 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
A "retro" approach to the combat resolution screen
The following is something I've been chewing on since this thread began. Look it over, and tell me what you think.
First, let me say that since this thread began, I've gotten TONS of fantastic ideas out of it...lots of ways to make combat and combat resolution more dynamic, thought provoking, and engaging. I do not know if the following is the "end all," but I think it makes an intriguing starting point for continuing discussion. So...without further delay, let me throw this out atcha....
****
Leaders
Leaders are defined by two characteristics - Command Ability and Tactical Ability. These scores are on a scale from 10 - 40
Command Ability represents the ability to lead men into battle and have them obey orders....Charisma plays a role, popularity (or fear-factor) also has a part. Essentially, this ability speaks largely of motivation. The higher this score, the more flexible and effective the army will be, under the command of the Leader (how this flexibility is expressed in terms of battle is outlined below)
Tactical Ability represents the ability to devise and execute a battle plan. Where command Ability is largely motivational, this ability is largely a matter of physical training and practice, and of understanding the dynamics of combat itself. (how this ability is expressed is outlined below).
How Leaders gain experience
Leaders may enter the game with scores in both abilities residing anywhere along the sliding scale. Every three victories or five defeats that a leader survives, one of his attributes (Command or Tactical Ability increases by 1 point), to a maximum of 40 in each.
Lifespan of Leaders
To prevent all leaders from "maxing out" their stats, we can put each leader on a timer, where X (the number of "free battles" you may use the leader in is equal to 100 - (ComAbil + TacAbil) {this somewhat reflects the age of the leader in question...older leaders would have more experience kinna thinking}.
After the "free battles" are used up, there's a % chance = 100 (ComAbil + TacAbil)/10 per battle that said leader will die/be killed in action.
Leader/Army Interactions - The Command Ability
When a troop of men is leaderless, there is only an informal command structure in place that allows the men to fight more-or-less cohesively. Usually, there is a nominally placed "force commander" who may or may not be particularly well-versed in much of anything beyond command of a company-sized unit. Thus, such "generic" leaders are not given any particular in-game representation. It's enough that the leaderless unit is capable of conducting actions. That IS the generic leader's contribution. As such, when a leaderless force takes the field, there is no particular division and layout of the army except by troop type. That is to say, all the infantry line up together, the archers are all in a mass, the cavalry is grouped together, etc. (each troop type = 1 fighting team)
When a Leader of note travels with an army, however, it's effectiveness goes up remarkably. As with the leaderless force, there are logical troop divisions allowed (ie - by troop type), but for every 10 points of command ability the leader posesses, he is able to create one additional fighting team in the army (that is to say, a leader with a score of 10 in Command Ability could break his archers into two distinct groups, and issue orders independently).
Troop Placement in Battle
The leader with the lower tactical score must "display" his army first...thus, the leader with the higher tactical score will be able to make better informed decisions about how he wants his army split (firing teams - if his command ability allows for the creation of extra firing teams).
Battlefield tactics
Once the troops have taken the field, each side (beginning with the side having the lowest Tactical Ability score, chooses a battlefield tactic that will modify this combat. There may be more of these eventually, but at present, the battlefield tactics to choose from are as follows:
Advance
Overrun
Flank
Envelopment
Hold at all Cost (defender option only)
By cross-referencing the battlefield tactics, you will arrive at a set of casualty modifiers, expressed as a +/- % (I'm seeing the range set floating between +/- 10-30 percent). This number is further modified by taking the side with the higher TacAbil score and subracting the lower. The result/10 = an additional casualty bonus (round to nearest 10%).
Once battle is joined, the standard "dice rolling" idea is put to use, but the final casualties per tier are modified by the bonus mentioned above, giving the better field commander a higher than expected kill rate.
Battle Tactics are chosen only once, at the start of the battle, and may not be altered for the course of that battle (this is an essentially middle agesy world we're dealing with here...communications aren't exactly greased lightning...tho the abilty to change up battle tactics in mid-stream would make one helluva cool fate card or spell.... )
Presentation - How it looks on-screen
This is the "retro" part....When I close my eyes and see it, I'm seeing a table. On the table is an unrolled scroll map with terrain markings, and little symbols representing the units from both sides (well, actually, the map starts off empty, and the side with the lowest tacabil starts putting his units on the map, then the other side does the same. Units are placed by fighting team (such that a force without a leader at all would place all his infantry, then all his pike, then all his archers....etc.).
A force containing a leader with a good comabil would place his units the same way, and then could right click on any fighting team to pull up an option to split the group (new icon, representing the split).
Since infantry are not allowed precision strikes, the only other options would be a right click on the archer/cav stacks to select precision targets and/or charge ability, then combat begins.
Losses between rounds cause the little force chits on the scroll map to disappear, and the map could possibly even be updated between rounds.
I dunno...I think I'd enjoy that sort of combat interface....and the retro look is oddly appealing to me, but then...I'm a strange character...which is precisely why I wanted to drop this idea off here to get some input on it....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Specifically, the reason I wanted to include a chance of death was two-fold:
First, leaders are heinously powerful (as they should be). Even a "middle of the road" leader with the ability to split his archers or cav into two distinct firing teams and issue separate orders to them...that's HUGE...and has enormous implications in combat. If the leaders had no real chance of being lost in combat, then people would use them recklessly, in an effort to win battles by closer margins to accelerate their pace of expansion (I know I would!).
Second, by putting a timeclock on leaders, AND by tying that timeclock to battles, you get sort of a cocaine effect. The only way leaders can get better at what they do is to fight battles....but fighting battles burns through your "free" attacks (during which time, you can be assured that so long as the leader is not captured, he's not gonna die)...and the more you use them, the more likely you are to lose them...but they're so helpful that you almost can't help it...sets up an interesting (and sometimes vicious) cycle.
Related to those is the thinking that the medieval battlefield was a pretty messy and unpredictable place. Sanitation wasn't so good, and in the smokey haze or early morning fog, anything could happen....including a stray arrow finding its way into the heart of your favored leader.
-=Vel=-
(who is really just a cold hearted, ruthless ba$tard who wants to make everybody's life hard where battling is concerned... )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chowlett
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
May 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
You could perhaps have the "Command from a hillside" option, whereby the general would work exactly as Vel has described, or, if you needed a little bit more oomph and were willing to take the risk, you could attach the general to a specific group of units. Those units would then get some morale bonuses, perhaps, and the general could even order tactical adjustments to, say, his unit and any units in an X-tile radius, where X is his Tac- or CommAbil/10. He would, however, have a much larger chance of dying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Hmmm....good points there, Sir Spencer! Got me pondering more about that....
Edit: Cross-posted with Chowlett, and had a bit more time to ponder that....
Yeah....we could set it up in such a way that you could assign the leader to a fire team, and he would give all members in his group +x to their attack or defense values (user "choice" tho in most cases, the choice will be self evident), where X is equal to 1/10 of the CommAbil? In this case, however, the chances of death should be at least doubled, and the TacAbil bonus should be nullified for the duration of this combat (since the leader is not as strategically involved in the current battle, but rather, sets the overall battlefield tactics, and then proceeds to lead from the front).
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 11-05-2002 at 00:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I have just skimmed the thread and I have not kept up with the project but I am going to toss up some ideas off the top of my head.
Keep in mind that I have no feel for the scale of the stratgic map at all.
To get a realistic feel from combat on both the strategic and tactical levels you need to have a number of factors involved.
What type of engagement is happening? A meeting engagement or an assault on prepared positions. Even when battle occurs on the field on the fly, opposing forces normally do not line up and wait for a starting whistle. One side or the other has more time to prepare and this needs to be a factor.
How can this be implemented? Inititive rating for armies, depending on troop type, morale and training, leadership, supply, etc.
When one army has the inititive it should have an advantage in time, which can translate into movement or fortification. Never underestimate the effect of fortifications even when constructed on the fly. Special units or special unit abilities need to be factored in, some of which can give key combat bonuses.
Please don't design a simple turned based fire system; warfare is not shooting (although firepower and accuracy plays a part). Combat is no more or no less than an elegant dance of death and this must be modeled seamlessly from the strategic move into and out of the tactical encounter. Provisions must be made to allow for skimishing to delay advances and rear guard fighting to allow an outnumber force to escape and fight again, there must be a way for an attacker to make an all out assault or a desperate surprise flanking attack.
Certainly, you can design a mathmatical method for autoresolution for weenies that don't like to micromanage a fight, but if you design the fight right, none will find it tedious.
You are going to allow experience to accrue to seasoned troops, right?
This is the place to make the game rock. Do it better than anyone has done it before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
'evening JT! I'm glad you stopped in here!
You bring up some *excellent* points regarding combat, and in truth, the besieging of fortified positions is something that we've not yet discussed here in much detail....though I see a rising need for that very conversation. As the game has matured, the one area that has lagged somewhat behind is the abstracted way in which sieges are/were conducted in the core rules. That will need some enhancing if it is to work with the rest of the system in place (and it'll need to without a doubt!) So...that's the next thing I'll be turning my attention span toward tonight, when I sign off....
As to the question of experience for troops. Yes and no. We ARE building an "experience" factor into our code base for troops, but it is not something that we'll be activating right away....once we more firmly nail down the ins and outs of HOW we're going to run combat, and how we're gonna present that to the players, then we'll begin focusing on how the heck to translate successful battling into more experience for troopages, and exactly what benefits that greater experience will give them.
But...it's not too late to start that discussion! In fact, off the top of my head, here's how I see it:
The initial design of the combat system (3 firing tiers and interlocking unit abilities) is a good one, but can be more flexibly expressed in terms of giving each unit a broader set of attributes
(that is to say, a number of Hit Points, an Armor Rating, an Attack Rating, Initiative number (speed), movement range, firing rate and range, etc. We're not there just yet. For these early iterations, each unit just "is," and combat is either kill, capture, or miss.
That's a simplified model, to be sure, and greater complexity is coming. One of our team members, Cathy, pointed out that these initial builds, even if they're not the way the game ultimately winds up, are VITALLY important to the process itself, and this is one area that I foresee a number of changes to as we find out what works and what doesn't.
What would *really* be cool, in my mind's eye, would be a system of experience whereby, when a unit "reaches the next level" of expertise, the player has his/her choice of which attribute of the unit to improve incrementally. I have no idea if what I just said would be a coding nightmare or no, but I suspect that it would be, so don't hold me to that... But that would....really rock, IMO.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
There really should be two types of leaders represented, field commanders and force commanders. Each with separate bonuses and risk of death.
In Shogun they overdid the effect of rout, to the extent that every battle ended with one side running off the field. This was not always the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
More thoughts:
'k....as I'm seeing it, with our current model in place, there's really almost no way we can do justice to a MoM-style, tactical combat interface. The limitations of a "kill, miss, capture" system just don't really allow for much there....and, by incorporating that kinna interface, we undo the tiered system UNLESS we add on an "initiative" value to the various unit types to preserve it.
There are some ways we could "almost" simulate that sort of model, but we'd still have some limitations there....at least for the alpha build (currently in production), it's not something we can do, but if the interest in seeing a more tactically oriented combat resolution scheme in place is there (and this thread seems to indicate that very thing), then it's something we need to incorporate into future builds.
To that end, I'm gonna take what we've got now, see how much I can stress and stretch it, lay over some new attributes to the unit types, and see what I come up with (and, while I'm doing that, I might as well add in the experience for troops too, eh?)
Will take me a couple days to get the basic mechanics fleshed out, and I'll post them to this thread when I've got something tangible to kick around....see if it heads off in the direction you guys are looking for, cos that's what it's all about, and the main reason these forums exist. To keep us from designing a game, or even a *segment* of the game that will annoy the pi$$ out of those playing it.
To that end, and just to see who stands where regarding the combat layout, I'm seriously thinking about posting a poll, just to get a lay of the land where this issue is concerned. And even before the results of the poll are in, I'm gonna go ahead and start working up the model for a tactical combat system.
How's that?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
First Draft - Candle'Bre Tactical Combat System (CBTCS)
Components
Army structure contains the following elements:
A. Units
B. War Captains (these are "lesser leaders" that come up from the ranks of the Units. They are assigned to specific unit stacks, and provide stack-based combat bonuses).
C. Generals (these units are "greater leaders" that come up from the ranks of the War Captains. They are assigned to specific unit stacks, and provide radially based combat bonuses).
Attributes
Unit Attributes are as follows:
A. Attack Rating (Baseline chance of hitting an opponent)
B. Armour Rating (Protection in combat. Reduces enemy Baseline chance of hitting)
C. Speed (for purposes of determining initiative)
D. Hit Points (Damage taken before death occurs)
E. Tactical Movement Rate (Maximum number of hexes a unit type can move in a given combat round)
F. Damage (Baseline amount of damage the unit type causes when it successfully hits an enemy unit)
G. Experience (Measure of competence or expertise of units, used to promote units to War Captains)
H. Morale (Measure of a units ability to hold their ground and continue fighting once the unit stack comes under fire)
I. Special Ability Slot 1 (to be defined on a per unit basis)
J. Special Ability Slot 2 (to be defined on a per unit basis)
*****
War Captain attributes are as follows:
A. Increase unit Speed for the stack they're in (increase is equal to +1 speed per 4 points of experience the War Captain has obtained - See below re: War Captains and Experience)
B. Increase Morale for the stack they're in (increase is equal to 1% per point of experience the War Captain has obtained - See below re: War Captains and Experience) - Note that Morale CAN rise above 100% for these purposes. This effect is cumulative with a General's ability to enhance Morale, if a General is close enough to effect the unit stack in question).
C. Morale loss due to combat is halved for units containing a War Captain (this effect is cumulative with a General's ability to reduce Morale loss due to combat, if a General is close enough to effect the unit stack in question).
*****
General attributes are as follows:
A. Generals share all traits in common with War Captains (above)
B. All units stacking with the General gain +1 hex of movement per combat round.
C. Depending on the General's experience, he may effect nearby units just as though he were in the stack WITH those units. To determine the extent of the General's abilities in this regard, consult the table below:
Sum of TacAbil and CommAbil:
20-29: General can effect all friendly units within a 1 Hex radius as though he were stacking WITH those units
30-35: General can effect all friendly units within a 2 Hex radius as though he were stacking WITH those units
36-40: General can effect all friendly units within a 3 Hex radius as though he were stacking WITH those units. Additionally, any enemy units inside that radius see their morale drop by 5% per battle round, calculated AFTER all other modifiers have been applied (ie - the presence of an enemy War Captain in an enemy stack that is inside this General's radius of command does NOTHING to counter the loss of Morale caused by this General).
*****
Battle Setup:
Two opposing forces meet. To determine who must place their forces first, consult the following table, in order:
No special leaders present - The player with the fastest troops (highest speed) places his units last.
War Captain present - This trumps the fastest unit present on the opposing side.
General - This trumps War Captains present on the opposing side.
If two War Captains are present, then the War Captain with the highest experience places his troops last. If equal, revert to Initiative factors.
If two Generals are present, then the General with the higher TacAbil rating places his troops last. If equal, revert to War Captains present.
If everything is equal across the board, the defending side places their troops last.
*****
Gaining Experience
Units: For every 3 victories or 5 defeats a unit survives, he gains 1 experience point. Experience points move units through the following ranks
0-2 points: Conscript
3-5 points: Regular ( +1 Speed)
6-9 points: Veteran (+1 Armour Rating, +1 Damage)
10-15 points: Elite (+1 Speed, +1 Armour Rating, +2 Damage)
Every time an elite unit gains a point of experience beyond 15, he has a (cumulative) 1% chance of becoming eligible for promotion as a War Captain. Doing so removes that unit from your army (War Captains do not actually fight...they are there to command the rest of the stack).
*****
War Captains: Gain experience 1 point of experience per two victories, or three losses. When a War Captain reaches 20 Experience points, he is automatically promoted to a General.
*****
Generals gain experience every time a battle is won (they get no experience for battle lost).
Each General you get from promoted War Captains begins with the following attributes:
TacAbil: 10
ComAbil: 10
Each time a General wins a battle, the player controlling the General in question may assign his experience point to either of these abilities, to a maximum of 40 points. This effects his ability to wage war on the strategic level map, if that is so desired...see previous post)
*****
Other Modifiers to combat
Terrain effects:
High Ground provides +1 to Armor Values of defending troops. Archers firing from high ground get +1 Range and +1 Damage on their attacks.
Low Ground - Attackers striking from lower ground are at -1 to their damage range.
Forested hexes - Archers are -1 on their Attack factor and damage dealt when firing into a forested hex. Cavalry may not charge into a forested hex.
Wall, fence, or other impediment: Forces behind such walls or structures get a +1 to their Armor Ratings, and archers firing into those positions are at -2 on their Attack Factor and -2 to damage dealt.
Water: Takes one full turn to cross one hex of water. All movement ends when the unit in question enters the water.
Fortifications and Ramparts: Each level of fortification (see core rules) is "worth" 40 points of damage. Fortifications may ONLY be attacked by siege engines. All units behind fortifications gain +1 on their Armor ratings, and all damage dealt to units behind fortifications suffer -1 damage for any attacks made to them PER LEVEL OF FORTIFICATION (this is somewhat abstracted....since siege ladders and archer's towers are not represented in the game, the fact that non archer units CAN damage fortified units implies the existence of these structures.
Conversely, every 40 points of damage that siege engines cause to the fortifications in place reduces the fortified army's bonus by 1.
*****
Coming soon:
Different types of War Captains and Different Classes of Generals.....*IF* you guys think I'm on the right track with this stuff so far, that is.... (one of the other possibilities I'm considering is allowing War Captains and Generals to retain their attack abilities....)
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Actually, as I've been doing more research and playing around with the model further, I've about convinced myself that they need to be more like "quest heroes" from similar games in this genre....as such, their attack and defense values willl probably be somewhat similar (though slightly more pumped up) than an elite version of the unit from which they got promoted
To that end, I raided Electronics Boutique last night and dropped a sizeable chunk o' change on games in this genre....spent all night playing Age of Wonder, Lords of Magic, Majesty, EtherLords, and Disciples, *specifically* to look at the way the interface was put together and combat was handled.
Hated at least a fistful of things about all the interfaces (tho EtherLords won extra cool points for its sheer artistry), and didn't really enjoy the combat model used in ANY of them.
So....I guess I know a few things I'm NOT going to be doing, but it was a good exercise, and IMO, money well spent. I picked up at least a trick or two from each of the games I mentioned, so that's a good thing....
More later...gotta go do the mother's day thing, and then, it's back to plotting and scheming.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FrustratedPoet
|
 |
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Mar 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Coming soon:
Different types of War Captains and Different Classes of Generals.....*IF* you guys think I'm on the right track with this stuff so far, that is.... |
I think you're on the right track. This is shaping into a VERY interesting combat system, it should have a great deal of depth and give a greater reward to the player who can better command their troops, rather than the player who draws the luckiest random numbers.
All this depth, however, necessarily means that the battles will go on longer. More options and more strategy = more decisions, which = more time to think about it (for the human player).
Skanky raised the good point in another thread that a tactical system could slow the game down too much in SP and pretty much kill it for MP.
Imagine a few people, some of whom are bound to be warmongers, playing a game over the 'net. If every battle is gonna take 5+ minutes to resolve then the chances of finishing a game in one sitting are remote to say the least.
This problem could be alleviated by having a good auto-combat mechanism, but then of course you lose all the benefits of the tactical system as well as it's disadvantages.
However, any game that allows for a system of promotion and development for the units gets a  in my book. I love the idea of giving individual War Captains and Generals there own abilities and experience tracking.
I suppose what I really want is some kind of Candle'Bre RPG.
One day .... One day ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Been thinking some more about the Tactical Resolution System, and came up with a few other odd bits that I thought I'd put out here to kick around a while.
First, I like the idea of the War Captain "springing up from the ranks" rather than sac-ing a unit and gaining a War Captain...good plan.
Second, War Captains and Generals should be combat capable, and, to reflect their more important status, they ought to have higher stats than the units they sprang up from. Exactly what those are....don't know yet....will worry about putting specific numbers in later...right now, I'm just trying to firm up the concept. No point in messing with the actual numbers if they're not actually gonna get used.
Third thing, I'm gonna be revamping the whole notion of experience, and here's why:
If we're going to take the position that War Captains and Generals are attack capable, and given their rarity, then what we're really doing is setting them up to be akin to "Heroes" in games like HOMM3 or Lords of the Realm.
That's not a bad thing, but the currently thin experience point system I worked out earlier does not do this justice...so it needs to be fleshed out.
Likewise (and this is definately not for the free release, even if we can find a way to work the basic tactical model in), it strikes me as pandering too much to the war mongers if combat is the ONLY way to get exceptional leaders, so....I thought of a few others that we could toss into the mix:
Priests: Requiring an investiture of X Influence in a given church. The Priest unit would be a mana generator in his own right, and could be attached to armies to provide healing or support. (depending on the religion, you might get a priest, an inquisitor, or a druid, with each having unique abilities)
Wizard: Requiring an investiture of X Universities (% chance per turn that these would spawn a Wizard if the territories are at peace). Wizard units come equipped with a few battle oriented spells and gain more as they increase in level.
Justicars: Require a heavy investiture in law (X courthouses gives you a % chance per turn of peace in the territories of spawning a Justicar...they are staunch defenders (heinous defense stats), can only be reluctantly persuaded to relocate (costs gold to move), and the province they're in are totally immune to rebellion and espionage activities.
Assassin: Requiring an investiture of X Thieves Guilds with a % chance per turn of peace in the territories of spawning an Assassin. Assassins are units akin to Probe Teams in SMAC that can perform Espionage functions in the territory they move into. They can also be deadly support units in an army.
War Captains that rise from the ranks of Skirmishers or Archers become Rangers
War Captains that rise from the ranks of Infantry become Myrmidons
War Captains that rise from the ranks of Cavalry become Knights
More to come...I just wanted to toss those ideas out there....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Yet more thoughts:
Troop placement and Battlefield LOS
Gonna be changing the nature and methodology of placing troops on the field and stuff.
Most games that introduce a tactical style system of combat resolution are the standard "line your guys up on this side, my guys up on t'other, we'll race toward the middle and beat the daylights out of each other."
BUT....
I think we should do it differently.
When two forces meet, you get a popup notification from one of your scouts that "Enemy forces have been sighted moving through the area" and are immediately taken to the battle screen.
Let's assume for a second that the battle map is a 40x40 hex grid.
By default, you can arrange your troops in the first two ranks of "your side." Generals with higher levels of TacAbil can make use of additional hex rows to arrange their troops.
Once all troops are placed, the battle begins, even tho the two forces are still some distance apart, and it's almost assured that they cannot see each other (depending on TacAbil, one or both sides may get an estimate of force strength, whose accuracy is dependent on the ability of each commander).
Now, it becomes a real matter of strategy AND tactics. You can't see the badguys, but you know they're out there. Whatchagonna do? Race ahead with your expensive cav and try to locate the enemy, or keep everybody more or less together and advance turtle style from one portion of favorable terrain to another?
Skirmishers would REALLY come into their own under this type of combat resolution....cheap enough to risk in the race for the choicest terrain, and good covering units for your cav.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-05-2002 19:37
|