 AI. And why would they throw an effective AI out, given that it's not dependent on graphics architecture, they wrote the thing from scratch and retained all rights to it, and how hard it is to write a good AI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, womble said:

Fluke. The TacAI in CMx2 has no "intuition". It was directly, mostly randomly, reacting to your multiple-axis threat. It got lucky; not that a Tiger has to get that lucky vs the M3 gun. Some arbitrary decisions created an illusion of subtlety. This also occurs upon occasion with CMx2's TacAI. The second wave of infantry is also an illusion; the "operational" level of the AI isn't that sophisticated. Some other factor must have intervened.

Hi @womble I'd echo your comments re an "intelligent" AI being developed. Re how you could get a second wave in CMX1 - all you did was have some reinforcements come on latter (bit of timing as to when you'd think the player would take a 'flag'). Once the player took a flag the CMX1 AI units close by would then furiously attack to retake the flag. The designer could play about with various reinforcement slots, morale levels etc etc and create the illusion of an intelligent attack but it was more along the lines of a vaguely co-ordinated zombie horde rather than co-ordinated units.

In reply to the OP: I'm not saying CMX2 AI is brilliant but I do find as a designer I can create a far better illusion of intelligent and co-ordinated behaviour with the AI plan tools available than i could ever do in CMX1. Slightly aside I was listening to Radio 4 science programme where they were discussing and exploring 'AI' e.g. robots and such like. It was said they used to think they could design robots to do simple things like make a cup of tea in a house. The chess AIs were initial attempts to create AI as originally it was thought a chess AI was complex, harder to do and if they could do that then the making a cup of tea would be piss easy. What they found was the other way round. Chess AI "easy" to do. making a cup of tea was incredibly complex for an AI (think random kitchen layouts)! And they still have not managed it.

I am interested though in the direction that developing a challenging AI for games is going. Although i suspect that the proliferation of person vs person on-line stuff is because we are still a long ways of such a reality, plus person v person is easier to design. I might have taken it slightly off-topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Steve saying that CMX1 AI literally had a single plan.  It was the random maps that the game could generate which gave a good illusion of the AI dealing with the situational stuff but in fact, as others have said, the AI just went straight for the objectives.  Don't ask me to find the post as it was from such a long time ago but I am sure it was mentioned.

But for random maps to be a thing again.... sigh.  Sadly the map is integral to the scripted AI now so how to marry up the random map generator with the AI scripts is a project I feel that no one would have time or money to invest in for a reasonable outcome within a reasonable time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see and understand what you are all saying, but I'm comparing the quality of fight of the defending AI in QB's in each CM platform.  Would you not all agree that attacking the AI in a QB in CMx2 is not as challenging as it is in CMx1?  Defending AI armor in CMx2 just seems to sit there and once you spot it you can usually outflank it and mount an attack pretty easily, depending on the terrain.    

Furthermore, I didn't even compare artillery barrages between the two platforms.  Defending AI in CMx2 in QB's is so predictable and easy to foil.... in my experience barrages always come down in the obvious avenues of approach on the first turn.  Once you know this all you have to do is wait 5 min before you have any of your forces leave the setup zone.   In CMx1 barrages are a real threat that can come down anywhere on a portion of your forces that are within visual of the enemy FO. 

I understand AI routines in CMx1 are simple but in comparing attacking QB's between the two platforms, the simpler defending AI routines seems to give a better fight.  I suppose the real issue for my complaint for QB's fights in CMx2 comes down to how the defending AI plans have been written for all the maps.  Despite the ability to have multiple AI plans written for a map, the defending AI plans seem to have all been written with the same basic static strategy.

And I know hundreds of QB maps have been crafted for CMx2 by talented authors but the random map generation for CMx1is greatly missed. 

-Mark

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MisterMark Interesting points and I often miss CMBB myself but if you don't mind me asking, and I mean no disrespect, how would you like to see an AI defense force behave in a CMX2 battle?  I believe with the triggers we have now and a bit of jiggery pokery and creative licence with the scripting could we not come up with something?  

I understand what you mean about a static defence but in all honesty to move from a defensive position is to invite death in the face of an advancing assault.  What else can we do as scripters with the tools at our disposal?  Currently I am making a very small map which has a counter-attack from deeper defensive positions based upon triggers and timers to pinch off the attacking force but it is very embryonic and may not be what you are looking for but if we can grasp the concept and apply the tools we have then it might give more defensive options in a scenario AI plan?

I am sure @MarkEzra has a much more solid grasp of the workings than I do but it all depends on what people want to see defensive troops do other than hold position and fend off the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets keep this simple, The AI in QB's for both CMX1 And CMX2 is lacking. Why bother to compare at all???

you started this post by pointing out that you had a much better experience playing a scenario that had the AI  programmed for a better challenge.

Stop wishing for what is not there and enjoy what is available.

A good scenario is much more enjoyable to play, and h2h is truly the only thing any good player would seek for.

Stop wasting you efforts playing  Qb's and sub par opposition and raise yourself up to a real challenge.

 

Seen these post for 14 years now with the game and it just blows my mind how many people keep thinking this is where the game is at and what needs fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SlySniper,

I hear ya and I do of course play H2H as well as scenarios in CMx2 and enjoy them very much... but sometimes a QB is all I have time for.  H2H can be a lengthy endeavor and after one has played most of the scenarios that come with the game, it takes a bit of time hunting to find a new scenario that fits the size, terrain and force selection that you are in the mood for.  Although CMx2 is superior in so many ways to CMx1, QB's in CMx1 give me more of what I'm looking for.  And I only came to this revelation after going back to CMx1 on a recent whim.  No disrespect to any of the developers or scenario authors of CMx2, but I was just voicing my opinion and checking in to see if I am the only one that feels this way. 

And to Meach...

9 hours ago, Meach said:

@MisterMark Interesting points and I often miss CMBB myself but if you don't mind me asking, and I mean no disrespect, how would you like to see an AI defense force behave in a CMX2 battle?  I believe with the triggers we have now and a bit of jiggery pokery and creative licence with the scripting could we not come up with something?  

I suppose something can be done given my limited understanding of the capabilities of the editor...  I've messed around with it a few times but will admit that I don't understand all details or have anywhere near the skill to make scenario or amend a map myself.  

But would it not be possible to amend the stock probe/attack/assault QB's maps with additional defensive AI plans that are a bit more complex and dynamic?   For example, adding a trigger or triggers to have units converge towards an objective and take up new positions once units of the human controlled army are within a threatening distance of the objective? 

And as I understand it, the AI can't call in artillery on it's own but can't the timing of the barrages be varied a bit so they don't always start falling so predictably on turn 1?  And speaking of triggers and artillery, can artillery be associated with a trigger?  If so that alone would be a huge improvement that could be implemented for the current selection of QB maps. 

I suppose the real challenge would be getting an independent group of scenario makers to go back through all the stock QB's and amend them and make them available for download or have BF roll them into a patch.  I of course could learn to do it myself and take on a few maps that I may want to play, but then that sort of defeats the element of being surprised.

-Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MisterMark Have you ever tried RobO's ROQC - Quick Campaign Generator for CMBB and or CMAK?  Here is the CMBB LINK: http://cmx1mods.greenasjade.net/mods?author_id=20&game_type=3   The MS Office automated version is awesome as no paperwork is involved then.  Carry a core force forward through multiply battles, keeping track of casualty's, kills and awards etc...  loved that creation for that series.  It took advantage of the QB ge

Edited by Blazing 88's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MisterMark I don't know if you have checked out the CMFI forum, but i have created some "blind QB's". I took a QB map, added some realistic forces to each side, saved it as a scenario and you have a blind qb. As the player you have no idea what you will be playing with or will be up against.  Check out the thread and see what I mean.

If you are interested, I would be more than happy to make some for CMBN. I could also rejig the AI to better represent the forces chosen and hopefully give you a harder battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MisterMark Very good suggestions and the only thing I feel that would be restrictive to going back over the older QB maps is the sheer volume of work that it would entail to put in more dynamic triggers.  Not so much on each individual map but to produce a body of maps that would give that behaviour for the defence would be restrictive in so much that a reasonable time frame is not feasible.

What you suggest about triggering a counter-attack of sorts is what I am working on just now on a few maps and to get it almost right has taken hours so far and that is probably the most simple counter attack you can get.  Pincer coming down on the neck of the assault column but I feel that it could be done and with some effort newer maps could have a more dynamic defence but unless someone puts together a pack of maps then I think the best bet would be to get dug into the scenario editor and change the maps you feel that are not satisfying.  If you have a particularly favourite map but it's a bit stale I could have a look at it and change things up but I make no promises to give you the map of your dreams :)  What I can do is probably have the AI launch some kind of counter attack or blocking maneuver as my skills with the new fangled trigger-tricks are pretty raw.

I do not mean to be contradictory nor accusative but the AI spotters can call in artillery on their own but if the map has a pre-emptive barrage planned in the script and it is set to "destroy" then that mission can blow all the ammo in one big shoot.  Leaving poor Lt Specky with no shells to direct, which gives the impression of him being useless.  The turn one barrages are sadly also a bit essential as the AI can group the Forward Observer into a random group within the AI plan which sits off on a flank and doesn't have great LOS to anything so the spotter won't blow his ammo on a tree off in the distance.  Of course he could be in the thick of the action but if the prepatory bombardment has left him with no assets.  I cannot off the top of my head say if you can delay the bombardment by 5 or 10 minutes in the AI plan but something tells me it's a first turn thing.  But if you don't put down some kind of early strike in the plan then the spotter may never be in a postion to call down good fire support due to the random placement in QB's of units into groups.

I humbly suggest that you find one of the scenario design manuals and have a good read because this will really help you understand why some of the maps are non-dynamic as triggers are a hard thing to get right.  In a few maps I played the OPFOR does nothing for a good 46 minutes simply because the triggers relied on one group doing something then the other group would do something but the triggers were aligned in such a way that both groups stood looking at each other waiting on the other to trigger the other groups behaviour.  "You go do recon!"  "Naahhh you go do it!" so for almost the entire length of the scenario I was patiently waiting for some hot flying lead action and was severely disapointed.  So I dug into the scenario editor thinking an AI plan was wonky and after a while I figured it out.  A quick reduction of the timer and the map is now very playable.  Long story short; triggers can seriously bugger up your AI plan if you get them wrong.  I am not trying to make excuses but it's a tricky proposition to get a new map with triggers working but I feel it's quite daunting to go back to an older map and put them in over an existing AI plan. 

I sincerley hope this helps you out with regards to AI, scripts, triggers and poor LT Specky.

Kindest regards

Meach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB's are very, very limited by the current programming. Mark Ezra did his very best job and some of the QB's did have triggers in the AI plans.

Like Heirloom Tomato and Kevinkin, I think the best option vs the AI is to go with "hybrid rewritten QB's" which you stash in your scenario folder and import your side's units as a campaign force import.

In case you've never seen these.....Proambulator's Youtube series on AI

Here are some of my old notes just for $hits and grins....

A tiny battle I have been having fun on while learning a bit more about the AI triggers.

208m x 208m. An evening axis probe by the human player against the US Army AI. 

Axis set-up zone is right there on the road at map's west edge, 1 tile wide.

 

AITRIGGERSHOWCASE_zpsbab805f4.jpg

 

 

1. "Tripwire" AI Trigger (enemy).

2. AI Trigger (enemy armor)

3. These are US Army listening posts surrounded by AI Trigger (Friendly).

4. Another "Tripwire" AI trigger (enemy). But they are half-way to the farmhouse...

5. AI Trigger (Friendly). 

6. AI Trigger (Friendly). 

 

You can only have one set of triggers per scenario so the 3 boxes for #3 are for different AI plans where you can vary the location of the US Army soldiers on OP duty.

 

Anyway, here is how it went in I thought a somewhat comical manner when I watched it unfold on scenario author mode.

 

AI Group A5 is the trooper on OP duty. His AI orders are to hide until the tripwire is triggered. Then he can do a variety of things, like go ambush 75m or max assault or dash to the rear. edit:  Triggers for each unit are linear. So for this Group A5, usually an "OR" sequence will only occur in numbered order, and the next order will not take place until the previous trigger is invoked. either by time or action. But here the "OR" meant that for various AI plans A5 can be Rambo and press forward or turn yellow and immediately head to the rear or stay in place and take a few shots.

  •  

Well, he is the one who will/might trip the friendly trigger around his post. 

 

AI Group A1 is LT Lovejoy the platoon leader. He is on hide (asleep!) and gets an order triggered by the OP soldier. LT Lovejoy then gets his a$$ up and runs off to wake up some of the dogfaces. He trips 2 other friendly triggers at 5 and 6 to send off a bazooka team and to wake up the 3rd squad who were grabbing some shuteye. He then gets on the phone to the company CP to report in...

 

The private with the bazooka goes out to his ambush position along the road and if the enemy armor trigger is eventually tripped, he goes on Ambush armor 75m.

 

The 3rd squad dashes off south to behind a rock wall and if the Germans trip the 2nd tripwire, they will assault forward.

 

---so far I tend to only use the terrain triggers versus the order style triggers. It is easy to get the order style all messed up. Maybe in the future I will start to use them.

Edit: But here is a wise caveat from George MC:

"I use the KISS principle myself. Like your example above I use a core set of AI triggers that can be used across various plans. By keeping plans simple and broad based you can hope to account for the myriad ways a player may choose to attack/defend. Trying to get too clever wit AI plans (as I've found out to my cost) just leads to all sorts of unintended consequences! I occasional use friendly AI triggers to spring friendly movement but you have to be careful with this. If a friendly unit is wiped out early it can totally FUBAR the AI Plan. In this case having a slightly earlier default move order helps alleviate the worse outcome."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Also maybe you already know or discovered the below about programming fire support for the AI....

AI Mortar success!

I had 2 different FO's on map from start and placed them in good spots with LOS.

Then made the actual mortars show at R1=5, R2=10, R3=15.

I deployed them to make sure that the FO had them in contact. And a platoon HQ as well. Responsible adult types with radios.

The mortars do spend a turn deploying upon arrival. 

But then pretty soon the board lights up with pretty green lines. If someone carelessly is spotted. 

This one FO had 2 different missions going. They appear to take the normal long times to get the mission set-up. 5 minutes, 7 minutes, 9 minutes. They do fire spotting rounds and adjust.

A round too far left, a bit later a round too far right, a bit later one more or less on target, then a bit later, 4 rounds. bam bam bam bam. 

It wasn't on the area of the AI plans Support Targets Axis. The platoon HQ also set-up a mission.

Unfortunately, it can't happen at night or when viz is very low due to fog or smoke.

So, this could be part of an AI defense plan for a scenario or also for AI on the attack. You don't need to get the initial preplanned barrage style from turn 1. It could come later on...

Actually, I now recall I did use an off-map mortar team that came in at R2. So, you could sprinkle low supply off-map mortar teams in with your R groups. They don't take up an AI slot either.

A prolonged defensive mortaring to make every round count. 

Just trying to add to the collective knowledge.

 

Edited by kohlenklau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

@MisterMark Have you ever tried RobO's ROQC - Quick Campaign Generator for CMBB and or CMAK?  Here is the CMBB LINK: http://cmx1mods.greenasjade.net/mods?author_id=20&game_type=3   The MS Office automated version is awesome as no paperwork is involved then.  Carry a core force forward through multiply battles, keeping track of casualty's, kills and awards etc...  loved that creation for that series.  It took advantage of the QB ge

@Blazing 88's - wow didn't know something like this existed!  Thanks for sharing and I will be sure to check it out in more detail...

 

16 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

@MisterMark I don't know if you have checked out the CMFI forum, but i have created some "blind QB's". I took a QB map, added some realistic forces to each side, saved it as a scenario and you have a blind qb. As the player you have no idea what you will be playing with or will be up against.  Check out the thread and see what I mean.

If you are interested, I would be more than happy to make some for CMBN. I could also rejig the AI to better represent the forces chosen and hopefully give you a harder battle.

@Heirloom_Tomato - thanks for the offer... I have CMFI so I'll try a out a map or two! 

@Heirloom_Tomato and @Meach - How would you feel if I sent you guys a map each with a point limit so you can purchase the defenders forces within that limit, compose defensive plans for them and save as an unfinished scenario to send back to me?  Then I can purchase my forces (without looking at what you picked of course), save and then play as a quasi quick battle? 

-Mark

 

 

Edited by MisterMark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I don't know if you have checked out the CMFI forum, but i have created some "blind QB's". I took a QB map, added some realistic forces to each side, saved it as a scenario and you have a blind qb. As the player you have no idea what you will be playing with or will be up against.  Check out the thread and see what I mean.

If you are interested, I would be more than happy to make some for CMBN. I could also rejig the AI to better represent the forces chosen and hopefully give you a harder battle.

I'm not sure I understand. What's the difference between a blind QB and a scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MisterMark said:

 

@Heirloom_Tomato and @Meach - How would you feel if I sent you guys a map each with a point limit so you can purchase the defenders forces within that limit, compose defensive plans for them and save as an unfinished scenario to send back to me?  Then I can purchase my forces (without looking at what you picked of course), save and then play as a quasi quick battle? 

-Mark

 

 

I will do what I can.  I have RT and FI so I can do stuff with those maps.  I haven't got round to purchasing BN as yet.  So if you want me to try something with a map for either of those games then yeah I can but try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...