Skip to Content
 

Too much fidling?

298 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Oopsies. This is a different game. And so far, it is only a thought experiment. Since no one is going to play it.

A 4X space game.

Let's talk about the board first.

The players are going to play with fleets. This means that up to 6 pieces per player can be on the board of where their fleet is.

The board is a hexagon grid. But everything is unexplored.
Players can explore by sending a fleet. And can only go faster through a hexagon once it has been explored.

At first I thought of having the unexplored area's to be placed face down on the board. But a better idea occured to me. What if the unexplored area's are cards of a deck? Meaning that an area will only be placed on the board once explored.

You cannot reach other players if there is not an explored path!

Should I keep a separate deck for this? For easy shuffling?
Or shuffle the hexagon pieces? And thus removing the deck.
If a space is empty, this too should be indicated. Or else it remains unexplored.
Thus if I use a deck, it has always be equal to the hexagons.

Space can contain one of the following:
- 3 stars, these are always placed around a prefixed location. It may vary by 1, 2 or 3 locations.
- A home planet, are placed in the same way as a star. The home planets equal the number of players.
- Empty space. Will always switch places with wandering objects.
- A (wandering) planet, thinking about 1, 2 or 3 times the number of players.
- 1 Dark hole.
- (wandering) Debris (minerals or ice).
- Pirate fleets.
- A Pirate planet.

Once discovered, and once determined it is wandering. It will change location every round. A die is rolled in order to determine 1 of the 6 directions. Then another die is rolled if the number of places is to be determined.
A pirate fleet will choose clockwise direction if something deadly is in the way, like a star or dark hole. If all directions are bad, the movement is reduced by 1.

The heavier the object, the higher it is in the hyarchy.
The hyarchy of swallowing or destroying:
- Dark hole with a gravity pull of 2, it wanders with only 1 place. A gravity pull means that any object near, might start falling with 1 place at a time. A die roll should determine if this happens. The pull of 2 means the distance is 2 on which it happens.
- Stars with a gravity pull of 1, do not wander. Unless the Dark hole is nearby.
- (home or pirate) Planets, when wandering, 1 place
- Debris, while being destroyed by a planet, anything on that planet will be destroyed as well. If it wanders, it can wander up to 3 places.
- Player fleets, are not harmed by debris and can use it as cover.
- Pirates, while being destroyed by a player fleet. They return fire. The pirate fleet is a random size around the biggest fleet present in the game. It will however, not grow unless it joins another pirate fleet by accident. Upgrades for the pirates only happen if the player has upgrades. But it immediately means that all pirates are upgraded.

I don't know about the size yet. But the hexagons can be small since only 1 piece will be standing on it.
It is also possible that the Dark hole goes around and destroys almost everything. The game can even continue if all 3 stars are swallowed up.

Wandering rolls:
1 die to determine direction.
1 die to determine the distance. 123 gives 1, 45 gives 2 and 6 gives 3.

***

Once the board is a solid plan. The following subjects can be discussed:
- Combat mechanics
- Resource managment, based on distance to the nearest star.
- Kolonisation
- Goal of the game...what is the winning condition?
- Exploration, do's and dont's and concequences.
- Upgrades and research.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
One thing at a time...

X3M wrote:
...At first I thought of having the unexplored area's to be placed face down on the board. But a better idea occurred to me. What if the unexplored area's are cards of a deck? Meaning that an area will only be placed on the board once explored.

You cannot reach other players if there is not an explored path!

Why don't you have hexes with VARIOUS "Levels" on the BACK. Like level "1 to 6" which correspond to a DIE ROLL. So when a player wants to go into an "unexplored" section of the board, he rolls 1D6 and according to that value, he gets to PLACE a "Hex" tile of the appropriate VALUE.

Why do this??? Simple: amazing replayability. Not only is the board different, the various locations on the board are different too! "1 to 6" is not arbitrary. It means that the lower locations (1 to 3) have less "valuable" content than say "4 to 6" which may have planets...

Like "1" is almost certainly empty space (good to build a starport) or asteroid field (good for mining), etc. Level "4" locations have planets which are in-hospitable to colonies but do have resources, while Level "6" locations are livable planets like with water (similar to Earth) and rock (similar to Mars), etc. Level "5" could be like deserted planets or gas giants, etc...

Something like that. For now, I've only read the first few paragraphs and had ideas to help SUB-DIVIDE the locations into 6 categories to enhance the variability of the map...

Cheers @X3M!

Note #1: The location of the Pirate Base is unknown until a player chooses the Level #4 tile with their "Planet"... You can also have a couple Level #3 tiles with a Pirate "Base/Starport"... Homeworlds can be the initial tile of each player and placing them furthest away from each other means that like you said "a path must explored to reach an opponent". But it's like a swords blade: Your opponent can attack your Homeworld too because he/she has a direct path to it too!

Note #2: About the MOVING of tiles... I think this is too much... It's enough that you have Levels of Tiles and randomness in the draw of them... To actually move them around would actually cause chaos IMHO.

But you could still use the 6-sided die to choose the Level of exploration a tile gets as you build the map of the star systems...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Too much randomness?

While i like the idea of ammount differences of tiles per game. The fact that more cards are to be included is more or less a no go. What we get is a double randomness. And sure, it is possible that one player gets all the bad stuff around. I plan to make as much as possible to be a double sword.

A double randomness can create more balance to a game. But it is too fidly i think.

I also would like to have a clear limit on certain tiles. This in order to reduce imbalance.

Note 1: exploration as a double edged sword. Has been noted. As result...The more powerful player will get out hunting? I don't know how other space game designers think about this.

Note 2: what if i leave the wandering objects to just 1 out of a maximum of 6?
The die roll determines which object.
Then if it wanders.
Then what direction.

And if anything is in a gravity well. Again a roll of if it falls. And this chance will be less than the gravity well changing location.
There are no orbits. The thing about wandering is that something is in an unstable location.
Also, if a homeplanet starts to die. It is up to the player to move to a colony and make that the new homeplanet.

