Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Good...and the Bad
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:11 am 
The following is a list of why I like MA. Developers don't always here the good stuff about their products:

- There is no economic development, yet economics comes into play. Too many strategy games force the player to waste too much time and effort on economic developement. I don't mind a little bit of that sort of thing, but more than 10% of play time is too much, IMO. I play strategy/wargames for the war part.

- There is (usually) combat in the first turn of the game and no one is accused of "tank rushing". In RTS games, it seems like some people consider it to be bad form to not give them time to get their defenses up. In MA, it is assumed that the PL player will attack immediately and the FNU player better set up some defenses.

- Multiplayer is not played in real time. I'm a busy guy. Work, familly, taking care of my house, etc all take up time. Other than in the middle of the night when everyone else is sleeping, I simply don't have an hour+ to sit down and play a game on the internet in a head-to-head format. So playing a turn, sending it off and forgetting about it until my opponent plays his turn works well for people like me. I really like some RTSs (Rise of Nations and Homeworld 2 are also on my computer right now) but I've never played them online because of this.

- The game isn't really simple...it's elegant. Like Chess. A lot of wargames (particularly turn based wargames) try so hard to model the real world that they become extremely complicated. One game I had that I liked a lot was The Operational Art of War. It was a good game with a simple interface, but its unit and combat model were rather complex. So I often had no idea what my chances of success were in a given battle or how to determine it. In MA, it is easy.

- There is no way to cheat in multiplayer. One of the banes of turn based games was the ability of players to open their turn, play it out to see what would happen and/or look at their opponents stuff then replay it again to get better results. In MA, with no Fog of War and no random events there is no way to cheat. Replaying is encouraged.

- Resources eventually run out. Stalemates can't last long.

All is not rosy, however. I know MA:PR is in the late phases of developement, so I don't expect any of this to be implemented. I'm just rambling in hopes of getting some of these ideas into the heads of people for the future.

- The game seems a bit unstable. Occasionally I lose my mouse pointer and have to save the game. Sometimes the game just exits with no warning. In Hot Seat mode, the units seem to stop drawing. Those are all bugs, of course. I'm a software developer and I know that bugs happen...

- It would be nice if each side had some truly unique units.

- More factions and more than two players in multiplayer would be good (but players would have to be really good at getting their turns done or games would take months to play).

- Some economic developement would be good...Maybe allowing players to divert some resources to "growing" their economys. Also it should be possible to attack enemy economic resources to reduce enemy resouce output (of course, invading an enemy territory does this).

Here is a suggestion: Back in the mid 90's there was a shareware game called Stars!. It was a great multiplayer strategy game (except economic management got a bit too complicated late in the game). One of the things that really made it work was that it was a "Simultaneous" turn game. The way it worked was this: At the start of the game, each player (up to 8 players) would _each_ get a turn file from the server. Each player would open that file, issue orders for their empires, then submit their turn files back to the server. Once the server had all turns (or after some set amount of time) it would calculate the results of all the orders given - it would move units, resolve combat, deploy new units, generate resources, etc - then send new turn files to all the players. Repeat.

The great thing about this was that you could have a large number of players in the game and still play turns at a relatively quick pace. Typically we'd play with 4 or 5 players and set a time limit of 3 days for turns. People would usually play their turns within 24 hours. In between turns players would e-mail each other to conduct diplomacy or just taunt each other. With 4 or 5 players in traditional turn based games (like Warlords III, for instance), it would usually take as long as a week to play a single turn! More often than not, games would just end after only a couple turns.

I'm not suggesting this for MA. Obviously MA is a bit too simple for this and it probably requires a different combat model. But if you're a developer and reading this, keep it in mind for future games, especially if you are trying to think of ways to have more than 2 players.

I think MA has really hit on something here and with the right marketing MA:PR could be a really popular game (at least among wargamers). Because of its great graphice and intuitive UI, it could draw in some of the traditional RTS crowd.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:30 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
the devs have always liked the idea of increasing the game to allow more thann2 players to play but they haven't found a fair way how todo it (as far as I'm aware) taking it in turns wouldn;t work for the obvious reason of wheover goes alst will be lucky to have anything left by the time it's his turn.
Simultaneous would be the only way to do it, but then you have the problem of enemy units trying to move onto the same space and you woudl also need to break up the combat turn into each of it's seperate phases giving each turn upto 5 phases for each player.

And what happens if someone stops playing? removing their units would unbalance the game too much etc.. There have been other threads on this topic but so far no-ones come up with a workable model.

Oh FYI in MAPR there will be some unique units for the 2 sides.

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Good...and the Bad
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:39 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Ahh! Sounds like meat for another good discussion! Haven't had one of those in a while *cracks knuckles*

UllerPSU wrote:
- The game seems a bit unstable. Occasionally I lose my mouse pointer and have to save the game. Sometimes the game just exits with no warning. In Hot Seat mode, the units seem to stop drawing. Those are all bugs, of course. I'm a software developer and I know that bugs happen...


One reason the game is unstable is that the developers have had troubles with their original publisher, and because of that weren't able to patch the game very easily. MAN solved many of the problems, but MA:PR will completely eliminate them I'm sure.

UllerPSU wrote:
- It would be nice if each side had some truly unique units.


This will definately be happening with what we've learned of the units in MA:PR. PL will be getting some new heavy units that have multiple attacks each, furthering their general strategy of overpowering their opponents. FNU will get some more versatile units that are higher tech but not as durable. In addition to that, there will be whole new units for each side such as AA shields, helicopters, and other varieties of towers.

UllerPSU wrote:
- More factions and more than two players in multiplayer would be good (but players would have to be really good at getting their turns done or games would take months to play).


There are many traits MA has that would make multiplayer games very difficult:
1) This game is designed around an in-order turn system (as opposed to simultaneous). This cannot be changed without making this an entirely different game. As designed, this game is completely deterministic... (you as a software guy will know what I mean, but for others: when you do an action, you know exactly what the result will be, there is no randomness). If units are moved simultaneously it would break how it works, as by moving to a location, when an enemy moved there simultaneously it would no longer be deterministic.

2) Because of 1, any game with more than 2 players could take an eternity to go through. People would have to do their turns in order, so you would have to wait for each of the others to do their turns before you can do another. This follows standard tabletop rules.

3) What to do when players drop? When they do, it would ruin the balance of the remainder of the game. With 4 players, and months to complete, the likelihood of one of these players disappearing is very high.

4) How would you work guerrilla forces? Right now its obvious who they belong to, but its not so obvious in a multiple player situation. This as admitadly is a smaller problem compared to the others, as there have been valid proposed fixes for it, but it would definately change the game.

This question has been discussed a few times previously, here are a couple topics:
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=530
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253

There is a certain epic scale that games with more players have, that MA definately lacks. for this reason the clan wars were formed, and have developed a long ways. Take a look at my signature links for more information on our latest set of wars, which add a whole new level of diplomacy, strategy, and camaraderie to this already great game.

UllerPSU wrote:
- Some economic developement would be good...Maybe allowing players to divert some resources to "growing" their economys. Also it should be possible to attack enemy economic resources to reduce enemy resouce output (of course, invading an enemy territory does this).


It would definately be interesting if it could be balanced well, but I think it would take away from what this game does.

This game has found a near perfect formula as far as playability goes: Economics drive this wargame as you take and defend territory, and the unit choice makes for endless combinations of how you can wage war. Do you want to slow the enemy? Divert them? Destroy their fighting ability? You have to make these choices at each of your fronts. Though the game is simple, with only a few units and a watered down economic system, the strategic and tactical decisions are infinate. On top of that, with the Secret Ally system this game is one of the most replayable games I've ever played. Each game is completely different.

I believe the reason this game does this so well is that it is simple at its root level, but designed to allow many choices that affect multiple tiers of strategy. Any additional complexity at the lower levels would make the strategic complexity unbearable (In my opinion of course :) ).

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:11 am 
Enforcer wrote:
And what happens if someone stops playing? removing their units would unbalance the game too much etc.. There have been other threads on this topic but so far no-ones come up with a workable model.


Back to the Stars! model (I did a quick google and couldn't find it...we played it a lot circa 1996) since this game did simultaneous turns pretty well.

If a player "drops" on purpose he could set his faction to be controled by the AI. Usually as players drop as soon as they see they are losing and there is no hope. So the AI would finish the game for them while the players that are winning continue to slug it out. It worked pretty well.

If a player just stops submitting turns, his units just sit there and his empire just continues to function on the last orders given.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Good...and the Bad
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:32 am 
Maelstrom wrote:

1) This game is designed around an in-order turn system (as opposed to simultaneous).



That's why I said this is really an idea (more than two players and simultaneous turns) for a future game...not MA but one that takes what MA does so well - intuitive UI, simple elegant unit, combat and economic model - and applies it to a game for more than two players. For more than two players, you really need simultaneous turns because otherwise the games last too long.

Quote:

2) Because of 1, any game with more than 2 players could take an eternity to go through.


See above. I used to play Warlords III a lot. It rarely worked for more than two players because a typical game would last 20-30 turns. With 4 or more players it could take half a year to play a single game!
Quote:

3) What to do when players drop?


See my post above (I forgot to change the username to "UllerPSU"). It worked fine in Stars! In fact, my motherboard burned out in one game...I asked a friend to turn my faction to be controlled by the AI. When I came back, I was still doing pretty well.
Quote:

4) How would you work guerrilla forces?



Like I said, this would have to be different game than MA conceptually. It would require a differnt combat model and even a different turn/phase model. Here is (basically) how Stars worked:

Movement and Combat orders are the same: You order your units to move to a location, attack a specific unit, guard an area, follow an enemy unit, etc. Everthing happens simultaneously. First all units move, then all units fire, then all damage is applied (so units could destroy eachother...this isn't unrealistic as sometime in real life two units destroy the combat effectiveness of each other).

If two units want to move into the same space, there would have to be some way to resolve that...probably force them to fire on one another and if both survive, whichever has the most hit points left gets the space. In this manner you could "assault" an enemy position by trying to move into it.

Resources gathered during the last turn resolution are spent and new units appear during the next turn resolution (before movement)...so you could place new units in the way of enemy units before they move.

This sort of game would clearly be less deterministic and a bit more complicated than MA. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I like MA's "chess like" nature, but future games that has some of MA's traits don't necessarily have to be that purely deterministic, do they?

Obviously all of this isn't completely thought out. It is just suggestions to put into the brains of the developers/producers for future games. They did MA so well, I'm sure they could make a kick ass simultaneos turn game, too.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:17 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
problems with multiplayer
1)there cant be AI-controlled sides in current MA.
2)waiting for turns - there are alot of jerks who just drop from the game without surrendering or even saying a word to opponent.if they lazy even to surrender why do you think they will not be lazy to give their control to AI etc
3)balance troubles..player 1 goes first and attacks player 4 then player 2 attacks player 4 then player 3 does same..player 4 gets wiped without even having a chance to do something


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:38 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 143
Karma: 0

Location: Bergen, Norway
...But he's still not talking about putting this into MA, as he mentioned 3 times already.

He's talking about how as many as possible of the Good Points of MA could be combined with a 3+ multiplayer game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:42 pm 
Mrakobes wrote:
problems with multiplayer
1)there cant be AI-controlled sides in current MA.

Not talking about current MA.
Quote:

2)waiting for turns - there are alot of jerks who just drop from the game without surrendering or even saying a word to opponent.if they lazy even to surrender why do you think they will not be lazy to give their control to AI etc

3)balance troubles..player 1 goes first and attacks player 4 then player 2 attacks player 4 then player 3 does same..player 4 gets wiped without even having a chance to do something


That's why we're talking about simultaneous turns where all players submit orders asynchronously...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:47 pm 
Deestan wrote:
...But he's still not talking about putting this into MA, as he mentioned 3 times already.

He's talking about how as many as possible of the Good Points of MA could be combined with a 3+ multiplayer game.


Thank you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:18 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 143
Karma: 0

Location: Bergen, Norway
NP. :)

By the way, the game Laser Squad Nemesis has a 2-player simultaneous-turn system. There have been some discussions in the forum about how it could be feasible to have more than 2 players in the same game.
The LSN forum is here (http://p069.ezboard.com/bcodogames) if you want a look about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:27 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
I never played Stars!, but I did play a game called Stellar Crisis which from what I've heard is in the same vein. In that game it was simultaneous as well, but the number of units were quite limited. It was a galactic-level game so your units were ships traveling between different systems. Each turn you would give an order to each of your ships, or you could group them into fleets that would have an order. Though Massive Assault overshadows it in strategic value, that game was quite good for it.

The simultaneous system is also what we're using for the Clan Wars. Each clan determines their army movements simultaneously, and when all are done the moves are done and new battles are started.

A game using some of the same features as Massive Assault could be done simultaneously, but a lot of it would have to be abstracted away. Maybe be more like a board game where all units were placed in a country, then moved to neiboring countries when a turn was made. That would get rid of all the collision problems, but I don't know how combat would be worked out with the varying units that MA possesses.

I know we're talking about a different game here, but as we're targeting the best concepts of MA, I'm thinking along those lines :). The main feature I see as one that could transfer over well is the Secret Allies concept.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:43 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
i dont see how simultaneous moves solve the lagging problem
with average players tending to lag that much as in current MA waiting till ALL 3-4 or more players send in their turn for simultaneous move -will be pain in ass...say i move dayly or faster other two move once a 2-3 days and last one tends to lag for a week..game will go forever same as with
currently its hard for me to find some fast players even for 1-to-1 game and i think i will have even more difficulties finding 4 fast players.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:59 pm 
Mrakobes wrote:
i dont see how simultaneous moves solve the lagging problem
with average players tending to lag that much as in current MA waiting till ALL 3-4 or more players send in their turn for simultaneous move -will be pain in ass...


That's why you have the server generate the turn when either all players have submitted their turn _OR_ after a set time (usually 3 days).

In my experience with Stars!, games usually moved at a decent pace. Maybe have a setting so if you fail to submit 3 turns in a row, you're faction is transferred to AI control. No, it's not a perfect solution, but as I I mentioned, it is usually players who are losing that drop off. So it doesn't usually matter that much. Yes, some games get ruined by players dropping off.

Simultaneous turns is faster than sequential, even with two players because neither player has to wait for the other to play the turn. When a new turn is generated, each can play the turn at they're convenience. With 3 or more players, the difference between Simultaneous vs. Seqential turns gets very big. If average time for a player to play his turn is 1.5 days, then with sequential turns, the average length of a single turn is <number of players> * 1.5 (so with 4 players it would be 6 days). With Simultaneous turns, if the average _maximum_ time for a player to play his turn is 2 days, then it will (on average) take two days per turn no matter how many players there are (but with more players, the average maximum time would likely increase...hence the hard limit).

The point is, a game similar to MA would be very cool to play with 4-6 players where diplomacy could come into play. Sequential turns would make that impossible (too slow, last player to move would be severly disadvantaged). Simultaneous turns fixes that.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:07 pm 
Maelstrom wrote:
A game using some of the same features as Massive Assault could be done simultaneously, but a lot of it would have to be abstracted away. Maybe be more like a board game where all units were placed in a country, then moved to neiboring countries when a turn was made. That would get rid of all the collision problems, but I don't know how combat would be worked out with the varying units that MA possesses.



Yeah, but then you'd be moving more toward a game like "Risk". Part of what is great about MA is it's mix of strategic (what territory to attack? with what?) and tactical (where do units move? what units attack which targets?). A "Risk" style game is shifts things more toward the strategic and away from the tactical. I'm not sure that's a bad thing....just pointing it out.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:08 pm 
Damn...I need to get registered...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:16 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
How could you do a tactical game in simultaneous combat? Is there a game you've played like that? Lots of TBSs do it by having people just move around at the same time, each unit having a specified move, and whoever moved the unit first got there. It wouldn't work in an online game in the vein of MA though, when people live across the globe and play at different times.

You mentioned unit collision before, but that only works if you move your units one space at a time, right? Transports really throw a wrench in it.

I'll have to agree with Uller on the point that Simultaneous games definately work better online. If you missed updates 2 times in Stellar Crisis, it would set you as having a completed turn right when the turn happens (so you don't slow down the game any longer). If you still didn't move for 15 more turns, your force is ruined, your force disappears, and you get a black mark on your record.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:33 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:09 pm
Posts: 41
Karma: 0
Maelstrom wrote:
How could you do a tactical game in simultaneous combat? Is there a game you've played like that?


Nope.
Quote:
Lots of TBSs do it by having people just move around at the same time, each unit having a specified move, and whoever moved the unit first got there.

Yeah. The second iteration of Warlords III did that. I hated it. I don't think that's the way to go...too much of a RTS feel...(contest of who can click units or use hotkeys the fastest).
Quote:
It wouldn't work in an online game in the vein of MA though, when people live across the globe and play at different times.

Agreed.
Quote:

You mentioned unit collision before, but that only works if you move your units one space at a time, right? Transports really throw a wrench in it.


Well, units could be moved by the server, one space at a time. Say you have two units A and B seperated by several hexs and each is ordered to move to the other's location:

AXXXXXB

Units would "collide" at the middle X. It would have to be kept very simple...Another possibility would be to introduce the concept of an initiative stat (or just use movement rate as initiative). Quicker units would have a higher initiatve score.

I used to play D&D by e-mail and we did that to resolve combat in a reasonable manner. Each player would give their order for their character at the start of each combat round. The character with the highest initiative roll would get to go first. So in the example above, lets say A's init is higher than B's. The collision occurs at the X immediately to the left of B. In the event of a tie, the winner is determined randomly (again, losing a bit of the deterministic nature of the game).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Good...and the Bad
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:12 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:09 pm
Posts: 41
Karma: 0
Quote:
This question has been discussed a few times previously, here are a couple topics:
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=530
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253


The first topic quickly degraded into whether or not Russia is a superpower and the war in Iraq was "honorable" (since when is war supposed to be honorable? Every wargamer know should know - never choose to enter a fair fight! First make it unfair in your favor or avoid the fight- Edit: I'm joking here (well sort of)...please no debates about Iraq /Edit).

The second was a bit more useful...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:20 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
UllerPSU wrote:
Well, units could be moved by the server, one space at a time.


Yeah, that really kills the ability to plan. If the number of units that can move multiple times is high, you could move a whole slew of units and not one of them ends up where you want them to go. Moving one space at a time is manageable, because you'll be able to easily see which enemy units can and probably try to move into the same place, and you can make your decision based on that.

Thats how Stellar Crisis was... it was a guessing game as to what ships the enemy may move where. That in itself can be quite the strategic decision, as you try to look at what the opponent will most likely do through there eyes, and anticipate appropriately.

The initiative has the same problem... you know that your highest initiative units will get where they're going (unless they run into a unit with the same initiative on the other side), but theres no telling whether your low initiative units will end up.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:44 pm 
Maelstrom wrote:
Thats how Stellar Crisis was... it was a guessing game as to what ships the enemy may move where. That in itself can be quite the strategic decision, as you try to look at what the opponent will most likely do through there eyes, and anticipate appropriately.

The initiative has the same problem... you know that your highest initiative units will get where they're going (unless they run into a unit with the same initiative on the other side), but theres no telling whether your low initiative units will end up.


All this is true. Although I don't know that it is a problem, per se. It is certainly "different" from the MA we all know and love. It adds a level of uncertainty. Will that enemy unit move to block your unit? You have to guess. The uncertainty of what your unit will do becomes a sort of "Fog of War".

We used this in Stars! all the time. For instance, lets say there are two enemy planets (A and B) that your fleet could reach in two turns and you want to attack planet A. In one turn, you could be 1 turn away from either...You send your fleet toward B, or on a course somewhere in the middle. On the next turn, your opponent must guess...will you attack A? or B? It is a new level of uncertainty not present in Sequential TBS games.

Anyway...I'd certainly be willing to plunk down $40 or so for an MA like game that supported more than 2 players. Simultaneous turns is the only reasonable way to do it, IMO. (of course, I'd be willing to plunk down $40 or so for MA:PR, too so the point is probably moot).


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y