Unit Costing Anomalies

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Paul59
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by Paul59 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:50 am

LorneMalvo wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 am
I can't find the answer to this question so I guess this thread is better than starting a new one.

Regarding Italian infantry versus Phoenician style foot costings in the Carthaginian lists; they both have the same unit description but different costs. Why is Italian inf more expensive even though (at least in the Hannibal in Africa list) the unit size is slightly smaller?

What am I missing?
Hi,

They do not have exactly the same unit description. The Phoenician style foot are unmanoeuvrable, ie; you don't get the free turn after moving two squares, and so cost 3 points less.
Field of Glory 2 Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, and Wolves at the Gate.

TT Mod Creator

LorneMalvo
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:56 am

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by LorneMalvo » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:04 am

Paul59 wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:50 am
LorneMalvo wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 am
I can't find the answer to this question so I guess this thread is better than starting a new one.

Regarding Italian infantry versus Phoenician style foot costings in the Carthaginian lists; they both have the same unit description but different costs. Why is Italian inf more expensive even though (at least in the Hannibal in Africa list) the unit size is slightly smaller?

What am I missing?
Hi,

They do not have exactly the same unit description. The Phoenician style foot are unmanoeuvrable, ie; you don't get the free turn after moving two squares, and so cost 3 points less.
Knew I must be missing something, thanks. That makes sense now.

GamerMan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by GamerMan » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:20 am
GamerMan wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:46 am
One thing that really bugs me is that armour is supposed to help against arrows, but in this game it usually has no effect at all, and often outright harms your units against arrow fire.

For example, take lancer cav. If superior unprotected lancer cav would take 10 cost worth of damage from a volley of arrows, protected would take 12*.84=10.08, or about 1% more damage in cost per volley of arrows. Superior armoured takes 16*.72=11.52, or about 15% more than the protected and unprotected variety. only cataphracts take less damage from arrow fire (13% less than protected, 25% less than armoured). The numbers are even worse for LS + Sword cavalry.
Reduced casualties means a reduced chance of having to take a Cohesion Test, which is far more important than actual casualties.
I did consider that, but again. If it takes 7/6 the number of shots to force a 64 point unit to take a test than a 48 point unit (this is a bit inaccurate due to random numbers resulting in "overshooting" your target by up to an average of half a volley, but assuming good players can mitigate all of the effect actually makes armoured cavalry look better by comparison, since (7/6x+.5)/(x+.5) is a lower ratio than 7/6). then you are in effect, forcing 15% more points worth of units to take a cohesion test per volley with armoured than with protected.

Now, as you pointed out, there is still reason to get armour, since average armoured cavalry is less vulnerable than superior protected cavalry, and just as good on melee checks, but they also are worse on all morale checks, and on impact, so it still doesn't seem to balance out to me. I think armour should be cheaper across the board or better vs arrows.

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by MVP7 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:08 pm

GamerMan wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:20 am
GamerMan wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:46 am
One thing that really bugs me is that armour is supposed to help against arrows, but in this game it usually has no effect at all, and often outright harms your units against arrow fire.

For example, take lancer cav. If superior unprotected lancer cav would take 10 cost worth of damage from a volley of arrows, protected would take 12*.84=10.08, or about 1% more damage in cost per volley of arrows. Superior armoured takes 16*.72=11.52, or about 15% more than the protected and unprotected variety. only cataphracts take less damage from arrow fire (13% less than protected, 25% less than armoured). The numbers are even worse for LS + Sword cavalry.
Reduced casualties means a reduced chance of having to take a Cohesion Test, which is far more important than actual casualties.
I did consider that, but again. If it takes 7/6 the number of shots to force a 64 point unit to take a test than a 48 point unit (this is a bit inaccurate due to random numbers resulting in "overshooting" your target by up to an average of half a volley, but assuming good players can mitigate all of the effect actually makes armoured cavalry look better by comparison, since (7/6x+.5)/(x+.5) is a lower ratio than 7/6). then you are in effect, forcing 15% more points worth of units to take a cohesion test per volley with armoured than with protected.

Now, as you pointed out, there is still reason to get armour, since average armoured cavalry is less vulnerable than superior protected cavalry, and just as good on melee checks, but they also are worse on all morale checks, and on impact, so it still doesn't seem to balance out to me. I think armour should be cheaper across the board or better vs arrows.
It could be good if armour had a slightly stronger effect against arrows. It feels like the damage reduction usually isn't big enough to affect the number of volleys needed to start the cohesion checks.

Another option could be changing how even miniscule damage triggers cohesion check every time after the threshold for the turn has been reached.

GamerMan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by GamerMan » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:19 pm

actually it doesn't. the notice pops up again every time, but the same die roll is kept. the only reason a morale check passed would turn into a fail is because a new -1 modifier brought it below the threshold (16% casualty in one turn, 75% unit strength reached, et cetera). so if i do 10% unit strength and they pass the morale check with a 7, another volley brings it to 13%, that same 7 is looked at and they still pass. another volley brings it to 16%, a new -1 modifier is added to the same die roll. 7-1=6. Therefore, the unit has now failed its morale check and thus drops a cohesion level.

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by MVP7 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:15 am

Really? I did not know that. In that case the armour already does more against ranged attacks than I thought.

The effect could still be a bit higher but Increasing the armour efficiency too much would require overhauling the entire balance of bows, crossbows and armour price. If the maximum reduction was somewhere around 60% for fully armoured then Armoured would be around 33% I think, which would make both more likely to make a difference in number of strong volleys they can take before tests.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am

GamerMan wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:19 pm
MVP7 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:15 am
Another option could be changing how even miniscule damage triggers cohesion check every time after the threshold for the turn has been reached.
actually it doesn't. the notice pops up again every time, but the same die roll is kept. the only reason a morale check passed would turn into a fail is because a new -1 modifier brought it below the threshold (16% casualty in one turn, 75% unit strength reached, et cetera). so if i do 10% unit strength and they pass the morale check with a 7, another volley brings it to 13%, that same 7 is looked at and they still pass. another volley brings it to 16%, a new -1 modifier is added to the same die roll. 7-1=6. Therefore, the unit has now failed its morale check and thus drops a cohesion level.
This is to simulate one single cohesion test being taken after all shooting has been completed, which is what happens in the tabletop game. The technique used in FOG2 allows the computer game to be more immediate, but avoids multiple independent cohesion tests - which would drastically increase the chances of a fail and completely unbalance the system.

Essentially, when further shooting damage is suffered after the initial cohesion test, the system just tots up the modifiers again and sees if that changes the result.

This does mean that once a shooting cohesion test has been been passed in a turn, further shooting at the same unit is relatively unlikely to cause a cohesion drop (because it can only do so if the score in the first test was only just above the pass threshold), and it may be more efficient to switch addition potential shooters to a different target - unless the aim is to autobreak the target, or disrupting that unit is so critical that any chance of doing so, however low, is worth taking.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

GamerMan
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by GamerMan » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:06 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 am
This does mean that once a shooting cohesion test has been been passed in a turn, further shooting at the same unit is relatively unlikely to cause a cohesion drop (because it can only do so if the score in the first test was only just above the pass threshold), and it may be more efficient to switch addition potential shooters to a different target - unless the aim is to autobreak the target, or disrupting that unit is so critical that any chance of doing so, however low, is worth taking.
Technically this part is also not always or even usually true. For example, average troops with a +1 to morale need a 5 or lower to fail the morale check. that is a 10/36=27.78% chance. That leaves 26/36 chance of succeeding. if you then shoot them to have a -1 penalty, this comes up 5/26 times 19.23%. However, since it takes 10% volley damage to deal 27.78, but only 6% to get that -1 for a 19.23% chance.... 6/10*27.78=16.67%, the -1 is more volley efficient than another 10% (in other words, your chances are better if you aim to bring 2 units to 16% [assuming they don't fail the initial 10% threshold] than 3 units to 10%).

now, there are more factors, like how far over you go, and averages of over 6%.... but in general, if you were just to follow the 10% or 16% rule, the 16% rule is the better one, since it is more efficient on base, and also will give you accidental -1's from unit thresholds more often, and is much better vs superior, and much much better vs elites. shooting at raw troops, 10% is more efficient.

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by deve » Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:47 am

What about scythed chariots. They are so cost ineffective and difficult to use so no one takes them (at least in competitive battles).
I know there was discussion somewhere about it already but I did not get why you guys want to have unit in game which is only used in preset historical battles.

Why not to either decrease its price or increase impact POA (this would keep nature of this unchanged: all or nothing type of unit - it either punches whole in enemy formation or goes wasted) ?

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:16 am

deve wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:47 am
What about scythed chariots. They are so cost ineffective and difficult to use so no one takes them (at least in competitive battles).
I know there was discussion somewhere about it already but I did not get why you guys want to have unit in game which is only used in preset historical battles.

Why not to either decrease its price or increase impact POA (this would keep nature of this unchanged: all or nothing type of unit - it either punches whole in enemy formation or goes wasted) ?
They are deliberately not cost effective. This is a design decision. We don't want gimmick weapons that were usually ineffective historically to become good picks.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by deve » Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:37 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:16 am
deve wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:47 am
What about scythed chariots. They are so cost ineffective and difficult to use so no one takes them (at least in competitive battles).
I know there was discussion somewhere about it already but I did not get why you guys want to have unit in game which is only used in preset historical battles.

Why not to either decrease its price or increase impact POA (this would keep nature of this unchanged: all or nothing type of unit - it either punches whole in enemy formation or goes wasted) ?
They are deliberately not cost effective. This is a design decision. We don't want gimmick weapons that were usually ineffective historically to become good picks.
Now you have different anomaly though. This unit was definitely used historically and it was used in alot of major battles by Persians and Pontics but in FoG2 it is never used in MP battles. If they were that useless don't you think that generals would have stopped using them earlier instead of keeeping to use them for more than hundred years by different states (Achemenidian Persia, Seleucids, Pontus) ?
So you do not really achieve historical accuracy with yoru current approach either.
It does not need to become a no brainer pick but making it somewhat effective in certain situation would benefit the game play and historical accuracy of armies that we use in MP.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:32 am

One thing that has not yet been discussed in this thread is whether Mixed units like the Assyrian mixed foot units are undercosted.

Their close combat ability is exactly the same as if they were not mixed units, in addition to which they have significant shooting capability.

They currently cost 42 points, while the equivalent unmixed light spear, sword infantry cost 36 points.

Should they cost more, and if so, how much more?
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by MVP7 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:37 pm

The price isn't too bad when compared to Sparabara but it is a bit low for both when compared to massed archers. In any case I don't think the price for Mixed Assyrian Mediums or Sparabara should go over 50.

Paul59
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by Paul59 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:10 pm

Now you mention it, they do seem a bit off when compared to the Sparabara.

Sparabara cost 45 points, the Assyrian Medium Foot 42. There are two differences between them:

1) The Sparabara shoot at 100% effect, while the Assyrians only shoot at 67% (Correct me if I am wrong on that one, but I think you have said before that 50% Bows actually shoot at 67%).

2) The Assyrians are 100% Swordsmen, so are better in melee than Sparabara who are only 50% Swordsmen.

So currently we are saying that the 33% extra bows not only cancels out the melee disadvantage, but is worth another 3 points on top of that. I am not sure if that feels right.

Bearing in mind that we think there is nothing wrong with Sparabara costs and effectiveness, especially against their traditional foes the Hoplites, I think the problem maybe with the points reduction for 50% bows.

Foot Bows cost 2 points per Unitsize, so 50% Bows are costed at 1 per Unitsize (2 X 0.5). But if they are actually firing at 67% effect, surely they should be costed at 1.34 per Unitsize (2 v 0.67)? Maybe round up to 1.5 per Unitsize, that would make them a total of 45 points per unit, the same as Sparabara.


cheers

Paul
Field of Glory 2 Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, and Wolves at the Gate.

TT Mod Creator

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by MVP7 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:37 pm

Personally I don't think the Sparabara is worth less than Assyrian style mix. The sparabaras', not to mention immortals', firepower is very impressive and I think it at least cancels the melee disadvantage as neither unit type shines in impact or melee and largely relies on the ranged attacks having disrupted their opponents.

I think more important price to look at is the massed bowmen that suffer from the "Indian nerf" and other penalties but cost 36 points so for just 6 or 9 more points (17% or 25% extra price) you can get rid of most bowmen penalties and and get some decent melee capabilities and protection.

My cost calculations might be off here but if (for infantry) the cost of mixed 50% bows was increased by 1 point and the cost of 100% bows by 0.5 points then both Assyrian medium mix and Sparabara would cost 48 points and immortals 78 points which seems reasonable to me. These rules could have some possibly undesirable effects on units outside the current time periods though.

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by melm » Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:45 pm

The basic cost of Assyrian medium mix is 5 per 100 UnitSize for “protected and average”, so the total basic cost is 5*6 = 30.
The bow ability is 2 per 100 UnitSize.
The sword ability is 1 per 100 UnitSize.
So Assyiran medium mixed is basic + ability = 30 + 2*6*(2/3) + 1*6 = 44. which is not 42, if we use 67% shooting effect.

Where am I wrong?

Or it is 30 + 2*6*(1/2) + 6 = 42, which we use 50% shooting effect?

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:02 pm

melm wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:45 pm
The basic cost of Assyrian medium mix is 5 per 100 UnitSize for “protected and average”, so the total basic cost is 5*6 = 30.
The bow ability is 2 per 100 UnitSize.
The sword ability is 1 per 100 UnitSize.
So Assyiran medium mixed is basic + ability = 30 + 2*6*(2/3) + 1*6 = 44. which is not 42, if we use 67% shooting effect.

Where am I wrong?

Or it is 30 + 2*6*(1/2) + 6 = 42, which we use 50% shooting effect?
It is currently costed for 50% as there are 50% bows.

At long range both mixed and pure bow units effectively shoot with 50% of their bows, so at long range the mixed unit really does shoot 50% as effectively as the pure bow unit.

At close range pure units effectively shoot with 75% of their bows, but mixed units shoot with all of theirs, so at short range the mixed unit shoots 67% as effectively as the pure bow unit.

Obviously short range shooting is more important, so it would be quite reasonable to up the cost to 44.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Paul59
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by Paul59 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:13 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:37 pm
Personally I don't think the Sparabara is worth less than Assyrian style mix. The sparabaras', not to mention immortals', firepower is very impressive and I think it at least cancels the melee disadvantage as neither unit type shines in impact or melee and largely relies on the ranged attacks having disrupted their opponents.

I think more important price to look at is the massed bowmen that suffer from the "Indian nerf" and other penalties but cost 36 points so for just 6 or 9 more points (17% or 25% extra price) you can get rid of most bowmen penalties and and get some decent melee capabilities and protection.

My cost calculations might be off here but if (for infantry) the cost of mixed 50% bows was increased by 1 point and the cost of 100% bows by 0.5 points then both Assyrian medium mix and Sparabara would cost 48 points and immortals 78 points which seems reasonable to me. These rules could have some possibly undesirable effects on units outside the current time periods though.
Where did I say that Sparabara should cost less than Assyrian Medium Foot? I said they should both be 45 points.

Your proposals also ignore the fact that Richard has repeatedly said in the past that Sparabara (and Immortals) are "in a good place", specifically as measured against their traditional opponents, the Hoplites. So I would guess that he would not want to tinker with the points cost of Sparabara and Immortals.
melm wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:45 pm
The basic cost of Assyrian medium mix is 5 per 100 UnitSize for “protected and average”, so the total basic cost is 5*6 = 30.
The bow ability is 2 per 100 UnitSize.
The sword ability is 1 per 100 UnitSize.
So Assyiran medium mixed is basic + ability = 30 + 2*6*(2/3) + 1*6 = 44. which is not 42, if we use 67% shooting effect.

Where am I wrong?

Or it is 30 + 2*6*(1/2) + 6 = 42, which we use 50% shooting effect?
I don't know what your point is.

The Assyrian Medium Foot are currently 42 points, because the 50% bows are costed at 1 per Unitsize.

My point was that if they are indeed firing at 67 % effect the 50% Bows should be costed at 1.34 points per Unitsize, or round it up to 1.5 to make it simpler. That would then give 44 or 45 points depending upon which value is used.
Field of Glory 2 Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, and Wolves at the Gate.

TT Mod Creator

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22519
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:18 pm

Paul59 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:13 pm
MVP7 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:37 pm
Personally I don't think the Sparabara is worth less than Assyrian style mix. The sparabaras', not to mention immortals', firepower is very impressive and I think it at least cancels the melee disadvantage as neither unit type shines in impact or melee and largely relies on the ranged attacks having disrupted their opponents.

I think more important price to look at is the massed bowmen that suffer from the "Indian nerf" and other penalties but cost 36 points so for just 6 or 9 more points (17% or 25% extra price) you can get rid of most bowmen penalties and and get some decent melee capabilities and protection.

My cost calculations might be off here but if (for infantry) the cost of mixed 50% bows was increased by 1 point and the cost of 100% bows by 0.5 points then both Assyrian medium mix and Sparabara would cost 48 points and immortals 78 points which seems reasonable to me. These rules could have some possibly undesirable effects on units outside the current time periods though.
Where did I say that Sparabara should cost less than Assyrian Medium Foot? I said they should both be 45 points.

Your proposals also ignore the fact that Richard has repeatedly said in the past that Sparabara (and Immortals) are "in a good place", specifically as measured against their traditional opponents, the Hoplites. So I would guess that he would not want to tinker with the points cost of Sparabara and Immortals.
melm wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:45 pm
The basic cost of Assyrian medium mix is 5 per 100 UnitSize for “protected and average”, so the total basic cost is 5*6 = 30.
The bow ability is 2 per 100 UnitSize.
The sword ability is 1 per 100 UnitSize.
So Assyiran medium mixed is basic + ability = 30 + 2*6*(2/3) + 1*6 = 44. which is not 42, if we use 67% shooting effect.

Where am I wrong?

Or it is 30 + 2*6*(1/2) + 6 = 42, which we use 50% shooting effect?
I don't know what your point is.

The Assyrian Medium Foot are currently 42 points, because the 50% bows are costed at 1 per Unitsize.

My point was that if they are indeed firing at 67 % effect the 50% Bows should be costed at 1.34 points per Unitsize, or round it up to 1.5 to make it simpler. That would then give 44 or 45 points depending upon which value is used.
I think they would still be very good value at 45.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Unit Costing Anomalies

Post by melm » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:21 pm

Paul59 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:13 pm
I don't know what your point is.

The Assyrian Medium Foot are currently 42 points, because the 50% bows are costed at 1 per Unitsize.

My point was that if they are indeed firing at 67 % effect the 50% Bows should be costed at 1.34 points per Unitsize, or round it up to 1.5 to make it simpler. That would then give 44 or 45 points depending upon which value is used.
I try to replicate the process to get the original price 42 from my understanding and to make sure my understanding is correct.

Now I understand 50%bow is not shooting like 67% but comparatively 67% effective in short range if comparing with pure bow unit, which I think due to massed archer nerf.
Last edited by melm on Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”