If i use a deck. I could ask the players to have 2 decks shuffled. 1 contains the dark hole and more than half of the pirates, the other one does not. The safe deck will be used first.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
The problem I see with "Wandering Objects/Tiles"

Is that what if there is something NEXT to it. How is it going to "Wander"??? You just stop using that mechanic??? Or what if the next position in a rotation there is already a hex/tile, what happens then?? It's BLOCKED?!

The whole moving to another Homeplanet reminds me of "StarCraft"... If someone takes down your primary base, move all your workers to a secondary base and try to rebuild a little.

That sounds like the game could be excessively long to play. In StarCraft in can be a pain even thought it might be possible to jump on the secondary base too... And damage it until there is not remaining survivors. For the Terrans, at one point your could just air-lift the command center and move it to a new location somewhere elsewhere on the map...

Hmm... Maybe I should ask you: "Why do you want wandering objects???"

Maybe if I understand your thought process better... It may be more interesting than I actually believe it is...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Is that what

questccg wrote:
Is that what if there is something NEXT to it. How is it going to "Wander"??? You just stop using that mechanic??? Or what if the next position in a rotation there is already a hex/tile, what happens then?? It's BLOCKED?!
No, there is a hyrachy of what happens. Dark hole will swallow anything and start atrackting stuff. Stars don't wander unless the dark hole comes near. But anything to close to a star will be swallowed. Anything heavier than what it wanders into, will destroy it. Anything lighter than what it wanders into, will be destroyed by it. Fleet is intelligent. And will not be destroyed by planets, nor debris once the location is known. Stars are always known from the start, you simply don't go close to them. Unless you move really fast.

questccg wrote:

The whole moving to another Homeplanet reminds me of "StarCraft"... If someone takes down your primary base, move all your workers to a secondary base and try to rebuild a little.
It will take a long time until your homeplanet is taken by the dark hole. And I am considering protection for the weaker. Where if a player has the least ammount of planets. The wandering object goes in the exact opposite direction.

questccg wrote:

That sounds like the game could be excessively long to play. In StarCraft in can be a pain even thought it might be possible to jump on the secondary base too... And damage it until there is not remaining survivors. For the Terrans, at one point your could just air-lift the command center and move it to a new location somewhere elsewhere on the map...
The deck should be designed in such way. That the dark hole will only appear after all players managed to get at least 1 colony. Or at least had the option for a longer period of time.

questccg wrote:

Hmm... Maybe I should ask you: "Why do you want wandering objects???"
To make things more interesting. However, it doesn't have too be included. Then again. I thought that if a dark hole is discovered. It would just sit there for the rest of the game.... Everything else is in use. Unless I add 2 dark holes. And they are connected as a fast travel. Technology is required for this.

questccg wrote:

Maybe if I understand your thought process better... It may be more interesting than I actually believe it is...

Clearly the whole wandering idea originates from objects on the map. Having no other use than just being there if not used.

Stars: their distance to planets changes resource managment for that planet. You are not supposed to get too close with certain ships.
Astroids: provide cover and minerals. First time exploration will destroy a part of the fleet.
Comets: provide cover and water. First time exploration will destroy a part of the fleet.
Planets: provide a defence platform, home base, minerals/water/carbon/silicon???? First time exploration will not do anything since a gravity well warned the fleet.
Dark holes: first time exploration destroys the fleet. So, today i decided that if wandering is not the case. The dark hole would be the least usefull.

If object would wander, the whole map would be in chaos. That is why I already decided that only up to 6 object have a chance to wander.
A die roll.
Then a direction.
A die roll.
Then a distance depending on the object.
A die roll.

And see what the concequences are.
If a gravity well is there.
A die roll if another object close would start falling.

So a dark hole would be the most dangerous object in the game. But is discovered at a late stage. Almost as if the dark hole is alive and awoken by the fleet discovering it.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
4x Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate

Have you seen Tau Ceti (TC) by Outer Limit Games, LLC.???

It was designed by Mike & Stan Strickland and Joseph Pilkus (the Developer of many games including TradeWorlds).

Just because the BOARD can be something very UNIQUE like in TC. Take a look at these images and how "nice" the two (2) boards look like:

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2774057/tau-ceti-planetary-crisis

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2500099/tau-ceti-planetary-crisis

Zoom-in and you'll see how AMAZING the Graphic Design is... And it's Mike that made that game look INCREDIBLE. Those couple images show how the game tiles LINK together... And it's different that pure hexes only.

Search for @"The Professor" (Joseph Pilkus) and just have a chat (PM) with him about Tau Ceti... Because I'm sure he'd gladly discuss the game and its merits. Hexes may not be the way to go... That's OLDER games. Tau Ceti elevated the bar when it comes to exploring and connecting the known and unknown Universe.

Just to give you more inspiration. OLDER concepts use pure hexes... Newer games are way much more innovative. And in TC the tiles interconnect so that they are resistant to the board being moved (if that happens).

Maybe Joe can share some insights into their game... What worked, what didn't, what needed improvement and what was made that was great!

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2923945/tau-ceti-planetary-crisis

This is an image about what's in the BOX. Lots going on... So I want you to be aware that there are a lot of components in TC. Right now all we're talking about is some Hex Tiles moving. While having tiles that "interconnect" may be more MODERN and interesting to players.

One of the drawbacks of TC is that it seems like the BOARD SIZE is relatively SMALL. You might want to have a bigger explorable area on the table.

Again just giving you more ideas and things to look at and discuss.

Cheers @X3M.

Note #1: Here are 2 versions of the same system but one with additional hex-tile to fill in the gaps and the other with missing gaps:

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2963240/tau-ceti-planetary-crisis

Note #2: BTW another "game" that looks really cool is EVE ONLINE:

https://youtu.be/sPFII3ozSHI

I think this is the sort of game that consumes one's life... And just turns you into a pure gamer! LMAO. The video looks amazing. It looks very immersive...!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
The Gateway!

I was TRYING to see IF there could be a mechanic by which the players Homeplanets remain UNKNOWN LOCATIONS (like secret). I know in Video Games this can be done easily.

And I've come up with a VERY NOVEL idea for a Board Game:

I would call the game "The Gateway". Players secretly CHOOSE a HEX location for their Homeplanet. In addition, each Homeplanet has a "Gateway" that allows them to TRAVEL to the Center of the "star-system" in question.

So players launch their fleet into "The Gateway" and appear in the center of the board... Conflict between fleets is INSTANT (if players want to engage the opponents). Make it more of a SPECIAL 4x: You can Explore, Expand, Exploit and Exterminate from the very first turn in the game.

This would mean that there are no DIRECT PATHS to the Homeplanets. They need to be discovered by exploration! Have six (6) Homeplanets for up to six (6) Players and keep the locations secret UNTIL someone lands on one of the Player's Hexes (or whatever ... In the event that you don't want Hexes...)

This could be very original. It's a mix between Catan, Scotland Yard, and Tau Ceti...

Until you explore the RIGHT tile, you'll never know where your opponents are because of "The Gateway"!

Note #1: So you would explore the star-system in reverse: from the very middle of the star, to the outer-edges where you may have Homeplanets hidden from opposing players. And you can like build your Homeplanet on some kind of "Game Pad" (A bit like in Tau Ceti) and it's location would remain SECRET for maybe 2/3rds of the game...

You could build your fleets, launch them into "The Gateway" and they magically appear in the middle of the board.

The you can explore on your own the territory... Again it could be cool if the territory remains SECRET unless some manjority rule like 2/3rds of the players have explored that region (think hex or elsewise). You would keep this on a Scoresheet for your known star-system and if 2 out of 3 people have explored a location, you can FLIP IT OVER and reveal to EVERYONE.

I'm trying to help with something more NOVEL than your average 4x game... This one is about exploring and expanding in secrecy.

So a location is SECRET until 2/3, 2/4, 3/5 or 4/6 players have explored it. And then it becomes revealed.

This would be real cool ... because indeed the Exploration and Expansion is all done in secrecy... The battles can be done by revealing a fleet location.

Maybe you don't even need "pawns" and such (miniatures)... It could all be logged and players operate mostly in SECRET unless you know the location of the enemy fleet, operations (like a pirate moon or planet), etc.

I think this would make an AWESOME 4x game which is totally different than everything OUT-THERE so far...

Note #2: Fleets ... Hmm... I was thinking a bit like in Scotland Yard. The bad guys reveals himself on specific turns. Well Fleets depending on the SIZE of the fleet can PING (kind of like GPS on a SmartPhone). And there location can be Revealed and you could maybe have the option of "Running away" (Think move to a nearby hex) instead of engaging the enemy in battle...

Again tougher because you need to worry about logging stuff on a sort of sophisticated "Tracking Sheet"...

But IF a player decides to "Run Away" he PINGS the opponent saying something like: "A Fleet X" retreated from this position. Where "X" is the average size of the Fleet... And then there are 6 possible locations to explore to try to follow if you want to ENGAGE in battle and Exterminate that Fleet...

Really cool this type of game... And NO NEED for MINIATURES! (Love that!!!)

Note #3: Also to keep the game more INTERESTING instead of just "secrecy" and "your own plans"... When a PLAYER chooses from the list of available actions, that is revealed to all players. Like for example: "A BUILD ORDER was done" This means that you know the player is BUILDING a new fleet of starships of Type "Y" (Again having to do with size)... And so you know that fleet will take like "Z" turns to build.

Or you can use one of your Mining Fleets because "MINE ORDER was done" This means that the player is COLLECTING resources...

I know this isn't very SECRET... But you can't have a game that is pure secrecy like Scotland Yard. TBH that game is BORING to play. But something of a HYBRID where you have an idea what a player is DOING... But you don't know all the specifics, makes for a different experience!

Note #4: This is a bit like the Protoss in StarCraft: with an Observer you can place it at the back of an enemies camp. But you don't yet know the walkable path to reach the enemy camp... You need to EXPLORE more of the MAP until you find a DIRECT path to the enemy's doorstep.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Have you seen

questccg wrote:
Have you seen Tau Ceti (TC) by Outer Limit Games, LLC.???
I have now!
That game looks crowded. And I have more of an empty space in mind. With distance between the objects. There will also be positioning with ships. Of course there is no height differences. But there are debris going to act for ships to take cover in.

An empty table has given me an idea. But the stars are going to determine resource managment for the players. So I scrapped the idea.

questccg wrote:

Just to give you more inspiration. OLDER concepts use pure hexes... Newer games are way much more innovative. And in TC the tiles interconnect so that they are resistant to the board being moved (if that happens).
Well, i am an old fashioned kind of guy.

questccg wrote:

One of the drawbacks of TC is that it seems like the BOARD SIZE is relatively SMALL. You might want to have a bigger explorable area on the table.

Yes.

questccg wrote:

Note #2: BTW another "game" that looks really cool is EVE ONLINE:

https://youtu.be/sPFII3ozSHI

I think this is the sort of game that consumes one's life... And just turns you into a pure gamer! LMAO. The video looks amazing. It looks very immersive...!

Yes, it does cost ones life. I know someone who played this for a while. And his work suffered from it. So he quit...the game.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:I was TRYING

questccg wrote:
I was TRYING to see IF there could be a mechanic by which the players Homeplanets remain UNKNOWN LOCATIONS (like secret). I know in Video Games this can be done easily.
No can do....
I did have an idea with drawing cards and then use a card that is linked to a players planet. Thus no board on the table. But the combat mechanic requires a 2d field.
If the 2d field is removed, then the game would become entirely a card game. Now, the fleet can have numerous units with the tracking that I had in mind. But as I attempted before, a card game based combat mechanic is pretty damn hard to achieve. Solely talking about the movement and weapon range effects.

How should I do those???

Either way, I am not trying to get a FOW between players. Only the map and objects in it. If there is no map, it will become a card game instead. Where the fleet numbers are tracked on a mat.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What if... I use no board?

So that means, only cards will be drawn. And they will give players connections to each other.

Example: A card will give a path to the planet of an opponent. But once played. It will be placed on the table. And those 2 players can attack each other. The first initial attack is still in the hands of the player who discovered the opponents planet, if you will.

Now for the harder part.
How to indicate range and movement speeds?
Or should I simply only have "movement: yes/no" and other stuff? What would a higher speed give me?

I know I once worked on that RPS game where things rotated and stuff. But I completely forgot about those.
Perhaps I should have cards that allow a player to attack. So, there is no freedom unless they have the card.
Then again, might as well read through that topic I once had. But this takes time. Which I hardly have any.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
For movement stick to hexes, no?!

Number of Hexes per turn when it comes to SPEED. Still make the PATH a combination of Hexes leading between two (2) points.

Like for example an an "Asteroid Belt" for Mining, can be 3 Hexes away. A Slow Mining Fleet would take 3 Turns to reach it and start mining. Whereas a Fast Mining Fleet would only take 1 Turn to reach it...

Something simple like that could account for different SPEEDS, no?!

There could be some trade-offs, like faster speeds means less cargo room, etc. So Faster = YES, Capacity = LOWER. Or Slower = YES, Capacity = HIGH. And this could be a function of how the space on the starships are used. More speeds means more room reserved for propulsion, where as slower fleets have more room for their precious cargo...

Something like that makes a lot of sense and is not too hard to implement.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Number of

questccg wrote:
Number of Hexes per turn when it comes to SPEED. Still make the PATH a combination of Hexes leading between two (2) points.

Like for example an an "Asteroid Belt" for Mining, can be 3 Hexes away. A Slow Mining Fleet would take 3 Turns to reach it and start mining. Whereas a Fast Mining Fleet would only take 1 Turn to reach it...

Something simple like that could account for different SPEEDS, no?!

There could be some trade-offs, like faster speeds means less cargo room, etc. So Faster = YES, Capacity = LOWER. Or Slower = YES, Capacity = HIGH. And this could be a function of how the space on the starships are used. More speeds means more room reserved for propulsion, where as slower fleets have more room for their precious cargo...

Something like that makes a lot of sense and is not too hard to implement.


I honestly don't see how this could happen.
While the description you made perfectly describes a 2D game. Having NO board would be a 1D or 0D game...

The rules regarding movement would be completely different or at least very simple. But simplicity often makes a good balance very hard... I am planning to have the players do research. And the speed of each ship, or classes of ships. Will increase.
Same goes for the attack range.
If I use a board. I can actually let the players calculate the resources that the cargo (who permanently stay at home) will get.

***

Ooff... the calculation might be too much though.
Let's see hmmmm...??

The logic:
Distance / Speed = Time
Cargo / Time = Resources

The simplification:
Cargo / ( Distance / Speed ) = Resources

Cargo * Speed / Distance = Resources

Ok, let's say a ship has a cargo room of 6 with a speed of 2. And the field is at a distance of 6. The resources for that round would be 6*2/6=2.

If the speed was 3, it would be 3 resources.
If the cargo was 9, it would be 3 resources.
If the distance was 4, it would be 3 resources.

Doubling the speed and doubling the cargo room would yield 4 times more resources.

Something like that????

In my older wargames. I allowed the player to set up a line of workers. From start to finish. And the distance would simply demand a number of workers. The income would still be the same each round though. But the closer the field, the less workers... It could still happen that a field would simply have the cargo at location. And that the size of the field and the distance, would actually demand a number of ships in order to be harvested to a maximum per round. "worker placement..."

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... I also had another idea

When you have a "Flight Path" from one Homeplanet to the next... It could ONLY be 1-way! Meaning Player A could use the Flight Path to reach Player B... But Player B would NOT have a Flight Path to reach Player A...

So ONLY the cards in your AREA OF PLAY work for YOU! This can create an economy or alliances between players. HOW you ask?!

Well IF Player A has a Flight Path to reach Player B... And Player B doesn't... Player C could have drawn the card from B to A (Flight Path) and OFFER to be in an alliance with Player B or SELL the Flight Path to Player B so that he can retaliate...

How would I do all of this??? Easy. I would DESIGN a BOARD OF HEXES and give each hex a value (Sector Number). Using these Hexes, I would CREATE ALL of the cards that allow a player to visit.

And remember my Gateway concept...?! I would use it to ABSTRACT AWAY anything that indicates where the STARTING point of a Flight Path. Like you WARP to the location and warp back to your Homeplanet using the Flight Path!

Given the "Asteroid Belt"... You could WARP to REACH the first point in the Flight Path and there would be THREE (3) Hexes. WHY??? Because it would be too DANGEROUS to WARP you DIRECTLY to the asteroid belt... So you fly in somewhere NOT TOO FAR AWAY.

And in the BOARD OF HEXES that makes sense... But more that one player can reach a similar destination from the opposite direction ... But the SAME IDENTICAL "Asteroid Belt". That could create conflict between players.

Once all the cards have been DESIGNED, I would forever HIDE the BOARD OF HEXES and keep that confidential. Yes, the game was designed with a BOARD but when you PLAY, all you need is CARDS!

This would be so ORIGINAL... And unique to 4x Gaming!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yeah for a formula it's pretty good!

X3M wrote:
Cargo * Speed / Distance = Resources

Ok, let's say a ship has a cargo room of 6 with a speed of 2. And the field is at a distance of 6. The resources for that round would be 6*2/6=2.

If the speed was 3, it would be 3 resources.
If the cargo was 9, it would be 3 resources.
If the distance was 4, it would be 3 resources.

Doubling the speed and doubling the cargo room would yield 4 times more resources.

Something like that????

Yes indeed you understood... Something like that! I don't know how the numbers progress (as in get BIGGER) but something like that makes a lot of sense...

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
How WARP-ing impacts Flight Paths

Remember I was talking about WARP-ing... I just wanted to TOUCH on it in this comment to explain more about how "Player A" gets a path to "Player B" Homeplanet. And why the OPPOSITE doesn't work...

First of all... "Player A" WARPS into a starting Hex which is (for example) 6 hexes away from "Player B" Homeplanet. So "Player A" KNOWS where to WARP and how to travel to "Player B" Homeplanet...

But the opposite is UNTRUE. If "Player B" hasn't draw the Flight Path "to A" ... He is in a bit of TROUBLE. Why? Because ... He doesn't know where to WARP to and therefore cannot follow "Player A" Fleet when they go to WARP!

Do you get my ANGLE??? WARP to a point and then coast to the destination. The return is coast away and WARP once you reach the correct way point.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Brackets....

I tried out several calculation examples for just cards. But it worked so much better. Having a fleet set out for the resource field. And load up as much as possible. Then return home. Because this could be a race between players once the resources are discovered. And the 2 players where already connected.
It could lead to a battle in a grey zone.
Or it would even encourage a player to scout in a certain direction. Will all the risk there is.

If there is no board. Then having a card doesn't make much sense. And players don't want to calculate stuff either.

It should be simpler then.
Something along the lines of a ship has cargo and movement speed. This gives a total harvesting score.
The distance simply requires a number of ships for the gathering. Then the total harvesting score is the income once the threshold has been met.

Now, if the resource field is at a distance of 12. You need 12 ships before harvesting is possible.
This too is counter intuitive.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Think about this...

If an ENEMY WARPS to a location 6 hexes away from "Player B" Homeplanet... "Player B" doesn't KNOW from WHERE this ENEMY came from...?! Get it. He could know who the ENEMY is ("Player A") but not how to pursue him after those 6 Hexes.

And LOCATIONS and FLIGHT PATHS are UNSPECIFIC.

What I mean if you DRAW a card that leads to an "Asteroid Belt" (Sector 46) it works for ALL PLAYERS who draw this card. But there could be 4x (in quantity) different FLIGHT PATHS that LEAD to the exact SAME "Asteroid Belt" (Sector 46)!

It doesn't much matter WHICH "Flight Path" you get. The ONLY importance is the DESTINATION. So if you already had Sector 46 destination (as a card), you could opt to SELL or TRADE that "Asteroid Belt" card to another Non-Hostile Player.

You really don't NEED the board, once you design all the cards TBH!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Look at it in a REALISTIC way...

X3M wrote:
Because this could be a race between players once the resources are discovered. And the 2 players where already connected.

If you were REALLY opposing Player, the known Universe would largely be UNEXPLORED! So when a player earns an "Asteroid Belt" to mine resources... Only HE know how to REACH the "Asteroid Belt" (in Sector 46).

In REALITY, the FOW would mean that OTHER players would NOT know that resources have been discovered UNLESS they TOO got the Flight Path to Sector 46!

This leads to a REMARKABLE FOW ... Something UNSEEN in any other game that I have played or watched a video for (and trust me I've watched 100s of videos)!

But if TWO (2) or THREE (3) Players obtain the CARD for Sector 46 (An Asteroid Belt)... Well then that could become a BATTLEGROUND between three (3) Players sending not only merchant miners but also combat-ready starships to protect the Belt from opposing Mining Fleets!

So even with JUST CARDS, you could setup all kinds of BATTLES in "Neutral" Territory or someplace in the Galaxy which is determined by Flight Paths!

Note #1: I just think in the past we talked and discussed about Fog-Of-War (FOW) and in our discussions we came to the conclusion that it was not possible in a BOARD GAME. Well this concept of Flight Paths + WARP-ing is an AMAZING way to HAVE "FOW"!!! Could be an EPIC game TBH.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Battle over certain Sectors

X3M wrote:
...Having a fleet set out for the resource field. And load up as much as possible. Then return home. Because this could be a race between players once the resources are discovered. And the 2 players where already connected...

I also wanted to add that Mining an Asteroid Belt could go on FOREVER. Meaning that once you have access to it... Certain "resources" which are available from the card, allow you to mine INDEFINITELY.

Granted this seems a bit IRREALISTIC at first... The Asteroid Belt can be so LARGE and there is so many different rock formations to explore and mine... It takes time to gather "resources" and return home with them.

That's why there could be BATTLES over such resources (in Sector 46)...

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Limitless Access

questccg wrote:
Granted this seems a bit IRREALISTIC at first... The Asteroid Belt can be so LARGE and there is so many different rock formations to explore and mine... It takes time to gather "resources" and return home with them.

That's why there could be BATTLES over such resources (in Sector 46)...

By your own explanation, I'd rather see the opposite as true. If the field of resources is so large, there's no incentive to engage in combat with one's competition over one floating hunk of rock. Since there are so many out there, it is much more worthwhile to fly off to some other spot: one not contested over by one's enemies.

If it was one rock that had broken out from an asteroid field however, and it was the only one accessible, and it was flying directly into the black hole or a star so there was only limited time before it disappeared... Then that would sometimes merit conflict.

The only peoples that fight for the sake of fighting are the stupidly-rich, or those in fantasy novels. I doubt that's what you're looking to simulate here.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Keeping it SIMPLE.

let-off studios wrote:
By your own explanation, I'd rather see the opposite as true. If the field of resources is so large, there's no incentive to engage in combat with one's competition over one floating hunk of rock. Since there are so many out there, it is much more worthwhile to fly off to some other spot: one not contested over by one's enemies.

Ok how about a RULE that says mining can only be done by "W" Players at the same time. If the value of "W=1", lots of competition... If "W=6", no competition. What I am trying to get at ... is that it doesn't need to be based in some sort of reality. For the "Asteroid Belt" (in Sector 46), only "W=2" (two) players may mine at the same time, leaving the other 4-Players to either wait or compete by combating one of the other Players.

It's just a RULE... Not based in any reality. Call it a "restriction" if you prefer...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A goal first

Before the game is even worked on.
I am actually missing a goal this time.

With my previous wargame, you would simply duke it out constantly. Until one of the players would snowball to death.

But that goal slowly got replaced with sim base building. And simply targetting a tertiary force for fun. "who can exterminate the most efficiently" was the goal there.

I think that fighting pirates might actually be IT.
But then, if a player is victorious. A VP is earned.
I don't know how much VP should be gathered. But I think that pirates should be discovered at a regular basis.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about making a CO-OPETIVE 4X game?

Meaning that the goal is to discover and destroy the Pirate Homeplanet. Like you said there will be a lot of pirate fleets in the game and you earn Victory Points for defeating them.

Make it CO-OPETIVE, meaning players co-operate with each other in exploring and expanding their knowledge of the galaxy BUT at the same time compete to be the best player at defeating pirate fleets.

And Maybe the Homeplanet cannot be defeated alone: you need a co-ordinated effort by ALL players to amass sufficient fleets to defeat them.

Maybe the "eXterminate" is not the other players but the Space Pirates?! Is this something you are thinking about???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
If I go for co-op

Then there are a lot of aspects that would be totally different.

Either pirates or aliens.
I need to make a script.
And honestly, I don't see the point of making a board game with the combat limitations that I have.

For my other wargame, it still worked. Because the enemy there would be scripted. And players would take turns in being the ai in various ways.
But with an open world (space) things are more bland.
It truly is a do or do not kind of thing.

I am now pondering to discard the board entirely. And make the game purely a card game with chips and dice. Which means, it can easily be taken on a trip and stuff.

The game would consist out of:
- Cards
- Chips
- Dice
Players still need a table.

The resources can be on a card.
The fleet can be on a card.
Or scrap that fleet thing. How about the fleet consists of cards. And each player has only 1 fleet?

You get a "home", not sure if I even should do multiple planets. The enemy will directly attack.
No more movement speed, no more ranged attacks.
An attack would be an event with 3 turns. Which would allow for variation in the attack patern. More on this later.

There are 3 possible target types:
- Planet (defences and structures)
- Defending fleet
- Attacking fleet

There are 8 classes possible:
000; Any structure on the home planet. It cannot defend at all. Although it can still be destroyed when the enemy attacks.
100; Bombers. Only a planet can be bombarded. The bombs are simply dropped.
010; Assault ships. Only a defending fleet can be targeted. This because the weapons of assault ships target by a double calculated infrared sensor. It targets cold spots on a hot background. Which is only present when a fleet has a planet on the background. Targets on the planet itself are invicible. And if this ship where to defend, it would be targeting friendly ships only.
110; Battleships. The massive firepower cannot be used at the home planet. Because the planet itself would take colateral damage from the result of the huge explosions. Fast flying debris from destroyed ships will not burn up in the atmosphere.
001; Defences (includes space mines). Only an attacking fleet can be targeted.
101; Missiles (works like space mines). It seems that if attacking ships are close by, they can be targeted by missiles. If they are all the way out there defending their planet, the targeting fails. However, targeting the enemy planet is also a good option.
011; Cruisers. Only fleet can be targeted.
111; All other ships. They can target defending ships in an attack. They can target attacking ships while defending. And they can fire at the planet as well.

The weight value is depending on how many targets something can have. It would only be applied to the weapon.
+50% per extra target.
Structures are the oddball here. They do not posses a weapon. Which makes them cheaper than defences if you will.

Weapon value:
N/A%; Structures.
100%; Bombers, Assault ships and Defences.
150%; Battleships, Missiles and Cruisers.
200%; All other ships.

I am still pondering about a H/D ratio of 2 or 3.
3 works well for a 2D game.
But 2 allows for other aspects that are cool. And actually fits the +50%. Because this means that a ship with 200% weight value on a weapon is simply a H/D ratio of 2.
If a damaage is 100% for these ships, the more advanced it gets, you get 133% and then 200%.

Either way. When attacking and defending. You can target anything.
So it is possible to destroy any ship or missile that still has to charge its weapons.
It is also possible to simply bombard an enemy planet, while targeting the infrastructure. Which will result in that player having less income.

***

The game will progress a bit like MtG.
Players build up. Then choose if they attack or not.
Same exchaustion rule etc.
so, if you attack, you cannot defend properly.

The differences are:
A battle has 3 turns. A ship can fire during these 3 turns.
Dice are rolled as well, during these 3 turns, hits will stack. And used on any desirable target.

When projectiles are fired can actually be seen in the same light as the classes. But this time, it is in order:
100; Burst type.
010; Short charge.
110; Burst salvo..
001; Long charge.
101; Slow salvo.
011; Charge salvo.
111; Salvo type.

Idk :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Salvo's have been shortened.

I noticed how the balance was scaling on a 19. Meaning this was too hard.
If I shorten a salvo to only 2. The scaling is 5.

Ok, that was something with a lot of math sumarized. Lets just say I only have 3 types of weapons.

Burst: 1-0
Salvo: 1-1
Charge: 0-1

The weight values are 3, 5 and 2.
Or, 60%, 100% and 40%
The accuracy roll is 50% here.
Since normal ships have a double weight for their weapons. I was thinking about a secondary 50% roll. Which is, for example, removed for bombers.

To make things more interesting. I am thinking about having a set of possible weapons for certain ships. The weapons are different, but cost the same. It is either accuracy or projectiles or accuracy*projectiles

Class 6:
2-0
0-3

Class 12:
4-0
2-3
0-6

Class 9:
3-0
1-3

Class 30:
10- 0 (2 of 5/6th)
8- 3 (2 of 4/6th followed by 3/6th)
6- 6 (1 followed by 1)
4- 9 (4/6th followed by 3 of 3/6th)
2-12 (2/6th followed by 2)
0-15 (0 followed by 5 of 3/6th)
0-15 (0 followed by 3 of 5/6th)

Just to name some examples...
It would kinda be funny to let the players design the ships.

No doubt, bodies can have several weapons. If I keep the costs separate, this would be easy.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Because you understand all the MATH doesn't mean we do...!

What is Burst 1-0, Salvo 1-1 and Charge 0-1 mean? In English... not mathematical terms.

What values have weight? (3, 5 and 2)???

What is the Accuracy roll and why is it 50%???

What is the meaning of Class 6 or Class 12 or Class 9, etc.???

And for a Class 6 what are 2-0, 0-3 mean? Again in English, not mathematical terms...

Why does Class 6 & 9 only have 2 sets of numbers while Class 12 has 3 and Class 30 has a whooping 8!!!???

I know in your mind it all makes sense. But I'm sure I'm not the only person to be confused by these kinds of messages. Sorry to ask you to explain, but honestly, I wouldn't understand ANYTHING if I didn't ask you to better explain what these terms and values really mean!

Thank you for your clarifications... Honestly.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Because I noticed how my math is to hard for others

Let us begin with how in RTS games, the cooldown and charging of weapons balance the game.

When a weapon is fired. It often needs time to cooldown or reload if you will. This time can be different for all weapons. More so, there are weapons in some games that wait, before firing.
Due to this, the damage output is different. And over time will cause an imbalance if not treated properly.
The differences in weight value for a weapon are depending on how long it takes for a weapon to fire. And also how long it takes for a weapon to fire again.

It has a lot to do with the health/damage ratio.
When a H/D ratio is 3, this means that for every damage, you have 3 health points that are the same in worth.
And it takes 3 turns on average for a soldier to die by its own weapon.

When a weapon takes time to charge up. The same unit might already be receiving damage. Eventually soldiers will die on that side. Every turn that it waits, the damage is actually worth less in the exact: H/D ratio divided by (H/D ratio plus 1).

The cooldown of a weapon works the same as a weapon that is charging. But will already have shot once. The higher a cooldown, the stronger the burts.

1 damage per turn is different then 2 damage every 2 turns.
Also, if the first turn is 2 damage and you have to wait for 2 turns. This is different than having to wait 2 turns until the 2 damage is done.

questccg wrote:
What is Burst 1-0, Salvo 1-1 and Charge 0-1 mean? In English... not mathematical terms.

In my prototype wargame. I had 3 weapons of a value of 600 (expensive unit). In order to explain the differences.
21-0
12-12
0-28

The 21-0 would be a burst weapon, where the unit could deal 21 points of damage. It all happens at once. And only then the weapon cannot be used for another turn. So it is a burst. It is an english term, used a lot among RTS gamers of the new generation.
A famous example would be a cannon.

The 12-12 is a weapon that deals 12 damage every turn.
While only 2 turns. It is firing continue. Seeing as how this weapon can do this every round. It is considered a salvo.

The 0-28 is a weapon that doesn't shoot right away. But has to charge up. Or has to be aimed properly. Once fired, it will be dealing the maximum damage possible for this balance. The word charging comes from the Obelisk Of Light, which charges up its weapon before dealing massive damage. IT ALWAYS will allow other weapons to shoot first.

Now, how to related to these 3 weapons? The game these 3 belong too, would have an unit that has 36 health as a balance.

However, only a graph would show the beauty of the balance.
Where this burst weapon deals the most total damage at the first, third and fifth turn.
The charge weapon would deal the most total damage at the second, fourth and sixth turn.
At the 7th turn, all 3 weapons would be dealing the same total damage. And beyond this point, the charging weapon would win.
Now, remember that the H/D ratio is 3. Thus this means that every 3 turns, units would die. The burst weapon is the best in this, and the salvo would suffer a bit. The charge would suffer even more.

questccg wrote:

What values have weight? (3, 5 and 2)???

The space game, I would like the H/D ratio to be 2.
This means that the 2nd damage output is worth 2/3th that of the first.
If we set the burst damage on 1, this could weight 3.
This automatically means that the charge on 1, weights 2/3th that of 3. Which is 2.
The salvo that does 1 and 1, would be the burst + charging. Thus 5 in total.

questccg wrote:

What is the Accuracy roll and why is it 50%???

In order to have a proper balance. And no health tracking. The H/D ratio can also be an accuracy by inverting this number. D/H is damage per health. 50% means 1 damage per 2 health. If an unit has 1 hit point. Then the damage has to be 50%, or 0.5. This can be done with a die roll.

questccg wrote:

What is the meaning of Class 6 or Class 12 or Class 9, etc.???

If I design weapons, I am thinking of having the costs share in the class number. Kinda like how cannons in C&C use an APDS number on relating to how much damage they do. It is a hint from the game designer to the player on how much the weapons differ. While in that game, body and weapon wheren't mentioned separately. Many games do this tbh.

questccg wrote:

And for a Class 6 what are 2-0, 0-3 mean? Again in English, not mathematical terms...

Remember how I said that the burst could have a weight of 3. Yet the second number would only have a weight of 2?
The 2-0 costs just as much as the 0-3.
3*2 + 2*0=6
3*0 + 2*3=6

questccg wrote:

Why does Class 6 & 9 only have 2 sets of numbers while Class 12 has 3 and Class 30 has a whooping 8!!!???

These are all examples. Of course there is a factorial reason behind this.
3*A + 2*B = T
If T remains the same and A and B have to remain round numbers.
For every A=2 we have B=3.
Subtract 2 from A, and add 3 to B.
The bigger T is, the more A and B can exchange value's.

questccg wrote:

I know in your mind it all makes sense.
yes.

questccg wrote:
But I'm sure I'm not the only person to be confused by these kinds of messages. Sorry to ask you to explain, but honestly, I wouldn't understand ANYTHING if I didn't ask you to better explain what these terms and values really mean!
Thank you for your clarifications... Honestly.

It is all part of the combat mechanic. And before people are going to tell me again, that players won't understand this.

What players see is:

Fighter:
1 Armor.
Primairy fire: 1 of 1 damage.
Secondairy fire: 1 of 1 damage.

Assault Fighter:
1 Armor.
Primairy fire: 2 of 1 damage with an accuracy of 5.
No secondairy fire.

The rules of combat:
During combat, all ships will first release their primairy fire. A die is rolled for each projectile. If the roll is 3 or less, it will be a hit.
If there is any extra accuracy roll, these too will be rolled before the projectile is deemed to be a hit.

All hits are sorted with their corresponding damage. Then this damage is allocated among the enemy ships. If a ship has sustained enough damage, it is removed from the pool.
If a projectile does more damage than the enemy ship has in armor, this damage is lost.

Once the ships that have been destroyed are removed.
Any left over damage is going to be added to the next fire. It is possible that some overkill is being kept in order to target another ship in the secondairy fire.

Now all ships will release their secondairy fire. The same rules are applied as with the primairy fire. Keep in mind, ships that are destroyed, cannot release their secondairy fire.

If a player has 12 Fighters OR 12 Assault Fighters.
The primairy damage both groups do is:
12 * 1 * 50% = 6
12 * 2 * 50% * 83% = 10
Then what remains are:
6 Assault Fighters and 2 Fighters
The 2 Fighters still can shoot once more.
2 * 1 * 50% = 1
The result is: 5 Assault Fighters and 2 Fighters.

Now, if these 2 groups would have to fight a bigger target without being destroyed in the proces.
Fighters:
12 * 1 * 50% + 12 * 1 * 50% = 12
Assault Fighters:
12 * 2 * 50% * 83% = 10

Instead of being 3 damage behind, the Fighters are now 2 damage ahead.

PS. Not that many dice are rolled. Players can roll a die for sets of projectiles as well. 1, 3, 9 etc. Because if the enemy isn't destroyed right away, why bother?
Bucket'o'dice only happens when dealing with fodder.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Combat mechanic (card game, properties)

Properties of a ship/defence

- Name; name of the ship
- Costs; this is a number.
- Armor; this is a number.
It can be 1, 3, 9 or even 27.
- Type; ship or defence.
This choice determines if the unit is able to attack the enemy.
- Weapon, primairy shot;
-- Artribute; name of the attribute.
Can the weapon hit defending fleet?
Can the weapon hit attacking fleet?
Can the weapon hit defences?
-- Primair multiplier; this is a number.
How many projectiles the weapon will fire in the first roll.
-- Secondair multiplier; this is a number.
How many projectiles the weapon will fire in the second roll.
-- Damage; this is a number.
It can be 1, 3, 9 or even 27.
-- Accuracy; this is one or more numbers.
For each projectile a die roll will determine if it remains a hit.

Examples??

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Attribute: Fast

You can attack anything that is part of the opposing force.
But I decided that some ships will be "fast".
These ships can get out the way or in the way of enemy fire. It depends on the defender.

The weight value is +50% for the body points. This allows me to make a little bit more designs. And the designs can now either be meat/fodder or support.

The cruiser is the first and best example in this. It can be the first with more armor than the previous tiers. And it can be a support ship.

---> Should I allow these ships to take damage and move out of the way at the last minute? Thus reducing the incomming hits in the bigger picture? The only down side is, this effect doesn't work well for ships with only 1 armor. Then again, higher tier weaponry can still easily destory a higher tier armor once it hits

***

I need a list of ship names and defence names. I don't really like copying other games in that regard.

Anyone any idea's?

- Ship name
- Description
- Most optimal target(s)

Example:

Behemoth Cruiser
The Behemoth Cruiser is the next tier of the empire class cruisers. Again equiped with pin point mini warp engines for a fast burst of movement within the fleet. Due to the next tier of armor, it can act as a shield for other ships. But if destruction is imminent, it can just as easily move out of harms way.
The most optimal targets are the Heavy Fighters. This due to the weaponry being most optimal on their armor class. But also due to the fact that the Behemoth Cruiser is able to fire all projectiles in a short burst.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Going back to my usual stuff

While I was thinking about this game. I thought to myself. Why a space game? It seems to interest almost no one. And my creativity is less.

I am used to have something themed similar to RTS games.
And the removal of the board is just silly in that regard.
If it is going to be a card game. I go back to my soldiers and tanks.
Ships don't sit me well.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Looked back at older topics

Might as well post here.

While I removed the board. And rather not go space.
What remains are:

The cards, chips and dice.

Now, the cards can have plenty of designs.
And I am keeping the burst/salvo/charging effect.

To make things clear in regards of RPS.
Every x2 in costs means x3 in damage/armor.
A weapon that requires 2 dice of tier 1, costs the same as 1 die of tier 2.
But... the average damage of 2 dice of tier 1 is 2, or 2 kills of tier 1 armor.
While the average damage of 1 die of tier 1 is 3, or just 1 kill of tier 2 armor.

If the weapon is a burst, it will be 120% in value.
If the weapon is a charging, it will be 80% in value.
Meaning that a charging weapon will be doing 50% more damage than a burst. However, it will have to wait.

This 50% on top of the 2 damage would mean 3 damage, or 3 kills of tier 1 armor, or 1 kill of tier 2 armor. But... the card might have been destroyed before even firing.
Thus while charging makes a weapon almost a higher tier. It does come at a cost as well.

***

The burst and charging will be used to simulate some effects by ranged weapons as well.
But I am pondering about the mix weapons. Should I simply treat them as a mid range? It does make sense, right?

While the weight of a set of 2 goes like this:
3+2=5

The set of 3 goes like this:
9+6+4=19

And a set of 4 goes like this:
27+18+12+8=65

I went for a basic set of 2 for a clear and simple approach.

Not sure, but should I allow different sets?
And simply have something comming in later being cheaper??

If all weapons are basicly a 1 shot.
Then a set of 2 shots is basicly worth 2 shots is what one might think.
But the second shot is worth 67% than that of the first.
A burst can't exist anymore with this logic... Because cooldown is impossible with different sets.

2 damage costs 200%
2 damage, then 0 damage costs 200%
1 damage, then 1 damage costs 167%
0 damage, then 2 damage costs 133%
1 damage costs 100%
1 damage, then 0 damage costs 100%
0 damage, then 1 damage costs 67%

And it was:
2 damage, then 0 damage costs 240% (200%)
1 damage, then 1 damage costs 200% (167%)
0 damage, then 2 damage costs 160% (133%)
1 damage, then 0 damage costs 120% (100%)
0 damage, then 1 damage costs 80% (67%)

At least I can have something like this:
Weapon A;
4 damage
Weapon B;
0 damage, then 6 damage
Weapon C;
0 damage, then 0 damage, then 9 damage
All 3 costing the same: "400%"

This can be used to have cheap units waiting for their turn, then dealing massive damage on a tank. After all, a threshold needs to be met.

***

In my board games, I always have short range going first. Longer range comes in later. But.... a longer range can shoot plenty of times in 2D land. While a card game is 0D.

I rather have the attribute [Ranged] added to the game. Where defences are kinda unaible to shoot back unless they have [Ranged] as well.

[Fast] will be able to either dodge or come in to the resque.

[Block] will be able to be used with whatever makes use of it.

So, 1D land goes through attributes. And the burst/charging effect will not.

Your thoughts?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut