Jump to content
Livius Clades

Combat System/Raid System

Recommended Posts

Well I've kinda not talked about how this game works in a long time so I though maybe it's time. 

I hate this game's Combat System. Sheepy I get you make tweaks here and there. But Balance seems to be an issue.

I have some suggestions on how to improve the Combat system.

 

-Raid Option

Now Raiders love the current system but from what I've seen most Raiders Attack and then send peace.

I've thought of a better system. Instead of a declaring war on the nation you wish to Raid I feel a new Raid option should be added to the game. This option should work similar to the Spy System. Raiding a target should Cost a small amount with the larger your nation the more it would cost to raid. More man power equals more upkeep. The Imperialist Government Type would get a discount on Raids.

NS should still apply like in Spying and Declaring wars. Now raids should only include Soldiers. Also the more money you spend on these raids they better outcome you should have. For example, if a nation raids another nation and they have the same number of Soldiers when the raid is conducted say the Default Raid cost for 5k soldiers is 50k if you pay twice that at 100k you should get a 65-70% chance of a successful raid. While the Default is around 50% if forces are equal. If your raid force is larger then it should be balanced according with the size of your force. I would also Limit the number of raids you can do a day to 3. And make a project that would increase it to 4. Also when conducting a raid you only receive money and no infrastructure is lost. But soldiers and units can die during raids. Raids could be used to weaken forces before a war. Raids aren't covert so you should be able to see who conducted the raid. This will still allow alliances to obtain reps from nations. This system also requires nations to weigh options before conducting raids. What if a nation has no money and you conduct a raid? That nation will then lose money instead of gain money from the raid. I feel it would add a little bit of balance to the game and make Raiding a more organized system. And it can add to the War system with smaller raids being conducted before full on assaults. This will also allow prevent nations from taking damage from raids and promote growth of nations. Player tend to leave this game because they get tired of being raided and the way the combat system works if you aren't online during an attack you will get destroyed without a chance to really retaliate. And the way the system works it prevents you from laying out any sort of defense. Which leads me to my next suggestion...

 

-Defensive Combat/Balance of the Combat System

Now since money can be obtained off of nations via the Raid system I suggested above I think how money is obtained from War should change as well. I think if you are getting wrecked in a war the nation who is winning should be able to ask for spoils of war. Or think of it this way you have to request peace via a monetary proposal via the war screen. Pay them off to end the fighting. Those two nations will then not be allowed to fight each other again for the time period of 1 week. If the war ends in total defeat the losing nation's alliance will lose money from their bank(This is the same as now). Now I want to talk about Defensive combat. I have played a lot of games involving war and combat. In most games players on the defensive are given a bonus to help balance being attacked by multiple nations at once. If this game has that I don't see any of it. Your soldiers are on familiar ground. They have fortresses and mines planted and are defending their homes. Players on the Defensive should have some sort of bonus. Especially 1v1, there should be no reason why a player with a slightly higher troop count should beat forces familiar to there surrounding and in full defense. Yet I've been in war where I'm on the defensive I out number someone on defense yet they win the fight. This game has been built in a way so that if you are attacked by multiple people you have zero chance of fighting back. That's not how it works in the real world and that's not how it works in video games. I've had 3 nations smaller than me attack me at once and destroy everything while I was offline. That just doesn't make sense and it's unbalanced. Also 3 nations being allowed to attack you at once is kinda bad as is. It should really be 2 not three. But I'm fine with 3 as long as the combat is balanced accordingly. Which it currently is not. The way it works now is if you attack first you win. Blitzkrieg at it's finest. What I've said above is how I would like the system changed. But since most people will probably hate it I have a third option.

I want an option to set your nation into a defensive position. In this mode you can't attack but people can attack you. It would make it harder for people to attack you(Increasing Defending nation victory by 50%). Also if you are in a defensive position military upkeep should increase by 10-20%. Also you shouldn't be able to change from defensive and normal readiness so easily. Think of how the color changing system and domestic policy system work. A defensive nation should be an option. And if they want to declare war on someone they need to switch to normal readiness.

 

Please everyone try to be open minded. Lets have a nice conversation about this. I don't want name calling or fighting, I want to improve the game for everyone. The combat system is not balanced and something needs to be done to fix it.  

Edited by Livius IV Cottistis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that sounds all great or not. But where's the tl;dr ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was an intetesting read, there are surely a few things to take from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with defense, but in terms of the "defense bonus", I would think it should only count on defensive battles by the defender only. The attacker is sending his army into your lands, so he wouldn't get defensive bonus. But the counter to the idea is the attacker has the "element of surprise" so attackers bypass your defensive bonus. It might be too much to add that ONLY the first attack by the attacker bypasses the bonus defense, but that would be how you counteract it. If that could be added though, you could possibly add that if initial attack is immense triumph, then the next attack also bypasses the defense bonus.

 

Alternatively sheepy could re-look at integrating those perks for military he teased us about months ago. Hard part of that is balancing. If each perk has a counter perk, then it might be fair, but I have a feeling that 3 highly offensive perks would be better than mixing in a system like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the deal. Those in the Defensive mode should be unable to attack. So of course attacking units get no Defensive bonus. And If you are at your highest level of awareness they shouldn't be able to catch you off guard. And it's still your land, they know nothing of your territory(Unless you include Spy scouting into the game). I want a system that's fair for individuals who want to be growth mongers and just build large cities with gigantic walls. The system is unbalanced, this is a game. Games have to have some sort of balance. You say it would be hard to balance. Not when you have levels of readiness. Imagine 3 levels of Readiness. Aggressive, Defensive and Normal.  Defensive nations get a large bonus to defense(50% increase, Military Upkeep increased by 10-20%). Normal nations receive no bonuses to Defense or Attack and have default upkeep. Aggressive nations receive a bonus to Attack(1 added attack slot, 5% Chance to ignore Defense bonus, Increased Military Upkeep of 10%)

 

I'd like the different government policies to effect your states as well. So say you are an Imperialistic Aggressor, You get the Attack Readiness Bonus and as an Imperialist you get a 5% attack bonus and -10% to Upkeep. Now on the opposite side Defensive nations can focus on revenue or maybe we include isolationism as a policy. Isolationism would Increase military upkeep by say 5-10%, but it would gain another 5-10% to Defensive bonuses. Normal readiness gets no bonuses but since they have normal upkeep it would allow them to accumulate revenue more. This way everyone can pick there play style. This definitely will make the game more balanced and fun to play. Because I hate this Blitzkrieg system in a game where to be honest I can't be on 24/7. I used a little bit of what you said. I hope it made a little sense.  

Edited by Livius IV Cottistis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Player tend to leave this game because they get tired of being raided"

I have heard this before but I am interested in if you or anyone has any non-anecdotal evidence. I can just as easily claim that the vast majority who leave do so because it is a text based browser game and that really isn't for everyone.

 

As to defensive bonuses: it is an interesting idea that seems to come up a lot. However, my counter is that the current system rewards "meta-play" Which is a healthy element for the game. Organization and activity at the alliance and with allied countries is and should remain a core of the game. Remember that if you are attacked by three people you should, Ya know, lose. That being said, all three attackers have three defensive slots too. So if your alliance is effective and can coordinate effectively with its allies they are more vulnerable (they already have one war open at a minimum). This system is good for activity, keeping people interested, and the long term health of the game, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence? Not really, I have mostly hearsay, I've been hearing for about a year now. And it's also my opinion, there have been multiple times in this game I've wanted to leave because of how unbalanced it is. That mess with spies back in the day was really bad. I'm not saying nerf the combat system. I just want defense to be a viable option because currently it isn't. Also being Active is getting on once maybe twice a day. We all have lives outside this game, things like Work, school, etc. interfere with this game. We can't be expected to be on at all times of the day. And everyone definitely can't be on at 12 am to protect themselves from getting wrecked. I'd like to make a lot of changes, but that's not my call. But this is an addition an added option to game play. Where you can decide how you want to play the game. While in Defensive mode you can't declare war on other nations. So other nations would have to work hard to beat them. With the Aggressive Readiness being a counter to a defensive nation. But it shouldn't be easy to run over people. This game makes it too easy to run over people, Defensive Readiness would allow people to be able to defend themselves and would allow time to properly retaliate. The thing is 1v1 situation have happened to me were I was away from the screen for maybe an hour. I come back and I had lost all my ground forces. That's ridiculous. And I was going through the suggestions earlier today and I saw a lot of requests for things that make the game even more unbalanced. Ever play a fighting game with an overpowered character? Meta Knight from SSB Brawl for example. When things are unbalanced it's no longer fun to play the game. Everyone puts their controller down and leaves. This would not be hard to do and it would bring some balance to this game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am just curious.  I have heard a lot of things over the years from folks who tie things they do not like into a meta analysis of why people leave games like this.  In my, also admittedly anecdotal evidence, folks did not leave games like these because of raids, taxes being too high (or "wrong"), the lack of hospitals in Kansas, the removal of boats from the game mechanics, etc etc.  What people who come back have said to me is that the "meta-game" aka the community they hung with got stale or they had a personal conflict in that community, real life became more important for whatever reason, or they found another game that interested them more.  I would admit that I am not talking to people who join and play for a few days, happen to get raided, and decide for whatever reason to try a different game (but then the reason for their departure is opaque to both of us).  All that being said I have seen games where large mechanical changes are strongly correlated with a downturn in community size and I have never observed a significant growth in statistical retention.

 

As to "balance" and "fairness" well that is an opinion.  It is valid to want to play with lower activity levels then others choose to.  But I remain unconvinced with what you wrote that high activity people should not be rewarded.  It is hard to analyze without some numbers though I guess.

Edited by LordRahl2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That line of thought is wrong. You can't make a game that punishes people for going to sleep. It's 2 am right now. I haven't been attacked yet but when I wake up in a few hours that could change. And before you go "Why are you up so late then?" Because the game updates this late. I'm afraid I'll be attacked so I've stayed up to try and defend myself. So it's gundam if you do gundam if you don't. Balance is determined when a mechanic works for everyone. The current mechanics of the game fail to do so. Because smaller nations get wrecked by raiders. And they have a few choices join an alliance and hope they don't leave them out to dry, join the raiders or die. Balance is a fundamental part of every video game. And having played this game and playing other nation sims like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). This game is incredibly unbalanced. I don't want this game to be (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), Cybernations is god awful. That system makes it so you can stay off for weeks at a time. What I've asked for won't change the amount of activity in this game. Because it still requires you to be active to build forces and retaliate. And I even gave Penalties to go on top of the bonuses to so they aren't overpowered. You are allowed to your opinion but this game needs an overhaul. Ever play Risk? Defense wins ties. In Sports Defense wins championships. Here it is nonexistent. Defense doesn't exist in this game. How can you have half of the core game being war and not have any defensive capabilities? What are we suppose to use nukes and missiles things that 1 do nothing for you 2 are expensive as all get out and have a ton of upkeep. There is so much wrong with the mechanics of this game. But I'm here because it's the best nation sim game. It just is every other one is worse. Sheepy has done well but I just can't stand the War mechanic in this game. Everything else, Trade, Alliances, Anthems, Portraits, the Credit system, how cities are built, the amount of customization for your nation. There is so much good. The war mechanic is not one of them. And yeah it's my opinion, but opinions drive how good a video game is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just raiding? Why not have other war strategies you can set to, for example "Stand Your Ground" which makes your military fight better in defense, but weaker on offensive, or "Blitzkrieg" which does the opposite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That line of thought is wrong. You can't make a game that punishes people for going to sleep. It's 2 am right now. I haven't been attacked yet but when I wake up in a few hours that could change. And before you go "Why are you up so late then?" Because the game updates this late. I'm afraid I'll be attacked so I've stayed up to try and defend myself. So it's gundam if you do gundam if you don't. Balance is determined when a mechanic works for everyone. The current mechanics of the game fail to do so. Because smaller nations get wrecked by raiders. And they have a few choices join an alliance and hope they don't leave them out to dry, join the raiders or die. Balance is a fundamental part of every video game. And having played this game and playing other nation sims like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). This game is incredibly unbalanced. I don't want this game to be (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), Cybernations is god awful. That system makes it so you can stay off for weeks at a time. What I've asked for won't change the amount of activity in this game. Because it still requires you to be active to build forces and retaliate. And I even gave Penalties to go on top of the bonuses to so they aren't overpowered. You are allowed to your opinion but this game needs an overhaul. Ever play Risk? Defense wins ties. In Sports Defense wins championships. Here it is nonexistent. Defense doesn't exist in this game. How can you have half of the core game being war and not have any defensive capabilities? What are we suppose to use nukes and missiles things that 1 do nothing for you 2 are expensive as all get out and have a ton of upkeep. There is so much wrong with the mechanics of this game. But I'm here because it's the best nation sim game. It just is every other one is worse. Sheepy has done well but I just can't stand the War mechanic in this game. Everything else, Trade, Alliances, Anthems, Portraits, the Credit system, how cities are built, the amount of customization for your nation. There is so much good. The war mechanic is not one of them. And yeah it's my opinion, but opinions drive how good a video game is.

 

That is a kinda an emotional response but that is alright I suppose.  However, I can just as easily tell you that your line of argument is "wrong".  I am unsure that is a good argumentative style but again that is alright.

 

You have not offered up much concrete but we can look at some of the constituent parts of your argument:

"Balance is determined when a mechanic works for everyone."

-Is that so?  If so then "balance is bad".  Mechanics never ever work for everyone.  Nor is that necessarily a definition I would agree with.  Should mechanics make it so that it is only required to log in once a week for the same probability of success as a player who logs in frequently?  By your own admission this would be (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like and would be terrible.

Then you kinda define the game:

"Join an alliance or die."  Yeah that is pretty much true.  I cannot imagine a system that would a) not suck and B) allow individual players to be victorious vs alliances.  That just makes no sense.  So yeah for the sake of "balance" you need to join an alliance.  Preferably one that can defend you.  OK, the fact that alliances are an integral part of the game actually seems "balanced" and I am unsure why you see it as bad.

 

Ever play rock-paper-scissors?  It is the only "balanced" game I can think of.  Maybe coin flip, but that is not really a game.  Would you like a browser version of Rock-Paper-Scissors for the war module?  Sounds pretty dull to me.  "Balanced" though.

 

"Ties go to defenders in Risk"

-This is not Risk?  There are a plethora of board games we could talk about.  In Axis and Allies if you are not on offense you are gonna lose.  But whatever?

"Defense wins in sports." (Not always true and a bit of a red herring.

-So ties go to "the runner" who would be on 'offense' if you will.  Pithy comments from sports announcers are not a great argument for or against game mechanics imho.

 

 

So I just ran a bunch of BattleSims with perfectly even forces.  The cursed random number generator spits out the full range of results from IT to UF for evenly matched forces.  I cannot tell if it has a "tie goes to the defender" function or not but it seems pretty darn close to a 50/50 casualty split over a large enough sample size.  So your claim that there is "no defense" seems suspicious.  Also, I have seen folks fight back in game from a 3v1 hit alone but definitely in a 3v2 scenario the defending side can swing the battle back to the defender.  So your claim that "there is no defense" is simply wrong.  You may have seen or have made some tactical mistakes in the execution of the defense but that does not invalidate the system.  I will ask below but where is your alliance?

 

I try not to go to people's nations when I discuss things on this forum.  So are you in an alliance?  Is the alliance you are in strong enough to deter raiders?  Would you like me to find someone to offer you some advice on your city and military builds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Player tend to leave this game because they get tired of being raided"

I have heard this before but I am interested in if you or anyone has any non-anecdotal evidence. I can just as easily claim that the vast majority who leave do so because it is a text based browser game and that really isn't for everyone.

 

This brings me back to when I beat the shit out of a raider so much that he quit. Quite the opposite of this point, but wars certainly factor into people giving up, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings me back to when I beat the shit out of a raider so much that he quit. Quite the opposite of this point, but wars certainly factor into people giving up, I'm sure.

 

Maybe some. Basically impossible to prove though and just as hard to figure out how much of a factor it might play. Overall losing at war or any other aspect may drive people off.  War, diplomacy, nation building, politics, forum posting, RL, other games, general boredom, etc etc can all be said to cause people to quit.  I find the argument unconvincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings me back to when I beat the shit out of a raider so much that he quit. Quite the opposite of this point, but wars certainly factor into people giving up, I'm sure.

I remember there was an alliance harassing the GPA, and I was a part of the tact team to counter them. We pounded them so hard they quit the game haha

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People leave cuz the game is shit. I'd say boredom plays more a part then those big nasty raiders... easiest way to not be raided is to have a standing army. We don't need mechanics, plenty of options out there already to combat this...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People leave cuz the game is shit. I'd say boredom plays more a part then those big nasty raiders... easiest way to not be raided is to have a standing army. We don't need mechanics, plenty of options out there already to combat this...

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know had this long retort and all these things I was gonna say. But I'm in the minority here it seems. No one actually cares about making the game better. Maybe I care too much.

 

Also Two raiders commenting on how raiding isn't a problem. Yeah. Oh and standing armies do nothing when they disappear after ten minutes of being at war. This game is beyond un-balanced and you asking me for numbers or something when I'm no programmer and I've no access in how the numbers work is ridiculous. I'm just making observations based on what I've heard and seen. No one wants changes to this game it seems. It's why I haven't said anything in a year. I'm making a suggestion on how to make the change better and to promote multiple play styles instead of the one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know had this long retort and all these things I was gonna say. But I'm in the minority here it seems. No one actually cares about making the game better. Maybe I care too much.

 

Also Two raiders commenting on how raiding isn't a problem. Yeah. Oh and standing armies do nothing when they disappear after ten minutes of being at war. This game is beyond un-balanced and you asking me for numbers or something when I'm no programmer and I've no access in how the numbers work is ridiculous. I'm just making observations based on what I've heard and seen. No one wants changes to this game it seems. It's why I haven't said anything in a year. I'm making a suggestion on how to make the change better and to promote multiple play styles instead of the one. 

 

You seem very emotional about this topic.  I suppose that is the "care too much" piece?  You put your ideas out and they are free for others to disagree with.  I see no character attacks in this thread.  Do you?  If you have a rebuttal to the points above then feel free.  I have no drama about being swayed by legit reasoning.

 

I am unsure if you are including me in the "Two raiders" bit.  I am not a raider for your information.  Anyway, lets take a look at your points:

Standing armies need to be built effectively and to an appropriate size.  I cheated and looked at you.  Your build has some good points but some not so good.

Game balance: Saying it is unbalanced is one thing.  You have not really shown that it is.  I did run some sims that I had not looked at before and I am not seeing the unbalance.

Numbers: Alright...you do have access to the formulas but I suppose I get your point.  You are saying that is a bit beyond you so that is fine.

People: Many people want changes.  There are lots of reasons that they should not be made but there are lots of them none the less.

Play styles: Many are allowed.  As I have said in multiple threads - when you decide on one play style there are benefits and costs.  Choices are part of the game and that is a good thing.  What you want is for the choice you have made to be given more weight do to Admin intervention.  If you could prove to me that raiders were impossible to defeat or that the non-raiding build was significantly weaker (in regards to costs and benefits) you might sway me. That being said, I have seen raiders dealt with effectively.  I also note the benefits of the non-raider build are significant.  So I guess your argument has yet to sway me on either of those points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not alone.. Its more so a case if you talk to get raided.. hence why everyone you see posting is a raider. I aplogoize for necroing so many threads as a reply, but you see this pattern of who is posting stays the same. 

 

lets start with a very early on post about in balance in the war system.. the goal is to stop a nation from being curb stopped, and the goal is to have strategy. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9367-improve-war-mechanics/

 

6 months later sheepys stance changed as the bottom post in the thread before became the play style. Aka you didn't rebuild. (this proposed solution would have compounded this issue.) 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/

 

The military change made at the start of march. Sheepy responds to my message on this page,(the current system is not to stay.) further on it comes out, the math sheepy did was wrong. The raider does have a tank advantage which is very helpful. But the size of advantage was decreased. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11348-2222016-military-caps-donation-changes/page-4

 

I posted a similar thread in game discussion. This thread is in suggestions. I received similar feedback. it would be a different game.  I as well got the response get better allies. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11333-how-do-i-defend-my-nation/?hl=samdoo#entry210631

 

This change we want and need to have occur is quite major to the game. It is going to take sheepy sometime to see what solutions he can do before even testing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not alone.. Its more so a case if you talk to get raided.. hence why everyone you see posting is a raider. I aplogoize for necroing so many threads as a reply, but you see this pattern of who is posting stays the same. 

 

lets start with a very early on post about in balance in the war system.. the goal is to stop a nation from being curb stopped, and the goal is to have strategy. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9367-improve-war-mechanics/

 

6 months later sheepys stance changed as the bottom post in the thread before became the play style. Aka you didn't rebuild. (this proposed solution would have compounded this issue.) 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/

 

The military change made at the start of march. Sheepy responds to my message on this page,(the current system is not to stay.) further on it comes out, the math sheepy did was wrong. The raider does have a tank advantage which is very helpful. But the size of advantage was decreased. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11348-2222016-military-caps-donation-changes/page-4

 

I posted a similar thread in game discussion. This thread is in suggestions. I received similar feedback. it would be a different game.  I as well got the response get better allies. 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11333-how-do-i-defend-my-nation/?hl=samdoo#entry210631

 

This change we want and need to have occur is quite major to the game. It is going to take sheepy sometime to see what solutions he can do before even testing them. 

 

Enlighten us? Who is posting that stays the same?

Also, define "need".  A non-raider just publicly attacked and defeated 4 raiders simultaneously.  Does your argument that there are no strategies to defeat raiders still hold water?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, define "need".  A non-raider just publicly attacked and defeated 4 raiders simultaneously.  Does your argument that there are no strategies to defeat raiders still hold water?

 

This PROVES THE POINT EVEN MORE... The point being made is ATTACKING FIRST IS THE ONLY STRATEGY.(This is why you can be a raider, and why no one can claim to be a defender.)  There is no strategy when you are attacked. Raiders are finally felling how every nation they raided has felt. YOU GET ATTACKED YOU LOSE. There is one counter measure and its having larger people attacking the person that attacked you... THATS IT. 

 

The larger nation picks on the smaller nation. It doesn`t matter how many small nations band together.The larger nation wins. If these 4 nations can beat the nation that attacked them,(and these 4 nations alone) I`d be amazed. I`d probably never complain about balance again. Me and you both know how this war is going to end.. and its only been 1 day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have been attacked and won. No third party. I have seen others do so as well. This then invalidates your point? Despite the all caps yelling and screaming?

 

Also this thread is about how raiders are unbeatable, mostly, so can we close that idea out? As you see they can be defeated.

Edited by LordRahl2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have been attacked and won. No third party. I have seen others do so as well. This then invalidates your point? Despite the all caps yelling and screaming?

 

Also this thread is about how raiders are unbeatable, mostly, so can we close that idea out? As you see they can be defeated.

Well said, I could've not said any better but you did :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.