AW/FE by Web

AWBW/FEBW Forum
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:37 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Talk about custom COs, units, classes, weapons or anything else.

Moderator: Forum Mods

Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:46 am

Ad Hoc Commander

Updated on 03-23-2013

AHC CO List



-----

All of this information is now outdated
Last edited by Mori on Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Ultra Storm » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:12 am

It's hard to judge the strengths of the units without a damage chart, but there are some apparent problems.

First of all, the Spec Ops unit sounds incredibly overpowered. It would be worth 2500 on many maps for the movement boost alone, but being able to strike indirects and even OHKO arties is way too much. Does it also OHKO all the other indirects?

Rockets with effectively 8 range at 10000 cost are so good I can't see anyone building arties. The same applies for tanks, which are eaten alive by rockets, unless the damage chart was changed considerably. The main counter will be spec ops / transport spam which outranges even rockets.

Action unloading makes transports very useful, especially the APC units and helicopters for transporting spec ops and mechs. It looks impossible to deal with convoys and helicopters spamming spec ops which have in effect 10 movement with this. Convoys even resupply spec ops with new ammo. Mechs take care of direct ground vehicles, except heavy tanks, which lose to rockets. AAs take care of air units. So, all you probably need is spec ops, mechs, convoys and helicopters, with a few AAs and rockets if needed.

By the way, if you have a unit board a transport, can you still use action unloading to have the unit move again after unloading? In this manner, a spec ops would have up to 14 movement with a transport. If so, can you chain transports by having the unit constantly board new transports and always getting to move again? This would lead to potentially unlimited movement.

Spamming spec ops probably leaves you with excess funds, which you can channel into bombers, fighters and sea units. You can probably replace AAs entirely with fighters, even. Air units will benefit from the amount of spec ops / mech / rocket spam since they are immune to all of them.

Mori wrote:a Hvy Tank with Gunship movement and defense.
So, does it run over seas and mountains and lose to AAs?
Last edited by Ultra Storm on Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Your notion of ”right” is what was imprinted in you since you were young.
User avatar
Ultra Storm
CO
CO
 
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Transcendence

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby hetchel » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:42 am

I just spent some time reading about the Custom Wars project and its multiple derivatives like Ad Hoc Commander. Very interesting... I didn't know so many AW clones had been created.

It seems like a good idea from a developer's point of view: create a generic engine supporting multiple units and rules and COs, then customize until the best balance is attained.

I laughed a bit when I got to this: http://www.stanford.edu/~atlai/cgi-bin/ ... mortem.php
The last part, about community involvement, reminded me of when Walker explained why a only a selected committee manages COs and maps choices for tournaments.
Also, looks like developer time is really the most precious resource even for other AW clones :)

Mori, do you know why the original creator of AHC stopped working on it (in 2010 it seems)? If you can get in touch with him, it would be probably easier to continue from the original source code rather than from the jar files.
User avatar
hetchel
Anti-Air
Anti-Air
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:41 pm

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:49 pm

I'm actually really happy people responded so far.

To Ultra Storm:
Yes, there are a TREMENDOUS amount of balance problems, but that is why I need
1) TESTERS. People willing to test this game with me, people willing to play it with others, people willing to play it against themselves. People willing to test the game into the damn ground for both bugs and balance.


Even just one person willing to point out the obvious flaws that I simply don't have enough experience in Advance Wars to see right away is helpful. I mean that.

Most of my testing has been with myself against myself, which accomplishes very little, with Kataiser trying to take apart the JAR so we can re-balance everything as necessary. I desperately need an experienced AW player so I can get this thing to work. The amount of cool (and focused) ideas in this game is astounding when compared with other Custom Wars games. I want a game with 3 infantry types, useful APCs, less expensive endgame units, and less than 4 kinds of essentially the same tank to work. I do not think that it is physically impossible to work. It needs balancing, it needs bug checking. It will likely need maps specifically designed for it, which I am completely willing to do. I am willing to spend years of my own life getting the thing to work (I'm in game design, I really do very little else with my life other than write music). I mainly need testers to tell me what is fundamentally broken so that I can re-balance until it works. AWBW is one of the best sites I have ever frequented simply because it is so brutally honest when it comes to balancing. That is precisely what I need, and why I was here in the first place.

To Hetchel:
I am all ears on a method to contact them. No clue what IRC channels they frequent, many Custom Wars-based sites are dead, and most Ad Hoc Commander sites stopped being paid for or disappeared. There used to be a really nice wiki for it a month or two ago.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:32 pm

Also, on Rockets, among other things. The Damage Table is decompiled but not easily editable, and not easy to explain in a forum post. Source code would really help. Class files are actually incredibly well organized.

Rockets only have 2 ammo, and IFVs do not resupply, only Convoys do.

Rockets deal 23 damage to Hvy Tanks on bases, 33 damage on roads.
Conversely, Artillery deal 35 damage to Hvy Tanks on bases, 50 damage on roads.
As a generalization, that specific difference in damage is common between those two units across the damage table.
In short, Artillery does more damage directly than Rockets on most vehicles, whereas Rockets do more damage to infantry types than Artillery does.
Rockets cost more but give much, much greater range.
To summarize, Rockets do not simply deal more damage than Artillery on all targets.

Rockets deal 40 damage to Tanks on bases, 58 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 40 damage to IFVs on bases, 46 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 95 damage to IFVs on bases, 136 damage on roads.

Conversely, IFVs deal 70 damage to Rockets on roads, Tanks deal 90, Anti-Tanks deal 95, Hvy Tanks deal 110.
Spec Ops deal 110.

Gunships deal 30 to Hvy Tanks on roads.
Bombers deal 100 to Hvy tanks on roads.


-----


Side note: Just stumbled upon the source code for an entirely separate game mid-post. Odd coincidence.

The point is that I literally just started working on the Java aspect today, and we are already very close to editing key balance issues entirely. Everything is very labeled and clean, and we've already memorized the key locations of many of the important assets for balancing (Price, movement points and movement type, damage tables, etc). And a few seconds ago I just saved out as an src, so we have a pile of Java to work with now, not just class files.


-----


SECONDLY, I plan on running a small tournament using the existing unbalanced game. Why? Because direct testing is the easiest way to find balance issues and bugs. Without people actually playing it, there's only theory, and no actual metagame. The prize will probably be something stupid like I buy up to $10 or $20 of Steam merchandise for the winner, but the point is that the "workload" of quick, initial testing would be spread out between several people instead of one or two. THEN, after that quick tournament, if any one or two people would want to continue working on it, they could, but everyone else could just stop and never work with it again. All I would want out of a quick bracket like this would be actual data on combat between separate players. Simply downloading the game and recording a single match with aTube would be better than nothing.

Of course, I know asking people to play a free game online with friends for a few matches, and the chance to win $10 bucks, is asking a lot, so I honestly don't know if anyone here is interested. But I felt as though AWBW was the right place to go first. It is an active, intelligent, and competitive community. Conversely, the Custom Wars forums are currently literally full pages of bot posts, the very definition of a digital ghost town. At the very least, I currently have 4 people outside of AWBW willing to play in a quick tournament for testing purposes.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Ultra Storm » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Mori wrote:To Ultra Storm:
Yes, there are a TREMENDOUS amount of balance problems, but that is why I need
1) TESTERS. People willing to test this game with me, people willing to play it with others, people willing to play it against themselves. People willing to test the game into the damn ground for both bugs and balance.
Well yes, testing is what ultimately shows balance problems, but I was anticipating some of the most likely ones. I think this mod tries to make too many changes at once. You should start with a metagame closer to original AW first and then make changes if necessary. That makes balancing easier, as we know the starting point.

If you try to change too much at once, it's easy to end up with a worse metagame than the original. It's also very hard to make every unit equally useful and I think it's more important to focus on making the game fair for both players, while still having sufficient strategic options.

Mori wrote:I want a game with 3 infantry types, useful APCs, less expensive endgame units, and less than 4 kinds of essentially the same tank to work. I do not think that it is physically impossible to work.
What is the reason for these changes in particular? Infantry works fine just now and the low amount of APCs doesn't cause apparent gameplay problems in my opinion. We already see most of the endgame units on maps with sufficiently high funding and I'd only cut a select few with a few thousand. And the 4 types of tanks are actually very different in their stats and metagame roles. The only problem could be the neotank, which is usually overshadowed by the md tank.

Mori wrote:Rockets deal 40 damage to Tanks on bases, 58 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 40 damage to IFVs on bases, 46 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 95 damage to IFVs on bases, 136 damage on roads.
There have to be some mistakes here, since IFVs are listed twice and the damage values don't match terrain defence on the second row.
Image
Your notion of ”right” is what was imprinted in you since you were young.
User avatar
Ultra Storm
CO
CO
 
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Transcendence

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Hellraider » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:27 pm

More unit variety doesn't hurt, and having different core armies fighting on equal grounds would be quite interesting. But for this setting in particular, both action unloading and move+shoot are rather drastic changes to AW core dynamics. Most likely, both of them are quite overpowered. Basic tank+arty looks rather useless, early transports will most likely cause FTA problems on smaller maps and it is hard to judge whether rockets will lead to less or more stalemates. I do like the general idea behind most unit changes though. A third (or even more) infantry unit is interesting, although spec ops is hilariously overpowered. Transports that do a bit more than just transporting is also a good improvement, and I can live with anti-tank, buffed missiles and the heavy tank. I dislike the removal of an ultra-heavy tank (aka Megatank) though, and I am not sure how I feel about the limited ammo. It might not be bad designwise, but it is a horrible idea if it is meant to balance out otherwise overpowered units.
User avatar
Hellraider
Rocket
Rocket
 
Posts: 1635
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:08 pm

I meant to type:

Rockets deal 40 damage to Tanks on bases, 58 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 40 damage to IFVs on bases, 46 damage on roads.
Rockets deal 95 damage to Spec Ops on bases, 136 damage on roads.

In my defense, I've been decompiling for the past 24 hours, am very sick, and have lost a lot of blood due to chronic nosebleeds ^^;
Typos do tend to happen.

Kat is currently messing with the Rockets, and came up with:
/* 17 */ this.name = "Rocket";
/* 18 */ this.unitType = 8;
/* 19 */ this.moveType = 3;
/* 20 */ this.move = 3;
/* 21 */ this.price = 12000;
/* 22 */ this.maxGas = 45;
/* 23 */ this.maxAmmo = 3;
/* 24 */ this.vision = 2;
/* 25 */ this.minRange = 2;
/* 26 */ this.maxRange = 3;

Which implies a 6 max range on roads, 4 on plains. Worse damage than Artillery in many situations, larger range. Keep in mind that Artillery does very high damage compared to Rockets in Ad Hoc.


-----


Yes, the 4 tanks are very different, my problem is that when you play AWBW, there are usually very obvious choices to make with regards to which tank you should build on that turn/funding/# of bases + opponent choices. I should rephrase. AWBW is a brilliant game. If there's a game happening on a decent map, you can bet I'll be watching it regularly. It is fascinating to me. Despite my short time here, I try to watch games between experienced players on a regular basis.

Here is my problem with AWBW. I say problem and "my", because it is not a problem for other people. The vast majority of games that I see at high level play, including High Funds games, involve a build-up of walls, a stalemate, and a resignation of one of the two players due to a slight advantage of the other player. There is nothing inherently wrong with this style of play. But it does mean that actual competitive games are rarely decided by Unit Loss or HQ capture, but by around the middle of the actual game, when one of the players ends up with a significant advantage over the other, and since the rest of the game would be a slow losing battle, they resign.

At the same time, I love this idea of a strategy game. It's unbelievably cool and unique in its game of Infantry/Arty/Tank/AA/BCopter. I love it. But I also love the idea of manipulating the engine to create something more dynamic. Hence why I love concepts like Action Unloading. No one ever really builds APCs or Transports, as they are situational units. If a map requires them, they're built, but if it doesn't then you don't ever build them. Their usefulness is more inconsistent than other units in game, and I question how much the current AWBW game would be changed by the removal of the APC entirely. I personally find Infantry/Arty/Tank + support walls to be very cool games to watch and analyze, but not particularly interesting to play. I also love making maps for the game, because it doesn't actually require me to play the game, merely watch, make maps based off of current metagame ideas, and test a few times for balance. Making maps for AWBW and getting honest feedback has done nothing less than completely change my perspective on multiple elements of game design.

I love plenty of other games based around making solid walls with a tremendous amount of thinking in advance and micromanagement, like Archspace. I can't stress enough that I love that style of game conceptually, and I love watching/making maps for it, but I don't have much fun playing it. I wanted to revive Ad Hoc to get away from the standard 5 units used most in AWBW and focus on a different metagame of transported infantry and aggressive indirects. That's also why I've been trying to focus heavily on the idea of making High Funds maps recently, since they are fundamentally different than normal funds. These are not inherently good changes, but I don't see the harm in testing them. As a designer, I want to see how these changes actually affect the game, not just theorize about them. That's generally the entire idea behind a modification.

I do like the general idea behind most unit changes though.


Exactly. That is my point with this game. It's FAR from perfect, but everything, every single variable is mutable. Java is not a difficult language to manipulate. Right now, I can decompile any unit.class, change 1 thing, and then recompile. I don't even really need to hexedit. I could give Hvy Tanks 20 movement points if I wanted to, but in all seriousness you get the idea.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Ultra Storm » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:21 pm

Mori wrote:Yes, the 4 tanks are very different, my problem is that when you play AWBW, there are usually very obvious choices to make with regards to which tank you should build on that turn/funding/# of bases + opponent choices.
While they are all called tanks and they all are used against ground vehicles, I think their roles are different. Regular tanks are the standard offensive unit while md tanks and megatanks are mostly used for defence, in particular when the enemy approaches a lone base. You build md tanks against tanks and mechs, megatanks against md tanks, copters and even bombers.

You don't decide to build a tank in general on a particular turn and then decide which kind of a tank it is. You rather weigh all reasonable build possibilities and compare the outcomes of these builds. Build decisions are very often far from obvious.

Mori wrote:Here is my problem with AWBW. I say problem and "my", because it is not a problem for other people. The vast majority of games that I see at high level play, including High Funds games, involve a build-up of walls, a stalemate, and a resignation of one of the two players due to a slight advantage of the other player. There is nothing inherently wrong with this style of play. But it does mean that actual competitive games are rarely decided by Unit Loss or HQ capture, but by around the middle of the actual game, when one of the players ends up with a significant advantage over the other, and since the rest of the game would be a slow losing battle, they resign.

At the same time, I love this idea of a strategy game. It's unbelievably cool and unique in its game of Infantry/Arty/Tank/AA/BCopter. I love it. But I also love the idea of manipulating the engine to create something more dynamic. Hence why I love concepts like Action Unloading. No one ever really builds APCs or Transports, as they are situational units. If a map requires them, they're built, but if it doesn't then you don't ever build them. Their usefulness is more inconsistent than other units in game, and I question how much the current AWBW game would be changed by the removal of the APC entirely. I personally find Infantry/Arty/Tank + support walls to be very cool games to watch and analyze, but not particularly interesting to play. I also love making maps for the game, because it doesn't actually require me to play the game, merely watch, make maps based off of current metagame ideas, and test a few times for balance. Making maps for AWBW and getting honest feedback has done nothing less than completely change my perspective on multiple elements of game design.

I love plenty of other games based around making solid walls with a tremendous amount of thinking in advance and micromanagement, like Archspace. I can't stress enough that I love that style of game conceptually, and I love watching/making maps for it, but I don't have much fun playing it. I wanted to revive Ad Hoc to get away from the standard 5 units used most in AWBW and focus on a different metagame of transported infantry and aggressive indirects. That's also why I've been trying to focus heavily on the idea of making High Funds maps recently, since they are fundamentally different than normal funds. These are not inherently good changes, but I don't see the harm in testing them. As a designer, I want to see how these changes actually affect the game, not just theorize about them. That's generally the entire idea behind a modification.
The thing is, building walls is a result of relatively balanced maps and gameplay and players making few mistakes. It is hard to make a simple all-out attack the best option without making the game imbalanced, as you shouldn't be able to win with a simple rush against near-perfect gameplay by the other player. Assuming near-perfect gameplay and a fair map, both sides will see that they can't win by rushing, leading to a defensive stance. So, it is hard to avoid micromanagement if you want to keep the game fair. We will end up with another form of micromanagement with the new rules.

Making all units even remotely equally usable is a daunting task and the metagame will usually centralize on a few because even small differences will become important as the metagame settles down. Too drastic changes often only change which units are the main focus of the metagame.

I don't get how you can make routs or HQ captures common on balanced maps and why should you? It's only natural to resign when you feel like you have no chance and save time.

I think the number of stalemates on AWBW is exaggerated in any case. Very few games end in draws and usually, you can attack or force the enemy to retreat their defensive lines fairly fast if they make even slight mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, testing is critical. I'm just saying you might want to have more plausible goals and start with something closer to the original AW so the changes can be implemented in smaller steps.
Image
Your notion of ”right” is what was imprinted in you since you were young.
User avatar
Ultra Storm
CO
CO
 
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Transcendence

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:15 pm

Ultra Storm wrote:
The thing is, building walls is a result of relatively balanced maps and gameplay and players making few mistakes. It is hard to make a simple all-out attack the best option without making the game imbalanced, as you shouldn't be able to win with a simple rush against near-perfect gameplay by the other player. Assuming near-perfect gameplay and a fair map, both sides will see that they can't win by rushing, leading to a defensive stance. So, it is hard to avoid micromanagement if you want to keep the game fair. We will end up with another form of micromanagement with the new rules.


Exactly. That is all that any good strategy game played by human beings is. That is literally the definition of a good strategy game, especially turn-based ones. I'm merely trying to propose these drastic changes to see the reaction from the community. I want to visually see how these units function in a competitive environment. I don't expect a turn-based, map-based, deterministic strategy game to be decided by anything more than a human manipulation of the purchase and movement of units that is more efficient than the opposing player, I'm merely presenting a game with a different set of units. The main issues, as you have pointed out, is that certain units like Spec Ops and Rockets are obviously more viable for use in most situations than others within this particular set of units, and only a few units would actually be used. As such, certain units should be rebalanced before actually playing the game based on that untested theory. I agree that your reasoning on why they are overpowered and should be changed or removed makes sense.

However, without any actual suggestions on re-balancing though, other than simply reverting everything to default CW or AWBW stats, the best I can do is either re-balance based on theory, or play against myself repeatedly and then re-balance based on both your suggestions and that limited experience. Hence why the third option of physically playing the game against opponents that are not myself to determine the problems of the game more precisely before re-balancing would be more practical from my perspective. Re-balancing based on theory alone assumes that a cursory glance at a partial list of the assets present in the game, combined with many years of experience in the game it was based on, is enough information to proceed on adjusting specific values.

Obviously your experience is incredibly valuable to me, hence why I came to AWBW like I said. I'm merely asking for people to confirm that Spec Ops are ridiculously overpowered, among other things, by actually playing the game. If you don't have the time today, or this week, or the next, I understand, but it would really help me. But it should in theory be readily apparent that those units make the game unbalanced through a simple playthrough on a basic AW map.

There are test games open here:

Server: mori-test2
Master Password: awbw

Server: mori-test3
Master Password: awbw

To join a game, Join Server Game, and to rejoin an existing game, Login to Server Game. The Username and User Password are made per game. Pick Army 2.

Again, if no one reading this thread has the time to play a game, I understand, but I'll leave these open as long as I can. If no one can play this time, I will take the time to remake some of the Good 2 Player maps on AWBW in the client so that when I do get a chance to test games, it will be on decent maps (Many of the default maps are less than adequate for testing).
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby headphone » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:32 am

joined game 2

Edit: I meant the second in the list, so game 3. Also I backed out by mistake and it won't let me rejoin.
Edit to the edit: figured it out, never mind
Mr Clean wrote:im curious as to why anybody would know what a gynacologist does off the top of their head
User avatar
headphone
Map Committee
Map Committee
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:12 pm
Location: Here?

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:08 am

Sorry I was gone for a bit, was hosting some L4D2 server mods. Back now, will continue to play until I fall asleep. I appreciate the join.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby headphone » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:15 am

It would let me rejoin, something about a version mismatch...
I made a new game.
name: morivsheadphone
pass: awbw
I joined as P2
Mr Clean wrote:im curious as to why anybody would know what a gynacologist does off the top of their head
User avatar
headphone
Map Committee
Map Committee
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:12 pm
Location: Here?

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Mori » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:19 am

Welp, that's a new error. I'm getting it too, and I literally just played against a friend of mine in Skype with the same client. So I guess I'll get to work on fixing this now :T

Thanks for the time anyways, I appreciate it.

Edit: Wait...did you start up using the .exe? The one called "Ad Hoc Commander Unplugged.exe"? We just tested using the ahcu JAR and it works that way too, Kataiser is currently in a game I started called "versionmismatch", and I played with Sam earlier in the mori-test2 game, so multiple other clients work with mine. Just trying to come up with solutions :/

I'm honestly not sure what the problem is, but I would suggest re-downloading. That's the only thing I can think of. Either that or update your java. The client is still working for me and two other people, but I'll continue to mess around with it to see what's causing it.
Image
User avatar
Mori
Tank
Tank
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Alimango Island

Re: Competitive Advance Wars Modification (Online Capable)

Postby Ultra Storm » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:25 am

Before I play, I'd really like a complete damage chart, so that I don't have to test all the damage values myself. The damage values on roads are enough because everything else can be calculated from them.
Image
Your notion of ”right” is what was imprinted in you since you were young.
User avatar
Ultra Storm
CO
CO
 
Posts: 3615
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Transcendence

Next

Return to Customization

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group