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 $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«96 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


I wonder if the devs keep a stack of pics on hand for this situation or do they just google halftracks falling off bridges every time someone asks.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Generation Internet
Jan 18, 2009

Where angels and generals fear to tread.


Graviteam dev has to be some kind of platonic ideal of grog developer.

In related news whatever the scenario DLC is that has all the T-26 machine gun tanks is awesome and for the first time I've actually wrapped my head around it enough to play all the way through.

gazza
Oct 20, 2013


Categorizing Unity of Command as a puzzle game is selling it extremely short. As far as relatively simple introductory wargames go, it's basically the only one that accurately reflects the historical operational limitations faced by various combatants in WW2, something that it does far better than similar games like Panzer Corps or Order of Battle.

gazza fucked around with this message at 05:06 on May 13, 2020

Fuligin
Oct 27, 2010


Flannelette posted:

They are better than before they don't bunch up on them now and you need to move by road march order them over them but it's realistic that trying to drive armored vehicles over rural bridges is a disaster, why the proper bridges were so important. I asked the dev once about it and he just posted photos of halftracks and tanks tilted off the sides of bridges until I conceded. They shouldn't be able to swim in the ice water though.

God i 'love' grogs

pointsofdata
Apr 25, 2011



gazza posted:

Categorizing Unity of Command as a puzzle game is selling it extremely short. As far as relatively simple introductory wargames go, it's basically the only one that accurately reflects the historical operational limitations faced by various combatants in WW2, something that it does far better than similar games like Panzer Corps or Order of Battle.

It's extremely good. It is true that some scenarios are more puzzle like than others (the one in the woods before Bulge is a good example, there are like two enemy units you can attack to breakthrough and anything else will fail miserably), but generally it feels thematic and has understable and solid mechanics.

One common thing in UoC is that your tanks or something breaks through and all on their own go capture an enemy supply depo, cutting off a large part of their army (sometimes you can even chain turns out of supply like this). Presumably incidents similar to this did happen, but are there any accounts which map particularly well to "line armoured formation captures key supply depo"?

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



gazza posted:

Categorizing Unity of Command as a puzzle game is selling it extremely short. As far as relatively simple introductory wargames go, it's basically the only one that accurately reflects the historical operational limitations faced by various combatants in WW2, something that it does far better than similar games like Panzer Corps or Order of Battle.

I think pretty much every operational or tactical game on the PC is going to be like that unless it has random scenarios. Personally, I think it's completely unfair to accuse any of the games like that. Honestly, the difference between UoC and PC2 is just the level of realism they're going for- in a lot of ways UoC2 is actually quite a bit less complex than PC2 but it is definitely going for a much higher level of realism.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

Panzeh posted:

I think pretty much every operational or tactical game on the PC is going to be like that unless it has random scenarios. Personally, I think it's completely unfair to accuse any of the games like that. Honestly, the difference between UoC and PC2 is just the level of realism they're going for- in a lot of ways UoC2 is actually quite a bit less complex than PC2 but it is definitely going for a much higher level of realism.

This is what I was going for said in so many less words. If there's only one way through the Ardennes, or if all your forces start the game concentrated upon a schwerpunkt already determined by the historical pre-scenario set-up, then you're obviously going to be pushed down a particular way to run/play the scenario, but that doesn't mean it's a "puzzle game".

HerpicleOmnicron5
May 31, 2013

How did this smug dummkopf ever make general?


The original not giving a poo poo about your own casualties does kinda make it feel less like a strategy game though.

Minenfeld!
Aug 21, 2012




HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:

The original not giving a poo poo about your own casualties does kinda make it feel less like a strategy game though.

You mean realistic Marshall Zhukov

ZekeNY
Jun 13, 2013

Probably AFK

Minenfeld! posted:

You mean realistic Marshall Zhukov

That smilie just doesn't do justice to Zhukov

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The level of betrayal I felt when Paradox announced their new wallpaper tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to respect anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.

I don't think it's controversial that there's broadly two sub-categories of wargame; simulationist and puzzle. I also don't think there's anything wrong with something being a puzzle game.

I think it would be fair for someone to complain that they thought they were getting a simulation game and ended up with a puzzle game.

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



Alchenar posted:

I don't think it's controversial that there's broadly two sub-categories of wargame; simulationist and puzzle. I also don't think there's anything wrong with something being a puzzle game.

I think it would be fair for someone to complain that they thought they were getting a simulation game and ended up with a puzzle game.

I don't really think those are useful or particularly informative categories. If you don't like operational level games, that's fine. But part and parcel of any operational game is seeing a situation and getting the way to finish it. Even strategic games kinda have that, too.

If I made an operational game about the Battle of the Bulge, what would the difference be between the puzzle and simulationist version of it?

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The level of betrayal I felt when Paradox announced their new wallpaper tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to respect anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.

Panzeh posted:

I don't really think those are useful or particularly informative categories. If you don't like operational level games, that's fine. But part and parcel of any operational game is seeing a situation and getting the way to finish it. Even strategic games kinda have that, too.

If I made an operational game about the Battle of the Bulge, what would the difference be between the puzzle and simulationist version of it?

Command Ops 2 literally exists.

Mr. Showtime
Apr 24, 2009

ROBUST COMBAT
Leonard Riflepiss


Soiled Meat

Panzeh posted:

If I made an operational game about the Battle of the Bulge, what would the difference be between the puzzle and simulationist version of it?

UoC has a relatively small state space where choices tend to have more predictable consequences. Pick the best option from the 8 good ones you can plausibly narrow down and you'll probably get the best outcome this turn, keep doing that and you'll win. Command Ops, on the other hand, gives you more knobs to twiddle with less predictable consequences: make the goodest choices from your substantially larger set of options and you'll probably influence the battle in your direction (or at least lose less); make a habit of this and you'll twirl slowly, uncertainly, vaguely towards victory.

I see the puzzle grog <---> fuzzy grog axis and derive a different sort of enjoyment from each. I'm not sure I'm qualified to go around classifying things as one or the other unless they're obvious, mind you.

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



Mr. Showtime posted:

UoC has a relatively small state space where choices tend to have more predictable consequences. Pick the best option from the 8 good ones you can plausibly narrow down and you'll probably get the best outcome this turn, keep doing that and you'll win. Command Ops, on the other hand, gives you more knobs to twiddle with less predictable consequences: make the goodest choices from your substantially larger set of options and you'll probably influence the battle in your direction (or at least lose less); make a habit of this and you'll twirl slowly, uncertainly, vaguely towards victory.

I see the puzzle grog <---> fuzzy grog axis and derive a different sort of enjoyment from each. I'm not sure I'm qualified to go around classifying things as one or the other unless they're obvious, mind you.

Yeah I get what you're getting at- and i've played Command Ops, though I feel like now that I know the system it's not that different from how i'd feel with UoC, though I think UoC is a very specific kind of design that almost every 1upt wargame tends to have, 1v1 combat, strict combat vs movement separation, and heavy abstraction. The reason why I still think CO has a puzzley thing is that the scenarios and units are still quite fixed so in single player, once you've found the solution to a scenario, it's pretty much solved. Command delays can be annoying, but generally there's a right and wrong way to do things. CO2 is definitely less abstract than UoC, but it kinda has to be, it's on a lower level. A co2 scenario would take place in like 3-6 hexes in UoC.

I've usually heard puzzle used to describe pretty much any 'operational level game i don't like' so it's kinda nice to talk about things in more detail.

Flannelette
Jan 16, 2010



Pharnakes posted:

I wonder if the devs keep a stack of pics on hand for this situation or do they just google halftracks falling off bridges every time someone asks.

He is surprisingly consistent for having a pic or archive documents to back up most things people throw at him and is impossibly obtuse and I'm not sure that's all because of language barriers. They put a enormous amount of work into researching it through diaries and archives and anything they can find and anything they can't prove with evidence doesn't go in so it's pretty peak grog passion. But on the flip side if you have hard evidence of something they'll patch it to match it quickly.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


I bounced off UoC hard, admittedly the first one, because I felt each scenario had an objectively best path to victory, but also you would not of need to follow that to get the best victory result, you and also need to pass a set of die rolls to achieve it. Fail an a set anywhere in that chain, and bam, victory is unattainable.

I don't really see how you can say any operational game is a puzzle game, DC series for example, sure the first turn probably has an objectively best approach to it, but the problem space is big enough that new situations will rapidly emerge in each repeat of the game. In UoC you instead replay each scenario until you have identified the path to victory, then you replay it until you have passed the arbitrary series of die rolls to get the victory quick enough.

pointsofdata
Apr 25, 2011



i can't remember uoc 1 well enough, but uoc 2 has very few scenarios where victory is dependent on die rolls, even for the bonus objectives. most swingy thing is probably bombing cities, but that's normally just a bad idea anyway.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The level of betrayal I felt when Paradox announced their new wallpaper tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to respect anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.

Vic had somewhere on his blog a wartime alignment chart of puzzle<>simulation and complex<>simple.

DC is a simple simulation, WitE a complex simulation, UoC a simple puzzle and... not sure what my last example would be.

Mr. Showtime
Apr 24, 2009

ROBUST COMBAT
Leonard Riflepiss


Soiled Meat

Panzeh posted:

The reason why I still think CO has a puzzley thing is that the scenarios and units are still quite fixed so in single player, once you've found the solution to a scenario, it's pretty much solved.

I think this speaks well to the role apparent complexity plays in the puzzle <--> fuzz axis. When you don't know CO as well--particularly if you're not familiar with operational level wargames--you have a harder time narrowing down your options to select plausible, sensible actions, and it's not easy to follow the line of causality from your choices to their outcomes. Once you're less incompetent, that process is easier, and your experience of the game becomes more puzzle-y.

Alchenar posted:

Vic has somewhere on his blog

hoozat

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


AT and DC series developer.

ZombieLenin
Sep 6, 2009

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

-Vladimir Lenin

gazza posted:

Categorizing Unity of Command as a puzzle game is selling it extremely short. As far as relatively simple introductory wargames go, it's basically the only one that accurately reflects the historical operational limitations faced by various combatants in WW2, something that it does far better than similar games like Panzer Corps or Order of Battle.

From my perspective on each campaign mission, there are somewhere between 2 and 4 ways a mission must be played, with cards you must have selected, to complete all of the timed objectives.

To me, this is by definition, a puzzle game.

HerpicleOmnicron5
May 31, 2013

How did this smug dummkopf ever make general?


ZombieLenin posted:

From my perspective on each campaign mission, there are somewhere between 2 and 4 ways a mission must be played, with cards you must have selected, to complete all of the timed objectives.

To me, this is by definition, a puzzle game.

Maybe if you're playing on the hardest difficulty? 2-4 different methods to secure a perfect victory with all objectives seized on time also sounds fine, better than some Panzer General/Panzer Corps campaign scenarios? I feel like UoC2 is only a puzzle game if you're seeking perfectionism.

ZombieLenin
Sep 6, 2009

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

-Vladimir Lenin

Alchenar posted:

I don't think it's controversial that there's broadly two sub-categories of wargame; simulationist and puzzle. I also don't think there's anything wrong with something being a puzzle game.

I think it would be fair for someone to complain that they thought they were getting a simulation game and ended up with a puzzle game.

Maybe this is my problem. I always expect my war games to be simulations to the extent that, in the course of playing the game, I never have to think to myself: “I need to figure out one of the exactly 2 ways the scenario designer made winning the scenario possible.”

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:

Maybe if you're playing on the hardest difficulty? 2-4 different methods to secure a perfect victory with all objectives seized on time also sounds fine, better than some Panzer General/Panzer Corps campaign scenarios? I feel like UoC2 is only a puzzle game if you're seeking perfectionism.

Counterpoint: I really wouldn't consider Panzer X to be grog at all. It's definitely a puzzle game wearing a ww2 skin, so to say that UoC is less puzzely than a puzzle game is, well true but doesn't really say anything about it not being a puzzle game itself.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The level of betrayal I felt when Paradox announced their new wallpaper tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to respect anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.

Pharnakes posted:

Counterpoint: I really wouldn't consider Panzer X to be grog at all. It's definitely a puzzle game wearing a ww2 skin, so to say that UoC is less puzzely than a puzzle game is, well true but doesn't really say anything about it not being a puzzle game itself.

Yeah Panzer Corps is absolutely as much as a puzzle game as UoC is.

A good test is 'is/could this be multiplayer?' If not, it's because you are solving a fixed puzzle.

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



Alchenar posted:

Yeah Panzer Corps is absolutely as much as a puzzle game as UoC is.

A good test is 'is/could this be multiplayer?' If not, it's because you are solving a fixed puzzle.

Panzercorps I and II actually have significant multiplayer communities, though i get your point about the campaign, though I think just about every wargame is puzzle-like once you understand them.

The scenarios for MP are very different from the campaign scenarios.

I do think Panzercorps 2 is closer to Fire Emblem+ than a lot of other wargames, but it's also kinda complex and interesting, even moreso than some actual simulations, just because it can be gamey as hell. For example, the heaviest artillery in that game can't support against infantry, and the lighter artillery can't support against tanks, which is incredibly bogus in terms of realism, but makes for pretty solid gameplay.

Panzeh fucked around with this message at 19:52 on May 15, 2020

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


Just because it isn't a grog game doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it not a grog game.

No matter how much you understand something like DC:B let alone WitP it isn't a puzzle game. There are just too many moving parts for there to be a predefined solution, unless you count something as broad stroke as "encircle then take cities" as a "solution".

Panzeh
Nov 27, 2006



Pharnakes posted:

Just because it isn't a grog game doesn't make it a bad game, but it does make it not a grog game.

No matter how much you understand something like DC:B let alone WitP it isn't a puzzle game. There are just too many moving parts for there to be a predefined solution, unless you count something as broad stroke as "encircle then take cities" as a "solution".

If you played them in single player, i'm pretty sure you could get very close to a predefined solution in both of those games.(in fact, the WitP AI is very much a script).

Also, i've never actually seen someone who liked a game refer to it as a puzzle game. It's always used dismissively.

Plek
Jul 30, 2009


WitP is absolutely not a puzzle game. Attacking a specific base in the exact same way on the exact same day with all other values being equal on a second playthrough will result in a different outcome every time. Add the variability and it only gets wilder. Just because the AI is poo poo doesn't mean it is a puzzle game. I mean, besides the puzzle of why the gently caress the AI scripts are terrible.

e: also all AIs are scripts. Some are just more granular than others. Also a good example of a puzzle game that is well regarded, at least for me, would be Advanced Wars.

Plek fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 15, 2020

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!


Alchenar posted:

Yeah Panzer Corps is absolutely as much as a puzzle game as UoC is.

A good test is 'is/could this be multiplayer?' If not, it's because you are solving a fixed puzzle.

UoC has multiplayer though and it works pretty well.

Plek posted:

WitP is absolutely not a puzzle game. Attacking a specific base in the exact same way on the exact same day with all other values being equal on a second playthrough will result in a different outcome every time. Add the variability and it only gets wilder. Just because the AI is poo poo doesn't mean it is a puzzle game. I mean, besides the puzzle of why the gently caress the AI scripts are terrible.

e: also all AIs are scripts. Some are just more granular than others. Also a good example of a puzzle game that is well regarded, at least for me, would be Advanced Wars.

This is true of every game though, most of them have some kind of die roll/random outcome for combat. For all that people keep saying there's only one solution to UoC scenarios, I've usually seen them develop on different lines depending on where you get a good roll for a breakthrough or which of your units takes fewer casualties. I've certainly never felt like I'm looking for the one quick trick to make it work - even when I fail a scenario my next attempt is usually something like "Try committing more units to the southern portion of the line" or "Make a deeper encirclement so that fewer units escape to defend later objectives," not "I should move unit X to space Y instead of Z."

Ceebees
Nov 2, 2011

I'm intentionally being as verbose as possible in negotiations for my own amusement.

Panzeh posted:

Also, i've never actually seen someone who liked a game refer to it as a puzzle game. It's always used dismissively.

Hello! It's me. I liked UoC1 a lot, but I am here arguing that it is definitely deep into the puzzle axis of that scale.

blackmongoose posted:

This is true of every game though, most of them have some kind of die roll/random outcome for combat. For all that people keep saying there's only one solution to UoC scenarios, I've usually seen them develop on different lines depending on where you get a good roll for a breakthrough or which of your units takes fewer casualties. I've certainly never felt like I'm looking for the one quick trick to make it work - even when I fail a scenario my next attempt is usually something like "Try committing more units to the southern portion of the line" or "Make a deeper encirclement so that fewer units escape to defend later objectives," not "I should move unit X to space Y instead of Z."

I did the campaign with all objectives in every mission, and most of the time my solution absolutely did start with "Why is this halftrack/panzer formation over here? Ah, because from that exact hex, if i clear every enemy out of the way it has exactly enough move to reach the objective/cut their supply line on turn 2..."

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!


Ceebees posted:

I did the campaign with all objectives in every mission, and most of the time my solution absolutely did start with "Why is this halftrack/panzer formation over here? Ah, because from that exact hex, if i clear every enemy out of the way it has exactly enough move to reach the objective/cut their supply line on turn 2..."

You must have a totally different play style than me, because I would never even think to use the word solution for how I beat scenarios - I would describe my style as having a plan (This set of units will try to cut supply point B, these other guys will head for objective X, and the rest of the units will sweep up stragglers and grab the other objectives) and then adjusting the plan depending on how the various combats and AI turns played out. I don't think I ever counted moves ahead of time or planned a specific route for a unit past the current turn. It's totally cool if that's your style, it's not like one way or the other is better or worse, but I object to what people in the thread have been saying that it's the only possible style that can be used to win.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The level of betrayal I felt when Paradox announced their new wallpaper tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to respect anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.

blackmongoose posted:

You must have a totally different play style than me, because I would never even think to use the word solution for how I beat scenarios - I would describe my style as having a plan (This set of units will try to cut supply point B, these other guys will head for objective X, and the rest of the units will sweep up stragglers and grab the other objectives) and then adjusting the plan depending on how the various combats and AI turns played out. I don't think I ever counted moves ahead of time or planned a specific route for a unit past the current turn. It's totally cool if that's your style, it's not like one way or the other is better or worse, but I object to what people in the thread have been saying that it's the only possible style that can be used to win.

I mean it's valid for you to have fun the way you want, but UoC is absolutely designed as a kind of chess puzzle game. There is a perfect score for each scenario and that perfect score requires you to do a very specific sequence of moves (and often get lucky on dice rolls).

You can not do that and still win, but you will never get the perfect solution that the game literally tells you is possible.

e: and again in different words, planning is a 'better' way to play because the game literally has scores and scores you higher for solving the puzzle in the best way.

Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:12 on May 16, 2020

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!


Alchenar posted:

I mean it's valid for you to have fun the way you want, but UoC is absolutely designed as a kind of chess puzzle game. There is a perfect score for each scenario and that perfect score requires you to do a very specific sequence of moves (and often get lucky on dice rolls).

You can not do that and still win, but you will never get the perfect solution that the game literally tells you is possible.

I've gotten a BV on every single scenario in the base game and both DLCs without following any kind of specific prescribed set of moves, so no you don't need to do that at all. Nice of you to assume I have no idea how the game works though, I hope all that condescension made you feel good inside.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

I actually did try to play Red Turn again a couple of days ago after having such a good experience with UOC2.

The first scenario went swimmingly, and I was able to win a victory just by playing it by ear and making what I thought were reasonably good tactical decisions.

The second scenario, Approaches to Kiev, tripped me up entirely - halfway through the scenario, mud sets in, and it greatly reduces the radius of the supply net radiating from the Soviet half of the map, and your tanks are now out-of-supply and there's no good way to cross-over to the western half of the map, until I guess the mud lifts in the later turns and you have to settle for a final-turn victory?

So I guess my question is, was it possible to anticipate that the mud was going to happen, before it happened? Was I just missing a part of the UI that would have told me this was going to happen so I could plan around it?

And then, I wouldn't mind so much having to re-do the scenario, except the game also doesn't seem to use a traditonal save/load structure so I can't even just quickly go back to turn 1 and try again?

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!


gradenko_2000 posted:

I actually did try to play Red Turn again a couple of days ago after having such a good experience with UOC2.

The first scenario went swimmingly, and I was able to win a victory just by playing it by ear and making what I thought were reasonably good tactical decisions.

The second scenario, Approaches to Kiev, tripped me up entirely - halfway through the scenario, mud sets in, and it greatly reduces the radius of the supply net radiating from the Soviet half of the map, and your tanks are now out-of-supply and there's no good way to cross-over to the western half of the map, until I guess the mud lifts in the later turns and you have to settle for a final-turn victory?

So I guess my question is, was it possible to anticipate that the mud was going to happen, before it happened? Was I just missing a part of the UI that would have told me this was going to happen so I could plan around it?

And then, I wouldn't mind so much having to re-do the scenario, except the game also doesn't seem to use a traditonal save/load structure so I can't even just quickly go back to turn 1 and try again?

Weather is randomized within certain parameters (it will always be snow in January, September/October usually has a high chance of mud) so you might have just gotten unlucky. To restart, just exit to the campaign map and there should be a restart button in the scenario information window.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

I played that Approaches to Kiev scenario a second time just now and what worked was to dump all the supply point boosts on the northern hex (it seems the south is just a red herring) and focus on the northwestern side of the map, then work your way south. Finished with a final turn victory.

EDIT: played Lower Dnieper after that. Finished with a penultimate-turn victory. Feel pretty pleased with myself after spending the 30 minutes prior dying to the first boss of Dark Souls 3 over and over.

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 14:34 on May 16, 2020

AARP LARPer
Feb 19, 2005



THE DARK SIDE OF SCIENCE BREEDS A WEAPON OF WAR


Buglord

There is a certain vibe around here that unless you’re playing a game that requires spreadsheets, you’re doing it wrong and can’t possibly be having fun because “fun” involves some strange correlation with perfection.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MonkeyLibFront
Feb 26, 2003
Where's the cake?

Any thoughts on Armoured Brigade? I'm looking for something a little more detailed and realistic to dip my toe in to when it comes to grognardy games, I already own CM: Black Sea but feel a little burned by battlefront in the way they've basically dropped support for it and it squeezes a lot of units in to a fairly tight map. Looking to be able to put more real life knowledge of armoured battle group tactics in to a game.

MonkeyLibFront fucked around with this message at 14:02 on May 18, 2020

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«96 »