Jump to content

Game Play


Russ Bensing

Recommended Posts

Not an objection exactly, but... unless this applies to each amount allotted -- whether maxed out at 5, or 4-3-2, then why would you even bother spending 250 MPPs to move up to level 5?

Stop at level 4 and you achieve the greatest chance for the amount of MPPs spent. So, in effect you are maxing each tech at 4? smile.gif

You lost me ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do think that these suggestions (with above reservations) do make good technical sense, and could allow for differing styles and better tech play.
Maybe. I'm not convinced that these changes would make the game more realistic, and I'm not sure which ones would. That's why I have suggested we go back to the historical record and try to make the various scenario setups a little more accurate in terms of research points available and tech levels achieved, and then try to tweak the research model to allow countries to reasonably recreate those historic tech advances in the same time frames. Once we're happy with that, then differing styles and decisions to deviate from the historic path would be more interesting and fair.

Until something gets done, the AI will continue to play by the 10 point max and 5 per area max, which leads to some fantastic achievements that remain a concern for some of us. House rules may help with PBEM, but we're stuck with the computer defaults for now.

So, here's a grognard challenge for some WWII history buff out there: Define the equipment (actual, planned or hypothetical) for each tech level for each country and when those tech levels were achieved. Assuming 5% per research point, which is an average of 20 player turns or about a year and a half per point to achieve a tech advance, how many points should each country have each year? Once we know all that, we can haggle about how realistic it is for each country to afford research points during a normal game and what the MPP costs and point limits should be. We can still maintain the fun and flexibility of the current system without any code changes, but let's convince ourselves that it's truly a decent system with as much historical accuracy as possible. We should have a solid basis for making any changes to the current parameters. Anybody up to the challenge, or is this too complicated? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hubert: I agree with the proposed changes to the tech table. By utilizing all the MPPS gained from conquests of small countries, Nazis were able to have jets and advanced subs too early in the war and become invincible accordingly. I like the suggestion of supply running to the east edge of the map on the Eastern Front. Keep up the good work. L3 :Dsmile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. I'm not convinced that these changes would make the game more realistic, and I'm not sure which ones would.
The definition of realism here is the tricky part and I think this goes back to the two different camps I mentioned with respect to research. For one camp, realism is a research model that closely follows the historical achievements with allowance for minor variances, for the other camp, realism is allowing you to dictate what research areas you want to focus on and when, that will allow you to deviate from the historical record and chart your own path to technological achievements.

That's why I have suggested we go back to the historical record and try to make the various scenario setups a little more accurate in terms of research points available and tech levels achieved...
OK fair enough, although I think the current setups are pretty close, but if there is evidence to show things are a bit out of whack please forward the details away!

... and then try to tweak the research model to allow countries to reasonably recreate those historic tech advances in the same time frames.
I think this is where we would have to disagree and where I am clearly in camp #2 ;) My decision to go with the current research model was specifically to go against the conventions of "historical advances". I would say then it's probably best to think of adjustments within the context of the current research style and I for one kind of like the EUD's proposal, it's a slight tweak to the current model that should alleviate some of the concerns from camp #1.

What are my reasons? Well I for one like the idea of the "what-if's" and the recreation of the war under your supreme leadership. For example, what if you as the leader of the German war machine poured significant funding into developing jet technology early on, would it have brought you victory. There was some evidence to suggest that Germany could of had jets by late 41 early 42 had they chosen to rigourously pursue that are of research etc. Plus with this evidence many historians have argued that it may have changed the course of the war. This leads to another argument that says then the game is inbalanced because the Germans develop jets and there is no way to defeat them. Well what can I say, that's war and your opponent has changed the historical parameters on you. ;) OK but in fairness, it is tough, and there still be some tweaks in order, but I suggest that it's still possible to defeat this strategy as the Allies, although this is probably better left for another thread ;)

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's a grognard challenge for some WWII history buff out there...
Good idea. I only really feel qualified to contribute in some areas, but here goes:

Tanks.

Germany starts at 0. 1 comes around the beginning of 1942 (upgunned Pz III). 2 around 6/42 (Pz IV F2). 3 around 6/43 (Tiger). 4 around 12/43 (Panther G). 5, maybe, end of 1945? I'm intentionally ignoring the King Tiger as not sufficiently mobile to be factored in.

Russia starts at 1. 2 comes around 8/41 (T-34 M41). 3 comes around 6/43 (T-34/85). 4 comes around 6/44 (IS-2m). 5 comes around 6/45 (IS-3).

Britain starts at 0. 1 comes around mid 42 (Lee/Grant). 2 comes around mid 43? (Sherman M4A1/M4A3/Cromwell). 3 comes around 6/44 (Sherman Firefly/Challenger). I'm intentionally ignoring the Churchills - they're even less mobile than a King Tiger.

US starts at 1. 2 comes around mid 43? (Sherman M4A1, M4A3). 3 comes around 9/44 (Sherman 76, but in greater proportion than Firefly above)? 4 comes 3/45 (Pershing).

France starts at 1 and stays there.

Italy starts at 0. 1 comes around late 43 with introduction of 75-armed tanks (can't remember model).

"Jet" aircraft (really represents general aircraft improvement, as I am sure most of you know - I believe the accepted threshold for real jets is 4). My knowledge of dates is a little less firm here.

Germany - starts at 0. 1 comes around 1/40 with more 109 E and later models. 2 comes around mid 41 (FW-190). 3 comes around mid 43, 4 comes around late 44. Perhaps 5 in late 45/early 46?

Russia - starts at 0. Reaches 1 in early 42, 2 in mid 43, and 3 in late 44.

Britain - starts at 0. Reaches 1 in early/mid 40. 2 comes in early 42, 3 in late 43, and 4 in early 45. Perhaps 5 in late 45/early 46?

US - roughly same as Britain, but maybe a little earlier?

France - 0. Give them 1 in early 41 if they last that long. Maybe.

Italy - starts at 0. 1 in late 41, 2 in mid 43. 3 in mid-late 44?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My decision to go with the current research model was specifically to go against the conventions of "historical advances".
Not arguing about this at all. What-ifs are VERY important and flexibility to invest in more or less research and to choose different research areas will continue to provide different results. This absolutely needs to be maintained for surprises and replayability.

I AM seeing possible discrepancies with scenario setups. If we define the Pz VII King Tiger as the L5 tank for Germany and the Type XXI sub as the L5 sub for Germany, we should see those in the 1944 scenario setup. But we're not and Germany only starts with a couple of research points. On the other hand, in a campaign game Germany could have 10 points by 1942 at a modest cost of 2500 MPPs and be cranking out L5 tanks and subs by 1943. This seems grossly inconsistent, even accounting for Germany buying more research. "Realistically" (and there's that darn word again), how much research did Germany actually have and how much more could they possibly have gained if they pushed harder? Double, triple, more? Same question for all the other countries.

This is like squeezing jello. I readily admit I don't have a solution for research, just a healthy questioning attitude. So, with bag of popcorn in hand and a drink with one of those umbrellas in it, I'll lounge back for a while and see where this research thing ends up. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it all, I guess I have no choice but to type it all over again. I guess much of that last hour was spent thinking and not typing.

Anyways, I don´t see how the proposed tech engine would change the fact that one side can get very lucky while the other spends the rest of the game waiting for the same miracle to happen. This has larger consequences in especially jets, the rest can be dealt with...altough having high industrial tech is a great big advantage if the other side does not have it.

I do think that this would make things easier for the allies, but I guess that can be described as a good thing, so if none of my suggestions can be considered, I do not oppose the suggestion.

However, here are mine, considerably less well argumented and explained than the last time, though....

1. Diminishing returns for each chit spent on a category -

1 pt invested =7%

2 pts = 13%

3 pts = 18%

4 pts = 22%

5 pts = 25%

You could still reduce these numbers by a fifth for each level already achieved, should you wish.

This would make investing 1-2 chits more lucrative and is admittedly (if I say so myself) realistic. You can´t expect twice the chance of success (or research speed) with twice the funding.

2. Modifiers according to date -

Each tech level would belong to its corresponding 1940 year (note that as it is I think it´d be best to make it universal, instead of bickering about the individual historic dates....)

