|
|
|
 |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 352
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome ashbery,
Good question. Many reasons and I'll try to impart some of it as best I can.
From the beginning we wanted to focus more on presenting the game from the point of view of the humans just having discovered space travel and starting a mission of exploration and discovery of the galaxy.
We wanted more than just another game where you go through a build-up of forces than combat. Adding new elements never been done in a space strategy game.
Another major consideration was how to present the alien races, to give them a distinct feel and uniqueness with their own little history and background (culture, beliefs, way of doing things, etc).
Something much harder to do if we were to let the player pick any race to start with and do it well. When I mean well, it means more than just a few advantages/dis-advantages and a different picture. In a manner of Starcraft for example but that's a different type of game, with a very different type of presentation, and limited to 3 playable races. And blizzard had far more resources than we do presently.
Still you will be able to customize the humans in detail giving them a slew of advantages/dis-advantages. In effect making them as 'alien' as you want.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what he meant by 'opposite direction' but for my two cents, I think I understand what their doing and wholeheartedly applaud it.
Here's the way I understand it. There are x 'tech levels', and y categories of technology. Say 50 and 8, just for kicks. Furthermore, we'll assume that all 8 categories have 50 levels, though they don't necessarily have to...
Now, the cost for each level ramps up exponentially. So eventually you get to a point that, while you could theoretically develop the technology, it takes a LOT of money AND time to pull off. In order to develop those higher levels of technology in all 8 categories in less than a week of game playing time, you have to control and heavily develop so much of the galaxy that the game has already been won by other means.
BUT -- the technology costs at those higher levels are not so high that it is impossible for a large, near-victory empire to put all their eggs in one select category and run all the way to the end of the tree in THAT SINGLE CATEGORY in search of a technology they really really really want.
[edited]
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sobriquet
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ravana, I do appreciate your level of detail and the thought put into your posted suggestions and replies, but I have to admit this has me scratching my head . . .
| Quote: |
| [ravana] Would you not say that your statement could ring true in the opposite direction as well? |
So here goes, original statement, "Unachievable due to time or economic constraints. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should be able get to it.
Opposite statement, Achievable due to the unraveling of linear time progression or discovery of a new form of commerce not related to either abstract valuations or bartering. Just because it's not there does mean you should not get to it?
(Man I can be such a smarta**) 
Okay, I'm just poking fun. What do you mean by 'the opposite'?
_________________
i am sofa king we todd it |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]Unachievable due to time or economic constraints. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should be able get to it. |
Would you not say that your statement could ring true in the opposite direction as well?
| Quote: |
[Sobriquet]Or rather, through the game a player is required to make direction decisions. Go one way and you will not be able to achieve goals from another area.
|
This has been achieved in the rather harsh tech-tree of MoO2. Yet, with careful trading and political intrigue, you can shore up the gaps in your tech with the "help" of the other empires.
If I'm told that there is a glass-ceiling for tech or any other aspect, purely due to game balance and design, then fine. It's something I can deal with. If I'm told that there is some spurious reason why I can't achieve/obtain/utilise something then I'm not impressed. (See my IG2 comment above for why.)
As for a time constraint, I don't believe Zaimat's intimated that our empires will labour under one. So time shouldn't be a problem if you can keep the game going. Of course, that will fall within the skillset of the hardened Horizon player to "avoid" the victory conditions.
In "reality", I seriously doubt that any empire would be able to achieve such a massive range of technological feats in such a short space of time - which are common to such games. So really, what's the problem with gaining one more piece of tech?
Of course having said that, I'll accept what's given and get on with the show!  |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sobriquet
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]I suspect many players would hate this happening to them specially the more casual players unless it was handled in such a fashion that even in loss they were awed and challenged (believable w/o AI cheating). Such things are very hard to do with an AI and succeed. But it should be quite possible for the player to pull off such a thing. |
Basically you're saying. "If done correctly",' this sort of wrinkle would add to overall gameplay/replayability. But, it boils down to how do you add it in without it seeming like an add-on? i wish I could answer that. If I could, I would be in a completely diffferent line of work.
| Quote: |
| [ravana]Ah, but that would suggest that there are unachievable "levels", artificially kept out of the reach of the player. After all, with enough time and inclination, a player should be able to achieve (through whatever means) the level of tech they desire. |
Unachievable due to time or economic constraints. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should be able get to it. Or rather, through the game a player is required to make direction decisions. Go one way and you will not be able to achieve goals from another area.
_________________
i am sofa king we todd it |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]I suspect many players would hate this happening to them specially the more casual players unless it was handled in such a fashion that even in loss they were awed and challenged (believable w/o AI cheating). |
I tend to share your view on this.
| Quote: |
[Zaimat]
| Quote: |
| Take technology as an example; eventually all players can top-out with the same level of tech. |
Why so? How about if the highest tech levels were almost impossible to achieve. So that you could not reach ALL the highest levels in any game? |
Ah, but that would suggest that there are unachievable "levels", artificially kept out of the reach of the player. After all, with enough time and inclination, a player should be able to achieve (through whatever means) the level of tech they desire. That was one of the problems with IG2 - Shinari could obtain turbolasers but couldn't use them. 
Edit: The turbolaser thing? Rubbish I call it.[edited] |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 352
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Like a gamble of some sort. Cashing in all of your life savings and putting it all on 'red 7', and winning, or losing, whichever. Or a brilliantly devised counter attack that allowed for underwhelming forces to defeat overwhwelming numbers. Something to add an extra layer to the game apart from the standard formula. |
I suspect many players would hate this happening to them specially the more casual players unless it was handled in such a fashion that even in loss they were awed and challenged (believable w/o AI cheating). Such things are very hard to do with an AI and succeed. But it should be quite possible for the player to pull off such a thing.
| Quote: |
| Take technology as an example; eventually all players can top-out with the same level of tech. |
Why so? How about if the highest tech levels were almost impossible to achieve. So that you could not reach ALL the highest levels in any game?
| Quote: |
| Now this is an interesting concept. How hard would it be to not hardwire NPC race characteristics? Make them more soft-wired. You could still have a finite set of race characteristics, but there could be infinite combinations of them. You would never know from one game to the next how a given race is going to react either to you or to other NPC's. |
Definately. This is the route we have taken. We certainly don't want the player to expect every game how a race is going to react.[edited]
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sobriquet
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[Ravana] If we have to guess their motives and goals throughout each and every game, it makes replay much more viable.
|
Now this is an interesting concept. How hard would it be to not hardwire NPC race characteristics? Make them more soft-wired. You could still have a finite set of race characteristics, but there could be infinite combinations of them. You would never know from one game to the next how a given race is going to react either to you or to other NPC's. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]But for gameplay's sake wouldn't you at least like the option of being able to circumvent the foregone conclusion? Not just randomness, but something tangible the player could implement. |
I would Sobriquet, but I fear that it may well appear to be too difficult a concept to implement, not without some truly radical changes to the game. With the conventional coup d'état or coup de grace we are all used to, it is at least an achievable programming goal. How you get to that event is the more significant factor.
With that in mind, if we imagine that we have avoided all contact with the "elder races" throughout the game, it may not surprise us to find ourselves on the defensive when/if they attack, but how we handle ourselves during the event which will change. Will we still come out on top? Do we now have the economic/technological advantages we need to overcome the new menace?
Similarly, we the player can adopt any attitude we like in our playing style. However, can the same be said of the NPC races? If we have to guess their motives and goals throughout each and every game, it makes replay much more viable.
Coupled with this, we have the different "endings" Zaimat has intimated at. We could end up winning through diplomatic, economic or military means. That is not to suggest that you will accidentally achieve one whilst pursuing another, but it does mean that you have a choice.
Factors such as these all help in maintaining the genre and maintaining our interest - without being tired and conventional.
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]You rebuttal is intelligently written. As I sit here and comtemplate this I think you pretty much summed it up in the beginnning of your post. |
I do tend to ramble on. Sorry about that! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sobriquet
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[Quote=Ravana]As for a gamble - would you really like to see all your hours of playing, and hard work thrown away on the result of a single dice cast? I suspect not. Winning or losing becomes an abstraction, not a pursuit or achievable goal of the player. Although randomness has it's uses and moments... [/QUOTE]
But for gameplay's sake wouldn't you at least like the option of being able to circumvent the foregone conclusion? Not just randomness, but something tangible the player could implement.
You rebuttal is intelligently written. As I sit here and comtemplate this I think you pretty much summed it up in the beginnning of your post. In order to have some sort of 'surprise' in the game, the player would have to be able to develop something not in the game. As cool as that sounds, it would be impossible. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]In these types of games you either win or lose. There never seesm to be any doubt once you've mastered a certain aspect of the game. |
That is an unfortunate by-product of the environment. That is not to suggest that things couldn't (or shouldn't) be changed, rather that we are dealing in "localised" states. By this I mean that we have to accept a limited progression in-game. Take technology as an example; eventually all players can top-out with the same level of tech. That evens the keel but increases the likelihood of protracting the battle. To continue with a technological advantage, you would have to be able to produce completely new tech which didn't exist in the game beforehand. Imagine trying to produce a mechanic that allowed you to create tech on the fly! Without it, tech becomes finite.
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]The player can either only win, lose or draw. I meant that once the player reached a certain point. whether it was technological or economical, there ceases to be any doubt about you winning or losing. There is no mechanism at work that can change the outcome. |
That is the most logical outcome of the game I suppose, as how many people would like to have to sit and continue on a game that they had no chance of "winning". As shallow as it sounds, we all have a common concept of the definition of "winning", and how it is achieved. To continue otherwise, by introducing random elements which produce sweeping changes, runs the risk of alienating the player (no pun intended). Who hasn't fallen foul of an aspect of a game and thought 'I would have seen that coming. After all, what the hell are all my ships and spies for!'
Take this scenario:
You've trashed all of the opposition, and control all of the galaxy apart from that one rebel planet you've allowed to stay to keep the game running (preventing the IG2 "Game Over" screen ). So what happens next?
1. You could produce a galaxy-spanning plague, but that would only reduce your population and cause you to build some more hospitals.
Of course, this may be better suited if utilised before the end, as your enemies may not be effected whilst you struggle to cope. However, this is not the continuation we are looking for, merely a prolonging of the inevitable.
2. Rebel insurgents could start revolutions on your captured planets. With no real military opposition, crushing such resistance should be easy. In real life (or in Star Wars) it is not. We would need to factor in combat on a small-unit scale - impossible in an empire-based game.
This would be more effective if you were at war with another empire and you had to worry about interanl security at the same time.
3. Natural disasters are rarely galaxy-spanning in their nature. In fact, Zaimat has indicated that we may see some turn up in-game as terrain to fight over.
4. Reduction in the resources available to all players. Perhaps the material used in starship drives suddenly becomes scarce. Or space travel unravels space itself ŕ la 'ST:NG'.
Again, this is more useful during the game. However, it might be utilised to make captured planets revolt and start a new war, as your fleet may have to limit it's movement around your territories. This in and of itself may lead to unrest, because you can no longer extend your influence over your empire's assets.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. These are just four things I could think of in a short space of time. All of them would be better suited to use during the game, rather than as an aid to it's extension.
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]Like a gamble of some sort. Cashing in all of your life savings and putting it all on 'red 7', and winning, or losing, whichever. Or a brilliantly devised counter attack that allowed for underwhelming forces to defeat overwhwelming numbers. Something to add an extra layer to the game apart from the standard formula. |
It is supposed that we will see the superior enemy with the more mysterious races in the later stages of the game. The Vorlons if you will, with far fewer numbers but superior tech.
As for a gamble - would you really like to see all your hours of playing, and hard work thrown away on the result of a single dice cast? I suspect not. Winning or losing becomes an abstraction, not a pursuit or achievable goal of the player. Although randomness has it's uses and moments...
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet] we could still work towards a clearly defined goal, but with richer, more complex means of achieving them |
This I'm afraid, to my limited thinking, is the most likely source of replayability we are likely to see, and that's no bad thing. After all, as Rob said:
| Quote: |
[RobHuntingdon] Yes, intelligent designs to begin with and timely upgrades are helpful. But AI is a bit too broad a topic. Really, the entirety of the game is you and AI. I think 'proper fleet management' is a good part. 'Proper empire management' is as well. If the AI can build a decent economy, then it won't have to cheat to remain competitive. And I really want to see some intelligent diplomacy.
|
Here, here! For all my yammering and howling for options to win without firing a shot, one of the easiest ways to make such games harder is by really reinforcing the idea that space is big, and 3D. 'Conquest: Frontier Wars', tried to produce the feeling of attacking and defending on multiple fronts, but how often do we see it happen? Borders should be a purely political affair, and meaningless in warfare of the future.
Anyway, that's long enough. Back over to you guys.  |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the vagueness of my earlier reply. 
As an explanation, RobH has disseminated my thoughts better than I. That is to say, unless there is some game balance related or story-driven requirement, I see absolutely no need whatsoever to include a piece of tech or an entire level that the player cannot achieve.
Or as RobH says:
| Quote: |
[RobHuntingdon]BUT -- the technology costs at those higher levels are not so high that it is impossible for a large, near-victory empire to put all their eggs in one select category and run all the way to the end of the tree in THAT SINGLE CATEGORY in search of a technology they really really really want.
|
So, what if I do really, really want to? There might be a time when victory conditions are met before I achieve the tech I want, or that the game is so far advanced that it offers no real advantage, but that is no reason not to achieve my aim if I've really set my mind to it.
Essentially, my "opposite" comment was based on the fact that if it's there (in the game), I should be able to achieve it! Or, at least have a chance to obtain it by other means...
However, I appreciate the "Elder Races approach" to the game, and imagine that we will not be able to replicate or acquire their advanced tech; is this because of a game balance issue, or is it an arbitrary notion that you won't see them till late in the game and would have no time to do so?
If it's the former, I can live with that. If it's the latter, then I say at least give me the chance - to fail if nothing else.
END RANT |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sobriquet
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm throwing out a 'what if' here. What if we're talking about divergent paths? One miliary, and the other social. With a finite amount of resources, the player can either conquer the game politically or miltarily.
Both trees have level 50 techs; one 'really awesome mind control', the other 'super duper destructo ray'. They are both there, but you only have enough resources/time for one. Not an arbitrary design desicision, rather a 'choice dictated' outcome.
Are you asking for the opportunity to at least try, regardless of game impact? Say you already have the destructo ray, it doesn't matter if you get mind control. You'd at least like to be able to try?
_________________
i am sofa king we todd it |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think his point is more along the lines of this: If it's story flow or game balance or some other logical reason, fine. But if just totally arbitrary, let me at least try. Don't lock the tech away with some artificial distinction like 'antaran' (ala MOO3) so that I can not get it. Make it hard, but let me try.
I think, however, his point here is also moot. You have your own tech tree, and it's totally separate from the alien tech trees IIRC. This is a 'game flavor' issue I believe.
Furthermore, I think they want to eliminate the strategy of 'research until I get everything then go blow everything up'. Which I also highly approve of. I don't mind letting you try to research really high level techs. But the strategy I just described is IMO one that should not be a possibility.
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ashbery76
Voyager
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This game has caught my interest, only one problem, why only humans?I'm sure the majority of players would like to play different races. xx( |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 352
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome WendelGrey:
Regarding your thoughts, I totally agree with you there. This has to do with the spirit of the people (part genetic and part indoctrination), their resilience in times of great need.
Of course the enemy is trying to crush this same thing, make them think it's hopeless to fight back and to surrender.
So it can work both ways, a boost or a penalty, of course propaganda can play a large part in this as well. But the thought of giving a boost is much more appealing and interesting in a game.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello WG, and welcome to the board! 
Interesting ideas there...We'll know more if and when Zaimat tells us some more about population, colony and production schema.
I believe 'GalCiv' has quite a few options you can change at the beginning of the game. Not that I've played it yet, as my old 'puter wasn't up to the task. <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley19.gif" border="0"> You can select the imperial "outlook" i.e. military, cultural etc. which effects your production values or chances to produce cultural dominance in a region etc.
Although I believe you're discussing this in a more general way - one predicated on the circumstances you're empire is facing at the moment. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
WendelGrey
Voyager
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]But for gameplay's sake wouldn't you at least like the option of being able to circumvent the foregone conclusion? Not just randomness, but something tangible the player could implement. |
| Quote: |
| [Sobriquet]I meant that once the player reached a certain point. whether it was technological or economical, there ceases to be any doubt about you winning or losing. There is no mechanism at work that can change the outcome. Very simply, the computer can't pull off some brilliant sneak attack, which would upset the balance of the game. Neither can the player. This is what I am wondering. Can there be some sort of game mechanic that would allow for a surprise ending. |
I know this line of discussion died a while back, but I'm new to the forums and I have a few ideas I'd like to toss out.
The first thing that came to mind was the general notion of "desperation." Once a player (human or AI) becomes clearly dominant and aggressive - ie starts popping off colonies along the imperial periphery or some such - the empire should be given a 'free' bonus to production, research, and/or espionage. Think about what happened in the US during WWII: the fall (if only temporary) of long-cherished sexual boundaries, allowing women into the industrial workplace for the first time (it's amazing how quickly "traditional values" - as such  - dissolve when the going gets tough). Or consider the present, as more and more people seem willing to trade freedoms for promises of security.
Simply put, when people feel threatened/become desperate, they are willing to take more $h!t or less bread**, often both.
Using MOO3 as an example (err...sorry), this would translate into decreased penalties for overdriving industry and R&D, higher 'tolerance' of pollution, a higher Oppressometer tolerance, to name a few possibilities. Aside from telling the AI what determines dominant and aggressive (the on/off switch), I think this would be relatively easy to implement. After the war machine powers down (assuming it survives), there should of course be penalties to account for (balance out) the temporary boost.
There are other, less tangible possibilities that come to mind as well, but I need to think through some implementation and balance issues before I put them out there. The 'ol neurons are just firing too fast for me to keep up right now. I'll mull it over for a bit, and if anyone else finds this idea promising I'll throw out a few more ideas.
**"Life is a $h!t sandwich, but the more bread you have the less you can taste the $h!t." ...or something like that.
WG[edited]
_________________
Sink me, nobody of this tub agrees with anybody else about anything, except maybe what the fellow with the horns told the old man in the clouds: Non serviam- Hagbard Celine |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 352
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You will be able to use alien techs most certainly.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Ravana
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 139
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]Every race has their own techs/tree, that means as the human player it will be practically impossible to have access to ALL techs in the game. |
Practically impossible. Which would seem to say bear out my request that I could try - I'm just not likely to succeed. The reasons for which include:
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]There won't be artificially set 'unachievable' levels, if you can't achieve something it will be due to many factors including economics and other game conditions. |
Which sounds fine to me.
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]The alien races in Horizon typically don't like to share their goodies, they consider race-specific techs (advantages) as a matter of the highest value. |
Which is why we have to steal them. The question is...will we be able to use them if we do?
| Quote: |
| [Zaimat]...I think some of the more fun battles in MOO1/2 is early game battles where you struggle to destroy the enemy ships with your very modest weapons and defense. |
Too true! Struggling against the odds really makes the early games. More of it I say! |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
