Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The Suicide Button Thread: Post absurd campaign "auto-resolve battle" outcomes.


neph

Recommended Posts

I hate the "auto-resolve" button. Should be called the "kill my ships" button.


Seriously, every time I push that thing I think "this is going to kill my ships, isn't it", and then I think "no, surely the odds are too overwhelming in my favor" and then it goes and kills my ships. I think there's only been once that I can remember where I won a fair fight (CA duel). Every single other time, I come out the loser.

Just as an example (not even the greatest one, I've seen far worse): I haven't lost a battleship yet. This design has 3 hulls & anti-torp V. I've seen it eat 8 torps at once & still kills everything. It runs 12x15" guns at 32 knots and eats cruisers for breakfast. So what the hell happened here???

Qj6AKEd.png

 

Anyways, misery loves company. Feel free to post your outrageous defeats.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

Total War games made touching the auto resolve anathema to me.  Having one beaten up stack of peasants absolutely maul a 20 stack army in every game in the series.  Never.  Never touch auto-resolve.  Judging by Neph's result above, I am right and autoresolve remains the idiotic algorithm it always was.

I was just going to say this. Total War long, loooong ago taught me never to trust autoresolve in anything. It's never balanced and always causes you losses you don't want. Same thing happens in Warband/Bannerlord.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Littorio said:

I was just going to say this. Total War long, loooong ago taught me never to trust autoresolve in anything. It's never balanced and always causes you losses you don't want. Same thing happens in Warband/Bannerlord.

I remember autoresolving battles in Rome Total War (the good one, the first one).  I lost my emperor, one I had worked on and had killer stats, to a single half strength unit.  The army was a full stack, full strength, between 4-7 veteran chevrons on each unit, and the battle was mopping up the last of a rebellion.  I had not saved before autoresolving because 'lol this isn't worth fighting real-time'.

So when I see Neph with a superior force, losing his battleship, while the AI's force loses a single light cruiser and various damage, there is absolutely zero chance I will ever autoresolve.

I'm mildly shocked by this problem, since I became aware of the UG/UA games because of Nick's excellent mod packs for Napoleon TW and TW: Shogun 2.  I'd have thought this was something he'd be aware of and determined not to repeat.

Perhaps the feature is in place but still work in progress.  Honestly though, i play these kinds of games for the real time battles.  The politics and larger map are there to tell a story about why each battle takes place, and what led to them.  I find I can only play so many custom battles before I get bored of it, but I can play a campaign battle any time because there's a personal narrative to it.  I deeply hope that, in the released product, autoresolve where a strong fleet is running down a single light ship, does not resolve in half my force on the bottom and the light cruiser or DD limping away but still alive and this laughably called a 'victory'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one caveat is for late era BB ambush missions, if you're the one ambushing - I've found the auto-resolve to typically sink at least 1 BB, and more importantly, limits the damage to my own DD's. If you do the actual fight, and it's calm seas, a well equipped BB with good training, it's easy to lose the full slate of DDs if you actually try engaging. But yeah... never auto resolve against anything with torps - those seem to have a huge weight in the dice roll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting, for me (almost exclusively use autoresolve) I find ships sunk happens, maybe, 1 out of 3-4 battles for either side.  Most smaller battles usually only end up with ships damaged.   The only way for me to avoid that is go easy mode and take over and do the battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SlowTrot said:

The one caveat is for late era BB ambush missions, if you're the one ambushing - I've found the auto-resolve to typically sink at least 1 BB, and more importantly, limits the damage to my own DD's. If you do the actual fight, and it's calm seas, a well equipped BB with good training, it's easy to lose the full slate of DDs if you actually try engaging. But yeah... never auto resolve against anything with torps - those seem to have a huge weight in the dice roll.

This is a good point--you're right that auto-resolve seems to be strongly biased towards torps. I'll see if I can use it in my favor in those situations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I have literally 16 times as many ships as the foe surely I shall win this battle and sink their vessel, which is notably slower than my CLs and substantially slower than my TBs and doubtless I will be able to kill their transport, certainly nothing absurd could occur like their lone cruiser fighting off my entire force, surviving the encounter, and preventing my bombardment

ZDPVDkB.png

sike, bitch

EsxB2GB.png

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afterwards, the Kaiser personally promtoted each crewman of the Regensburg by two ranks, her captain is now an admiral and the Regensburg-maneuver is now official part of the imperial navy's doctrine. Regensburg, to this very day, is now a floating museum, kept in pristine condition to commemorate her contribution to save Emden from bombardment...XD

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2022 at 8:25 PM, UnleashtheKraken said:

I remember autoresolving battles in Rome Total War (the good one, the first one).  I lost my emperor, one I had worked on and had killer stats, to a single half strength unit.  The army was a full stack, full strength, between 4-7 veteran chevrons on each unit, and the battle was mopping up the last of a rebellion.  I had not saved before autoresolving because 'lol this isn't worth fighting real-time'.

So when I see Neph with a superior force, losing his battleship, while the AI's force loses a single light cruiser and various damage, there is absolutely zero chance I will ever autoresolve.

I'm mildly shocked by this problem, since I became aware of the UG/UA games because of Nick's excellent mod packs for Napoleon TW and TW: Shogun 2.  I'd have thought this was something he'd be aware of and determined not to repeat.

Perhaps the feature is in place but still work in progress.  Honestly though, i play these kinds of games for the real time battles.  The politics and larger map are there to tell a story about why each battle takes place, and what led to them.  I find I can only play so many custom battles before I get bored of it, but I can play a campaign battle any time because there's a personal narrative to it.  I deeply hope that, in the released product, autoresolve where a strong fleet is running down a single light ship, does not resolve in half my force on the bottom and the light cruiser or DD limping away but still alive and this laughably called a 'victory'.

Yeah Rome 2 was a huge fail that all the zoomers in their love of Warhammer have forgotten. Rome 1 was king. Autoresolve has always been crap. I don't know what is up with it either across games and genres, but it must be inherently hard to balance. It is just random dice rolls at the end of the day, so there should be a chance, however small, that good units die, you lose, etc. The issue is that it never seems weighted to reality...i.e. your overwhelming force should win 99% of the time, instead of the autoresolve turning it into a crapshoot. I hope UAD optimizes this better, but given the current situation who knows if we will ever see this game completed at all....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Yeah Rome 2 was a huge fail that all the zoomers in their love of Warhammer have forgotten. Rome 1 was king. Autoresolve has always been crap. I don't know what is up with it either across games and genres, but it must be inherently hard to balance. It is just random dice rolls at the end of the day, so there should be a chance, however small, that good units die, you lose, etc. The issue is that it never seems weighted to reality...i.e. your overwhelming force should win 99% of the time, instead of the autoresolve turning it into a crapshoot. I hope UAD optimizes this better, but given the current situation who knows if we will ever see this game completed at all....

I can't imagine WHY it is so hard to balance autoresolve.  At the end of the day, giving weight to higher tech level, superior force, and force composition is just number crunching, and if a single unit is regularly taking huge chunks out of a much stronger force, then maybe the devs should be looking at WHY that happens, and fixing it.  It's such a ubiquitous problem across all the TW games that it's either intentional (to try to give weight to the AI which is just not good at battlefield tactics), unintentional but not 'important' enough to focus on fixing (which is bad game dev, since I know it's been a source of controversy amongst the TW community, unintentional but they can't figure out the problem (????), or intentional but badly balanced.  (>_<).  The problem with all of these is that the workaround solution for the player is to fight a battle in real time that should be an automatic win, wasting the player's time, which is our most valuable resource.

At the end of the day I do hope for an autoresolve function that is much deeper and takes into account all of the factors I listed:  force comp, tech, time of day and weather, and superior numbers.  Speed should also play a role, if a smaller force is faster, then that should allow a greater chance of running away, damage light or none, battle a draw.  If the smaller force is slower, then they should be overrun, fight a glorious last stand, and go blub blub blub, maybe taking one ship with them.  I'd even love to see a series of choices, a little like an RPG:  "The enemy is slower than you.  Pursue?  (Y/N)  "You have chosen to pursue.  The enemy puts up a fight but in the end their slower ships and smaller numbers are overwhelmed. You suffered light damage but your experienced captain prevailed with very little (or no) loss of life on your side.  Another success on the road to victory!"  And then it would give you a tally card like now, showing battle results.  That would be a lot more fun, I think, and add to the storytelling side of a campaign.  You could do these for a faster enemy, a larger force (engage/flee/'kite'), all kinds of situations.  Base the outcomes on chances weighted by the factors I listed.  That would be quite excellent, I think.

Rome 2 had its good points (just not the battles), the civ development had some good ideas - I especially appreciated that cities could grow larger, allowing more .  They were drowned out by trying to turn TW into something closer to a MOBA type game, abandoning the slower pace and drawn out affair of large battles.  That appeals to a certain kind of gamer, regardless of age bracket, though typically younger, but it didn't work for the TW franchise.  At least, that is my opinion, and it seems shared by the majority of TW fans.

Lastly, respectfully, as a Gen Xer with friends older than, same age as, and younger than me, please drop the zoomer/boomer/millennial bs.  Don't fall for that divisive malarkey.  That's all propaganda by the richies to keep the working class, be it lower or middle, fighting each other, one more way to divide and conquer.  There are good people and bad people in every age group, color of skin, religion, whatever.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

I can't imagine WHY it is so hard to balance autoresolve.  At the end of the day, giving weight to higher tech level, superior force, and force composition is just number crunching, and if a single unit is regularly taking huge chunks out of a much stronger force, then maybe the devs should be looking at WHY that happens, and fixing it.  It's such a ubiquitous problem across all the TW games that it's either intentional (to try to give weight to the AI which is just not good at battlefield tactics), unintentional but not 'important' enough to focus on fixing (which is bad game dev, since I know it's been a source of controversy amongst the TW community, unintentional but they can't figure out the problem (????), or intentional but badly balanced.  (>_<).  The problem with all of these is that the workaround solution for the player is to fight a battle in real time that should be an automatic win, wasting the player's time, which is our most valuable resource.

At the end of the day I do hope for an autoresolve function that is much deeper and takes into account all of the factors I listed:  force comp, tech, time of day and weather, and superior numbers.  Speed should also play a role, if a smaller force is faster, then that should allow a greater chance of running away, damage light or none, battle a draw.  If the smaller force is slower, then they should be overrun, fight a glorious last stand, and go blub blub blub, maybe taking one ship with them.  I'd even love to see a series of choices, a little like an RPG:  "The enemy is slower than you.  Pursue?  (Y/N)  "You have chosen to pursue.  The enemy puts up a fight but in the end their slower ships and smaller numbers are overwhelmed. You suffered light damage but your experienced captain prevailed with very little (or no) loss of life on your side.  Another success on the road to victory!"  And then it would give you a tally card like now, showing battle results.  That would be a lot more fun, I think, and add to the storytelling side of a campaign.  You could do these for a faster enemy, a larger force (engage/flee/'kite'), all kinds of situations.  Base the outcomes on chances weighted by the factors I listed.  That would be quite excellent, I think.

Rome 2 had its good points (just not the battles), the civ development had some good ideas - I especially appreciated that cities could grow larger, allowing more .  They were drowned out by trying to turn TW into something closer to a MOBA type game, abandoning the slower pace and drawn out affair of large battles.  That appeals to a certain kind of gamer, regardless of age bracket, though typically younger, but it didn't work for the TW franchise.  At least, that is my opinion, and it seems shared by the majority of TW fans.

Lastly, respectfully, as a Gen Xer with friends older than, same age as, and younger than me, please drop the zoomer/boomer/millennial bs.  Don't fall for that divisive malarkey.  That's all propaganda by the richies to keep the working class, be it lower or middle, fighting each other, one more way to divide and conquer.  There are good people and bad people in every age group, color of skin, religion, whatever.

 

I think you touched something with the idea of bifurcated or forked paths in autoresolve. Turning it into a mini sequence of choices would be far more immersive than just one button. Plus it would reduce the complexity of the number crunching at each stage because not everything would have to occur all at once. Different outcomes would occur based on the different stages, such as in the "pursuit" as you said.

The only good point of Rome 2 was it carried over having a tech tree from Shogun 2/Empire as well as naval combat, the last part even being expanded upon with combined arms, land/sea, amphibious assaults. That, and having the codebase to simply have more factions instead of needing them to labeled "rebels." Everything else was a dismal failure (to say nothing of the completely botched launch and innumerable bugs): the "province" system and subsequent relegation of most "cities" to the status of unwalled villages, the utter lack of lack a simple family tree that they then retroactively tried to awkwardly shoehorn into the game, the fact that single units cannot be created and sent around at will and need a general at all times, etc. I could go on and on but that's another thread entirely off this topic.

Also off topic would be a larger discussion on your last points. While I see where you are coming from and don't wish to get into a socio-political debate here, culture matters. Good and bad of course exist everywhere, but not all cultures and cultural trends are equal; that's just absent-minded relativism. I only use the labels as far as they are worth in helping to frame discussions, nothing more. I'm a very late millennial, borderline zoomer, so I am in a perfect position to criticize here as I am among such demographics daily, but remember a little of what used to be. I mentioned them in regards to Rome 2 and similar gaming trends because of the broader implications to society and popular culture, including game design. Do you notice now how "gaming" is acceptable (and this meaning has largely eclipsed the old notion the term had regarding gambling) and kids openly talk about "needing" special chairs, glowing mice, light-up keyboards, etc? Lol that's ridiculous and such talk like that used to get you labeled a nerd and a loser 😄.

While it's nice that that has changed for newer generations, I am concerned that the utter.....mainstream commercialization of what used to be a much more niche activity, is adversely affecting game design towards making things quicker and flashier at the expense of substance. It's the Tiktokization of games. That is one of the reasons I liked the idea of UAD when I first saw it, because it seemed to promise more depth than many modern games. We will of course have to wait and see how this pans out though. If you wanted to discuss this further later, I would say we should move over to the appropriate forum to avoid derailing nephs thread on autoresolving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Littorio said:

I think you touched something with the idea of bifurcated or forked paths in autoresolve. Turning it into a mini sequence of choices would be far more immersive than just one button. Plus it would reduce the complexity of the number crunching at each stage because not everything would have to occur all at once. Different outcomes would occur based on the different stages, such as in the "pursuit" as you said.

The only good point of Rome 2 was it carried over having a tech tree from Shogun 2/Empire as well as naval combat, the last part even being expanded upon with combined arms, land/sea, amphibious assaults. That, and having the codebase to simply have more factions instead of needing them to labeled "rebels." Everything else was a dismal failure (to say nothing of the completely botched launch and innumerable bugs): the "province" system and subsequent relegation of most "cities" to the status of unwalled villages, the utter lack of lack a simple family tree that they then retroactively tried to awkwardly shoehorn into the game, the fact that single units cannot be created and sent around at will and need a general at all times, etc. I could go on and on but that's another thread entirely off this topic.

Also off topic would be a larger discussion on your last points. While I see where you are coming from and don't wish to get into a socio-political debate here, culture matters. Good and bad of course exist everywhere, but not all cultures and cultural trends are equal; that's just absent-minded relativism. I only use the labels as far as they are worth in helping to frame discussions, nothing more. I'm a very late millennial, borderline zoomer, so I am in a perfect position to criticize here as I am among such demographics daily, but remember a little of what used to be. I mentioned them in regards to Rome 2 and similar gaming trends because of the broader implications to society and popular culture, including game design. Do you notice now how "gaming" is acceptable (and this meaning has largely eclipsed the old notion the term had regarding gambling) and kids openly talk about "needing" special chairs, glowing mice, light-up keyboards, etc? Lol that's ridiculous and such talk like that used to get you labeled a nerd and a loser 😄.

While it's nice that that has changed for newer generations, I am concerned that the utter.....mainstream commercialization of what used to be a much more niche activity, is adversely affecting game design towards making things quicker and flashier at the expense of substance. It's the Tiktokization of games. That is one of the reasons I liked the idea of UAD when I first saw it, because it seemed to promise more depth than many modern games. We will of course have to wait and see how this pans out though. If you wanted to discuss this further later, I would say we should move over to the appropriate forum to avoid derailing nephs thread on autoresolving.

The forking decision paths option occurred to me as something a game of more depth, such as UAD, could offer, offering the player more involvement even in a battle they don't fight real time.  The more I think about it, the more I see it as a really good fit for a game that is called Ultimate Admiral - you are the decision maker, the Halsey acting on intelligence or lack thereof to know whether to pursue a main force or call off the pursuit.  I see this as a strong draw for those who don't want to fight out the real time engagements, while still giving the player some involvement in decision making.  I'd also like to see it be diverse.  There should not be a 'right answer' but a risk/reward balance calculation instead, with advisors giving their advice - 'Admiral, the enemy outnumbers us!  Should we engage or withdraw?'

Here's an example of how this might play out, where variables that can change for each encounter are in parentheses:  Your DD encounters a (larger) enemy fleet while (on its way to reinforce your own fleet).  Your (search radar/spotters) is/are giving (distant) (returns/reports of smoke), but for certain there are (two) larger contacts.  They are (bearing towards/away from) you.  Your decision; should we turn in for an attack, or try to slip away undiscovered?  *you choose to attack*  The enemy seems to have noticed you, more contacts are discerned on radar, and they are closing...

And so on.  All throughout you can get intelligence, make decisions, gamble...it should take no more than a few minutes to go through a non-real-time resolution decision chain and outcome, and at steps along the way some options close off, like slipping away after being close engaged by a superior force.  You cast your lot and after a certain point, there's no escaping the consequence of your gamble.  But maybe you succeed in a heroic stand and take a heavy cruiser or capital ship with your DD.  But it's not a blind dice roll, you made decisions that got you to where you could try that.  That is essentially what the real time gameplay is conveying, but with the actual ship handling and target selection elements stripped away.  Still a dice roll at the end, but with factors weighing the chance of success.  With good writing and a flexible reporting system with some diversity of phrasing to not always repeat the same messages, this could really be turned into something excellent.

 

Lastly, I do not wish to drag this thread off topic either.  I'll simply say, yes I have noticed what you mention about gaming becoming more main-stream.  I welcome more enjoyers of digitainment, but I also deeply hope for a diverse, openminded community, not shunted off into their niches and catcalling at each other over which pixeltainment product is better.  I enjoy a diversity of games - Satisfactory, Kerbal Space Program (I wish UAD was as flexible in building as KSP can be), War Thunder (more like War Blunder amirite?) where I play both arcade and realistic tanks, Hardspace: Shipbreaker, Control...and that's just current or recent.  I respect that these are not for everyone, as there are games that are not for me.

I'm completely with you in seeing the streamlining and dumbing down continue in game spaces which have been rightfully lauded for deep decision making and strategy elements, flexibility of handling situations and outcomes, and problem solving in the pursuit of successful outcomes that require understanding of clues and hints and evidence, with no hand-holding to get you there.  There is space for more relaxed, less in-depth games, but to see them crush out the more in-depth games because these are more niche and even if successful offer less profit makes me weep for the enthusiast hobby that gaming was.

You're right about the launch of Rome 2TW, I merely meant that design-wise, the game presented some good ideas in the strategic map, and some other areas, continuing the naval battles that started with Empire TW for instance.  I disliked how the pace of battle increased, with units moving across the map rapidly even without 'run' orders.  And of course the slew of bugs, and the braindead AI, that TW has been known for.

I personally do not care for all the RGB keyboard and mouse devices, and 'gaming chair' products.  People are welcome to them.  Give me an unlit brick for my machine and a comfy office chair built for my size.  I want a computer to perform its task well, I don't care about blinging it out.  I'm entirely a function over style mindset.  My mouse has lighting so I downloaded the program to control it...and dimmed it all the way down.  It has barely visible shades of blue now, which is fine.  But again, if people like that, let them have it.  So long as I can choose not to have it, I'm fine with it.  The moment I'm forced into it, I'll have a can of blacker than the blackest black times infinity paint ready.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, neph said:

A SINGLE
LIGHT CRUISER

A SINGLE LIGHT CRUISER

VS 3 BATTLESHIPS & LIKE 12 OTHER ESCORTS


IVE LITERALLY NEVER EVER LOST A BATTLESHIP I THINK I'VE LOST A SINGLE CL IN THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN

 

WHAT THE
FUUUUCK

xqB9RbL.png

Holy deeply offensive expletive about religious figures, that is giving me second hand urge to ragequit and I haven't even played the beta update yet.  I have the most serious desire to have a game dev explain why this is so hard to get right.  I guarantee you if I were to run that scenario in the real time interface, there is no way I could get the CL into range for torps (which would be the only way) to sink that battleship, and do all that damage to every other ship.  There is some seriously *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP* badly done autoresolve balance there.  This needs to be a focus for reworking, even if they don't implement the branching decisions ideas that we were proposing above.

That autoresolve is toxic garbage.  I expect better.

Edited by UnleashtheKraken
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

Why auto-resolve anyway? 

because when you've got 3 battleships and 12 escorts vs a single light cruiser, do you really want to spend 30 minutes of 1890's combat to chase it down & finally kill it? You know 100% you're going to win that battle (cough), so why bother spending the time when you can do more interesting battles instead?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, neph said:

A SINGLE
LIGHT CRUISER

A SINGLE LIGHT CRUISER

VS 3 BATTLESHIPS & LIKE 12 OTHER ESCORTS


IVE LITERALLY NEVER EVER LOST A BATTLESHIP I THINK I'VE LOST A SINGLE CL IN THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN

 

WHAT THE
FUUUUCK

xqB9RbL.png

 

This is beyond absurd. @Nick Thomadis please save poor neph from ragequitting and do something about this autoresolve....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 1:25 AM, UnleashtheKraken said:

I'm mildly shocked by this problem, since I became aware of the UG/UA games because of Nick's excellent mod packs for Napoleon TW and TW: Shogun 2.  I'd have thought this was something he'd be aware of and determined not to repeat.

Perhaps the feature is in place but still work in progress

This gives me hope. I feel like the majority of the features in the game are still placeholders while they work on building up a good level of actual content for the game. Or at least I hope so. I doubt auto-resolve is high on the list of priorities for them at the moment, seems like right now the campaign is the focus, which I'm happy with honestly.

Still doesn't change how frustrating it can be, going into a battle you need to allow more than an hour of time to chase down fleeing ships since auto-resolve is literally worse than non-functional. It's not a game you can just hop on for a few minutes and auto-resolve once victory is assured, meaning I simply don't get to play it very much.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My favourite feature of this patch is the Exit Battle and Auto-Resolve buttons outright deleting my ships.

Not miscalculating and sinking them, no - correctly reporting them as having survived with damage, only to fail to re-add them to the Fleet screen afterwards.

Really fun losing campaigns over and over again because my battleships spontaneously combust as soon as the battle ends.  Really engaging game that I'm so glad I spent $80 on.

@Nick Thomadis Play your own goddamn game for hello kitty sake, you clearly aren't playtesting any of this shit before it goes live

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Masonator said:

My favourite feature of this patch is the Exit Battle and Auto-Resolve buttons outright deleting my ships.

Not miscalculating and sinking them, no - correctly reporting them as having survived with damage, only to fail to re-add them to the Fleet screen afterwards.

Really fun losing campaigns over and over again because my battleships spontaneously combust as soon as the battle ends.  Really engaging game that I'm so glad I spent $80 on.

@Nick Thomadis Play your own goddamn game for hello kitty sake, you clearly aren't playtesting any of this shit before it goes live

This isn't even a live patch its a beta patch....

And its an early access game, buying into them always comes with the risk of incomplete features and bugs. You playing an in development game and helping test it.

Edited by Vigilantemerc
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...