QB Armor pts CM1.1

CavScout · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

But as much as I would like to agree with Slappy and Cav, I can't. At least not 100%. The problem is that the points taken from the German armor category don't all go to infantry. Only half do. The other half go to vehicles.

So I can't add!

In any case, they still have their same points as the Allies which was the main point.

jshandorf · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

The easy way to see the "flaw" in your argument would be for you to find the nearest mirror.

Cav

Just as I figured. You know you are wrong and that you can't prove my argument wrong.

Just admit it. Armor is HUGE advantage. I don't care if you get an extra platoon. ONE armored vehicle can turn the tide of any battle. While I have rarely seen one platoon do this, but regardless. This is NOT my point.

IF German armor is better then make the individual points more expensive or lower the allies armor. Then you will get your desired effect in ANY engagement.

Adjusting the Armor point value in a QB ME does nothing but unbalance it.

1. If vehicle point values are balanced.

Do you agree?

2. If you do then you have to agree that a battle where each side is given 500 infantry and say 300 armor is balanced.

3. BUt if you agree with the above then a battle where everything else is equal but one side is given 650 points in infantry and 150 in armor where the other side has 500 and 300, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT IS NOT BALANCED! Once side is NOT allowed the same choices and options as the other therefore the results will always come out skewed.

Prove that wrong! You can't. Just admit it Cav. You are wrong. Say it. I know you can do it.

Jeff

------------------

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

CavScout · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

So what happens is (according to cavscout ) is if you want to play a more armored QB ME play as allied. If you want to play a more infantry centric QB ME play as axis. Geee. Sighn me up

No, accroding to CavScout, if you want to play an armor force select armor NOT a combined arms force.

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

As others have pointed out if you want HISTORICAL play a canned scenario.

Steve has said time and time again that MEs are not very historical and that they have never really tried to make them that way. It is a type of battle that you can play against another person for fun.

You seem to think MEs are suppose to be some Historical representation of something, but that is not true.

Unit pricing is NOT based off of historical availability and thus the point layout for certain battles is not either. In fact I don't think I have ever heard this until you guys started talking about it.

You HAVE NOT refuted my argument. You are only trying to explain something I am not arguing about. I don't care why you think the numbers are different. I am telling you that in doing it this way, with the way the point systems is laid out, that ME QBs are unbalanced.

And DON'T tell me to play an armored force setting. If I want to play a combined arms then, dammit, I will play it and I expect it to be balanced so that it is FUN! I don't give a rats ass about historical. I want to have fun playing CM. If the whole thing was historical NO ONE would play the Germans because ya know.. they lost the war and thus they lost the majority of the engagements during the Summer of '44 to the spring of '45.

What fun would THAT be? The points and the battles should be laid out so that they are balanced and therefore FUN to play, not so that you are sticking by some historical accuracy of the force strengths.

As it has been said before. If you want historical battles then play the scenarios. Hell, in fact STEVE has said this himself before. In fact I think EVERYONE here in the forum except for Slap and Cav realize that QBs are not historical, but you two just don't seem to get it.

Jeff

Again, you need to read the post carefully (I am sorry if you speak other than English, I can write in a few other languages but not as good as my English). CM is a historical wargame. You want to loose all historical aspects of it and still keep the game, which is impossible. Charles has said meeting engagements are not really historical (not QBs) but he has not said we should dump all the historical elements of the game just because one or two people want to play "Battlecraft" instead of a historical wargame.

Note the parts you ignored. The QB goes to great length to simulate history. If not, why can't I get a Pershing in June 44, why can i not buy squads al la carte, and why can't I tailor my battalion for each battle. Beacuse this is a historical wargame.

I will repeat. CM is a wargame based on history.

The QB simulate possibilities that could have occured. The restrictions better simulate reality in a way that also allows a fair contest. Sort of like wargames in the military -- games that simulate reality to see who handled a situation and how they handled it.

You want Battlecraft or Dungeons and Dragons the board game or something like that, then cool, but CM was and is a historical game.

And, to help you in history, the Germans lost the war, but at the company level they won an awful lot of battles, or else the war would be over in July 1944.

jshandorf · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

No, accroding to CavScout, if you want to play an armor force select armor NOT a combined arms force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEERIST!

That is NOT what is being argued! People are not saying they want to play with a ton of armor in thier Combined Arms ME QBs.

What people are saying is that it is UNBALANCED! That is what he was pointing out! Not that he wants to play with armor. He was pointing out that certain play styles are now limited depending on the side you choose! Hey! To me that sounds like the sides are then unbalanced! Wow! Go figure!

Jeff

------------------

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

CavScout · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Just as I figured. You know you are wrong and that you can't prove my argument wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no need to "prove" your argument wrong when you have been unable to "prove" it right.

I can argue in the same idiotic way as you do. I can state that "there are advanced life-forms living in our galaxy."

Using you "method", unless you can prove that no advanced life-forms are living in the galaxy I have, by default, won.

I have a unique proposition, prove your point instead of demanding others disprove it.

Vanir · January 17, 2001

Ok, I compared vehicle prices from 1.05 to 1.1.

1.05/1.1

68/65 for 234/1

83/73 for 234/2

67/66 for 234/3

33/39 for M3A1 Scout

83/73 for Greyhound

23/28 for M20

73/64 for Daimler

18/23 for Humber

So actually, most Allied wheeled vehicles are more expensive than before. I guess the most relevant fact is that the 234s are cheaper, so maybe they are still worth the pts for Germans.

That doesn't change the fact that no one maxes out the vehicle category in a QB. So the extra point limit there does the German no good. BTS should either move all points taken from armor to infantry or put it back the way it was IMO.

------------------

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-17-2001).]

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Just as I figured. You know you are wrong and that you can't prove my argument wrong.

Just admit it. Armor is HUGE advantage. I don't care if you get an extra platoon. ONE armored vehicle can turn the tide of any battle. While I have rarely seen one platoon do this, but regardless. This is NOT my point.

IF German armor is better then make the individual points more expensive or lower the allies armor. Then you will get your desired effect in ANY engagement.

Adjusting the Armor point value in a QB ME does nothing but unbalance it.

1. If vehicle point values are balanced.

Do you agree?

2. If you do then you have to agree that a battle where each side is given 500 infantry and say 300 armor is balanced.

3. BUt if you agree with the above then a battle where everything else is equal but one side is given 650 points in infantry and 150 in armor where the other side has 500 and 300, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT IS NOT BALANCED! Once side is NOT allowed the same choices and options as the other therefore the results will always come out skewed.

Prove that wrong! You can't. Just admit it Cav. You are wrong. Say it. I know you can do it.

Jeff

Jeff, you are making a fundemental error brought up earlier (reread the posts -- seems to be the mantra now, again I am sorry if English is your second language, reading in another language is tough and my heart goes out to you).

A Sherman is priced for it ability to move, not get bogged down, shoot at tanks, shoot at infantry, how much ammo is carries, and its ability to resist damage. So is every other tank. If the cost of a Sherman was just based on a tank to tank battle, then the Sherman would be way over priced by a long shot. German tanks do not shoot infantry as well as they do other tanks, except for a very few weapons (like the Wespe). In tank to tanks, an equal cost of Shermans will fall to an equal cost of German tanks. Same with most Allied tanks.

After all, even the E8 is very close in price to the Panther, but it is not at all in the same ball park in terms of fighting that Panther.

What you are arguing for is an increase in tank prices because they effect the battle more than infantry, not changes to how the historical design of the game is created. In fact, infantry is just a neglected skill, point for point no worse than tanks, and capable of doing things tanks cannot, while capable of killing a tank that blunders near them.

Many people get this tread head idea that tanks are the beginning and end of the battle. For two players of lower skill, whose infantry are run around in the open without plan or idea, this is true in fact. But in reality I would rather have 200 points of Infantry than 200 points of Panther in almost every situation I can think of.

CavScout · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slyss:

So someone please tell me why the allied motivated players are so scared about it going back to the even point total way. Its not about whos gonna win or lose, its a question about the godamn point change and the reasoning for it.

Would someone tell me why the "Immer Deutsch" players are so "scared" of the totals now?

Besides, if you think it is not about "who wins or loses" then tell me why the "Deutsche müssen gewinnen" players are crying about how it is "unfair" and how the Germans have been "handicapped".

Cav

------------------

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

Panther131 · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No, accroding to CavScout, if you want to play an armor force select armor NOT a combined arms force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the point! Why should anyone who want to play with a fair amount of german armor have to play a an armored battle only game? This is ridiculous!

I dont understand this logic! Your sayin "too bad, too bad just play an armored battle to see even armored points!" This is so elementary!

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

This is exactly the point! Why should anyone who want to play with a fair amount of german armor have to play a an armored battle only game? This is ridiculous!

I dont understand this logic! Your sayin "too bad, too bad just play an armored battle to see even armored points!" This is so elementary!

An armoured battle only game includes infantry, just in smaller proportions, and you can spend all of your points in armour if desired.

Also you may not have noticed that this setting is independent for the two sides. If you are a lots of armour / german guy, then just ask the allied player to let you choose arnour and he or she chooses combined. You still buy infantry, just not as much, but you wanted to spend that money freely in armour anyway, so no harm done.

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEERIST!

That is NOT what is being argued! People are not saying they want to play with a ton of armor in thier Combined Arms ME QBs.

What people are saying is that it is UNBALANCED! That is what he was pointing out! Not that he wants to play with armor. He was pointing out that certain play styles are now limited depending on the side you choose! Hey! To me that sounds like the sides are then unbalanced! Wow! Go figure!

Jeff

If it is unbalanced, then it is because armour costs versus infantry costs are unbalanced, which is a different argument. By how much would you increase tank costs to make up for this imbalance?

Vanir · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

An armoured battle only game includes infantry, just in smaller proportions, and you can spend all of your points in armour if desired.

Also you may not have noticed that this setting is independent for the two sides. If you are a lots of armour / german guy, then just ask the allied player to let you choose arnour and he or she chooses combined. You still buy infantry, just not as much, but you wanted to spend that money freely in armour anyway, so no harm done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree this solution works well in pickup games against friends, but I wonder if it might cause friction in tournaments and league play where combined arms QBs are the default standard.

------------------

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-17-2001).]

Henri · January 17, 2001

(Henri tiptoes in)...

I'm not arguing for or against balance nor for nor against historical or anything, I'm just trying to understand.

The argument I'm hearing FOR more Allied armor says that in Western Europe battles, the Allies DID have a higher ratio of armor to infantry than the Germans.OK, let's assume for argument's sake that this is true.

But the ME point distribution also implies that either the Germans had more infantry OR more support vehicles than the Allies IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS.Was this true?

I doubt it, so here is what I suspect is the argument: first we must ensure that the higher ratio of armor/infantry of the Allies is respected to ensure histocity. But then to ensure play balance, we have to give the Germans more infantry than the allies (possibly killing the historicity).

This only makes sense if in fact the Germans DID have more infantry in Western Europe than the Allies. Did they? Does anybody know? Did the Germans lose the War in Western Europe while having a force equal in numbers to that of the Allies?

If this is not the rationale, then for heaven's sake, can SOMEONE please tell us what the rationale IS?

Henri

Vanir · January 17, 2001

Boy, I wish I had some hard numbers, but I do remember someone posting here once that contrary to popular opinion the Germans had about the same number of total troops in the ETO as the Allies at any give time. At least before the fall of the Falaise Pocket. I'm sure someone will show up with solid numbers.

------------------

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

I agree this solution works well in pickup games against friends, but I wonder if it might cause friction in tournaments and league play where combined arms QBs are the default standard.

Maybe, but since someone can beat my butt with a combined arms as it is, and I just won a game combined arms as Germans right now with 1.1, it would only be needed by the less experienced players anyway.

Prove my point? How about you and I Vanir go a round with default settings for old time sake. You choose whatever side you want. I bet in a couple of games we come out about even (we always did before).

Panther131 · January 17, 2001

I disagree with your assesment slap. And here is why:

I dont think I should have to request that an allied player "allow" me to play an armored alotment of force. I think, firstly that most if not all players would not agree to this anyway. Being that, I most likely have a heavy advantage.

Ok...here is the thing: We are talking about a QB ME and its point allocation! Not about armor vs combined arms different tactics or any other argument that has been brought up!

What you are essentialy saying is that nothing is going to change so play a armor vs combined arms game and get over it.

I could always play a combined arms vs armor if a player agreed to that. But that does not change the fact that I will never be able to play an evened armor QB ME in combined arms. This is the argument! Not the other way around!

Also, I would like to mention that I like ME QB combined arms, as they are probably the most widely used engagment in a QB. The QB set is also defaulted that way, and I know alot of people just use that to set up a quick game. But this is besides th point.

How am I able to set up an even COMBINED ARMS battle? It is impossible. That is unless you start to talk about different tactics and such. But that is just sidestepping the the issue: It is not possible to go tank points to tank points ....ect.

And also, tactics should be a choice in a QB. Not forced. I mean gee, I want to use a more infantry styled tactic...Oh darn!!!

jshandorf · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Again, you need to read the post carefully (I am sorry if you speak other than English, I can write in a few other languages but not as good as my English). CM is a historical wargame. You want to loose all historical aspects of it and still keep the game, which is impossible. Charles has said meeting engagements are not really historical (not QBs) but he has not said we should dump all the historical elements of the game just because one or two people want to play "Battlecraft" instead of a historical wargame.

Note the parts you ignored. The QB goes to great length to simulate history. If not, why can't I get a Pershing in June 44, why can i not buy squads al la carte, and why can't I tailor my battalion for each battle. Beacuse this is a historical wargame.

I will repeat. CM is a wargame based on history.

The QB simulate possibilities that could have occured. The restrictions better simulate reality in a way that also allows a fair contest. Sort of like wargames in the military -- games that simulate reality to see who handled a situation and how they handled it.

You want Battlecraft or Dungeons and Dragons the board game or something like that, then cool, but CM was and is a historical game.

And, to help you in history, the Germans lost the war, but at the company level they won an awful lot of battles, or else the war would be over in July 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have NEVER said that CM was not historical! I have said that QBs are not historical!

Sure there are historical limitations on your force selections but when it comes down to it your points determine your force layout. Now if I choose a battle where all things should be equal since unit costs ARE adjusted according to thier usefulness then there is NO reason that each side shouldn't get the SAME number of points for each catagory of units. NONE!

If you want less german tanks then MAKE german tanks more expensive.

I believe in a QB battle the player should have the choice on his unit selection and that he should be able to expect that his opponent should have the equal value of choices. If you don't have that then it is not balanced.

If the game is not balanced then who cares about historical. They game won't be fun to play as one side or the other if you don't balance it. As ANY game developer will tell you this exact same thing.

Jeff

------------------

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

I disagree with your assesment slap. And here is why:

I dont think I should have to request that an allied player "allow" me to play an armored alotment of force. I think, firstly that most if not all players would not agree to this anyway. Being that, I most likely have a heavy advantage.

Ok...here is the thing: We are talking about a QB ME and its point allocation! Not about armor vs combined arms different tactics or any other argument that has been brought up!

What you are essentialy saying is that nothing is going to change so play a armor vs combined arms game and get over it.

I could always play a combined arms vs armor if a player agreed to that. But that does not change the fact that I will never be able to play an evened armor QB ME in combined arms. This is the argument! Not the other way around!

Also, I would like to mention that I like ME QB combined arms, as they are probably the most widely used engagment in a QB. The QB set is also defaulted that way, and I know alot of people just use that to set up a quick game. But this is besides th point.

How am I able to set up an even COMBINED ARMS battle? It is impossible. That is unless you start to talk about different tactics and such. But that is just sidestepping the the issue: It is not possible to go tank points to tank points ....ect.

And also, tactics should be a choice in a QB. Not forced. I mean gee, I want to use a more infantry styled tactic...Oh darn!!!

Again, since points represent how much power a unit has to change conditions on the battlefield, you are saying that infantry is weaker than tanks point for point in all situations. So, how much do we increase tanks to make it even, then we have no worries and the case is solved.

Basically, you are assuming that tanks rule the battlefield when they do not, and that an extra Hetzer trader for a platoon of rifleman will kill your ability to win as a German player. In which case is does come down to tactics in the long run, since that platoon of infantry are everybit as powerful as that Hetzer.

The ONLY problem is for people who cannot fight with Infantry or who have grown up so to speek relying on the German tank edge to win gunfighting slugging matches. In this case, again it comes down to tactics and skill, and not the game balance.

So, how much should tank prices be increased to make them even with infantry point for point in bunches of a hundred points or so (since you cannot purchase a 27 point AFV).

Polar · January 17, 2001

Look people... I think one VERY important point is being missed here.

Do the following (I appologize if this looks familiar at the start... but follow me):

1) Set up an ME, U.S. plays Combined arms, Germans play Armor

2) German player then just follows the U.S. "limitations" (only 300 pts. of armor)....

IT IS THE SAME THING!!!!!!

It's not like you can't replicate what was being done prior to the patch... you just go about it a different way.

Can anyone come up with a statement from BTS that the Combined Arms selection tool is soley for play balancing?

I was never aware that CA was meant for balance at all... it supposed to lend to more accurately distributed units on both sides.

Whether or not that has meaning with the inclusion of rare vehicles is a completely different issue.

One question I do have... when that 17 point PIAT takes out the 300 point KT, will that satisfy "play balance"? Because the guy playing the British won't jump to a surrender if that KT takes out his 17 pt PIAT.

Joe

------------------

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Vanir · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Prove my point? How about you and I Vanir go a round with default settings for old time sake. You choose whatever side you want. I bet in a couple of games we come out about even (we always did before).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, Slappy. That unfortunate problem you had a while back has messed with your memory a bit. We have never played against each other

But I agree with your point in principle. The problem is a lot of people are scared to death of German heavies and will throw a fit if his opponent asks if he can spend all his points on Panthers. Infantry is the Queen of the Battlefield, but most players don't know how to use them very well because its harder and they don't look as kewl as a Tiger tank. It will cause problems.

I have a lot of sympathy with what BTS is trying to do here. Those who say QBs were never meant to be at all historical are ignoring that historical accuracy was why BTS put in discounts for buying complete formations. But I can see how much the tread heads hate it and it may cause more fuss than what its worth. And there is the vehicle category problem which is a legitement point for complaint.

Bah! I'm tired (does it show in my rambling?) Steve will be along to pass final judgement on our squabling soon, I'm sure.

------------------

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Boy, I wish I had some hard numbers, but I do remember someone posting here once that contrary to popular opinion the Germans had about the same number of total troops in the ETO as the Allies at any give time. At least before the fall of the Falaise Pocket. I'm sure someone will show up with solid numbers.

War Against Germany, Europe and Adjacent Areas, a 1951 government printing office document, claims that Allied and German manpower strengths are even through (more or less, the mention is in the narrative) Jan. 1945 but that US forces included fewer Infantry per thousand men in the ground forces, the balance going to more men in tanks, artillery, tank destroyer, medical, and support positions, and that the US (note it did not say Allied here) suffered from a "lack of infantry formations and replacements" compared to the German's "amazing ability to keep fielding new infantry units as well as replace losses in established units".

The book says that the tactical doctrine of "firepower" was used to allow rifle battalions to attack numerically equal or sometimes superior enemy forces, and that the addition of "Tank battalions to each Infantry division, increase in the unit of fire for artillerly, and other doctrines" that resulted in the concept of trading firepower for lives was the primery cause of the effectiveness of US units in ETO 1944-1945.

Patton in Lorriane 1944 fielded more than 4 times as many tanks as those opposing him around Metz, but he had only equal or somewhat inferior numbers of infantry (Patton at Bay).

Slapdragon · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Oh, Slappy. That unfortunate problem you had a while back has messed with your memory a bit. We have never played against each other

Damn, your listed on my ladder list. Is it their mistake? A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Panther131 · January 17, 2001

Again Slap, I am not arguing tactics. I am simply saying that if you want an evened combined arms game in a ME it just isnt possible. Again, I am not talking tactics here. I believe, that if the combined arms were allocated evenly on both sides then it would be strictly up to the player to choose how advanced he employs his tactics.

If what you are saying is true, which it seems, (I am not that great of a commander just yet) then greater tactical use will win everyday anyway. Even if the german side is handicaped in armor points.

To me, in many games, I see allied tank superiority in numbers which in turn if used right can rule a battlefield. What I am saying is forget about tactic use. If greater tactic use is superior, why is there an edge in armor for the allied?

Panther131 · January 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>War Against Germany, Europe and Adjacent Areas, a 1951 government printing office document, claims that Allied and German manpower strengths are even through (more or less, the mention is in the narrative) Jan. 1945 but that US forces included fewer Infantry per thousand men in the ground forces, the balance going to more men in tanks, artillery, tank destroyer, medical, and support positions, and that the US (note it did not say Allied here) suffered from a "lack of infantry formations and replacements" compared to the German's "amazing ability to keep fielding new infantry units as well as replace losses in established units".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as a word of caution on where infromation comes from. 1951 and "from the government" lends itself to be a bit pro allied just to let you know. Though again, it could be true.

I mean, guys like, and I cannot remember his name at this moment, but the guy in charge of german arms production, was tried becouse the allies thought he should be punished for having great sufficientcy in german arms production and helping the germans win the war.

QB Armor pts CM1.1

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements