 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Current AI technology has enough problems with just point defense. Its likely that this system will seriously degrade the AI's capability to compete with a human.
Any complication involving the map will enevitably have this effect. A human will always be able to flank better, because a human can instinctively ignore clutter in a 2d space.
CTP's flanking system inherently allows the AI to compete on an even playing field.
[EDIT: Dumb grammar  ]
Last edited by MrBaggins on 23-01-2004 at 22:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
The last thing I want to have to do is fortify a unit or a stack of units and then have to pick a direction. Can't we assume for play purposes that the commanders of those units will have some tiny amount of intelligence (in both senses of the word)?
I know that directional fortification of one unit is not a big deal. Just like micromanging the tiles worked in one city is not a big deal, and moving one worker around is not a big deal. In Civ, anything you have to do once you have to do literally thousands of times in a game, so we should keep things simple.
MrBaggins makes a great point about the AI, too. Why add another decision to an array of choices it is already too primitive to make?
Flanking on a tactical level is easily done with stacked combat. I don't think anyone for stacked combat is against those stacks involving flanking. Am I wrong about this?
As for flanking "mattering" in the strategic level... well, I've been a supporter before of simultaneous moves, and as mentioned a few posts back this would provide exactly the sort of thing (abstracted, to be sure) we're looking for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The first effect is that each node of the influence map, threat matrix, or whatever mathematical representation of threats, for the AI, gets increased by a factor of 8 (or 4 if you only use 4 cardinal directions.) The decision space is theoretically, modified by the power of 4, or 8, for any given number of troops.
Whilst you can always optimize representations, the increase in workload will always be significant... maybe too much so. Even 250 units would cause monumental issues for this approach. How few units are acceptable in a civ game?
Changing the ZOC rules was a design decision very much like this. Except dealing with directional flanking is far, far more complex to do optimally. You'd almost enevitably see a limited scope, formulaic solution, which would be easy to adapt to, and beat, once the pattern was discovered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
You DON'T. Entrench is an EXTRA command given as a BONUS to only some units. You can fortify instead if you want to. |
Problem is that you'd just be introducing a feature which the human could use effectively, but the AI could not, thus making the AI relatively speaking, worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The whole concept is flawed if the AI can't use it, however.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The first effect is that each node of the influence map, threat matrix, or whatever mathematical representation of threats, for the AI, gets increased by a factor of 8 (or 4 if you only use 4 cardinal directions.) The decision space is theoretically, modified by the power of 4, or 8, for any given number of troops.
Whilst you can always optimize representations, the increase in workload will always be significant... maybe too much so. Even 250 units would cause monumental issues for this approach. How few units are acceptable in a civ game?
Changing the ZOC rules was a design decision very much like this. Except dealing with directional flanking is far, far more complex to do optimally. You'd almost enevitably see a limited scope, formulaic solution, which would be easy to adapt to, and beat, once the pattern was discovered. |
First off, I would like the game balanced such that in the end of the game there are about 10% to 25% of the amount of units there are now.
Secondly, the minimal system requirement of a game that probably won't be released for 2 years will be significantly higher than the requirements for Civ3 (by that point 5 years old).
Those two things alone should allow the people designing game mechanics to implement more dynamic use of terrain without crippling the AI.
That said, I'm not sure that the coding is necessarily that much more difficult vs a CTP style flanking calculation. In both cases you have to first assess whether the enemy has the ability to flank. If the enemy doesn't have flanking units, then why bother to factor flanking into your threat matrix.
Once you know that they have the capability of flanking, the threat matrix calculation certainly does not need to include all 8 surrounding tiles.
ABC
DEF
GHI
If I am checking E for its defensive usefulness against H, flanking, as I've implemented it only makes you look at D and F for possible flanking potential.
Note that the code for the AI understanding what direction an attack comes from is already in place so that the AI can use the defensive bonus of rivers correctly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
First off, I would like the game balanced such that in the end of the game there are about 10% to 25% of the amount of units there are now.
|
Very unpopular. People want more units not less. This inflation effect has been happening since Civ1.
quote:
Secondly, the minimal system requirement of a game that probably won't be released for 2 years will be significantly higher than the requirements for Civ3 (by that point 5 years old).
Those two things alone should allow the people designing game mechanics to implement more dynamic use of terrain without crippling the AI.
|
Civ3 already runs pretty slow on (fast) existing systems. Systems might be about twice as fast by then, but certainly not enough to deal with magnitudes of difference.
quote:
That said, I'm not sure that the coding is necessarily that much more difficult vs a CTP style flanking calculation. In both cases you have to first assess whether the enemy has the ability to flank. If the enemy doesn't have flanking units, then why bother to factor flanking into your threat matrix.
|
Correct, although the issue appears with early units... horses... basically.
quote:
Once you know that they have the capability of flanking, the threat matrix calculation certainly does not need to include all 8 surrounding tiles.
ABC
DEF
GHI
If I am checking E for its defensive usefulness against H, flanking, as I've implemented it only makes you look at D and F for possible flanking potential.
|
Thats an optimization given 2 units (and attacks and entrenching only being possible for 4 cardinal directions) AND assuming a move of 2. If you are saying that E and H contain multiple units then its NOT as simple Once you extend movement, by road and railroad, the possibilities get significantly more complex. Once you start getting into the realm of 100 units in a 2500 tile region, it becomes unmanagable.
quote:
Note that the code for the AI understanding what direction an attack comes from is already in place so that the AI can use the defensive bonus of rivers correctly. |
The number of river squares is and has always been, managable... you only need to apply (slightly) different heuristic rules when you are adjacent to the river, thus limiting their effect on the decision space massively. This doesn't indicate an understanding of 'front lines' or attack directions, as you say. Merely a limited difference in ruleset, in a limited situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins Very unpopular. People want more units not less. This inflation effect has been happening since Civ1.
|
Not types of units, total units. And the inflation effect on total units has NOT been popular. The tediousness of moving units is a very, very common Civ3 complaint.quote:
Civ3 already runs pretty slow on (fast) existing systems. Systems might be about twice as fast by then, but certainly not enough to deal with magnitudes of difference. |
I didn't say that by itself it was, but it is a factor. Add onto that the penetration of vector calculation units like SSE2 and Altivec which are very well suited to these types of calculations and you do see a boost.quote:
Correct, although the issue appears with early units... horses... basically. |
Yes, but the AI doesn't need to make the calculation for every unit every turn. If I have a unit in the center of my territory with no enemies around, I don't have to run the calculation for that unit. I only need to actually run the calculation when I get closer to battle.quote:
Thats an optimization given 2 units (and attacks and entrenching only being possible for 4 cardinal directions) AND assuming a move of 2. If you are saying that E and H contain multiple units then its NOT as simple Once you extend movement, by road and railroad, the possibilities get significantly more complex. Once you start getting into the realm of 100 units in a 2500 tile region, it becomes unmanagable. |
This is a factor of the movement system which, this being a movement and supply thread, will probably have changes. For instance, limiting the roads and RR to single lines between cities instead of the way it is currently on every tile would dramatically cut down the decision space. quote:
The number of river squares is and has always been, managable... you only need to apply (slightly) different heuristic rules when you are adjacent to the river, thus limiting their effect on the decision space massively. This doesn't indicate an understanding of 'front lines' or attack directions, as you say. Merely a limited difference in ruleset, in a limited situation. |
Yes, but the code to determine the defensive value of a tile that borders a river is predicated on what direction the attack comes from. Therefore the AI must make some sort of calculation of where the attack is likely to come from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
Not types of units, total units. And the inflation effect on total units has NOT been popular. The tediousness of moving units is a very, very common Civ3 complaint.
|
I don't think so. I think that players like lots of units, but don't like managing lots of units. Stacks are a great solution.
quote:
I didn't say that by itself it was, but it is a factor. Add onto that the penetration of vector calculation units like SSE2 and Altivec which are very well suited to these types of calculations and you do see a boost.
|
The applications of SSE and Altivec are overwhelmingly floating point calculations for very specific vector calculations. They have zero application in the integer intensive influence maps/threat matrixes. You need a brute force ALU approach for that, and they only go so fast.
quote:
Yes, but the AI doesn't need to make the calculation for every unit every turn. If I have a unit in the center of my territory with no enemies around, I don't have to run the calculation for that unit. I only need to actually run the calculation when I get closer to battle.This is a factor of the movement system which, this being a movement and supply thread, will probably have changes. For instance, limiting the roads and RR to single lines between cities instead of the way it is currently on every tile would dramatically cut down the decision space.
|
If their unit is siting on railroad you do need to consider its flanking if an your unit(s) with flanking can enter it... which probably means all units garrisoning their cities.
Regarding the road and rail limits... It seems as though this system has huge entry requirements and overhead to be implemented, when it can be implemented simply easily and effectively integrated into stacking attacks, as per CtP. Why does this concept deserve all this consideration and limitation?
quote:
Yes, but the code to determine the defensive value of a tile that borders a river is predicated on what direction the attack comes from. Therefore the AI must make some sort of calculation of where the attack is likely to come from. |
Likely uses simple coordinate math to determine a 90% arc of approach, that is... if the AI does consider in its strategy.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 24-01-2004 at 02:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins I don't think so. I think that players like lots of units, but don't like managing lots of units. Stacks are a great solution. |
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think people like lots of decisions. Since the decision matrix in the current mechanism is so simplistic, that desire is filled by total numbers. I think the vast majority of players if you gave them the choice between lots of units with a simple game mechanics and fewer units that you have to think more carefully about, would choose the fewer units.quote:
The applications of SSE and Altivec are overwhelmingly floating point calculations for very specific vector calculations. They have zero application in the integer intensive influence maps/threat matrixes. You need a brute force ALU approach for that, and they only go so fast. |
Since you seem to know a whole lot about this, can you explain it for me. It would seem to me that threat matrixes are inherently imprecise and would not require the precision that integral calculations give you. Also it would seem to me that matrix transformations are one of the things that vector units do exceptionally well. I'm totally willing to admit I'm out of my depth on this issue, so feel free to throw down some links so I can read up.quote:
If your unit is siting on railroad you do need to consider its flanking if an enemy unit with flanking can enter it... which probably means all units. |
Yes, but If I'm sitting on a RR between 2 mountains then I can assume that I can't be flanked. I run that calculation once and then I can ignore the flanking consideration of any unit on the RR. This doesn't work if the mountains are covered in RR. So yes, making sure that every tile does not have RR does cut down the decision space.quote:
Regarding the road and rail limits... It seems as though this system has huge entry requirements and overhead to be implemented, |
I'm willing to argue your other points on their merits, but this is a total red herring. The code to add an upkeep cost to RR is trivial. The code to give a city a bonus based on the number of attached cities is also trivial.quote:
when it can be implemented simply easily and effectively integrated into stacking attacks, as per CtP. Why does this concept deserve all this consideration and limitation? |
It deserves consideration because I don't really love the CTP stack system. If that wasn't obvious you've been sleeping. As to why it deserves "limitations" I think you're mistaking my motives. I don't want the RR limits to make the flanking idea work. I want the RR limits because I think its the right direction to take civ. It just happens to also make the AI for the flanking idea easier.
I also want to rebalance the number of units for its own sake. That it happens to play into our current discussion of flanking is an ancillary benefit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shuttleswo
|
|
My $.02 Firaxis tends to design the general game concepts simply so as to make things accessible to casual gamers (not the type of people who would come here) the fact of the matter is that any 'supply line' or range limitation movements would be too complicated. It could be argued that the excessive complications in the CTP series kept it from being a commercial success.
That said I'm personally in favor of a Civ2 chopper-esque idea for limiting movement, rapid expansion and exploration. I've seen elements of this in other threads and in this one as well, but specifically I think that if you keep it simple it’s more likely to work. Simply put the longer a unit is away from it’s territory, or not in a foreign territory with a ROP agreement, the unit slowly looses HP each turn at some rate until it gets to 1 (or possibly dies) This seems easy to implement and easy to understand and - I think the AI could handle that pretty well, as it currently does know enough to withdraw units when HP gets too low (which currently only comes from battle damage).
I would further suggest though that a better method than supply lines, or supply units or other complex concepts (neither of which I think the AI, barring MAJOR improvement could handle effectively) would be the old pillage button. When in enemy territory just pillage an improved tile and fill your HP back up. Just like Sherman & Hannibal did!
It could be either just the pillaging unit getting the benefits, or all the units on that square, or a certain improvement yields different amounts of HP that can be divided between units (roads being the least, farms the most value - RR & mines somewhere in-between) I imagine that play testing would need to be done to determine how powerful to make that feature.
As for naval units, add the ability to attack (or raid) improved costal squares to refresh HP, and have increasing range (slower hp loss) with tech, with nuclear powered units eventually having unlimited range (e.g. no HP loss) I can already imagine a Viking UU that's special feature would be a very high success rate of pillaging costal squares. This would cause the map to be more slowly revealed to players as advances in naval technology would actually allow units to go farther from home, rather than simply getting there faster.
These features are easy to understand and use; and reflect reality in a good way (for those who like reality in the game) It also could make ROP agreements really interesting as your units could move thru that territory without HP penalties.
This would also keep very early exploration early on in check and keep extremely early warmongering to a minimum.
It even can figure into the AI difficulty level, as the AI could suffer from the effects of being 'abroad' more slowly on higher difficulty levels.
I apologize for plagiarizing or repeating any ideas (particularly The_Aussie_Lurker’s whose ideas this is based on)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by wrylachlan
[SNIP]
Since you seem to know a whole lot about this, can you explain it for me. It would seem to me that threat matrixes are inherently imprecise and would not require the precision that integral calculations give you. Also it would seem to me that matrix transformations are one of the things that vector units do exceptionally well. I'm totally willing to admit I'm out of my depth on this issue, so feel free to throw down some links so I can read up. |
They aren't the matrix calculations you're thinking of... not x.y coordinate ones... just a synonym for matrix as in a 2d grid.
A clear explanation of Influence Maps is here
Influence maps get very computationally expensive in Civ... they scale badly. Since you have differening stats for strength, determining a common value for influence is tough. You might use independent values for melee, ranged and bombard, for example.
Since its always more computationally expensive to perform an floating point (SSE, Altivec) calculation than an integer calculation, you always design your system to use integers, particularly since integers work just fine for the application.
quote:
Yes, but If I'm sitting on a RR between 2 mountains then I can assume that I can't be flanked. I run that calculation once and then I can ignore the flanking consideration of any unit on the RR. This doesn't work if the mountains are covered in RR. So yes, making sure that every tile does not have RR does cut down the decision space.
|
Influence maps typically spread in a blind fashion. Checking whether a particular tile was a particular terrain to ignore them for the flanking algorithm every turn would probably be as costly either way.
quote:
I'm willing to argue your other points on their merits, but this is a total red herring. The code to add an upkeep cost to RR is trivial.The code to give a city a bonus based on the number of attached cities is also trivial. |
The processor overhead is still massive... I personally agree with the RR argument... but you still have to measure the distance of every unit to every other unit, to determine if they can "reach" them.
quote:
It deserves consideration because I don't really love the CTP stack system. If that wasn't obvious you've been sleeping. As to why it deserves "limitations" I think you're mistaking my motives. I don't want the RR limits to make the flanking idea work. I want the RR limits because I think its the right direction to take civ. It just happens to also make the AI for the flanking idea easier.
I also want to rebalance the number of units for its own sake. That it happens to play into our current discussion of flanking is an ancillary benefit. |
Thats fine... It's still unimplementable from a processor time standpoint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shanorb
|
|
I originally placed this in another thread I started, but I wanted to make sure it's on The List before it gets lost amongst all the other threads, so here goes:
Some of the changes described below would require a change to the engine. For Civ4, now's a perfect time to make engine suggestions. Others would be more flags that would be set for certain units. The most radical suggestion is to allow air and land units of different countries occupy the same space at the same time.
- Bombers and fighters have 2 turns to attack and return to base. Fighters would have fewer moves/turn than the bombers. This way we could have fighter escorts -- all the way there and back for short missions, partial distance for longer ones.
- Add the following flags that can be enabled/disabled for all units: Can Attack Air Units, Lethal bombardment of Air Units.
- Allow planes to overfly ground/sea units. When moving manually with the arrow keys, when an opponent is encountered, give the option to attack or fly over. When using the Goto command, automatically fly over any opponent units encountered. Ground units that can attack air units(and therefore see them) also have the option of attacking or moving under.
- If a unit has the Can Attack Air Units Flag enabled, then it can hit enemy planes. Otherwise, they are invisible. A unit unable to attack can sit on the same square as a plane and not know it.
- If at war, units with the Can Attack Air Units and Zone of Control flags can fire on enemy planes as they pass over or on adjacent squares. Example: A fleet of bombers heading into enemy territory would be fired on by Flak Units they pass over or near. This is analogous to how it works now w/ ground units. Enable the Lethal Bombardment of Air Units Flag, and you could lose some or all of your bombers before they reach the target. Even after they drop their bombs, it's a long trip home through the same gauntlet.
- Bombers can't attack other air units, UNLESS, they are other bombers on the ground in a city or airbase. Grounded fighters at the bases would get airborn to fight the bombers. The older bombers w/ gun turrents would have a stronger defense than the newer bombers without armament. Stealth planes would have a higher defense due to their stealth.
- Bombers can attack only once before returning to base and refueling, regardless of whether they attack on the first or second turns, because they theoretically drop all their bombs at the target site. Fighters would have the blitz flag on and can attack as long as they can stay in the air.
I do like how missiles are handled in Civ3. Another flag, say....Missile?? that would negate the above rules for the unit.
A previous point was made about railroads enabling ground units to outdistance air units. This could be fixed by changing the movement cost of railroads. 1/5 or 1/8 seems about right...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
khai
|
|
Ocean movement
The ocean is a dynamic enviroment.
I think that it would be a good idea to implemnt those things to ocean tiles:
- ocean currents; they play a great role in a nowadays shipping, you can go from USA to Europe 2 days shorter than the other way (thanks to the Gulf Stream), each tile should have a bonus or a penalty to movement.
- storms and meteorological anomalieties; there are some places in the world where it is extremly dangerous to sail (take in mind Cape Horn in a unpleasant weather), so tiles should have a different look and a bonus or penalty...
- Corriolis force (if I got that right); the general wind direction on a equatir is west -> so have that in mind while sailing your great fleets, you go west -> you get a bonus! 
- ice, ice bergs, ice packs; it would not only give colour to this dull blue tile but also some strategic meaning of transportation, you can't go so fast in ice packs, in area of ice bergs you can damage your ship.
- another thing; my idea is that not all coast line should be defended becouse you can't land your forces on an unpleasent coast, like cliff coast. So there should be a difference in coast types and a factor how good it is for landing your troops, it could be then translated to time required to land or a defensive penalty.
These are just some thoughts , you are welcome to make them better. Pls. tell me what you think of it.
ALL HANDS ON DECK!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
All that stuff would be really cool, but I don't know how the AI would handle it.
However, of all of these, I think the best (and easiest to implement) is this:
quote:
- ice, ice bergs, ice packs; it would not only give colour to this dull blue tile but also some strategic meaning of transportation, you can't go so fast in ice packs, in area of ice bergs you can damage your ship. |
The easiest way to do this is simply make a fourth type of water tile (dunno what to call it). Ships have a VERY high chance of sinking in it, it has a high move cost, and it never loses the chance of sinking. Oh, and you are never able to trade through it. Think of this on the world map - it would no longer be trivial to get to America in the Ancient Era by means of Greenland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
A small comment on the inflation in the number of units in Civ with newer versions. Lets keep in mind here that the total number of units that could be produced in the original Civ was low. It was very low. It was so low that it was not that hard to run into the hardcoded limit regularly. There was a reason for it, and it had primarily to do with the capacities of computers when Civ was coded. In many respects you could say that it was artificially low.
With Civ2 the capacities of computers had increased, and the unit limit was raised. But I think one could still run into that limit in a long world conquering game. With Civ3, again better computers, higher unit limit. And honestly, have any of you ever played a game of Civ3 where you hit that limit without intentionally trying to do so? I seriously doubt more than one or two have. I haven't.
Personally, I seriously doubt that any real inflation ever occured. I think it still takes about the same amount of time to produce equivelent units. Rather the artificial limits of computer limitations has disappeared. I do not think we will see any real difference in unit numbers between Civ3 and Civ4. Because even if they do increase the number of units that can exist in the game at one time, a different and more 'natural' set of limits have taken over. Those are limitations of city production capacity, and the ability of humans and AIs to maximize their productive capacity. And those are the limits that should be there.
The only ways I can see of cutting the number of units in the game as drastically as has been suggested would be to significantly decrease the productive capacity of cities, or massively increasing the production cost of units. And either of those solutions would effectively just slow down how fast units can be produced. And there are two big problems with that. A lot of hardcore players won't be happy with seeing things slowed down that much, especially if they are the sorts that know aproximately how long it should take to produce certain things historically. And casual gamers probably won't like it if it made the game less fun.
And fun should be what its all about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I disagree that it would slow down the game. Having fewer units would actually speed the game up as you wouldn't have to wait as long for the units to move. How much of your turn (in the end game) is spent doing fast exciting movement? Not very much. Most of it is tedious movement of lots of units. If there were fewer units, each of which was more powerful, not only would your turn go quicker, but each unit would be more fun to play with as you invest more in units when you have fewer of them.
As for the question of producing units slowing down the game - there are two ways to achieve unit numbers balance:
1) Unit shield cost
2) Unit upkeep cost
If you want to keep units building at the same speed, just jack up their upkeep cost.
The bottom line for me is that its a balance decision. You look at the size of the world and you can determine roughly how big the world economy will be after a certain number of turns (I'm sure firaxis has stats on this). Then you set the cost and upkeep on units based on that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkSlayer
|
|
First let me bring up a new thought...
Roads and railroads:
The creation of roads is fine, gives a small movement bonus and thats it. But roading the entire map is just silly.
Then you could upgrade the road, which will demand upkeep per tile, and boost movement, and some other stuff... But you wouldn't road like maniac over your entire map.
Railroad could be like connecting cities only, then you can only transport between stations...which you only find in the cities, and can be built on the track only ... you don't railroad your entire map, then you could use 1 turn to load on/off trains.
But to the resent discussion...
Flanking stuff:
1 tile is like a insane large square in real world, and civ has never been about moving troops in formation like in "Medieval - Total War" ... so give it up.
Ambush on the other hand... that can be discussed.
Defending a hill is still defending a hill, forest is for hiding, and swamp is like hell.
Flanking becomes to detailed in civ, unless you create an "Civ - Total War" type game.
Supply lines:
Could be interesting, but I fear it will become to complicated. The discussion so far, is complicating and alienating civ as a game.
Moving units/ naval movement:
Creating a navy is far more difficult than creating an army. The navy should have admiral leaders to group ships, and give them an option called "recon" - push recon, and they check a large area around them. Maybe also patrol, you define a line/area, and any enemy ships get a supprise... need maybe more discussion...
But navy as a concept need a change, remember... Greece had a large navy in ancient times, and had large battles with Persia I think, Rome also had large and many sophisticated ships. civ doesn't reflect this I feal. It is difficult to get an army/navy-size and power that is historically worthy...
cutting the number of units:
Somebody made a reference to civ1 and the number of units you could have, it was maybe a low number, but still alot of units. I want rather functions that can administrate large number of units, gluing units into a stack, make 10 bombers bomb a target in one command ... "You 10 bombers - bomb that". Remember, I'm not talking about CTP stack ... just administrative functions in the game ... if you want to use them
Waiting and repetetive tasks is ruining the gameplay, get rid of it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2004 20:43
|