Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Xae
Jan 19, 2005

How does scaling for Tech and Unity cost work now?

Is it still based on colonies or is it based on systems claimed?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pylons
Mar 16, 2009

Xae posted:

How does scaling for Tech and Unity cost work now?

Is it still based on colonies or is it based on systems claimed?

Both. 2% penalty on science/unity for systems claimed, 5% on science and 20% on unity for planets colonized.

Shugojin
Sep 6, 2007

THE TAIL THAT BURNS TWICE AS BRIGHT...


My first experience with the great khan was that he was on the other side of the galaxy, fought with a devouring horde, and then he died without me ever really interacting at all and now the khanate is just a regular empire who kinda likes me

Ormi
Feb 7, 2005

B-E-H-A-V-E
Arrest us!

DatonKallandor posted:

If you don't get a full on victory for your war you're probably claiming too much (a full surrender means you give up everything the other side claimed, even if they didn't conquer it as I understand it). Most wars are supposed to end with a status quo peace out and the territory gains going to the side that was doing better. You chip away at your opponent with multiple small scale wars. There's no big one-war, one-fleet, knock-out blows anyway.

these are ai-led wars which i cannot decline because they immediately suggest war again, with a stacking -50 rep penalty for declining. forgot to mention that juicy bit

also, the point is that it's the liberation wargoal that's impossible because you can no longer effectively use it once you've "chipped at your opponent"

Ormi fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 25, 2018

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

I really don't like scaling costs in games like this. I understand the need for something to prevent total snowballing, but I'd prefer to see some sort of "corruption" or "efficiency" stat that reduces your output rather than bloating the costs, then have techs and government reforms and such that can address that.

I don't want to have to consult a spread sheet to know if expanding to that next juicy planet is actually going to be a net loss, or what the over/under for planet sizes or system resources make it worth claiming. I loved the obvious simplicity of the early civ series corruption mechanic. The more cities you get and the farther from your capital, the more corruption, which leached trade/science away. It was intuitive and simple, you could immediately see and feel the difference when you built a court house or what not. In stellaris I'm having to do math to figure things out. "Ok, this star system is going to bloat my research costs another 2% but it has a +3 society and +2 physics resource in it. 2% extra on my current research projects will be 104 extra points, which means, umm poo poo I don't know what math I need to even do to figure this out"

Like I'm literally too stupid to even understand how to calculate if a new planet or new system is worth getting.

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 25, 2018

Pylons
Mar 16, 2009

Baronjutter posted:

I really don't like scaling costs in games like this. I understand the need for something to prevent total snowballing, but I'd prefer to see some sort of "corruption" or "efficiency" stat that reduces your output rather than bloating the costs, then have techs and government reforms and such that can address that.

I don't want to have to consult a spread sheet to know if expanding to that next juicy planet is actually going to be a net loss, or what the over/under for planet sizes or system resources make it worth claiming. I loved the obvious simplicity of the early civ series corruption mechanic. The more cities you get and the farther from your capital, the more corruption, which leached trade/science away. It was intuitive and simple, you could immediately see and feel the difference when you built a court house or what not. In stellaris I'm having to do math to figure things out. "Ok, this star system is going to bloat my research costs another 2% but it has a +3 society and +2 physics resource in it. 2% extra on my current research projects will be 104 extra points, which means, umm poo poo I don't know what math I need to even do to figure this out"

I don't think it's that bad. The only thing I really had an issue with was unity with my last game, and that's solved by taking discovery first and planting a scientist assisting research on each planet you colonize.

Westminster System
Jul 4, 2009
Just saw this on the Stellaris subreddit...



:allears:

Taear
Nov 26, 2004

Ask me about the shitty opinions I have about Paradox games!

Baronjutter posted:

I really don't like scaling costs in games like this. I understand the need for something to prevent total snowballing, but I'd prefer to see some sort of "corruption" or "efficiency" stat that reduces your output rather than bloating the costs, then have techs and government reforms and such that can address that.

I don't want to have to consult a spread sheet to know if expanding to that next juicy planet is actually going to be a net loss, or what the over/under for planet sizes or system resources make it worth claiming. I loved the obvious simplicity of the early civ series corruption mechanic. The more cities you get and the farther from your capital, the more corruption, which leached trade/science away. It was intuitive and simple, you could immediately see and feel the difference when you built a court house or what not. In stellaris I'm having to do math to figure things out. "Ok, this star system is going to bloat my research costs another 2% but it has a +3 society and +2 physics resource in it. 2% extra on my current research projects will be 104 extra points, which means, umm poo poo I don't know what math I need to even do to figure this out"

Like I'm literally too stupid to even understand how to calculate if a new planet or new system is worth getting.

Most people don't think about it this hard. Just expand! If it works out badly and you feel slow, then cut back.
You don't need to work it out so extremely finely.

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!





Westminster System posted:

Just saw this on the Stellaris subreddit...



:allears:

If that were my game, that would be three size 10 tomb worlds, a wormhole into the middle of an advanced start fanatic purifier, and a gateway into the middle of a maurader horde.

Brother Entropy
Dec 27, 2009

Baronjutter posted:

I really don't like scaling costs in games like this. I understand the need for something to prevent total snowballing, but I'd prefer to see some sort of "corruption" or "efficiency" stat that reduces your output rather than bloating the costs, then have techs and government reforms and such that can address that.

I don't want to have to consult a spread sheet to know if expanding to that next juicy planet is actually going to be a net loss, or what the over/under for planet sizes or system resources make it worth claiming. I loved the obvious simplicity of the early civ series corruption mechanic. The more cities you get and the farther from your capital, the more corruption, which leached trade/science away. It was intuitive and simple, you could immediately see and feel the difference when you built a court house or what not. In stellaris I'm having to do math to figure things out. "Ok, this star system is going to bloat my research costs another 2% but it has a +3 society and +2 physics resource in it. 2% extra on my current research projects will be 104 extra points, which means, umm poo poo I don't know what math I need to even do to figure this out"

Like I'm literally too stupid to even understand how to calculate if a new planet or new system is worth getting.

it's not really that big a deal, just don't completely slack on science/unity buildings

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!





I have two questions!

1) Is there a way to "unclaim" a territory? Can I just disband a starbase and abandon the system entirely? (This is relevant after wars where you suddenly have a non-contiguous stripe of land with nothing but poo poo systems you don't care about or want.)

2) Is there a way to bind the fleet manager to a key so I don't have to click through the menu to get to it every time?

Pylons
Mar 16, 2009

ConfusedUs posted:

I have two questions!

1) Is there a way to "unclaim" a territory? Can I just disband a starbase and abandon the system entirely? (This is relevant after wars where you suddenly have a non-contiguous stripe of land with nothing but poo poo systems you don't care about or want.)


Yes. Select the starbase and then "dismantle".

Libluini
May 18, 2012

I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...
Grimey Drawer

Taear posted:

Most people don't think about it this hard. Just expand! If it works out badly and you feel slow, then cut back.
You don't need to work it out so extremely finely.

Yeah, I'm just bumbling around doing whatever, and I'm still leading in tech. It's not that bad, just don't colonize everything in sight and you're fine.

To be fair though, prioritizing the good stuff often tends to make your borders look kinda snaky:

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!





Pylons posted:

Yes. Select the starbase and then "dismantle".

I must be blind because I visually scoured the starbase menu and couldn't find it. Got a screenshot?

Pylons
Mar 16, 2009

ConfusedUs posted:

I must be blind because I visually scoured the starbase menu and couldn't find it. Got a screenshot?

If it's an upgraded starbase, it should be "downgrade", then you can dismantle. Might have to do it multiple times.

Corbeau
Sep 13, 2010

Jack of All Trades
"Is this planet going to produce more than 5% of my research output?" does not require a spreadsheet to figure out.

Expanding to new planets is pretty much always better in the long run, it'll just put you behind while it builds up infrastructure and fills out it's population. Individual systems are different since the stations aren't as flexible as planet tiles, but you can still make a similar calculation when it comes to research stations. And if you're expanding to raw resource stations, just consider it a trade-off. It seems a strong strategy to stay slim, research up to a timing attack, then claim a bunch of mining station systems to build your war industry.

If you go on a huge expansion spree without building up behind it then yeah, your tech and unity are going to crater and you'll be behind for a long time.

Corbeau fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Feb 25, 2018

Ignorant Hick
Mar 26, 2010

Pylons posted:

I don't think it's that bad. The only thing I really had an issue with was unity with my last game, and that's solved by taking discovery first and planting a scientist assisting research on each planet you colonize.

My first game on the new patch was playing aggressively on a huge elliptical map and the tech costs really did hurt me by the late game. Part of it certainly was me needing to get used to the new mechanics, but tech costs per system feels so much worse when playing on a map that size. Even ignoring nice looking borders, grabbing up territory for chokepoint systems is essentially mandatory if you want to avoid having a minor power rampage through the opposite side of your empire during a war. Trying a new game on a large spiral galaxy to see how that feels. Should be sooooo much easier to defend.

Has anyone tried playing with the no retreat war policy? I had it running for most of my first game since buying more ships wasn't a problem with all the systems I had. But if war exhaustion is based on your losses I might have been shooting myself in the foot. I certainly built it up faster than even minor empires I was stomping on.

DatonKallandor
Aug 21, 2009

"I can no longer sit back and allow nationalist shitposting, nationalist indoctrination, nationalist subversion, and the German nationalist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious game balance."

Pylons posted:

Even still, the hyperlane registrar only affects the time to jump, not sublight speed, which is the real slow part of travel. I think I'd like to see outposts given a single, new type of slot you can only ever get one of per system that can do things like increasing sublight travel (for roads), or maybe increasing the output of minerals, energy, or research in the system they're in. Or maybe a minefield for border systems.

This is a great idea and would help solve the problem of space territory not scaling in value. Unlock mining/research module for your outposts in the mid-game to start upgrading your space-based economy, with the tradeoff being that it takes the same slot your strategic mobility module does. High Income focused areas = slower strategic mobility.

Goatse James Bond
Mar 28, 2010


I've made a huge mistake.

Baronjutter posted:

I really don't like scaling costs in games like this. I understand the need for something to prevent total snowballing, but I'd prefer to see some sort of "corruption" or "efficiency" stat that reduces your output rather than bloating the costs, then have techs and government reforms and such that can address that.

I don't want to have to consult a spread sheet to know if expanding to that next juicy planet is actually going to be a net loss, or what the over/under for planet sizes or system resources make it worth claiming. I loved the obvious simplicity of the early civ series corruption mechanic. The more cities you get and the farther from your capital, the more corruption, which leached trade/science away. It was intuitive and simple, you could immediately see and feel the difference when you built a court house or what not. In stellaris I'm having to do math to figure things out. "Ok, this star system is going to bloat my research costs another 2% but it has a +3 society and +2 physics resource in it. 2% extra on my current research projects will be 104 extra points, which means, umm poo poo I don't know what math I need to even do to figure this out"

Like I'm literally too stupid to even understand how to calculate if a new planet or new system is worth getting.

unity is hard, research is easier

Okay, so. Because the thing you're actually trying to minimize is time, not research cost, you always want your marginal percentage increase in research points to be greater than your marginal percentage loss in, uh, percentage. The latter will only very-early-with-cost-bonuses be more than 2% a system (duh) or 5% a planet (duh), so a really quick napkin math estimate is that if grabbing that system's research will increase your total research points combined from all three categories by more than 2%, it's worthwhile from a research perspective. please ignore the energy costs, those are less opaque anyway

As such, a 2 research point system will be basically always worthwhile if you currently have 100 RP per month, 3 at 150, 4 at 200, and so on. Do note that you can blow up underperforming outposts as the game goes on, and probably should.

The actual limitation is: is (RP in system / total current RP) greater than (2 / current research penalty), where a totally unmodified research penalty is 100.

So if you're sitting at 200% research penalty and 200RP, you can grab a 2-RP system and break even because you're increasing your penalty by 1% of the current total and your income by 1% of the current total.

Unity strategy, meanwhile, is weird and scary and so far I'm basically just flying by the seat of my pants. But the research calculations are pretty easy to ballpark.

Corbeau posted:

"Is this planet going to produce more than 5% of my research output?" does not require a spreadsheet to figure out.

Expanding to new planets is pretty much always better in the long run, it'll just put you behind while it builds up infrastructure and fills out it's population. Individual systems are different since the stations aren't as flexible as planet tiles, but you can still make a similar calculation when it comes to research stations. And if you're expanding to raw resource stations, just consider it a trade-off. It seems a strong strategy to stay slim, research up to a timing attack, then claim a bunch of mining station systems to build your war industry.

If you go on a huge expansion spree without building up behind it then yeah, your tech and unity are going to crater and you'll be behind for a long time.

:eng101: While I totally agree on planets and the 2%-5% of output mark is a super simple guideline that functionally never fails, you can squeeze out a little more horsepower with only a little more math, as above.

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Feb 25, 2018

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!





Pylons posted:

If it's an upgraded starbase, it should be "downgrade", then you can dismantle. Might have to do it multiple times.


God drat I feel like an idiot. I was looking for the "disband" button and never even made the association that "dismantle" might do the same thing.

Galaga Galaxian
Apr 23, 2009

What a childish tactic!
Don't you think you should put more thought into your battleplan?!


Libluini posted:

Yeah, I'm just bumbling around doing whatever, and I'm still leading in tech. It's not that bad, just don't colonize everything in sight and you're fine.

To be fair though, prioritizing the good stuff often tends to make your borders look kinda snaky:



Yeah, and that makes you increasingly vulnerable to space pirates, which is neat. I'm guessing you have a fleet and maybe a fleet starbase somewhere on each of those left/rimward tendrils where they can rapidly respond to a pirate attack, another fleet/base in the center, and one one the right/coreward section of your territory?


You definitely seem to be doing better than my game research/economywise, and I bet you need a lot less points to get techs and unity picks. I definitely need to curtail the urge to just blob out like a madman I think. Looking at my territory its such a mess and a decent number of low-value systems, but I have a hard time telling what if anything should be cut. There were lots of ancient mining drones in this region so there are mineral-rich system scattered all over.




Then again you've look to have about 35-40 systems, and I'm at 52 systems (and growing) so maybe I'm not being too extreme?

Shugojin
Sep 6, 2007

THE TAIL THAT BURNS TWICE AS BRIGHT...


Awwww the enigmatic fortress sucks now even if you do make it through the incredibly buggy state it's in

:argh:

appropriatemetaphor
Jan 26, 2006

WMain00 posted:

I get the complaints about status quo treaties because the text is wrong in game completely. It's not a white peace because claims come into effect and can result in territory gained or lost depending on influence over the area, which again isn't fully explained.

And just to add extra complexity, claims don't come into effect against marauders or horde empires, for the war score create different exhaustion differences.

It's great fun, but it needs explained much much better.

Yeah and you can also claim stuff *during* a war. Sudden got declared on by two different Federations and was like, ok sure. And claimed some stuff.

Also reposting this because I'm confused:

Why is my fleet not upgrading at this station? It's their home base:



And instead going through the wormhole one jump away to this station:



They both appear to have a shipyard, which I thought is all you need for upgrades. Same thing has happened with other fleets in the same position. No one will upgrade at the first station, even though it builds starships just fine.

Drone_Fragger
May 9, 2007


After playing a while with 2.0 I'm really feeling like the game is a lot slower. I really don't think they've taken into account all the new capital costs you have to spend to get things done now either, since just to expand you're having to spend several hundred minerals building star-bases everywhere. Mining bases now need more than their own value of extra minerals spent on them to control the system before you can build them too which is irritating and feels like it really slows it down early game expansion. Previously those several hundred minerals would of gone on things like ships and upgrades, making a much more dynamic early game since you actually hand the funds to harrass and attack your neighbours. Now it just goes on star-bases.

Really I think if they're going to run with the whole "claims" thing to control systems, you should be able to place claims just using influence, without any construction at all. You then control those systems, without needing to spend 4 months worth of early game income on it. If someone else then decides they want the system more than you they can dump a outpost in it. Would also make the claims system more interesting since you can lay claims to systems, and if someone else steals them then you've got a just cause for war, rather than as it is now which seems to be "I like your homeworld so I'm laying claim to it".

Dongattack
Dec 20, 2006

by Cyrano4747
Nothing beats cracking a planet into multiple burning pieces for that satisfaction feeling, but drat the Neutron Sweep is really good too! Perfect for taking those well developed planets with endless armies since it leaves the buildings around.
I wish the Colossi limit was 2 tbh, so i could have the planet cracker around for those 13 and below size planets the AI colonizes for that "i dont want this and nobody else does either" moments.

DatonKallandor
Aug 21, 2009

"I can no longer sit back and allow nationalist shitposting, nationalist indoctrination, nationalist subversion, and the German nationalist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious game balance."

Drone_Fragger posted:

After playing a while with 2.0 I'm really feeling like the game is a lot slower. I really don't think they've taken into account all the new capital costs you have to spend to get things done now either, since just to expand you're having to spend several hundred minerals building star-bases everywhere. Mining bases now need more than their own value of extra minerals spent on them to control the system before you can build them too which is irritating and feels like it really slows it down early game expansion. Previously those several hundred minerals would of gone on things like ships and upgrades, making a much more dynamic early game since you actually hand the funds to harrass and attack your neighbours. Now it just goes on star-bases.

Really I think if they're going to run with the whole "claims" thing to control systems, you should be able to place claims just using influence, without any construction at all. You then control those systems, without needing to spend 4 months worth of early game income on it. If someone else then decides they want the system more than you they can dump a outpost in it. Would also make the claims system more interesting since you can lay claims to systems, and if someone else steals them then you've got a just cause for war, rather than as it is now which seems to be "I like your homeworld so I'm laying claim to it".

They did entertain the idea that outposts would automatically and for free build up the mining and research stations in their system. That would certainly accelerate the early game by saving you a ton of minerals. And it's not like anyone would miss construction ship micro right?

That'd be especially good now that mining stations never get destroyed, they only change hands. It almost feels like whoever builds mining stations instead of just taking them from someone else is kind of a sucker.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

You don't have to think about expansion because the way it works out is that it's only going to be a net loss overall if you're way past the point that you need to care about expansion efficiency.

Like, every system's going to have something useful in it, something you can convert into the resources you need. There is literally no reason not to expand unless you're trying to do some weird unity build. It gets less efficient the more you do it but you aren't going to get negative efficiency unless you don't bother to build any of the space mines in your systems.

Galaga Galaxian
Apr 23, 2009

What a childish tactic!
Don't you think you should put more thought into your battleplan?!


Also, Libluini, I upgraded your Space Cats. :v:



We need a new Goon Species pack/collection or something.

Magil Zeal
Nov 24, 2008

Taear posted:

Most people don't think about it this hard. Just expand! If it works out badly and you feel slow, then cut back.
You don't need to work it out so extremely finely.

This is an ignorant reply. Caring about the numbers is important for actually examining the game.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

But not for playing it.

ninjoatse.cx
Apr 9, 2005

Fun Shoe
What do I do when I have waaaay too much energy? I passed all I could on the policies screen. What other credit sinks are there?

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

UltraRed posted:

What do I do when I have waaaay too much energy? I passed all I could on the policies screen. What other credit sinks are there?

Repurpose some of your energy mines into mineral ones, planets are there to balance out your economy, energy you're not using is worth less than minerals you don't have even if it means you get less overall from the tile.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

UltraRed posted:

What do I do when I have waaaay too much energy? I passed all I could on the policies screen. What other credit sinks are there?

Hire the research boost enclave

Hire the unity / artist enclave

Buy the fancy artist special buildings

Make a trade deal for minerals (giving energy) with a trade enclave

Terraform planets

Brother Entropy
Dec 27, 2009

UltraRed posted:

What do I do when I have waaaay too much energy? I passed all I could on the policies screen. What other credit sinks are there?

artists/curators

Space Skeleton
Sep 28, 2004

I downgraded a starport back to outpost and the system still has the FTL inhibitor icon. I wonder if it really works.

Pylons
Mar 16, 2009

So, with that system that has 30+ minerals in it - does bad stuff happen if you claim it, or just if you mine it?

Lprsti99
Apr 7, 2011

Everything's coming up explodey!

Pillbug

DatonKallandor posted:

They did entertain the idea that outposts would automatically and for free build up the mining and research stations in their system. That would certainly accelerate the early game by saving you a ton of minerals. And it's not like anyone would miss construction ship micro right?

That'd be especially good now that mining stations never get destroyed, they only change hands. It almost feels like whoever builds mining stations instead of just taking them from someone else is kind of a sucker.

I was actually just thinking that this would be a good way to do it. I mean, you're not going to claim a system and not eventually exploit every deposit in it, so all the system does at present is slow things down even more than building each individual outpost already does. Besides, it's weird that the Galactic Emperor or whoever has to individually order every mining base to be constructed.

I wonder if that could be modded in...

Digital Osmosis
Nov 10, 2002

Smile, Citizen! Happiness is Mandatory.

So I get the "chipping away at them" thing. One of the advantages (the only advantage?) the old warscore system had was telling you "lol you're not getting that poo poo" when you declare. I played some space feudalism guys, tried to vassalize my neighbor, got them to 100% war exhaustion super early on, then proceeded to destroy every spaceship they had and conquer every system they had. End result - I ran into 100% war exhaustion myself and white peaced for status-quo ante bellum, since I hadn't claimed any individual systems (I claimed their whole drat empire, I guess.) I understand they're looking to make wars less decisive, and I remember pre-2.0 you'd occasionally see a goal just required an impossible warscore and so couldn't happen, but there was no indication that this would be the case this time and it felt really silly to have such an absurdly decisive victory and then get literally nothing out of the whole war. Has anyone successfully implemented one of the special wargoals?

Also the systems penalties to science and research bother me for two reasons: first and foremost, pretty boarders. Needing to do some quick calculations to see if a relatively barren system in the middle of your territory is worth grabbing is kinda cool, but the answer may be no and those boarders need to be pretty! Secondly, pirates! I like the concept of isolated unclaimed systems spawning pirates, but it seems like this really just encourages you to fill in your boarders even if they wouldn't be worth the penalties to tech and unity. Obviously there are ways to compensate, and making hard choices is fun, but it feels bad to increase a penalty because you're loving sick of random hostiles spawning. I dunno, "annoyance" doesn't seem like it should enter the hard choices in space strategic calculation

Glass of Milk
Dec 22, 2004
to forgive is divine
I hit my energy limit as a machine empire, and I had some policies that cost energy.

My expansion cycle in the early game has been:. Expand, make mineral and energy stations, then backfill in science stations once my resource inflow is sufficient. Maybe not the most efficient way to play, but it's good.

I think MEs have an implicit advantage in being able to colonize any world, so they can get those huge planets. I think there needs to be early techs to expand habitability for at least some planet types for other empires so there's a larger pool to choose from.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shadowlyger
Nov 5, 2009

ElvUI super fan at your service!

Ask me any and all questions about UI customization via PM

Space Skeleton posted:

I downgraded a starport back to outpost and the system still has the FTL inhibitor icon. I wonder if it really works.

It does. Quite annoying, actually.

On that note, fun fact kids: Even an un-upgraded outpost can still build three defense stations for itself, making them far more of a pain in the rear end for your enemies to take!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply