Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Your Things » Your Games




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:23 pm 
User avatar
This user has been published!
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 3247
For those who are keeping Commanders, they will retain their level.

If a mount dies, the unit riding it survives - but is probably limited in its movement.

Thanks for the enthusiasm. I'll try to get everything ready for a weekend kick-off - we have a public holiday in Aus this weekend.

Cheers

_________________
Benemala Edupad OCC

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:15 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:04 am
    Posts: 262
    hmmm. A dispatch to join the new Version of the MCC

    Animated Statue
    The test of a trimancer link between a Dirtamancer, A Dollamancer, and a Thinkamancer. It can't attack, but it IS a great shield.
    Hits: 30
    Reach:1
    Combat: 0
    Defense: 5
    Move: 1
    Special:1
    Cost:150

    Commander Sho
    Hits:5
    Reach: 3
    Combat: 4
    Defense: 2
    Move: 1
    Special: 2
    Cost: 26

    Mini-Golem
    Hits: 3
    Reach: 2
    Combat:3
    Defense:1
    Move:1
    Special:1
    Cost: 4

    Carrier Statue
    made to carry units into the air(not using this if the rule about 1 rider/mount is made.)
    Hits: 30
    Reach:1
    Combat:0
    Defense:1
    Move:5
    Special:1
    Cost:150


    Last edited by turbler on Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:36 pm 
    User avatar
    This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm
    Posts: 3247
    OK, so on review, there are some more issues - mainly to do with costing and defence and mounts.

    I want to emphasise that we are still in a Draft phase.

    How about these changes:

    Hits Inflicted = Total Combat Points X Stack Bonus X Command Bonus X Special Bonus X Ambush Bonus X Random Number / (Opponents Average Defence + Terrain Bonus)


    Cost of Unit = (Move x Hits) + (Hits x Defence) + (Attack x Range) x Special


    Units may use another unit as a Mount IF the Mount has twice or more the starting hits of the units being carried. For example, a Gobwin with 3 hits may use a creature with 6 or more hits as a mount. This will only be helpful if the larger unit has a higher move value. Only one unit may ride another, regardless of size. {e.g. 3 Gobwins cannot ride the same Dwagon}

    _________________
    Benemala Edupad OCC

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:19 am 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    turbler, while I don't think the Statue can have Attack 0, it together with minigolems is Win. At least under the previous version of these rules.

    LtDave: interesting changes those. Defense is a lot more significant in the combat formula, and I suspect that's why you made the change. Because, with the formula that we knew yesterday, Grezlings uber-pwn Dwagons. And that's because the Grezling has (close to) optimal Attack-per-Cost ratio, whereas a Dwagon's (or a Tough, Fast unit's) ratio was appallingly small. And the cost is less unfavourable to large units, to some extent.

    I'll go optimizing and tell you what I find.

    PS: turbler, again. And the others, too:

    I'm tempted to go utilitarian- scouts, transports, defense buffers (high-Def units)- rather than Offense. If you turbler get many high-ratio Attack*Range/Cost units, our offense power is in good standing.

    EDIT:

    Okay, bad-ish.

    It appears the best Attack/Cost ratio is now 1/3, which means that for 180 pop-points I can hope to produce at most 60 points of Attack.

    Let's see what else I can fit in the same points.

    Move:5
    Defense:1
    Hits:20
    Attack:1
    Range:1
    Special:1 (nothing special, except flier)
    Cost: 121

    stacked with
    Move:1
    Defense:5
    Hits: 5
    Attack:1
    Range:1
    Special:2 (commander)
    Cost: 32

    This stack now has average Defense 3. Effectively, the first unit has 60HP. Considering the fact that we multiply Attack by a very restrictive random factor, this stack is now unkillable by any combination of units that costs as much as it does.

    It does not do anything offensively, but that's not the point.

    Food for thought.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.


    Last edited by BLANDCorporatio on Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:55 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:50 pm
    Posts: 584
    Lt_Dave I think you're new formula makes units too expensive.

    V1.0 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 9
    Move 5
    Cost 50

    V2.1 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 1
    Move 5
    Range 2*
    Cost 37

    V2.2 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 1
    Move 5
    Range 2*
    Cost 144

    In terms of my unit design, considering I want to build anti-dragon flyers again, I'd quite like to see what Dragons can do.

    *Canonical from comic, archers hit first, but dragons can hit ground units from range.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:01 am 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    Sihoiba wrote:
    V2.1 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 1
    Move 5
    Range 2*
    Cost 37


    Mistaken there, Dwagons are ludicrously inefficient under 2.1: 18H*1D*5M + 18H*18A*2/20 = 90 + 33 (rounded up) = 123.

    I'm not checking your 2.2 cost, but Dwagons are not that bad under those rules because Defense is more significant, which favours small stacks with large Defense over Grezling hordes.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:02 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:35 am
    Posts: 288
    In the new unit cost draft, fast units will be even more expansive. Something that does not have to be a bad thing.

    (I do suppose that * special means that the whole equation needs to be multiplied by the special bonus).

    Cost of my units will be:
    Archer-knights: ((4x7)+(4x1)+(7x2))x1=28+4+14=46 points instead of 33
    Lokarat: ((2x5)+(2x1)+(5x2))x2=(10+2+10)x2=44 points instead of 25
    Hawks: ((5x1)+(1x1)+(1x1))x1,5=7x1,5=10,5=>11 points instead of 8
    Battle horse: ((10x4)+(10x1)+(10x2))x1=40+10+20=70 points instead of 50

    Other words, all units will be more expansive to buy :P.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:44 am 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    I'm not checking your 2.2 cost, but Dwagons are not that bad under those rules because Defense is more significant, which favours small stacks with large Defense over Grezling hordes.


    Wait, I'm not so sure about that, but regardless, that Defense thing is killer.

    *rant*

    Imagine a stack of Dwagons and something else to buff up Dwagon defense (from 1 to 3, or 4). However, such a stack will not have a large Attack value (seriously; units in it will be wicked expensive and most of the cost goes into the Hits*Defense and Hits*Move things). Therefore, the next stack

    1 Statue and gazillion Minigolems will likely survive the attack completely. In fact, Dwagon Stack attacks Statue but lacks the firepower to kill it, Statue stack defends but the large Defense of the Dwagons negates the high Attack of the Minigolems and both stacks survive whole.

    The difference- the Dwagon stack can move away faster; so while units in it are more difficult to pop (because they are expensive), units in the Statue stack are more difficult to bring to the front.

    So this favours one of these strategies- either hit and run attacks from Dwagon stacks, OR massive, MASSIVE, buildups of Minigolems/Grezlings. Wait a few tens of turns until you get a thousand of those (and a few statues), and then go forth to victory. And it will be victory, because while the enemy builds up in this time too, there's no way to surpass the offensive power of those things, stack bonus or not, and at 1000 Attack sum, boop the enemies Defense we got nukes.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:21 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:50 pm
    Posts: 584
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Sihoiba wrote:
    V2.1 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 1
    Move 5
    Range 2*
    Cost 37


    Mistaken there, Dwagons are ludicrously inefficient under 2.1: 18H*1D*5M + 18H*18A*2/20 = 90 + 33 (rounded up) = 123.

    I'm not checking your 2.2 cost, but Dwagons are not that bad under those rules because Defense is more significant, which favours small stacks with large Defense over Grezling hordes.


    Ah yes for some reason I thought it was (18H*1D*5M + 18H*18A*2)/20.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:08 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:59 am
    Posts: 199
    Okay, here we go.

    ENCOM Assault Detachment Alpha
    Leader: Commander Sark of ENCOM Mainframe 511


    The ENCOM Master Control Program, having seen a threat to its own plans manifest in the form of Stanley the Tool, has - for the first time since its arrival in Erfworld - made contact with other sides in the world, offering to assist the Royal Crown Coalition in its war.

    Now, a special assault detachment, under Commander Sark of Mainframe 511, approaches the allied base camp.

    (Initial force composition TBD; however, here are the units that ENCOM will have at its disposal for this campaign.)

    Basic Infantry: Gridbug

    Hits: 4
    Attack: 2
    Defense: 2
    Move: 2
    Range: Melee (not sure if that would be 0 or 1; assuming 1)
    Cost (v2.2): 18

    Gridbugs are the main offensive infantry unit of ENCOM, and they look like four-legged mechanical spiders. Cheap and quick to produce, they are usually released in swarms to overwhelm the enemy.

    Scout: Lightcycle

    Hits: 8
    Attack: 4
    Defense: 2
    Move: 4
    Range: 2
    Cost (v2.2): 56 ( . . . )

    Special Abilities: Scout

    Lightcycles are ENCOM's basic scout units. Light and fast, they are capable of covering quite a lot of territory, and are usually the advance elements of any ENCOM military force.

    Gametank

    Hits: 16
    Attack: 6
    Defense: 5
    Move: 3
    Range: 3
    Cost (v2.2): 534 (!?)

    Specials: Heavy, Ranged, Siege

    Gametanks are ENCOM's heavy assault units. Capable of shelling enemy forces from a great distance and carrying the heaviest armor of any ENCOM unit, Gametanks can be a terrifying sight upon the battlefield.

    Virus

    Hits: 4
    Attack: 4
    Defense: 4
    Move: 2
    Range: Melee (assuming 1)
    Cost (v2.2): 56

    Abilities: Rider, Toxic

    Viruses are ENCOM's knights. Capable of infecting enemy units and slowly corrupting them, they are fearsome by themselves - but mounted upon ENCOM's Lightcycles, they can form a deadly fast-attack group.

    -------------------

    I dunno, I think the version 2.2 cost-calculation rules are ludicrously skewed towards basic infantry - unless, of course, the initial force size and our popping-point income are both drastically increased.

    (Seriously, I'd probably be better off scrapping ENCOM for this scenario and going with . . . I dunno, the Creeps from Desktop Defender!)

    _________________
    The strength of our future lies in our past.
    -VNV Nation

    There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
    -Sun-tzu, The Art of War

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:32 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am
    Posts: 682
    AOL: maxusbrimstone
    So my Axe Dwarves now cost 14? Wow... That's kinda gay that they're price basically doubled. W/e, I'll start working on my other units, but yeah, I was hoping that the /2 part of the cost equation existed at some point, cause having to factor in Hits twice kinda kills it. Hell if you just changed it so that it was (Hits*Defense*Move)+[(Attack*Range)/2] Like we thought it was anyway, that would make the price fo everything much more realistic. Especially if we're still only getting 200 points to start and 200 points pread among al out sides..

    BTW, I really thought that the points divided amongst all sides was kinda stupid, mainly because how small it is. Most times a person will be lucky to make 2 or 3 units with the points they're given. Can we please have more points this game?

    Also, LTDave, didn't we say that all human sized units HAD to have 5 Hits because Hits are now tied directly to size? So all basic Human-sized units must cost at least 10 points.

    So is defence being used now to reduce the number of hits the enemy inflicts by dividing the total Attacks by the Avg Defense plus Terrain and Commander bonuses? Is that the official thing?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:34 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am
    Posts: 682
    AOL: maxusbrimstone
    Sihoiba wrote:
    BLANDCorporatio wrote:
    Sihoiba wrote:
    V2.1 Dragon
    Hits 18
    Attack 18
    Defence 1
    Move 5
    Range 2*
    Cost 37


    Mistaken there, Dwagons are ludicrously inefficient under 2.1: 18H*1D*5M + 18H*18A*2/20 = 90 + 33 (rounded up) = 123.

    I'm not checking your 2.2 cost, but Dwagons are not that bad under those rules because Defense is more significant, which favours small stacks with large Defense over Grezling hordes.


    Ah yes for some reason I thought it was (18H*1D*5M + 18H*18A*2)/20.


    I thought it would be (18H*1D*5M)+[(18A*2R)/2] = 90 + 18 = 108.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:52 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:04 am
    Posts: 262
    V2.1 is good, 2.2 is. . .not so much. My statue is now a 180 cost unit. Oh, and remember that time in the comic http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_110:9 where there were two people on a Dwagon? yeah. That. if men are 5s, and Dwagons 18s, then that's quite contradictory. I thought the V2.1 was tricky to make for. This is nuts. 180 is way too much for a single unit. . .Ah well. If you won't change the rules then the minis will be dropped too. (they would've been units with cost of 12!) Oh. . .wait. Add in the commander and I'm overboard -_-"

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:14 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:35 am
    Posts: 288
    Remember all that these are the concepts of the game. Until Dave says: "Version 2.61736aacx will be it And that is final" there is no telling in what might change. Please do not attack the poor guy just yet :).

    And then, even if these were the actual rules. It would be of no fun to make an unstoppable force since Dave is not making one himself either :P. It is not fair too. :P

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:25 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    turbler,

    a) you're making a mistake with the Statue. Give it a defense of a mere 1. Since you're planning to mix the Statue with a ton of minigolems, average Defense will be 1 anyway.

    b) what Azgrut said. In particular, I think 2.2 was produced to counter the Grezling sploit, which would have made Dwagons ridiculous.

    Azgrut, by my estimation, the Gametank costs a "mere" 146. It's still ludicrously inefficient though.

    LtDave, and all others:

    I think you made the changes so that small-many units are not as favoured as they used to be before, in 2.1, correct?

    My fear is that under current rules, small-many units are still favoured, just not in the short term, which arguably is worse.

    So people, show me why this is not the best strategy: WAIT, pop a gazillion Grezlings (modified, now with range of a mere 1), and a few bags of hitpoints (units with 30 hits, but all other stats at 1). Eventually, the difference between the firepower of an army of this composition and an army of Dwagons/Twolls/Gobwins (and pure Gobwin is better for GB btw) will be so ludicrously large that it will not be compensated for by the time it takes that huge force to get from A to GB.

    This is because we can make a unit that gives 1 Attack for 3 pop points, optimal under current rules. Any Dwagon-style unit (tough and fast) will pay a huge penalty for that, so it won't deliver much firepower. Gobwins will be better than Dwagons, but if they are not too different from TBfGBv1, their Attack per cost is still worse than 1/3.

    Spoiler: show
    Assuming
    Hits 3
    Def 1
    Att 2
    Move 2
    Range 1

    Cost is 3 + 6 + 2 = 11. Attack/Cost is therefore 2/11, or slightly worse than 1/5.

    Assuming
    Hits 3
    Def 1
    Att 3
    Move 2
    Range 1

    Cost is 3 + 6 + 3 = 12, with Att/Cost of 3/12 = 1/4, better but smaller than 1/3.


    Firepower of armies increases linearly with unit count, so after a while (and that's the problem, a LOOOONG, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG while) the Grezling army will overtake the Gobwins, with enough margin to allow for transit time.

    I hasten to add that the fact that the optimal strategy is waiting does not mean that this is what we should, in fact, do. However it seems a bit odd of the rules to behave that way.

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:50 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    Ok enough, how about this for Cost:

    Cost = Attack*Range + Defense*Move + Hits. Hits follow the DnD explanation of dodginess (I kid thee not), whereas Defense is toughness/armouredness of unit. Move caps at 5. Hits, Attack, Defense cap at 30, (EDIT) with Attack and Defense limited to Hits*1.5. All stats have a value of at least 1.

    and this for combat:

    Inflicted hits = RANDOM_NUM*BONUS*ATTDIF*ATTACK_SUM

    BONUS: includes stack, commander, terrain (which counts as damage reduction so will be between 0.5 to 1), special etc.

    RANDOM_NUM: random number between 50% and 100%. Yes Goddamit, what kind of sponge-livered troops are these if they can at best deliver 60% of rated Offense?!

    ATTACK_SUM: sum of attack value of units in the stack.

    ATTDIF: Heroes of Might and Magic to the rescue. ATTDIF is a number between 0.3 and 4, and is calculated like this:
    - start with ATTDIF equal to 1.
    - sum attack of top 8 units from stack A, sum defense of top 8 units of stack B, subtract the two sums.
    ----- If value is greater than 0 (more attack than defense), ATTDIF increases with 0.05 per point of difference, up to a value of 4 (which prolly won't happen ever).
    ----- If value is less than 0 (more defense than attack), ATTDIF decreases with 0.025 per point of difference, down to a value of 0.3 (which prolly might happen sometime).

    Example: if a stack A has top-8 unit attack sum 16, and attacks a stack B whose top-8 unit defense sum is 8, then ATTDIF is 1 + (16-8)*0.05 = 1.4.
    Example: if a stack A has top-8 unit attack sum 16, and attacks a stack B whose top-8 unit defense sum is 24, then ATTDIF is 1 + (16-24)*0.025 = 0.8.

    MOTIVATION for changes: you wanted to get rid of immortal units right? Then why make Attack expensive?

    I'll play around with these formulas and tell you what I find.

    EDIT: and for added Golmon-ness, a new rule on Range:

    If a defending stack has higher range than the attacker, defender strikes first and attacker's offensive power is computed after casualties.
    If an attacking stack has higher range than the defender, and has move left, they can do a hit and run and receive NO RETALIATORY DAMAGE.
    (Stacks of similar range battle it out as before).

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:02 pm 
    User avatar
    Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am
    Posts: 3447
    Some analysis of the proposal in the above post.

    - the most efficient way to get a high Offense is still small units. However, the ATTDIF calculation makes it worthwhile to have at least the first 8 units as "BIG" units, High-Def or High-Attack. Maybe even two kinds of units, and switch them between attack and Defence. In any case, a mix between "thousands of Infantry" and a few "Dwagons" will be the typical stack.

    - continuing, the easiest way to get a High-Offense stack is a ton-load of Move 1, range 1 units. Call them Infantry. These are vulnerable to

    - High Move, High Range, Mid-to-High Attack units, let's call them "Fliers", which can attack Infantry with impunity because of the NO RETALIATION rule on higher range attack; however, Fliers are vulnerable to

    - High Range, Mid-to-High Attack, Low Move units, let's call them "Archers". These should be cheap-ish units that, when massed, can cause significant hurt on Fliers. However, efficient Archers are more expensive than Infantry. So, while a large stack of Archers would inflict heavy losses on an Infantry stack, the Infantry stack that can be popped for the same cost would still win by sheer force of numbers.

    Thoughts?

    _________________
    The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:58 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:35 am
    Posts: 288
    Sounds good. A little complex but when placed in excel it would be easy.

    I do think that we need a percentage cap under the 100%. Else the kill rate would go up to much I guess :P.

    But that is a minor detail. :)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:01 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:04 am
    Posts: 262
    Bland, you are Amazing. I think that this system at least deserves to get tested.
    EDIT: what about mounts? what do you think should be the rules for them (and their riders).

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:54 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am
    Posts: 682
    AOL: maxusbrimstone
    So, what about mutliple stack combat? I think of it like this:

    Enemy has a single stack of Twolls defending two stacks of gobwin archers.

    I attack with 4 stacks of Axe Dwawves.

    According to current rules of combat the archers get first attack, but they obviously will need to choose the target, lets say they both target the same stack,a dn it's the stack first to engage the Twolls. So that stack takes Hits before fighitng the Twolls. The units engage and fight eachother. The Twolls at most can maybe tie up another stack of Dwawves in the same combat. Possibly even a third. But that fourth stack "should" be able to brek past and charge those Archers, who would be slaughtered in melee range. This woudl be a much better representation of Erfworld's combat mechanics. Of course... you'd need a Commander giving the orders, so there we go. Commanders giving Tactical advantages would make them worth their cost. But wait! "I can use my commander to give complex orders that can overcome my lack of mathematical advantages? Score!"

    And trust me, I can do the math for these complex situations in my head, I just need to find the right formulas to simulate combat. Personally I like how Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k treat squad-based combat. But anyway. Combat will eb complex, because it's combat. Most games need a computer to calculate everything that happens in a combat. So "simplifying" combat really makes it less interesting to form strategy and much better to just come up with a strategy and stick with it. Because once you figure out the best way to attack in simple combat, that's the only way you're gonna play. More complicated rules allwos for diferent styles of attack proving different results.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 

    Board index » Your Things » Your Games


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

     
     

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

    Search for:
    Jump to: