|
toasterwarrior posted:Developing an actual game sure did temper Darth some. His love of history really comes through, which is probably why he cared so much about Total War and managed to make his own successful historical war game.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
pesty13480 posted:I simply cannot believe they ended up re-releasing Medieval/Viking Invasion; this is fantastic news and I am looking forward to getting back to the title in the series I loved the most. I am vaguely kind of curious if I remember the AI being better than it actually was. And the gameplay. Maybe I will miss the improvements. It's a shame so many of the old mods are dead and gone. The Tyberius Mod 2.3 version made the game so damned good in every way. It really gets under my skin that all the links to the 2.3 are gone and only 2.2 still exist. Bah the silly little competitionist in me. I'm tempted to buy M2+kingdoms on Steam - I spent the most time in M2 I imagine, especially in stainless steel, but I'm reticent. Rome 2 really has a great UI (or Im simply used to it) and dont know if Im remembering M2 with rose-colored glasses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:His love of history really comes through, which is probably why he cared so much about Total War and managed to make his own successful historical war game. I still have yet to beat a campaign of Gettysburg but its a really darn fun game. I totally prefer the more simplistic way it handles movement orders, but i wonder how well it would work in 3d with a free camera like total war proper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Just got Napoleon on the sale. Any tips for the Peninsular campaign as the Spanish?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:I'm tempted to buy M2+kingdoms on Steam - I spent the most time in M2 I imagine, especially in stainless steel, but I'm reticent. Rome 2 really has a great UI (or Im simply used to it) and dont know if Im remembering M2 with rose-colored glasses. M2s UI is, unoffensive. It's very much a product of the times, the bottom third of the screen been taken up by the UI in both campaign and battle modes, but it's not atrociously bad or anything..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
pesty13480 posted:I simply cannot believe they ended up re-releasing Medieval/Viking Invasion; this is fantastic news and I am looking forward to getting back to the title in the series I loved the most. I am vaguely kind of curious if I remember the AI being better than it actually was. And the gameplay. Maybe I will miss the improvements. It's a shame so many of the old mods are dead and gone. The Tyberius Mod 2.3 version made the game so damned good in every way. It really gets under my skin that all the links to the 2.3 are gone and only 2.2 still exist. Bah the silly little competitionist in me. You're talking about the first Medieval: Total War? Can you link it or something? Casual googling hasn't turned it up for me. e: oh god I'm dumb. Here it is! http://store.steampowered.com/app/345260/
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:37
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Just got Napoleon on the sale. Any tips for the Peninsular campaign as the Spanish? Prepare to sacrifce some lesser regions of Spain to the French to help prop up allied fronts and go nuts with the partisans. It is awesome to hear the first Shogun and Medieval are on STEAM and are actually working for modern systems. I always thought GOG would get them first.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:I still have yet to beat a campaign of Gettysburg but its a really darn fun game. I totally prefer the more simplistic way it handles movement orders, but i wonder how well it would work in 3d with a free camera like total war proper. I think the problem with making a true 3d world is how literal everything has to be. TW's combat could probably be far more interesting if it were abstract blocks bumping each other rather than having animations for hundreds of men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:TW's combat could probably be far more interesting if it were abstract blocks bumping each other rather than having animations for hundreds of men. It would also probably sell a tenth of what it does, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think the problem with making a true 3d world is how literal everything has to be. Reminds me of an excellent documentary I saw on the Battle of Agincourt. They used 3D modeling software meant to render crowd control disasters like a fire in a packed theater to model the collision of thousands of overburdened knights getting swamped in mud and on top of each other packed like sardines to basically poo poo on the inflated legacy of the English Longbow being a deciding factor compared to the physics of mass. It was very impressive yet terrifying to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:You're talking about the first Medieval: Total War? Can you link it or something? Casual googling hasn't turned it up for me. Yes, the first Medieval from when the series still had "Risk" maps instead of walking little armies around Europe. Glad you found it. I am really impressed by how well the game is holding up compared against some of the newer titles. I managed to find the XL 3.0 MOD from the old days, which adds a bunch of different factions and adjusts the trade system so that it's more fair to the PC (it changes things so that farm improvements pay out 50% more and reduces the trade you can get from the naval system which the AI doesn't understand). It's absolutely refreshing to see the AI just run slowly retreat battles it can't win, both on the campaign map and in the actual real battles. It's a bit "whack-a-mole" on the campaign map trying to pin down forces. Battles seem to last longer too. Feels a lot meatier and solid, and takes a little while of fighting for anyone to just rout on the spot. The battles themselves are not exactly pretty to watch, but I find the PC opponent is fairly good at not doing too terribly stupid things. Haven't seen anything egregious like generals charging into walls of spears without reason. I haven't played the latest Rome yet so maybe that has been addressed in recent times - it's not an issue in the first title though. The UI is functional and not a problem. It's minimal, and there aren't really as many things to keep track of and therefore not much of a need for more. I am having a blast. I am super happy they released Medieval 1 and made it functional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Playing Shogun 2 right now and what really bothers me is that there is rarely any good fights. I manage to take castles when the enemy just abandons them. If there ever is a huge battle it's either me just shooting a castle to bits with archers or me shooting an attacking army to bits from my castle. I really love it when you get those awesome middle of nowhere huge battles, especially when you win them by flanks and stuff when you are greatly outnumbered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
pesty13480 posted:It's absolutely refreshing to see the AI just run slowly retreat battles it can't win, both on the campaign map and in the actual real battles. It's a bit "whack-a-mole" on the campaign map trying to pin down forces. Battles seem to last longer too. Feels a lot meatier and solid, and takes a little while of fighting for anyone to just rout on the spot. The battles themselves are not exactly pretty to watch, but I find the PC opponent is fairly good at not doing too terribly stupid things. Haven't seen anything egregious like generals charging into walls of spears without reason. I haven't played the latest Rome yet so maybe that has been addressed in recent times - it's not an issue in the first title though. Ah, gently caress. My fondest memory of MTW was when I fought a battle and basically won it by constantly one-upping the computer in positioning my army. It was a very hilly map and I was attacking with a somewhat larger army, after a while of both me and the AI repositioning or forces to get the highest ground or whatever the AI just ended up going "gently caress it" and leaving the battlefield, not one soldier died and it was tense as hell. Another cool battle was when I was attacking a small Byzantine army as the Turks, they were positioned on a small hill and with some light woods, but I was confident in my numbers and basically decided to go for the all out attack. But then just after my men reach the lines a unit of cataphracts appeared from some nearby woods and charged down the hill and things basically went to poo poo, especially as their infantry charged down at the same time. Basically my entire army collapsed from the shcok of the charge. It was great. And also MTW had a great soundtrack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOk5563J2c
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Of loving course he did. Not that I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction from Apple, but Darth getting angry is worth it. Why should he remove it? Its part of the history, the game features a historical battle and Darth loves history. Of course he's going to stand his ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:TW's combat could probably be far more interesting if it were abstract blocks bumping each other rather than having animations for hundreds of men. Eh, I'd actually have to disagree here. The visual and auditory elements tend be really underestimated factors in game design by some people, and they play a massive factor in how much fun a game really is. If you took out all the animations and interesting visual elements of total war, then I'd wager a whole ton of people would actually start finding the games a lot less fun because everything suddenly becomes a whole lot less visceral and impactful on the player. And this isn't even mentioning the loss of all the information that those visual elements can convey far faster and more efficiently than any bloc of text possibly could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:Eh, I'd actually have to disagree here. The visual and auditory elements tend be really underestimated factors in game design by some people, and they play a massive factor in how much fun a game really is. If you took out all the animations and interesting visual elements of total war, then I'd wager a whole ton of people would actually start finding the games a lot less fun because everything suddenly becomes a whole lot less visceral and impactful on the player. And this isn't even mentioning the loss of all the information that those visual elements can convey far faster and more efficiently than any bloc of text possibly could. Most of the time I actually play with the camera pulled back so far you hardly get any of the visual and auditory small scale stuff. I kinda miss in the old engine when you could just hit middle mouse to get a really close in view of wherever you pointed the mouse and release it immediately to snap back. The insert key is a worse arrangement I find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:Eh, I'd actually have to disagree here. The visual and auditory elements tend be really underestimated factors in game design by some people, and they play a massive factor in how much fun a game really is. If you took out all the animations and interesting visual elements of total war, then I'd wager a whole ton of people would actually start finding the games a lot less fun because everything suddenly becomes a whole lot less visceral and impactful on the player. And this isn't even mentioning the loss of all the information that those visual elements can convey far faster and more efficiently than any bloc of text possibly could. Yeah, I dig that, but visceral and impactful doesn't make for particularly good gameplay. Rome 2 has a ton of dudes slamming into each other and animations of men fighting 1 on 1, and the realism mods tend to just make this take forever in lieu of actually having any real dynamic, though. It's not very visually fun to watch guys yelling at each other for a long time but that's exactly what made battle take a long time. UGG's visuals are way less visceral and auditory(though they work well), but the gameplay is served better because the pulled out view causes people to think more in terms of "oh, hey those guys are getting pushed back" in a less frustrating way. In a game like TW where you're there to watch dudes wave swords around, getting pushed back and running is frustrating, which is why every "realism" mod makes infantry nearly unbreakable. An ACW game with TW style visuals would have combat far too lethal too quickly because TW players want to see their guns "do something" in a visceral way, even if it's less interesting and less realistic that way. Look at how heavily archers are overmodeled in TW games- it's that way to make them have a 'visceral' effect. People watch 300 and Braveheart and want archery to blot out the sun and hit groups of men hyper accurately at range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Check out this next gen historical RTS combat from the doc I was talking about, I'd totally play a game like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuVtP_xepU&t=2525s
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, I dig that, but visceral and impactful doesn't make for particularly good gameplay. Rome 2 has a ton of dudes slamming into each other and animations of men fighting 1 on 1, and the realism mods tend to just make this take forever in lieu of actually having any real dynamic, though. It's not very visually fun to watch guys yelling at each other for a long time but that's exactly what made battle take a long time. I don't see how realism factors into this at all. How visually interesting or impactful a battle is has nothing to do with how historically accurate it is (as hollywood repeatedly seems to prove time and time again  ). I would like it if you could elaborate on what you are trying to say here, because I'm having trouble discerning exactly what you are exactly arguing for here.Likewise, I should probably be a little more clear myself by saying that when I refer to "visual elements", I'm not just talking about pretty textures or fancy lookin' filters. I'm talking about what the player is actually seeing happening on the screen. A unit that routs by shattering it's formation and running without any semblance of order or the way that soldiers go flying and get knocked on their rear end when charged by cavalry are as much of a visual element as the lighting effects of fire on the background.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:I don't see how realism factors into this at all. How visually interesting or impactful a battle is has nothing to do with how historically accurate it is (as hollywood repeatedly seems to prove time and time again Creative Assembly has poured their focus into the things you've described since Rome total war. The tactical battles are ever more elaborate, with more detailed animations, more elaborate filters, and more attempts at 'epic' stuff. The combat is fun, sure. But is it 10x as fun as it was? I don't see it. For me Shogun 2's level of detail and animations were perfectly fine, and I don't feel that Rome 2 and Attila were an improvement in that regard, despite CA putting a lot of effort into it. No matter how reactive and impressive the tactical combat is, which it does an ok job, it has become kinda meaningless because the strategic portion is so underwhelming. I'd much rather they dial back the tactical presentation and work on making the strategic portion more of a game. I find it odd that in a series that has very much focused on the spectacle rather than the strategy someone feels the need to extoll the virtues of making the combats visually appealing. The game has doubled down on that aspect and it's not better for it. I guess lots of people think the same way in the game biz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Swedish Horror posted:It's been on Steam for a while. He was apparently contacted by Apple and asked to change the flag in his game or they would pull it off the appstore. He refused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I think everyone supports Darth on this one. He got a bad rap for his gaudy mod packages and public breakdown after, for some reason, not being invited to some CA modder's conference, which I never read into the drama but someone must've not liked him personally or something I guess. They are rightfully not so recommended around here because of mod bloat, but every forum, every thread, for every Total War game, its people still going nuts over Darth Mod. Now he's telling Apple "DONT TREAD ON DARTH" and getting loads of publicity out of it for his game to boot. Seriously CA is now going around hiring random shill Youtubers for staff positions and they wouldn't even invite by far the most popular modder who was probably the most excited to go, to a modder summit? If I was him I'd be pissed enough to become an innovative legitimate indie game developer myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Ultimate General Gettysburg is also really good, and has no loving Star Wars in it so i really feel that now invalidates all the criticism his mods have gotten over the years. And goons typically hate popular mods that change a lot of stuff so we're not really representative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Who did they invite to the summit anyway? Darth is the most popular modder but his mods never really did anything particularly special, they just hit the right notes for a lot of TW's community. If they were mostly bringing in people that did big M2 mods etc I can totally see why they wouldn't bother with Darth. If it was just random people like Radious though then yeah that's a bit weird. UGG being good doesn't invalidate criticism of his past work though, it just shows he's matured a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Creative Assembly has poured their focus into the things you've described since Rome total war. The tactical battles are ever more elaborate, with more detailed animations, more elaborate filters, and more attempts at 'epic' stuff. Well, you have to understand that the visual and auditory elements associated with any kind of mechanic play a really massive role in making that mechanic actually enjoyable to engage in. Sure, it's also very important to have actually good game design, and I by no means believe that that kind of stuff can be completely replaced by pretty graphics, but the right kind of audio cue or visual effect can enhance the feel of an in-game event to levels that are really hard to understate. The best example I can think of is of a heavy cavalry charge into a weak infantry unit in any of the total war games; the cavalry will often only stop after they've reached the middle of the enemy's formation, and all of the unmounted soldiers either get knocked on their rear end or go flying across the screen. Now, imagine what it'd be like if instead of that, the entire formation of Cavalry just stopped on a dime and the only way you would know there was any effect is because of some moderate melee attack bonus the cav got for charging? Sure, the balance might work out the same, but the game would have definitely lost something as a result. I think that Rome 2 is actually an example of the actual visual elements falling flat on their face in some situations, and it has a clear effect on the player's enjoyment. The fights between units were incredibly long, and were generally very boring in both a gameplay and visual sense. I don't know about you, but half an hour of some soldiers yelling at eachother, only taking a break from hiding behind their shield to make a short jab at their enemy every 30 seconds, is not exactly a very interesting thing to watch. On the other hand, Shogun 2 (especially Fall of the Samurai!) did the the visual and tactile elements way better, because of how fast and deadly the battles were. Well timed cavalry charges could send entire armies routing, and units would destroy eachother in the melee. Battles were super fun because all the units weren't just useful, but gave a powerful visible effect of what happened to their opponent when they were being used correctly. It's a good example of what I was talking about earlier; graphical design and game design working in harmony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Sistergodiva posted:Playing Shogun 2 right now and what really bothers me is that there is rarely any good fights. I manage to take castles when the enemy just abandons them. If there ever is a huge battle it's either me just shooting a castle to bits with archers or me shooting an attacking army to bits from my castle. I really love it when you get those awesome middle of nowhere huge battles, especially when you win them by flanks and stuff when you are greatly outnumbered. The issue here is really the castle fights. The AI for them is really weird - it is completely passive on the defensive side, absolutely refusing to leave the fortress for any reason, meaning you can just mass archers and rain arrows on them until running out of ammo with very little damage having been done to your own army. Hell if you've got cannons you can basically wipe out all the enemy archers from range before moving your archers up and take out most of their army without a single casualty on your side. On the offensive side, it will just have everyone climb up the walls at one on every side, generally taking huge losses both from falling off the walls to the effects of your own ranged attackers (and if your defenders are matchlocks you can often rout several units before they even make it all the way up the wall), while all you have to do is park a good melee unit against the wall and slice them to pieces as they make it over. The best battles in Shogun 2 are in the open fields, especially when the AI thinks it has the advantage since it will actively engage you (if you have the advantage it plays a really annoying turtle game where it just kind of sets up everyone in one giant line and waits until you force an engagement).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Man the Napoleon AI is totally fine firing cannons into your general's unit on the off chance they'll miss and hit the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:
The best battles in every Total War game are in the open field. Its super rare I enjoy a settlement defense/attack. They're usually extremely loving boring and I autoresolve them. Subsequently, the base game of Rome 2 is dull for me (every settlement is one or two turns travel away) but Caeser in Gaul is amazing - so much more open field to defend, attack, and ambush in. StashAugustine posted:Man the Napoleon AI is totally fine firing cannons into your general's unit on the off chance they'll miss and hit the enemy. Fire at will is fire at will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:The best battles in every Total War game are in the open field. Its super rare I enjoy a settlement defense/attack. They're usually extremely loving boring and I autoresolve them. Subsequently, the base game of Rome 2 is dull for me (every settlement is one or two turns travel away) but Caeser in Gaul is amazing - so much more open field to defend, attack, and ambush in. That's one of the reasons i like Rome 2 so much, all the village settlemets mean less walls and more open battles. But whenever the AI of Medieval 2 knew how to defend their multiple walled fortresses it was great. You'd bloody yourself trying to conquer the walls only to see the enemy holding the second gate, so you had to bring your reserve rams for another round.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Plus when cannons showed up siege battles got even more fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:18
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Plus when cannons showed up siege battles got even more fun Oh? want to hide in the castle eh? Mr Armstrong Cannon says otherwise, jerks  .At least with Shogun 2 and Rome 2 the fortresses looked nice and had some effort with the design. I'll never forgive the half arsed nature of ETW/NTW fortications though sadly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Check out this next gen historical RTS combat from the doc I was talking about, I'd totally play a game like this. i just saw their video of the Battle of the Bulge and Germany led the technology of the world in 1944 The STG44 was the pinnacle of warfare, reliable and light (they compared it with the BAR for some reason) The Ardennes front was tense due to the fear of the elite SS troops The ~~~~King Tiger~~~~ Really long descriptions of Nazi commanders, including interviews of soldiers who serve them and love them to bits but the allies are anonymous, ghost forces. Only interviews allied soldiers to let them talk about how the Germans were this or that Really overlong exposition about terrain when really it's not lost to anyone that forests and rivers are not good for attacking. Fuel saved everything. I really missed History Channel's war documentaries 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
I see that Attilla is on sale. How is it in comparison to the base game these days? Worth spending an extra $30 on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
It's miles better on the whole but a couple of caveats: 1. it's not a conventional empire-builder in the same way as the other TW games, for most of the factions the first chunk of the game is dominated by just trying to survive 2. there's a lot less diversity in the factions- the only civilized factions already start in huge empires and the rest are nearly all german barbarians with pretty similar rosters 3. it isn't optimized as well as Rome 2. hopefully that'll change buut i wouldn't count on Attila's post-release support extending that much further, so if you have trouble running Rome 2 you may be out of luck. not that it runs awfully, but I think for most people it's noticeably worse aside from that though, nearly every feature in the game is a huge improvement over Rome 2. it's free for the next day or so isn't it? it's definitely at least worth installing to try out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Did they fix the AI detail where engaging enemy artillery crews even in a fight and retreat causes them to abandon their artillery? Cuz thats my entire strategy for dealing with AI artillery in Rome 2
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Nope
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
SERPUS posted:Nope I mean for Attila
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Incidentally can anyone sum up the differences between vanilla Shogun 2 and Rise of the Samurai? I remember the general gist is that it's lower 'power level' so to speak and generally has a little better balance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Rise is probably less about making stacks of armies and more about moving agents and making diplomatic moves. You can convert over entire regions with certain agents. Armies are still needed to fight but don't expect to be fielding tons of full stacks of anything but mostly basic levies. Also armies in Rise are expensive to maintain, as I believe by the time your income tops out it's about the same level as like early phase vanilla levels (conversely, in Fall, your starting income is probably about what you might get mid-late Vanilla until research kicks in and your income just balloons like crazy). Units also aren't that great - levies require constant general maintenance or they break fairly quickly, attendants aren't as huge in number (maybe 3/4 strength of levies IIRC), and samurai are just flat out expensive to train and upkeep, and are really small in number and are pure generalists (they are archers but have great melee stats too, but you only ever have like 40 of them per unit).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Incidentally can anyone sum up the differences between vanilla Shogun 2 and Rise of the Samurai? I remember the general gist is that it's lower 'power level' so to speak and generally has a little better balance. There's some pretty major differences: -Basically every building type has two possible branches you can upgrade it along. An example is the basic troop building (which is separate from castle upgrades now) - you can either upgrade it to improve the garrison of the city, or you can upgrade it to give you more recruitment slots and better replenishment in the province. Most of the other buildings have a similar sort of setup, where you have to pick which particular aspect you want to focus on rather that one building doing both. -Money is a lot more of an issue through the whole campaign. As mentioned above, upkeep costs are high, and income is much lower. Additionally, agent actions are much more expensive and there are much fewer free ones. -Samurai are a lot less specialized than the base campaign - you have horse samurai and foot samurai, and they're both essentially better at everything than any lower tier unit - they have bows but they will also tear up enemy units in melee as well so feel free to have them lead charges. There's a new middle tier called "Attendants" that is more like the samurai in the original campaign in both numbers and specialization. -Religion is replaced with clan allegiance, which is spread by the Metsuke equivalent rather than the Monk equivalent. Cities which have a clan allegiance that's different than their parent clan will gain unrest the same way religious differences does, but if a city has a high allegiance to your clan, you can use the metsuke type agent to literally just buy the city for yourself and incorporate minor clans into your empire without even having to declare war. There's a bunch of other minor differences, like the map layouts for the castle sieges and generals being bow cavalry instead of katana cavalry, but otherwise it will feel pretty familiar aside from the stuff mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 07:33
|
|