Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
FrenchDude
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:27 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by FrenchDude » Sat May 23, 2020 12:33 pm

travling_canuck wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 12:02 pm

I think you've identified the heart of the issue. The social structure and military structure of these societies differed greatly. Why the soldiers were fighting and what they were fighting for also varied greatly. But how much of a difference did it really make on the battlefield?

The Superior vs Average vs Raw distinctions are a great way to cover the huge breadth of societies and the differing motivations of the soldiers and distill it down to a single set of rules that covers a crazily long period of time.

From the perspective of being a commander of those armies, however, to me one army feels very much the same as another in FOG2. I may need to use my units differently depending on their makeup and the makeup of my opponent, but command-and-control feels identical.

So from purely a game variety perspective, I'd like to see some armies play differently than others in terms of how I, as the player, have to manage my troops.
I think that’s exactly how I feel about the mod too. Moreover, we are in the early stages of the mod. The anarchy values can be tweaked, warbands and legionaries could end up having closer « anarchy » values than the ones they supposedly have right now.
In my opinion, we have to be careful not to go into the stereotype that Gallic style armies were made of completely undisciplined « barbarians » with no sense of tactics and discipline whatsoever (something that isn’t the aim of Stockwellpete and Schweetness at all I think) while still making a difference between a disciplined, professional army (Roman legionaries) and other less drilled, less « professional » troops of the time.

The Roman legionaries/high quality drilled professional troops of other nations must not be treated as super-men either.
I think that well balanced Annarchy Values, Anarchy “triggers” (other units anarchy charging nearby, etc...) and the changes in the way that the command structure works could make the overall gameplay very interesting without being historically inaccurate and frustrating. It will add more flavour to the game and will make the player less of an omniscient god with never failing plans

I’m especially interedsted in seeing how it will play out against the AI ! I want to have more challenge against it without needing to be outnumbered

Athos1660
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Athos1660 » Sat May 23, 2020 2:08 pm

travling_canuck wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 12:02 pm
From the perspective of being a commander of those armies, however, to me one army feels very much the same as another in FOG2. I may need to use my units differently depending on their makeup and the makeup of my opponent, but command-and-control feels identical.

So from purely a game variety perspective, I'd like to see some armies play differently than others in terms of how I, as the player, have to manage my troops.
I fully understand this.
This certainly is partly due to the fact that the game is based on broad unit types, ie units that behave identically whatever the army. That's a core rule. The game is an abstraction.
Role playing/references to history might also help.
FrenchDude wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 12:33 pm
(...)
Assuming you're French, there's a quite interesting docudrama about the Gallic Wars (in French) you've certainly already known : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqbSQD5M03w

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by 76mm » Sat May 23, 2020 3:28 pm

Schweetness101 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:10 pm
-lights are ordered to charge non lights
-light foot are ordered to charge anything other than light foot
Are these facing and/or terrain dependent? Seems like it would be pretty easy to get light troops to attack a line from the rear in a forest?

FrenchDude
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:27 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by FrenchDude » Sat May 23, 2020 4:05 pm

Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:08 pm
FrenchDude wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 12:33 pm
(...)
Assuming you're French, there's a quite interesting docudrama about the Gallic Wars (in French) you've certainly already known : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqbSQD5M03w
Yes I am french ! I took a look at your link. At first when I started the video, after watching the first minutes I thought it was going to be like many documentaries made for TV channels, with bad art style and the usual story telling, but this docudrama looks good, the art style is interesting, and the gallic point of view feels new and original ! I like it ! I'll watch the whole documentary later when I have more time, it's a good discovery, thank you

Coincidentally, I've also been watching stuff about the Gallic Wars and roman politics in the first century BCE on youtube the last couple of days, it's in english :

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLH ... R9vbeuiY-A

Historia Civilis is the name of the youtube channel. Very entertaining. The things that Roman politicians did to each other are even more thrilling than a Game of Thrones finale :lol:

Athos1660
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Athos1660 » Sat May 23, 2020 4:27 pm

FrenchDude wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:05 pm
Yes I am french !
That's what I assumed from some 'é' left here and there :-)
FrenchDude wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:05 pm
I took a look at your link. At first when I started the video, after watching the first minutes I thought it was going to be like many documentaries made for TV channels, with bad art style and the usual story telling, but this docudrama looks good, the art style is interesting, and the gallic point of view feels new and original !
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. It takes time to get used to the art style.
But there are also some interesting facts and artefacts.
And the storytelling is good.
FrenchDude wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:05 pm
Coincidentally, I've also been watching stuff about the Gallic Wars and roman politics in the first century BCE on youtube the last couple of days, it's in english :

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_vLH ... R9vbeuiY-A

Historia Civilis is the name of the youtube channel. Very entertaining. The things that Roman politicians did to each other are even more thrilling than a Game of Thrones finale :lol:
Interesting ! I will look at it.

Schweetness101
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Schweetness101 » Sat May 23, 2020 4:36 pm

one way to look at this is, currently, warband and warband centric armies are not all that popular or competitive in the leagues, and are not that easy to use well even in singleplayer. They also, like traveling_canuck said, kind of feel like playing any other impact foot army, almost just like a worse version of Romans. Perhaps they are due for a bit of an rebalance?

What I mean is, if we made them even a bit harder to use well with high anarchy, and made their gameplay and command style quite distinct because of it, that combined with their already mediocre performance could justify an increase in POA. Either an anarchy charge bonus, or perhaps an increase to deep impact poa bonus (it's only +10 POA right now).

What if warband were anarchy prone, but had a +25 to deep impact POA and/or an extra chance to increase +25 to impact poa if anarchy charging? that might make them worth the risk?

Schweetness101
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Schweetness101 » Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm

76mm wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 3:28 pm
Schweetness101 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:10 pm
-lights are ordered to charge non lights
-light foot are ordered to charge anything other than light foot
Are these facing and/or terrain dependent? Seems like it would be pretty easy to get light troops to attack a line from the rear in a forest?
no, because as far as I know that was not part of the FOG1 ruleset, and I just took that as a starting point, but it's only a starting point. I would like to make a larger variety of conditions for refusal to charge.

Some exceptions might include:

-Lights won't refuse to charge fragmented or severely disordered enemies.
-chance to refuse goes down if you can make a flank attack
-etc...

I do like the chance to refuse charge for light horse vs non lights because, among other things, it will make you hesitate to use them to attack non light cav and do the kind of cheap forced turn around to get a flank thing, because trying that runs the risk of refusing orders and basically losing that turn for that light horse unit.

what other conditions should units have an increased or decreased chance to refuse charge in? what kind of percent values should we try?

Athos1660
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Athos1660 » Sat May 23, 2020 4:49 pm

Schweetness101 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm
I do like the chance to refuse charge for light horse vs non lights because, among other things, it will make you hesitate to use them to attack non light cav and do the kind of cheap forced turn around to get a flank thing, because trying that runs the risk of refusing orders and basically losing that turn for that light horse unit.

what other conditions should units have an increased or decreased chance to refuse charge in? what kind of percent values should we try?
Non-light cavalry should have an increased chance to refuse to charge non-light infantry head-on : 150% during the Antiquity, 125% during early MA, 115% during late Middle Age.

(sorry chaps, I had to suggest it :-) )

Schweetness101
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Schweetness101 » Mon May 25, 2020 12:17 am

Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:49 pm
Schweetness101 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm
I do like the chance to refuse charge for light horse vs non lights because, among other things, it will make you hesitate to use them to attack non light cav and do the kind of cheap forced turn around to get a flank thing, because trying that runs the risk of refusing orders and basically losing that turn for that light horse unit.

what other conditions should units have an increased or decreased chance to refuse charge in? what kind of percent values should we try?
Non-light cavalry should have an increased chance to refuse to charge non-light infantry head-on : 150% during the Antiquity, 125% during early MA, 115% during late Middle Age.

(sorry chaps, I had to suggest it :-) )
there are a few variations on this:

-no chance to refuse if the charge would cause an autodrop/be a flank on an occupied enemy
-lower chance to refuse if it's a flank/rear attack on an unoccupied enemy
-higher chance to refuse if it's a frontal attack on an enemy, occupied or not
-no chance to refuse if the enemy is fragmented
-higher chance to refuse if the enemy is non-fragmented spear or pike infantry specifically

also
-light foot will not refuse to charge severely disordered enemies, or at all disordered light cav

Athos1660
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Athos1660 » Mon May 25, 2020 8:39 am

Schweetness101 wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 12:17 am
Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:49 pm
Schweetness101 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm
I do like the chance to refuse charge for light horse vs non lights because, among other things, it will make you hesitate to use them to attack non light cav and do the kind of cheap forced turn around to get a flank thing, because trying that runs the risk of refusing orders and basically losing that turn for that light horse unit.

what other conditions should units have an increased or decreased chance to refuse charge in? what kind of percent values should we try?
Non-light cavalry should have an increased chance to refuse to charge non-light infantry head-on : 150% during the Antiquity, 125% during early MA, 115% during late Middle Age.

(sorry chaps, I had to suggest it :-) )
there are a few variations on this:

-no chance to refuse if the charge would cause an autodrop/be a flank on an occupied enemy
-lower chance to refuse if it's a flank/rear attack on an unoccupied enemy
-higher chance to refuse if it's a frontal attack on an enemy, occupied or not
-no chance to refuse if the enemy is fragmented
-higher chance to refuse if the enemy is non-fragmented spear or pike infantry specifically

also
-light foot will not refuse to charge severely disordered enemies, or at all disordered light cav
I was referring to the most basic case (when there are some reasons to refuse to charge) : frontal attacks on non-occupied steady non-light infantry by steady non-light cavalry (maybe with some tweaking for some/all Superior units, such as cataphracts, Alexander's Companions... those coud be logical 'exemptions').

PS (to improve my english) : doesn't 'head on' means 'frontal(ly)' ?

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by 76mm » Mon May 25, 2020 1:13 pm

Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:45 am
However, I (for one, not for us) just think that 720 men of a warband unit have as many reasons to follow (or not) the orders of their dad, village chief, clan chief, tribal leader or patron than legionnaires to obey (or not) their hierarchical superior, even if these reasons are different. Or at least, that the differences shouldn't be huge.
I think the point might be that while soldiers might not be any less likely to follow orders from their chief, their chief might be less inclined to follow orders from the C-in-C than in more formal armies.
Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:45 am
Anarchy charge, as you depict it, risk increasing this difference and thus creating imbalances between armies :
Yeah, I think that the costs of troops likely to anarchy will have to be slashed drastically. Even if "only" 25% of your line anarchies, it would open gaping holes in your line that would seem to make defeat almost inevitable unless you have a very significant numerical advantage.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10858
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by stockwellpete » Mon May 25, 2020 1:27 pm

76mm wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:13 pm
Yeah, I think that the costs of troops likely to anarchy will have to be slashed drastically. Even if "only" 25% of your line anarchies, it would open gaping holes in your line that would seem to make defeat almost inevitable unless you have a very significant numerical advantage.
I am not so sure about this. The units that will anarchy in the mod are only the ones that are not fully moved during a players turn and which remain in charge range of the enemy at the end of the turn. Good players should experience very little indiscipline in their army even if a lot of their units have a relatively high anarchy rating.

Athos1660
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Athos1660 » Mon May 25, 2020 2:15 pm

76mm wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:13 pm
Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:45 am
However, I (for one, not for us) just think that 720 men of a warband unit have as many reasons to follow (or not) the orders of their dad, village chief, clan chief, tribal leader or patron than legionnaires to obey (or not) their hierarchical superior, even if these reasons are different. Or at least, that the differences shouldn't be huge.
I think the point might be that while soldiers might not be any less likely to follow orders from their chief, their chief might be less inclined to follow orders from the C-in-C than in more formal armies.
We are talking about something we don't know, just a bias. However, that might also depend on what we are talking about :
  • Are we talking about a war between two gallic tribes ? Were gallic less committed to their tribe than say ancient Greeks to their city-state when Athens fought Sparta ? btw those two civilisations share in common their unwillingness to unify.
  • Are we talking about the Gallic Wars and Alesia where a Roman army fought an heterogeneous army of several tribes whose alliance was fragile. This might affect strategy and alliance first but on the battlefield on the tactical level ? A tribe is several thousands of men. During the battle of Gergovia, an Arverni oppidum, most Gallic were Arverni and they won.
76mm wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:13 pm
Athos1660 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:45 am
Anarchy charge, as you depict it, risk increasing this difference and thus creating imbalances between armies :
Yeah, I think that the costs of troops likely to anarchy will have to be slashed drastically. Even if "only" 25% of your line anarchies, it would open gaping holes in your line that would seem to make defeat almost inevitable unless you have a very significant numerical advantage.
I may be mistaken but I think that the quality of the warbands and such (ie lots of average units and only a few superior ones) already reflects their poorer training, advice and discipline than say the Romans, which is a good thing. So if discipline is to be randomised via anarchy charges and if Gallic and such were to be those who would suffer it the most, their base quality should logically be increased.

But there is another way of looking at it.
My question has never been : "why should warbands be subject to anarchy charges ?"
but : "why should 99% of the Roman units be exempted from them ?"
as I have nothing against anarchy charge.

IMO, if Roman units were subject to anarchy charges at the same rate as Gallic & Co, it would be funnier (when playing Romans) and it wouldn't increase an undocumented bias that might lead to an imbalance in game. So cost and troop qualities could remain the same as in the Vanilla Game.

However, all this is just for the sake of discussion.
I am a fan of the Vanilla game.
And this mod could always be modded.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by 76mm » Tue May 26, 2020 2:22 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:27 pm
I am not so sure about this. The units that will anarchy in the mod are only the ones that are not fully moved during a players turn and which remain in charge range of the enemy at the end of the turn. Good players should experience very little indiscipline in their army even if a lot of their units have a relatively high anarchy rating.
Frankly I don't play as warbands-heavy armies very often, although many of the armies I use contain significant numbers of warbands. I guess I don't consider myself a good player, but it is not uncommon for me to have one wing of my line on defense while the other attacks, or in some cases, for the whole line of foot to remain on defense while I wait for the cav fight on the wings to conclude. I don't think it is realistic to assume that all warbands will be attacking all the time.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by 76mm » Tue May 26, 2020 2:38 pm

Athos1660 wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:15 pm
We are talking about something we don't know, just a bias. However, that might also depend on what we are talking about :
  • Are we talking about a war between two gallic tribes ? Were gallic less committed to their tribe than say ancient Greeks to their city-state when Athens fought Sparta ? btw those two civilisations share in common their unwillingness to unify.
Actually I had in mind your second scenario, below, but in this case I don't think the point is how "committed" to their tribe or polis the soldiers were, but rather their military traditions, including command and discipline. I don't think that strictly maintaining a line was as necessary for most tribal skirmishing as for hoplite combat, so you have to wonder how many of the tribal groups even practiced this kind of thing on a regular basis?
Athos1660 wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:15 pm
  • Are we talking about the Gallic Wars and Alesia where a Roman army fought an heterogeneous army of several tribes whose alliance was fragile. This might affect strategy and alliance first but on the battlefield on the tactical level ? A tribe is several thousands of men. During the battle of Gergovia, an Arverni oppidum, most Gallic were Arverni and they won.
I don't see why battlefield tactics would be immune from the effects of a heterogenous army, in fact it seems like that is where many of the issues of poor inter-tribal coordination would be most apparent.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10858
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by stockwellpete » Tue May 26, 2020 2:48 pm

76mm wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:22 pm
I don't think it is realistic to assume that all warbands will be attacking all the time.
Warbands can still defend, but there will be a 30% chance of an anarchy charge if you do not fully move a warband unit and an enemy unit remains in charge range at the end of a turn. A warband unit can still defend a steep hill with difficult slopes if the army is able to keep enemy skirmishers away -with chariots or cavalry, perhaps.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10858
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by stockwellpete » Tue May 26, 2020 2:50 pm

Athos1660 wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:15 pm
My question has never been : "why should warbands be subject to anarchy charges ?"
but : "why should 99% of the Roman units be exempted from them ?"
You have made that 99% figure up.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by 76mm » Tue May 26, 2020 2:54 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Warbands can still defend, but there will be a 30% chance of an anarchy charge if you do not fully move a warband unit and an enemy unit remains in charge range at the end of a turn.
I think planning to defend where there is a 30% chance of each of your warbands anarchy charging would be...futile.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4795
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue May 26, 2020 4:44 pm

Not sure if this is within the bounds of possibility to mod, but is there any way on could assign an attribute to a general that could be toggled on a per turn basis. What I’m getting at is a command “stance” for a general and troops in his command and in command range.
At the start of the turn one could change the generals stance, which would apply the next turn.
This would be used in conjunction with the anarchy rules.

So perhaps 3 simple stances: defend, advance, assault.

Defend would allow shooting, changing face. It could also invoke a 1 grid command movement forward (ie group movement ). No charging allowed. Chances to anarchy would to zero except if triggered by missle fire.

Advance: units can shoot and move up to 66.7 of their ap’s. They can charge. Anarchy chance moderate/low.

Assault: full move Ap’s, charge and shoot anarchy chance would be high.
( to prevent players alway using this as a default perhaps have a minimum 1 grid movement for units and if they don’t then very high anarchy toward closest enemy, even if outside charge range)

So the only other things would be what about units out of command, and what about generals killed or in cc....

To keep it simple units out of command highest chance to anarchy/ refuse to charge.

Death of a general: default orders next turn to assault.

General in cc. : can change stance but two turn delay.

Again in case not clear this would be used in conjunction with the anarchy rules as per this thread. It likely would not be something that could be activated for the Ai.

Schweetness101
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

Re: Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

Post by Schweetness101 » Tue May 26, 2020 4:53 pm

76mm wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:22 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:27 pm
I am not so sure about this. The units that will anarchy in the mod are only the ones that are not fully moved during a players turn and which remain in charge range of the enemy at the end of the turn. Good players should experience very little indiscipline in their army even if a lot of their units have a relatively high anarchy rating.
Frankly I don't play as warbands-heavy armies very often, although many of the armies I use contain significant numbers of warbands. I guess I don't consider myself a good player, but it is not uncommon for me to have one wing of my line on defense while the other attacks, or in some cases, for the whole line of foot to remain on defense while I wait for the cav fight on the wings to conclude. I don't think it is realistic to assume that all warbands will be attacking all the time.
I think I'd like to look at doing a few adjustments to warbands in general (not as much of an overhaul as the pikemod, just a few poa changes maybe), because, in addition to you, a lot of other players in competitive games tend to not like using them (often avoiding using them even when it's just a few available in a larger list, and almost never taking warband armies) because they just kind of suck for cost. Maybe the anarchy changes combined with some deep impact poa changes could make for a more distinct and interesting and even competitive warband army style of play. I kind of talked about that earlier, maybe in a different thread, i can't keep track anymore.

with a skirmisher screen you can help prevent warbands from anarchy charging

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”