Ie. level 1 would belong to 1941

level 2 to 1942 etc.... (which would conveniently mean that Me-262´s, ie. level 4 jets, belong to 1944, and level 5 tanks, ie Maus tanks belong to 1945 (yes yes, I know that 1946 might have been more realistic for the Maus ;) ).

Then, each year you would get either a positive or negative modifier for your research depending on the level you are trying to achieve.

Trying to invent level 2 technology in 1942 would be at the standard success rate, but for each year you are trying to "cheat history" you get a 1% penalty per chit in the subject.

´Likewise, if you were coming up with "old" technology, you´d get an equivalent bonus.

For example, with 5 chits, you are trying to invent level 5 jets in 1942.

The modified chance of success would be 25-(3*(5*1))=10 %

Trying to come up with level 4 tanks in 1942 with just one chit would be at 10%-(2*(2*1)) =6%

Of course the % would be different with my suggested diminished returns, but let´s not get too optimistic here ;)

Of course you might argue that research is not at all dependent on dates - fair enough, I have another suggestion : how about hitting the category with a dramatic penalty every time a new level is gained, but one which disappears over time?

So, immediately upon achieving a new level, the success % for the category drops to, say, a fifth of what it would normally be (and of course it would still stay ay a fifth regardless of changing the number of chits in the category), and this penalty would slowly erode over time! You could even make the rate of the penalty disappearing dependent on the number of chits still in the subject (if you didn´t want people just emptying the category of chits and waiting until the penalty lifts), or perhaps just depending on time (ie. after x turns or x weeks, the penalty is reduced by a fifth of the original number)

.

I think these might work well, but would require more programming work compared to the tech suggestion that is now under consideration....

But wait, there´s more....

3. You could gain a bonus to your research % if your opponent has an advantage in that category over you.

This would represent espionage and the fact that captured enemy units (even destroyed ones) are understandably a huge boost to the research effort.....

Perhaps 1% per chit per level of difference, again?

So, if your enemy has a 2-level advantage and you are researching with 5 chits, the chance of success would be 35%.

I´d love to see this implemented in some form, since it would even out the odds a bit if the other one should get lucky, and that´s what we all want I think!

4. Finally, I don´t think you should be able to switch between the research subjects as easily as you can now.

It´s the norm now to develop level 5 i.t. (hehe) first, then switch it all to jets.

Think about it: if say Germany had invested heavily in avionics and rocketry, and had lots of avionics and rocketry research centres and scientists, could you just at some point go and tell them "Ok guys, I want you to start developing the Panzer V now. Forget about the jets for awhile".

No, and you couldn´t really "cash in" on one subject and invest it in another easily (are you just going to sell all those research centres and rocket scientists? ;) .

So, maybe you could only "cash in" the chits already in place on one subject, not transfer them to another. You´d have to buy a new chit for that, ie. to spend 125 mpp for it.

This would be only fair and realistic, and, especially when combined with some of my suggestions above which further encourage you to "spread yourself around", would really encourage people to spread their research chits around in a reasonable and more realistic manner!

This is a historical reason why nations didn´t dump all of their research capability to one area.....

So, whaddyall think?

Am I on the right tracks at all?

Eagerly waiting to see if doing this TWICE was worth it at all.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herbert:

You say you've had no trouble winning playing either side, but I suspect that is against AI.

My guess is most players use AI as a warmup for the real challenge, PBEM against human opponents. I can count on one hand the AI games I've played, because I wanted to go head-to-head with humans, who have a habit of throwing wicked curveballs, which help one conquer the learning curve quicker.

If you'd like, I'm willing to play a 39 PBEM game with you, me as the Axis, and you'll get a first hand feel for the Axis imbalance.

Yes, I know if the Axis had fielded significant numbers of jets earlier it could have effected the outcome of the war. But the U.S. developed synthetic rubber when the Japaneese cut off Southeast Asia, funded the Manhatten project, developed the Norden bomb site, the P-51, the B-29, the Higgins boat, the DCKW amphibious truck, fielded a suburb heavy tank toward the end of the war, and broke (along with England) both the German and Japaneese codes. And that's not a complete list of Allied tech accomplishments. If need be, the U.S. would have developed a counter to German jets, just like it did with the hedgerow busters attached to the front of Shermans in Normandy. . . necessity being the mother of invention.

The war may have been extended if Germany had more jets, but against the Russian hordes, and American technology and industrial prowess, I believe the outcome would have been the same.

Moderate tweaking of several mentioned issues(which I'm glad your addressing), will be much appreciated to make this great game even better.

If the balance is improved I believe the end result would be more people playing more often and longer, and telling their friends, which should equate to "legs" for the game, which should mean more games sales.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war may have been extended if Germany had more jets, but against the Russian hordes, and American technology and industrial prowess, I believe the outcome would have been the same.
At a certain point of the war, of course.

However, in this game the air power is so strong that the american industrial output (which, of course, is quite pathetic : in my games the U.S. always starts with L5 Ind. Tech. to compensate) and the russian hordes do not matter.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not arguing about this at all...
OK wasn't sure.

I AM seeing possible discrepancies with scenario setups. If we define the Pz VII King Tiger as the L5 tank for Germany and the Type XXI sub as the L5 sub for Germany, we should see those in the 1944 scenario setup. But we're not and Germany only starts with a couple of research points. On the other hand, in a campaign game Germany could have 10 points by 1942 at a modest cost of 2500 MPPs and be cranking out L5 tanks and subs by 1943. This seems grossly inconsistent, even accounting for Germany buying more research. "Realistically" (and there's that darn word again), how much research did Germany actually have and how much more could they possibly have gained if they pushed harder? Double, triple, more? Same question for all the other countries.
OK this can be looked at again, but as time permits after I tackle some of the outstanding items first.

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say you've had no trouble winning playing either side, but I suspect that is against AI.
I was refering to PBEM, although in fairness it's more than likely my playtesting was not as extensive as the public play done with SC once the game was released.

If you'd like, I'm willing to play a 39 PBEM game with you, me as the Axis, and you'll get a first hand feel for the Axis imbalance.

Interesting offer, but I honestly don't have the time right now to do this, well at least not until I finish up a few things first. I will consider an open game period once I am satisfied with the TCP/IP and any other remaining items for the game. Currently I am undefeated as either side with default options selected, and I WILL honour anyone that dethrones me ;)

Yes, I know if the Axis had fielded significant numbers of jets earlier it could have effected the outcome of the war. But the U.S. developed synthetic rubber when the Japaneese cut off Southeast Asia...
It's an interesting point, I am also considering adding a few research chits to the current US and Soviet setups to help balance the game in this respect as well. Originally I believe the 39' campaign had the US and USSR begin with 3 and 4 reseach chits as opposed to the 1 and 2 that exists now. Can't remember exactly why I changed it to a lower value, but I believe it was argued that the Axis was at too much of a disadvantage. Gotta love irony ;)

Just to clear up what I think the research model change will achieve is (to all posters) that it will still allow a quick advance in research at the lower levels, (same for all countries), but may balance out the incredibly high research levels attained prior to all major countries having become engaged. It may not in all cases, but that is part of the randomness of the model I guess.

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

So the question is what say you all? Any objectors?

Hubert

There seem to be two major complaints about the present tech engine: it leads to ahistorical results (jets in 1941), and it favors the German player. I think this proposal would solve the first, but not the second, and could in fact make the second worse.

Here's why. The reason the present tech engine favors the Germans is because they get big harvests of MPP's early on from plundering countries, which they can invest in tech. It's an unusual game for me when the German player doesn't have at least six chits invested by the end of 1940, and I've seen games where they've got all 10 invested by the time of Barbarossa. The UK player, if he doesn't want to get Lionized, has difficulty getting to 4 by that time, and Russia and US aren't even in the game. Not only does the German get a big jump, but he can move those chits around as he gets the advances. I usually start off with 4 in Ind and maybe a couple in tanks, then when I get to 2 or 3 in Ind I'll start switching them around to anti-tank or radar or whatever.

This suggestion may reduce the possibility of the German player getting to L5 anytime soon, but it's not going to keep the German from substantially outgaining the allies in most areas. As I said, it could make it worse. I assume that the reduction in chances will also apply with fewer than 5 chits; for example, 1 chit will give you 5% chance of advance to level 1, 4% to level 2, etc. The Allies, who are usually the ones in the position of having 1 or at best 2 chits in any one area, are thus almost foreclosed from the possibility of ever getting to the higher levels.

Here's my suggestion, which is quite simple: don't allow switching of chits. This is more realistic -- I can't imagine that, after the first King Tiger rolled off the production line, the engineering head said, "Okay, guys, tomorrow we start producing subs!" It prevents the problem I mentioned earlier -- if the German player wants to stick 4 chits into Ind Tech, that's fine, but that's where they're going to stay, even after he gets to L5. It offers the probability that tech development will be more gradual, because most players will choose to spread the chits around.

The really nice thing about my suggestion is that it can be tried right now, without doing anything to the game. I'd be happy to take on a couple of players, either side, with the simple House Rule: no switching of chits. We can play out the games and come back in a couple of weeks and tell everybody what impact it had on the game.

Anybody up for it, email me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, it could make it worse. I assume that the reduction in chances will also apply with fewer than 5 chits; for example, 1 chit will give you 5% chance of advance to level 1, 4% to level 2, etc. The Allies, who are usually the ones in the position of having 1 or at best 2 chits in any one area, are thus almost foreclosed from the possibility of ever getting to the higher levels.
I don't see how it could get worse other than slowing advances down. Mathematically it's the same for all sides, the higher you get the slower in theory your advances will become.

So if for example you both have level 1 jets and the allies have 2 chits and the axis have 5 chits in jet technology, then the allies have an 8% chance for the next level as opposed to the normal 10% whereas the axis have a 20% chance as opposed to 25% chance. This is a drop in 20% for both sides, same for everybody, so no real advantage or disadvantage that I can see.

Now if the axis continue in successful advances in jet technology their probablility of attaining the next level decreases by 20% each turn, thus slowing their advances down by a greater amount for their current investment as compared to your investment/chance ratio at the lower level. For example if you are still at level 1 then you have only faced a 20% drop in investment/chance ratio whereas if the axis is at level 2 jets still with 5 research chits they are facing a 40% drop in investment/chance ratio. I sort of see this as research gap helper more than anything else solely based upon investments in each area.

The closer you get to similar levels the same the drop in chance percentages, but no better or worse considering the argument that the Allies will still only have 1 or 2 chits in any given research area and this is the same regardless of research model.

Here's my suggestion, which is quite simple: don't allow switching of chits...
This is doable as well, but perhaps a middle ground of losing 50% of your investment in any area whenever you decide to switch may work as well. At least to have the option but pay a price. No promises on this part just yet, as I have to think about the implementation a bit.

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russ;

You've already played a game in which no chits were moved around, against me in our round four game. How did this happen? Because I didn't realize you could move chits around until recently, after reading posts on this topic you initiated! I thought (ignorantly) that once research chits were commited, that was that.

In that game I bought ten chits ASAP, starting with the fall of Poland, and maxing out by the fall of France, when I bought the final four chits. I ended up with 2 in each of the following: 1) Industry 2) Tanks 3) Anti-tank 4) Jets 5) Anti-air.

You saw the result. By late 42, early 43 I had: 1) Level 5 tanks 2) Level 5 production 3) Level 5 anti-air 4) Level 4 jets 5) Level 2 anti-tank.

All that from 2 chits per technology, never moved around. Had I realized you could have moved things around, I would have shifted my level 5 advances to bombers and subs and then long range aircraft. If I remember, I had level 5 tanks by the time Barbarossa started. So those two chits sat there under utilized for what, 25 turns? Maybe more.

So, although I like that Hubert is looking at this, I still feel the Axis should have a steeper slope (3% chance per turn vs. 5% for the Allies), and/or the Allies need more research (which it looks like Hubert will change), and/or the U.S. needs more MPPs as the game progresses, and or the Russians need more MPPs and/or units when Barbarossa begins, and/or the Russians need weather effects.

Now that I've played numerous PBEM games, I still don't understand why the U.S. starts with 180 MPPs, and that's that. They basically get sand kicked in their face by the Germans, which a-historical aspect aside, isn't even a good what-if result. As you saw in our game, your American contribution ended up being so what. I was so dominant by that time I could have started building aircraft carriers -- in 1943.

And this overwhelming result occurred against you, one of the best players I've encountered!

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is doable as well, but perhaps a middle ground of losing 50% of your investment in any area whenever you decide to switch may work as well. At least to have the option but pay a price. No promises on this part just yet, as I have to think about the implementation a bit.
Isn't that essentially what happens if you have to "disband" a chit? If so, you'd just have to make them unswitchable, and the 50% penalty would already be factored in. You'd "switch" by turning two in for MPP, which then purchase one in a different area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that essentially what happens if you have to "disband" a chit? If so, you'd just have to make them unswitchable, and the 50% penalty would already be factored in. You'd "switch" by turning two in for MPP, which then purchase one in a different area.
Good point, so I am thinking then the easiest way to do this would be to remove the 'Reclaim' button and then treat each 'Down Arrow' beside a research area as the original 'Reclaim' button. This should act as you outlined above and make things really straightforward and easy to implement. I like it. smile.gif

Hubert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bleh. Totally ignored
Hang in there Scorpion! A couple of us planted the 5-4-3-2-1 research idea a long while back and now it sprouts new growth. This should slow down the rapid research advances to something more reasonable. Give US and USSR a couple more chits and let's see what happens. :cool:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Good point, so I am thinking then the easiest way to do this would be to remove the 'Reclaim' button and then treat each 'Down Arrow' beside a research area as the original 'Reclaim' button. This should act as you outlined above and make things really straightforward and easy to implement. I like it.

Oh, I like it, too. Very simple, and it cuts way back on multiple large advances.

Hubert: Good to see you participating in the discussions. You have once again shown the kind of customer support that is renowned here. Thanks for giving us the game, and your continued improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Formula

Level Tech 0 at 5 points – 25% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 1 at 5 points – 20% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 2 at 5 points – 15% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 3 at 5 points – 10% chance of moving to the next level

Level Tech 4 at 5 points – 5% chance of moving to the next level

The patch where this is implemented is when I stop upgrading SC. IMO this would ruin the entire tech tree. I don't know what the problem with the current system is. I've yet to get any lucky tech rolls during PBEM, although I've gotten a few against the AI. It seems the point of the above arrangement is to penalize players for investing in technology. It would become very rare to see anyone max out at 5 tech level in anything (and in my experience it's already rare to see that), which means if you DO get that lucky the game will become even more unbalanced than some are already claiming it is. The problem that is being complained about isn't tech advances, but the randomness, or "luck" involved. The solution isn't to keep you from getting tech improvements - that would just make the game less fun.

I vote to leave well enough alone. When you change the entire game engine just because of a good or bad die roll during one scenario, the result may not be an improvement. The suggested change will not be an improvement and will potentially unbalance the game more. If a change is required, lessen the randomness involved in tech advances. Something along the lines of:

For each point invested in a tech you start out with that percentage chance for a tech advance in that field. The next and each subsequent turn your percent chance for improvement doubles. I.E. you start out with 3 points in a field. This gives you a three percent chance of a tech improvement the NEXT TURN. The turn after that you have a six percent chance of improvement, and a 12 percent chance the turn after that. And so forth. This will preserve some randomness, yet minimize it somewhat as you will be assured of eventually advancing in that tech. I would also lower the max points able to be purchased down to 5 and double their cost. However, I would still allow all five to be put into one field at a time.

[ September 13, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are in the significant minority on this Devil Dog. My guess is you haven't played enough good PBEM Axis players yet, and been rolled over, swamped, and otherwise flattened by the Axis. It's fun (but not that challenging) when you're the roller, pretty damned discouraging when you're the rollee.

This topic heading is attracting far-and-away the most posts for good reason: There is an Axis PBEM imbalance. We are trying to address this to improve the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...