Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 43

Thread: What I find interesting...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sandy Ego, California
    Posts
    1,883

    What I find interesting...

    What I find interesting about XCom is, even though it tends to be repetitive in many ways, every new start offers a different perspective, opportunity and challenges. With over 400 hours played so far and with innumerable starts (and one complete playthough on Classic) it still amazes me how the game offers a different feel from the outset. Some begin with good subterranean steam locations that make the initial infrastructure builds a no-brainer. Other starts make you sweat to keep power balanced with income and there is never enough of either to go around. Then too there are the missions. Though the maps are usually the same, the enemies and actual play on the map tends to be different each time. Sometimes I can send a team into a map and get one outcome and the next time it is entirely different - and not so much to my liking. My tactics tend to be the same from game to game so I know that is not the issue. Finally, there is the aspect of which nations are panicking and how much, how soon. That impacts where you go, how much you gain from the mission and what you have left over afterwards to progress with, both in personnel and in battlefield pickups like alloys.

    All in all, it keeps me interested and the juices flowing. I would welcome even more variety and less certainty in the research and with respect to how the infrastructure (engineers/workshops/satellites) evolves because that part of the strategy layer tends to get repetitive because there are only a couple of ways to play that effectively.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    I'm finding something similar. Plenty of replay value for me, because each time is sufficiently different.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,559
    Indeed. Even if it seems the same, in reality subtle changes make everything different. Even if you have played the same map, different aliens in different locations make all the difference.

    I find this game to have a lot of replay value. Even if I would like to see more maps, more tech three, more new gameplay additions. However, even as it now, it's very interesting to start a new game. Even if I keep getting slaughtered in Classic once the mutons arrive, I still feel like starting a new game, instead of "never again".

    My current Classic Ironman, I got very good situation at the start. Almost no panic in any country. Only thing that could have made the start even better would have been steam block at the first level, instead of third...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    Ive never agreed with people complaining about lack of replay ability with this game. I mean sure if you do't like it, you wont play it again. But if you do enjoy squad tactics and being forced to adjust due to some bad luck, the game is really great.

    I had stopped at classic ironman, but after seeing some videos on youtube of impossible ironman attempts im now giving those a go, and finding im having to play with an entirely different style to before. Cover is now meaningless, and it's all about line of sight and clever use of explosives and flanking!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    495
    XCOM is heavy on 'external narrative'. In just about every playthrough I have had one amazing battle that I remember, a moment of heroism, of going against the odds. In my last playthrough I had one guy left and 4 Mutons and a Sectopod. I tried to evac him but the evac point was nowhere to be seen. God knows how, but I beat it (I think the sectopod ran out of ammo). These moments make for a great replay value in my opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    1,396
    I'm on a Normal/Iron-man right now. I just HAD to take on the base because I have three countries in RED and the end of the month is in 6 hours. I would have rather waited since I just had one complete wipe mission and one with a sole survivor, leaving me with one Colonel and eleven rookies in the Barracks. I got one abduction mission in just near the end to bring up a few to Squadie and get them a class.

    This is new for me.

    I am just about finished with the first large room and so far I've killed three floaters and 10 mutons (2 more still running around somewhere). I lost one sniper Squadie (which are all but useless anyway), so not so bad so far. But yeah, I'm on the edge of my seat on this one for sure. I'll start it up again tonight to see if I can finish it off without any more losses. Hell of a game.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamsterminator View Post
    Ive never agreed with people complaining about lack of replay ability with this game.
    Totally. Random mission order/targets/rewards mixes things up. Random hit percentages mix things up. Trying new class builds and squad combos mixes things up. Tweaking your strategy and tactics mixes things up. Having to live with mistakes and/or losses on Ironman and adapt accordingly mixes things up. It is NEVER the same game twice.

    I want more maps as much as the next guy, but the game already has exceptional replay value.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnergoz View Post
    What I find interesting about XCom is, even though it tends to be repetitive in many ways, every new start offers a different perspective, opportunity and challenges. With over 400 hours played so far and with innumerable starts (and one complete playthough on Classic) it still amazes me how the game offers a different feel from the outset.
    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    The flaw of this game IS that fact that every game is the same.

    The place the game is the most lacking is the the strategical level, if you are playing to win, you play it the same way every time.

    I stopped playing the game when my fourth play through pretty much went exactly the same as the second, third and fourth.

    However, the game does vary in where the game is the strongest, the tactical level.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanteogo View Post
    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    The flaw of this game IS that fact that every game is the same.

    The place the game is the most lacking is the the strategical level, if you are playing to win, you play it the same way every time.

    I stopped play the game when my fourth play through pretty much went exactly the same as the second, third and fourth.

    However, the game does vary in where the game is the strongest, the tactical level.
    Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't find the strategic level to be much less involved than the OG (that being said, I would like the strategic level to be more involved than it is, in both games).

    The key thing that turned me on to the OG was the squad based tactics layer. So I only need that bit to be varying in order to feel like I'm getting a different experience each time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    278
    I've never played a game so much in recent years as I have with XCom:EU. I could try and dissect the reasons why - but that one fact says it all really.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by ellgieff View Post
    Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't find the strategic level to be much less involved than the OG (that being said, I would like the strategic level to be more involved than it is, in both games).

    The key thing that turned me on to the OG was the squad based tactics layer. So I only need that bit to be varying in order to feel like I'm getting a different experience each time.
    Agreed, except that in my case I got bored of the tactical game in the original in a way which I have never felt in the new game. The old game's larger scale in the tactical layer often meant that you needed to click move a hundred times simply to reach a crashed UFO, and then the way in which you handled that UFO type never really varied.

    I think that the strategic layer in the new game is pretty bland after a while, and doesn't really offer the player much interest past seeing the new tech in action and seeing the alien interrogation animations lol.

    I think for me the base needs to be reworked in order to be more interesting. Adjacency bonuses and labs and workshops need to mean something. Hell even reintroduce General Stores and Living Quarters, just to give us something to do.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamsterminator View Post
    Agreed, except that in my case I got bored of the tactical game in the original in a way which I have never felt in the new game. The old game's larger scale in the tactical layer often meant that you needed to click move a hundred times simply to reach a crashed UFO, and then the way in which you handled that UFO type never really varied.

    I think that the strategic layer in the new game is pretty bland after a while, and doesn't really offer the player much interest past seeing the new tech in action and seeing the alien interrogation animations lol.

    I think for me the base needs to be reworked in order to be more interesting. Adjacency bonuses and labs and workshops need to mean something. Hell even reintroduce General Stores and Living Quarters, just to give us something to do.
    Please, no, not General Stores. It used to break my heart when I lost stuff because the new store hadn't finished building yet

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by ellgieff View Post
    Please, no, not General Stores. It used to break my heart when I lost stuff because the new store hadn't finished building yet
    Desperate times call for desperate measures!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Greece atm
    Posts
    274
    I agree completely with this thread.
    And I think that people that don't have forgotten a basic principle of TBS games like this one which is : Don't play only to win but to make your own story.

    Heck for me even the different soldiers on each game, that I usually customize as much as possible, create different ideas in my mind, different situations.

    However I'd love some more options in the strategic layer and of course the Second Wave options "officially" added.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanteogo View Post
    if you are playing to win, you play it the same way every time.
    Like every other game out there? Specialy if you play in cheating difficulties? (cover pointelss? Doesn't that go against a principal design decission?)

    Starting location, if you bother to use workshops, if you bother to use laboratories, if you rush alien containtment, if you rush SHIVs, if you push hard for satellites in the first month,... Theer are plenty of different options. As long as you are not a min/maxer that "Must do the most efficient stuff all the time" and/or play in a difficulty level where you don't play to beat the AI but the cheats it uses.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by shiaika View Post
    Like every other game out there? Specialy if you play in cheating difficulties? (cover pointelss? Doesn't that go against a principal design decission?)
    I recommend to everyone in this thread that thinks this game has any form of real re-playability to pick up FTL on Steam. Random events, random enemies, random maps and 18 different starting ships. Play that for a while and then tell me again XCOM has replayability like this game does.

    A slightly different shade of green is still green to most people and most of those people have already left these forums.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Greece atm
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    I recommend to everyone in this thread that thinks this game has any form of real re-playability to pick up FTL on Steam. Random events, random enemies, random maps and 18 different starting ships. Play that for a while and then tell me again XCOM has replayability like this game does.

    A slightly different shade of green is still green to most people and most of those people have already left these forums.
    Heh I love FTL but it doesn't offer too much on replayabilitiy you'll find out soon. It has randomness, but after a while everything seems the same because there's not much variety. I've played about 20 hours of FTL and 100 of XCOM so that sums up my opinion about it

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by shiaika View Post
    Like every other game out there? Specialy if you play in cheating difficulties? (cover pointelss? Doesn't that go against a principal design decission?)

    Starting location, if you bother to use workshops, if you bother to use laboratories, if you rush alien containtment, if you rush SHIVs, if you push hard for satellites in the first month,... Theer are plenty of different options. As long as you are not a min/maxer that "Must do the most efficient stuff all the time" and/or play in a difficulty level where you don't play to beat the AI but the cheats it uses.
    There are a few other options in the strategy level, but they are all clear lesser choices. Satellite rush and focusing on engineers is the way to win. If your not playing a tactical game to win... why are you playing? This is not an RPG where the story alone can save it.

    The strategy level in this game is just weak and poorly designed.

    It's a shame because the tactical part of the game is very good.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Oxford UK
    Posts
    554
    I agree with the basic premise of the thread. I've said it before, the new game may be flawed, but they've caught the very soul of the original. It's about your soldiers and their advancement, their story, moments of heroism and if you're unlucky their deaths, even the senseless and shocking deaths. (Damn you unsuspected sectopod).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    221
    Sat rush is not the only way...

    It may or may not even be the best way, but a lot of that is dependent on where you get your missions, and your personal skill level.

    Personally I never want to lose a single country, but that's honestly a suboptimal approach as well. Realizing you can let go a country or continent or two to maximize an earlier OTS, or to be able to afford lasers/armor/whatever can be just as important.

    I must have started over 20 C/I games before I recognized that my sat rush wasn't actually required to progress though...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by licker View Post
    Sat rush is not the only way...

    It may or may not even be the best way, but a lot of that is dependent on where you get your missions, and your personal skill level.
    Enlighten us how and when sat rush is not the best strategy. Every good C/I and I/I player will tell you getting sats up is the single most important thing you have to do to in the strategy layer to win the game.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    Enlighten us how and when sat rush is not the best strategy. Every good C/I and I/I player will tell you getting sats up is the single most important thing you have to do to in the strategy layer to win the game.
    Exactly.

    Satellites are the perfect jack of all trades does everything at once device.

    They give you money, they lower panic, they help with building and they help with research.

    Also, because it's a monthly compounded bonus, you are better off building them sooner than not.

    What other strategy is there? Build a bunch of labs?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    I recommend to everyone in this thread that thinks this game has any form of real re-playability to pick up FTL on Steam. Random events, random enemies, random maps and 18 different starting ships. Play that for a while and then tell me again XCOM has replayability like this game does.

    A slightly different shade of green is still green to most people and most of those people have already left these forums.
    Roguelikes are great, if randomness is what you want.

    However, one game being infinitely replayable (and that's an assumption, man. I've played Roguelikes where randomness didn't mean a significantly different experience each time) doesn't mean another game isn't replayable.

    FWIW, if I'm going to play a Roguelike, I'll play Valhalla/Ragnarok because the mythos is fun.

    It almost feels like you're telling me that I'm wrong in enjoying replays of this game ...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    221
    Already told you an alternative strat. Though I think you may be overplaying what sat rush is. Not rushing Sats doesn't mean not building any or ignoring uplinks.

    It just means you don't have to prioritize them at the expense of everything else.

    A potential issue with the sat rush is that you will not have as much research or OTS purchases early. Making a bad tactical battle more likely. Making you probably abort the game.

    As I said, my early attempts at C/I saw me trying to maximize sats per month, and losing more troops than I may have otherwise had I better gear/bigger squad size (well I also just got better after several games...). Now maybe I was doing it wrong, or maybe I was unlucky, or maybe I just suck.

    In any case, Sat Rush (depending on how you define it) is not the only way to skin this cat. It is the only way to skin the cat if you want to minimize nations lost, but if you don't care about that (keeping at least 9 obviously) there are alternatives, which may prove better, but it depends on how quickly you are likely to pull the plug on a game I imagine.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    Enlighten us how and when sat rush is not the best strategy. Every good C/I and I/I player will tell you getting sats up is the single most important thing you have to do to in the strategy layer to win the game.
    Enlighten me how and when most efficient became the same thing as most fun.

    We used to call those guys Munchkins ...

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by ellgieff View Post
    Enlighten me how and when most efficient became the same thing as most fun.

    We used to call those guys Munchkins ...
    Munchkinsim aside...

    I'm not yet even convinced it's the most efficient strat anyway. But... this largely depends on what your path towards victory is going to be, or if you are playing with some other goal (16 council members, ...) in mind.

    Lets just say you ignore Europe completely because you just don't care about the bonus, makes the rest of your choices a lot easier, and lets you build a better equipped (and larger) squad faster. Of course 'faster' doesn't really matter that much, then again neither does 'money' at some point.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    Enlighten us how and when sat rush is not the best strategy. Every good C/I and I/I player will tell you getting sats up is the single most important thing you have to do to in the strategy layer to win the game.
    He didn't say it wasn't the best - he said it wasn't the only way.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    221
    http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...46#post2507746

    For those who don't frequent the strat forum...

    Seems not every I/I player agrees with the sat rush...

  29. #29
    Same here, I basically look forward to restarts to try different ways of playign the game, but I do mostly refer to the tactical layer, that's really where the game shines.

    Its like a puzzle, each turn is a little puzzle you have to solve, its pretty cool.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    EXALT HQ
    Posts
    1,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanteogo View Post
    Exactly.

    Satellites are the perfect jack of all trades does everything at once device.

    They give you money, they lower panic, they help with building and they help with research.

    Also, because it's a monthly compounded bonus, you are better off building them sooner than not.

    What other strategy is there? Build a bunch of labs?
    I agree with this point: overall the strategic choices may seem limited (getting the sats up or hitting the alien base first) but the game isn't about playing risk with the aliens (even though it has a bit that logic and that's an improvement over the OG) but how the strategic situation affects tactical combat.

    In other words, your actions at a strategic level have a profound effect on the missions. The strategy part is managing the first so that it gives you the resources you need, when you'll most likely need them. It doesn't involve much planning (and thus it lacks some depth), the skill is in milking the strategic layer to the last drop for what's worth when comes to equipping your squad before any mission.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    438
    i think the game is far more replayable compared to other single player releases this generation but alot less replayable than other top strategy games (to which its fair to compare because its xcom ^^)

    hope its adressed in a sequel

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,549
    I think replayability really means different things to different people.

    I played Solitaire the other day while waiting to close up the office. I've played it before. It was the same rules as before. It was the same set up and same ultimate goal as before. So how come I and millions of other people still play it? Simply because replayability doesn't have to include "new" in every layer. It just has to maintain interest.

    For me, every tactical engagement is random, and therefore interesting. Hence, XCOM is very replayable.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluzing View Post
    I recommend to everyone in this thread that thinks this game has any form of real re-playability to pick up FTL on Steam. Random events, random enemies, random maps and 18 different starting ships. Play that for a while and then tell me again XCOM has replayability like this game does.

    A slightly different shade of green is still green to most people and most of those people have already left these forums.
    I do have FTL (Kickstarter) and beaten it too. XCOM EU is replayable but trying to compare it to a game that is not from the same genre is stupid. Should we talk about Poker's replayability? Or Chess'? Super Mario Bros?

    I do have more hours in this game than in FTL too. Not that I'm finished with it yet, just taking a break to play this game. And a break from Torchlight II too. XD

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanteogo View Post
    There are a few other options in the strategy level, but they are all clear lesser choices. Satellite rush and focusing on engineers is the way to win. If your not playing a tactical game to win... why are you playing? This is not an RPG where the story alone can save it.

    The strategy level in this game is just weak and poorly designed.

    It's a shame because the tactical part of the game is very good.
    I play games to have fun. Winning is just an extra layer of fun.

    I don't get a sat uplink up in the first month but I make sure to get one up each later month and use sats only for panicking countries or if I must grab some continental bonus. I do even build one lab or two depending on how stuff goes in each game (or none). It works nice from Easy to Classic while allowing me to build my base in different ways and still keep my tactical options open.

    Not saying that the strategic layer cannot use many improvements.

    And for the record, I have only lost in the tactical game in Impossible. Not even CI has beaten me and while I play very careful, I play far from uber optimized. Plus my commentary was more about the strategy level so you may have to explain me that commentary about RPG.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamsterminator View Post
    I think replayability really means different things to different people.

    I played Solitaire the other day while waiting to close up the office. I've played it before. It was the same rules as before. It was the same set up and same ultimate goal as before. So how come I and millions of other people still play it? Simply because replayability doesn't have to include "new" in every layer. It just has to maintain interest.

    For me, every tactical engagement is random, and therefore interesting. Hence, XCOM is very replayable.
    thats a cool analogy and really helps me see what the dev team attempted to achieve with this release.

    id argue however that any decent strategy title would (certainly other firaxis titles) have similiar replay inherently but still feature more options included by the developers to further increase the games replay value

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    221
    Well, other Firaxis titles are 4x games... which by definition are highly replayable.

    XCOM in any incarnation suffers from the same linear progression to get from one required mission to the next. Yes you can delay some, you can get lasers before armor, or ignore both and build up sats or whatever, but essentially the story is always going to be same in it's arc.

    The re playability has to come from the multitude of different tactical situations you can find yourself in, and even there, many are going to play out along the same lines as they did the last time you saw that map.

    I don't think it's that different in Civ though. Sure the map will look different, resources will be scarce or abundant, but ultimately you'll still face the same kinds of challenges as you faced before. You may have different tools to deal with them, but XCOM offers much the same depending on what maps/spawns you draw when. Some maps are very difficult before you have leveled troops. Some maps are difficult before you have improved armor.

    And some maps will just kick your ass no matter what point you are at because you'll wind up with a bunch of mobs activating on you before you've been able to take enough aliens out to prevent them from overwhleming you.

    I had two in a row last night where I really have no idea what I could have done differently, because after my first turn I had 4 and 5 mobs activate on me on the aliens 1st turn, and on one of those maps a well placed grenade from a floater blew up the only cover half my squad was behind, and there simply was no where to put them without them being flanked. The 2nd one was a terror mission where again, a single advance behind a van and a car lead to a single group of Hfloaters activating, and me taking one out and damaging the other two. Then... alien turn... 2 more HF groups, a 2xMuton and Zerker, and a cyberdisk+friends all patrolled into the picture.

    That one I tried to fight another turn since ~half the aliens were running off to kill civilians, but when my rocket missed it's location, failed to take out the cover and take off some HP from the mutons/HFs... I was once again doomed to a hasty retreat.

    That's XCOM baby

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    438
    second wave settings

    randomized maps or randomized map elements

    mod support

    woulda put xcom on par with the latest civ release

    instead they settled for imbalance, bugs and watered down complexity (i kid i love both games ^^)

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamsterminator View Post
    For me, every tactical engagement is random, and therefore interesting. Hence, XCOM is very replayable.
    It's just a shame the strategical level could not have been on par with the tactical.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    175
    A sat rush is NEVER the best strat.
    It is a poor one, not a good one.

    If you are playing II the limiting factor is the quality of your troops.

    The best strat is a single sat the first month and between 0-3 the second.

    Satellites the first month don't pay for themselves until the 3rd month.
    If you so satellites the first and second months you don't see any return on investment
    untill the 4th!!! month.

    By the 3rd month the game is over in II.

    I sometimes wonder if the people who post on this forum actualy play the game.
    Maybe its just one guy who is paid to post using many account.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    x-com certified apple orchard
    Posts
    2,291
    for me, the strategic layer is all about deploying 14 satellites and farming abduction missions on the remaining 2 non covered countries.

    initially though, its the part that gets me all strung up especially when im forced to choose w/c country to save since im placed in a situation where i have more countries in code red than the satellites i currently have. once you have that part covered though, the game is all about the tactical layer. as mentioned by js on pre release interviews, the strategic layer is xcoms weakest link & what they did with it in their reimagining is certainly an improvement over the OG.

    now the tactical layer is what keeps me coming back for more xcom. no single mission of mine played out the same way even on the same map. the opfor never fail to make a nuisance out of themselves & always do things that will make the outcome different.

    imo, the tactical layer would be much better with additional maps [2x~3x the current number! ] and the removal of bugs...

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    444
    What I like in the strategic layer is fully using the starting continent bonus. When I start in Asia I will rush the OTS and foundry upgrades. When starting in South America I don't bother with armor and weapons, I rush arc thrower and alien containment. Starting in Africa makes rushing satelites a valid path. When in Europe I go first for armor and lasers and don't bother capturing aliens until sectoids are an endangered species.

    The tactical layer is even more fantastic. It makes me feel good when I win a mission against mutons while only armed with starting weapons and carapace armor (which is what happens if you skip laser and go for plasma as fast as possible (which is not as fast as I had planned )).

    In short, it's a great game that I will play for many years....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •