Page 1 of 5 1 2345 Last

Wow! Just...wow...

I cannot believe that so many of you are still around and playing this game!!

I'm actually at home (sick as a dog) for the next week or so and I started playing MTW:VI this weekend again for the first time in years.

Right away, there it was...the huge battlefields, the map and battlefield AI that had a virtual brain, my pc capable of running tens of thousands of troops on screen at once without a hitch, and the just...realism of MTW that has in my opinion, never again been matched since...arguably, in a strategy game period.

Just saying hey...I'm around (haven't been registered on these forums for AGES lol) and I'll be hanging out for a while.

Thinking of starting a hard campaign, or maybe installing the XL mod...but for now, I'm just setting up battle after battle...something which is of zero appeal to me in rtw and m2tw due to the restrictions and AI.

Forgot how great this game was...memory refreshed!!



...just imagine how many little sprites would have lived on had I not reinstalled this game heh...

Reply

Hi,

welcome to the forum

yeah there are still quite a lot of players who still play MTW: VI (and also the mods)

It all started when I bought MTW Gold, and I enjoy/ed it so much, few months later decided to buy M2:TW, and the Rome TW Anthology (and also have Europa Barbarorum mod), I might also buy Shogun too.

MTW / VI Covers 'the most important eras' (that interests me the most personally) i.e Late Dark Ages to Late Middle Ages (gunpowder era in Europe), and I'm really a great fan of VI

Luckily I can run M2TW, which I really enjoy too, but have to have many of the graphics on low - medium (I do have pixel shader 2 though, so have the reflections and bloom, etc) but when there are hundreds of units in the same area, it becomes very laggy.

But as MTW / VI is older, if there are thousands of soldiers on the battlefield, it will run very smooth, the only time it will get a bit laggy, is if there are numerous artillery weapons firing at the same time (I think)

Of course, all TW games have their own advantages and disadvantages, some naturally have the advantage of being newer, i.e graphics for M2:TW (and more individual looking units, etc) Other factors are also due to personal taste. I.e some prefer the strategic map to have borders, and some prefer it to have no physical borders (RTW, M2TW), while you have more freedom (I guess) from moving around and in regions, I personally prefer the provincial boundaries in MTW, as I often find it too confusing to know exactly where I am, and which lands I own in M2TW's style

On the other hand I find Siege warefare FAR better in M2TW, what with missile troops can actually be on wall defences, battering rams, siege ladders & towers, etc, and of course more variation in the types and sizes of towns & cities.

Not to forget the special formations in M2TW, i.e Circle & Shoot, Spear wall, etc, and flamming arrows, barrage fire, etc

I'm not too sure about the statistics, and am not sure which is 'correct', but I did prefer the Swiss Pikemen & Halberds in MTW to M2TW,

All in all, I don't have a favourite TW game, as I see them all as enjoyable, all having their own advantages & disadvantages

Reply

Yeah, there's quite a few of us still playing MTW -- we're a hardy breed. Glad to see you around these parts, ArtistofEmpires; welcome!

Reply

like an annoying, itchy rash, we're hard to get rid of.

Reply

You almost make me wish I have M2TW, but I still have too much fun with the original MTW. I had RTW but hadn't even start playing it yet (except for several turns in the tutorial)

Hopefully, in about a year or two, I can upgrade myself to M2TW :D

Reply

One good thing I like about MTW is that when sieging the besieger also gets losses! That is one thing I really miss in RTW.

Reply

One weird thing though in M2TW:

The HandGonners, Arquebusiers & Matchlocks (Muskets) all could fire in heavy rain (I'm pretty sure of that), which is very strange considering the slowmatch (and other means, i.e red hot poker, fuse, etc for the early handgonnes) would have quickly been distinguished from the rain (and heavy wind), yet in all weather conditions, the gunners can fire fine. Also not right, as any gunpowder exposed to the open would get wet too. (being harder / impossible to fire)

In MTW however, only in very light drizzle can they fire, but anything stronger, and thier 'missile' capabilities are useless, all they can do is fight sword to sword (which is realistic).

Which is why I always worried in the late middle ages about having them in my army, because if the weather was bad, they wouldn't be able to do their jobs (whereas the archers, crowssbows,etc could still fire).

I'm no expert on crossbows, but I find it weird in M2TW also, how often they will aim right at the sky to fire, I always presumed you would fire headon (if close) or just slightly at a higher angle (for distance), but not as if you're trying to shoot birds out of the sky.

Reply

I am not expert with any kind of missle, not even throwing a wadded up piece of trash paper into a garbage can across the room! However, I have read that even with rifles, it is necessary to fire up into the air in order to achieve maximum range. Do the M2TW crossbows fire in the air at all ranges, or only max?

Reply

I will not presume to be an expert on these matters, but I have shot a number of missiles in my day, including bow (recurve and the pulley type compound), Xbows, bb guns (and their brethren pellet guns), handguns and rifles, so I can say this:

All of the above type projectiles fire with an arc. I cant remember off-hand why but they do. The slower the projectile moves through the air the more arc it has. Therefore the recurve bow has the most arc, generally speaking, and high powered rifles have the least.

With recurve bows at short range you have to aim under where you would like to hit to account for the arrow still rising up as it makes it's arc. At mid-range you want to aim at exactly the target, and at long range you want to aim at above the target.

How can you tell where to aim at what distance? Well, thats the reason why Xbows were so much easier to use. Since Xbows (and arblests) have a much flatter trajectory, because they go faster, it takes alot of the guess work out of where to aim.

Of course this doesn't really answer the question of why do Archers aim up into the air so high, they cant possibly be aiming at anything. That is true. Archers that are aiming at the sky know that positioning the arrow to fly at a certain angle will make it land a certain distance away. When 60 Archers launch that many arrows into the air (called a volley) they are aiming at a certain general area a specific distance away. This volley is 'aimed' at a large group of men across the field (like 100 Spearmen). When that many arrows go up, not all will hit a target, but odds are they'll hit something.

Think of it as very primitive artillery. They pound a general area with so much ordinance they are bound to hit something. Now back to the point. Why do Xbowmen aim into the air? I'm guessing that they are doing the same thing the archers are doing, firing a volley at a general area that is out of their 'targeting' range. Is this accurate for the weapon and the time period? I have no idea. It makes sense from a logical standpoint, but if they actually did it or not is something I just don't know.

If they are firing into the sky at close range, then that makes no sense, unless they are trying to fire over something, like another unit. I would hazard a guess that this is more gameplay mechanics then real life actions. IRL it would be more likely that they would 'fire through' the other unit when the opportunity presents itself, or they would reposition themselves to have a clear target.

Reply

@Sensei Warrior: Your explaination is very helpfull.

I would add that slow projectile fly in an arc because of gravity, which tends to drag the projectiles downward. Theoretically, all projectile flying along a flat trajectory will end up some point below its target line. The longer time spending in the air, the lower that point would be (i.e. the slower and further it has to travel, the more downward it would become).

About your experience with the recurve bow, I would guess the focal tension point of the bow string is slightly underneed the arrows so it has a slight kick upward at the start. I don't have any practical experience with this but it's kind of make sense considering that the arrows would eventually going downward a bit in any significant range.

Reply

thanks for the explanation

I def will be reading quite a bit on archery, crossbows, arcs, etc in the near future

Reply

Hmm, that's right huge, long post and no mention of gravity anywhere in it. I must have been tired. Dknight is correct that gravity forces an object in air towards the Earth. It does this at a rate of 32 (or 9.8 meters for our European friends) feet per second, each second.

Shooting of any kind is always a fascinating subject, always a good idea to learn more. Also another fascinating subject is the types of bows that were availavble then, how they were made etc. As good as MTW is the differences of missile weapons is underepresented in the game. Overall though, MTW (and its mods) are still by far and away great games.

Reply

speaking of bows, etc

I'm possibly thinking of learning how to build bows & arrows, (and possibly even crossbows)

I'm no carpenter, so it would naturally take me more time, but for example the 'self-bows' (flat blows, longbows, etc) would be an easier step to start.

Although making arrow heads, i.e bodkin point, would either be very hard or impossible (as I don't have a forge & don't have the skills), although making arrow heads from stone, i.e flint should be possible,

Fletchings are of course vital, I have at home some crappy 'toy' arrows, (with suction pad), which a nock, but no fletchings, from about 2 meters the arrow already starts to fly astray, most often it goes nowhere near the 'target.

Reply

Medieval: Total War and the mods for it are the only things that fuel my megalomaniac habits!

Reply

Reply

A worthy endeavor. Flat bows would be the bows to start with. They are the simplest. Unless you're really looking for authenticity the arrowheads could be bought at a outdoorsman/hunting type store. Same with the bowstring.

Your toy arrows start to fly astray because of the lack of fletchings. They are what keeps the arrow flying in a 'straight' path. Fletch your toy arrows and you'll notice an improvement in their flight path.

I have made fletched arrows once a long time ago, I think their was a tool which made it easier. Fletching arrows is easy, as for making a bow I've never tried.

Reply

Thank you for everyone who replied to me and again...wow. I didn't expect that many responses that quickly. A true testament to mtw's continued following.

In just the past few days I've been playing quite a bit again...getting refamiliar with the units, strategies etc again.

Regarding gunpowder units: This is a massive difference between MTW and M2TW indeed. I have some issues with M2TW and how it does the "discover americas" timeperiod. One of them has to do with gunpowder units...they're simply not portrayed accurately in the 1350 beyond period. It's an entirely different ballgame to have the 1400+ endgame taking place on European soil with full gunpowder rosters in place, but realistic performance from them than to have 1400+ be portrayed on American/South American soil with the same gunpowder units, only minus any "realism" traits. Just like you said...you could sit there firing cannons and handguns in a DRENCHING rainstorm with high winds or alternately in a blinding blizzard. This is massively unrealistic and takes away a major strategic element to designing medieval armies and planning campaigns in the Late Medieval period. If you simply cannot bring any more troops up the the front in a major war and you wind up having to protect one of your flanks in a big battle with artillery and/or guns...a snow or rainstorm could mean an indefensible flank. With M2TW, this battle would instead feature an attacking army that has logistically gained the upper hand, now having to face the "uphill battle" of attacking in a rain/snow storm while under artillery/gun fire. You go from a situation where the defenders were logistically defeated and should have had poor odds in the battle to a situation where the attacking army now has to face Hamburger Hill. It's just not realistic.

Further, and I could go on and on...conflicts are just larger in scale in MTW than M2TW. 10,000+ man battles (on each SIDE) are relatively common from relatively early on in MTW. Additionally, large scale conflicts featuring multiple enemies/allies (in effect, coalitions) happen at a realistic pace in MTW. It was quite common to have allies from different factions fighting on the same side of a battle in Medieval times, not just during Crusades. M2TW is almost like Rome in it's alliance/diplomatic department and this does not accurately portray the medieval period.

Also, and I AM trying to wrap this post up heh: A lot of the strategy, when using the 3D campaign map, is "altered". Let me clarify: Instead of defending a small town or forest/treeline on the battlefield, you do it on the campaign map. You physically see the trees and can place your unit on the campaign map, in the tree line. In MTW, you wouldn't get to this logistic decision until you had your army spread out in it's camp on the battlefield. The field is large enough that manuevering can take place for quite a while before the actual battle begins, which was very common in Medieval warfare. Instead of getting the chance to see the enemies troop movements on the campaign map and split your army there, you have to make the decision to split your army on the battlefield. Maybe take some pikeman and cavalry and create a "bottleneck" in a valley or force the enemy to move through a church/small village to attack your units, breaking their formation slightly. Obviously, the possibilities go on and on. In my mind, these decisions/actions being done on the battlefield, from camp, is much more realistic than having the ability to do all of this from the 3D campaign map before you've ever even fully assembled your army. If that makes sense

And for now, the last thing is the length of the battles themselves. In just custom battles that I've set up (very realistic/balanced, on Hard difficulty) I'd say the average battle between 2 armies is about 15 minutes, with the shortest 7-8 minutes and the longest up to 1 1/2 - 2 HOURS! These are just custom battles too. In M2TW you could never avoid the chain routing (started in RTW) long enough to have a battle of that length. In MTW, units might rout, but reorganize a defensive position literally a MILE back from the battle lines. This "resurgence" could restart the battle...with both armies having to reposition and "square off" in a 2nd round of pitched battle. In M2TW battles just don't go this way...ever. Not to even mention the way reinforcements are handled and having 10+ reinforcement units waiting on each side almost guarantees a LONG, drawn out strategic battle in MTW.

Anyway, for now...I leave it at that. Just a few days on MTW again and I am totally reimpressed with the game. To think that this was what we had in 2002 really puts the current market in perspective and puts the achievements of this game into perspective. I honestly don't know of another game that could inspire this level of conversation almost 6 years after it released. I mean, we're talking about the life span of Everquest...heh.

Reply

What can I say? When it comes to MTW, we're a pretty rabid lot.

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. I'd not played Medieval 2 enough to have made that discovery (and am thus even more glad that I never picked it up). Does weather have any effect on battles at all then?

In fairness, I have to say I'm not sure the diplomacy in MTW is really that much better -- and even if it is, I think it's more because of a happy coincidence than by actual design. Alliances and peace treaties in MTW are still broken for the flimsiest of reasons/excuses....and usually it ends up being to the detriment of the AI-controlled faction.

As for the coalitions in MTW, I agree they're a nice effect. Even with coalitions, however, there's a bit of a problem: They tend to wait too long to attack the larger faction, particularly if the larger faction is myself. By the time a coalition actually gets around to ganging up on me, they're often too weak to have any real chance of winning. That said, I still appreciate the feature. It makes a certain amount of sense that smaller factions would band together against a larger, more powerful one. I also like that coalitions will beat up on the "Big Guy" regardless of whether the superpower in question is controlled by the human or AI -- I've been part of a coalition almost as often as I've been the Big Guy.

You've highlighted one of the things that bothers me most about combat in Rome and M2TW: it's far too short. I don't think I ever had a battle in either of those games last more than 10 minutes or so. That's hardly enough time to maneuver around or use actual tactics! Yet another reason MTW and Shogun will always be superior.

Indeed. Relatively speaking, there's very few games out there that have this kind of longevity. I feel very fortunate that MTW is one of them.

Reply

Hey Martok...thanks for the reply/comments. Appreciated. I always remember being able to talk/post about MTW more than any other game and well, I guess I'm falling "write" back into my old habit...

Continuing the discussion:

I guess the best way to answer you regarding M2TW weather effects is that they operate basically the same way they did in Rome. This brings up other things...like "weather" itself, and how extreme it gets. There are few times that you are actually caught in a raging STORM in Rome or M2TW. It will either rain or snow, heavy or light, and that's about it. Wind, lightening, mixed precipitation, these things rarely if ever occur in Rome and M2TW let alone have a clear effect on battle. This all ties into something else extremely important: Visibility. Come on, how many times does visibility factor into a battle in Rome and M2TW? In MTW you can literally LOSE thousands of either enemy or allied units. They won't be visible on your screen and they will vanish from the "radar" map provided in the upper left. You can have point blank zero visibility conditions in MTW. Further, as we said...battles are over on average, in 3 minutes in Rome and M2. A 2 stack Vs. 2 stack battle won't even occur in M2TW...it will be broken up into 2 or more battles...not 1 large one with reinforcements. Keeping that in mind for a moment, think about how weather changes over time during a battle in MTW...now think about Rome (M2 is again, virtually identical to Rome in this regard). A battle never lasts long enough in Rome to have multiple weather scenarios, changing over time with different effects. Again, it's either raining or snowing, heavy or light. White or green ground. It's virtually just asthetic. You can fire flaming arrows, have culverins pumping and use gunpowder in the "snowstorm" in 1375, while technically in modern day New York USA while playing M2TW. Just not possible...on multiple accounts. See what I'm saying? I know this is horribly garbled, but I'm trying to just "quick response" believe that or not heh.

Real quick to reiterate/expand on a couple of points: Battles in MTW may last, just for example, 1 hour and 15 minutes (more than rarely) once you hit the High period beyond (most of the game). You will, many times, deal with a battle that begins with low visibility, high winds, vivid lightening, and drenching, drenching rains. Gradually, the storm may die down and you may eventually (30 minutes into battle) be dealing with cloudy skies, no rain, no wind and normal visibility. Let's just say this is a French V English battle. Let's just say it's been a HARD first 30 minutes in the battle, infantry massed in centre. All of a sudden, a good commander is going to, upon the rain stopping, bring forward his units of longbows and start unleashing arrows into the enemy infantry...a tactic unusable prior to the rain stopping. We never get into this with M2. It just doesn't happen. And it should...this is how medieval warfare was.

Now, the bottom line is that weather effects are just watered down in Rome and M2TW when compared to MTW. You may still have the "less effective" stats on gunpowder units in rain/snow on M2 (not positive) but you're never dealing with a logistical disadvantage or scrapping of plans due to the weather in the newer editions of total war. It's just not something that one has to be concerned about often, and when they do...never to the extent that they would have to in MTW. Further, nightfighting changes little except the fact that a few units/generals can attain bonuses in nightfights. That's nothing logistical compared to the examples highlighted above as seen in MTW. I mean again...just think about nothing extreme, but an assault on an enemy highground in MTW, with just rain falling. No wind, mixing, cold, nothing but moderate rain. It changes things...it really does. In Rome/M2 it really doesn't. I could still crush you with bows/guns or artillery if I brought it and used it appropriately. In M2, ranged/missile units are MUTED in this rain. Lastly, for now heh...a couple other things to mention are the frequency of storms (again, not nearly as often as in MTW) and the simple fact that commanding units of men is harder in MTW due to the fact that more factors bear on troop morale, and with a larger influence. Effective artillery is debilitating to morale in MTW, but does not result in a chain route. Dead generals are common in M2 and Rome...they're catastrophic in MTW. Enemy AI protects their artillery and missle positions and even entrenches artillery in appropriate places (woodlines, protected lowgrounds/highgrounds etc). To simply LOSE these options during a battle that started out with their presence, because of a sudden change of weather out of nowhere is realistic, and again...not a minor issue to an army. Not to even mention the costs of training those units and the time/cost/etc of getting them to the front, for the battle. We're skipping so many things too...like cannons blowing up or how far cannon balls/artillery fire "roll" after hitting the ground (they almost disappear in rome and medieval2...when this was usually their most devestating time...not the 3 square feet in which the ordinance landed). This is more accurately portrayed in original MTW.

This goes much, much deeper than it seems at first glance and again...this is just the weather we're talking about here.

Reply

interesting / good points brought up

Once again it's important to mention the Gunpowder (& Flamming arrows, etc), in Rain, not only is it very unrealistic, but it completely changes the way you play the game, as you don't see it as much of a disadvantage, so as result you can field your entire army with musketeers, and even if it's pouring down with heavy rain and wind, you wouldn't blink, becuase you'd know they would fire no matter what.

In Shogun & MTW, due to the realism of weather (no more than light drizzle and light winds), you know you can never field a whole army of gunpowder troops, unless you are guaranteed a calm dry day. Because if it rains hard, you might as well throw those weapons away and whip out your swords. (Unless the rain dies down as mentioned above, and so the tactic would be told hold up the battle and retreat your troops far away in the field to play for time). As I mentioned before this is why I am always wary about picking many gunpowder units in the high era, and this is exactly how it should be. They have the advantage of scaring the enemy from the sound and smoke, but they have the huge disadvantage of being useless in rain (long range). And I get annoyed about how this is ignored in M2TW

Also interesting about the battle times, I've never really counted how long the battles can be, so am not sure of the comparisons, although so far the longest battles I've had have been in MTW / VI & Shogun, one was at least 50 minutes long I think, as both sides kept retreating (but not fully), so it took time to get men assembled together and to march towards the enemy.

I'm not sure in which game the ambush factor works well, as for example Sherwood Archers in M2TW are supposed to be very effective? I know often in MTW & Shogun, ambushing works very well, and can quickly demoralize the enemy, if you surprise them with a large force charging towards them.

P.S, for any of those who haven't tried Shogun, I strongly recommend it, bought it recently, and it's really great, has the best atmosphere, and I can def. see why CA chose it as the first TW game,

Reply

I never tried MTW2, but I assume you can turn off fire at will for your gunpowder units? Then you can simply never order them to shoot when you think the weather is too bad. That's not a great answer, I admit, but it might be better than nothing.

Reply

yep you can do that

but for realism they would have to be either taken out of battle completely (if you thought the day would mostly be bad weather)

or put them far back (near the safety line), so they *could* used be later when the weather dies down, (and have them disabled on fire at will), although to be honest when playing M2TW I often won't do that, and will just keep using them (guess I'm taking advantage of the unrealism) but in Shogun & MTW it's a completely different ball game, and I always have to think hard about buying and using gunpowder units.

Reply

To be honest I'm not playing MTW at all right now, and haven't been playing for about a month or more, but that has to do with the "decay" of my computer rather than me losing interest in the game. I've sensed it's death coming for more than a year, and right now I'm at a point where I can't do anything on it other than browse the Internet and listen to music. Unfortunately, I can't afford a new one right now, so it might take a while before I can get back to playing

Reply

sorry to hear that

Reply

I know how you feel but I believe it will make it better when you can once again plaw MTW. It took me a year and a half before I got a new computer to play MTW, go on internet, or even do some word processing. The break gave me a second wind/motivation and I play it everyday now. Screw MTW 2;
Clone armies w/o rocket launchers rock!!! is still cool!

Reply

Okay, I love MTW and all, but I have a few things to say...and oh yea this is a rant...

And the fact is, MTW could have been even better. I don't think many of the features would be hard to script that are in M2TW into MTW. For instance, the ability to move across another factions territory is in there, i.e. crusading/jihading, but rather make such an option for allied factions, such that when you move your stack onto an ally, you get the option of either declaring war or "just moving through". As for diplomacy, add a setup so that you could actually offer things in return for an alliance, and when you use the diplomat after you are allies, you could request the aformentioned faction to A) declare treaty null and void, B) ask them to join you in attacking another faction, or C)bequeth a gift to them of ???? florins.

Second, allow custom glory goals, such as set setfactiongoal, goalname, setgoalrequirements, setdatestart, and setdateend. That easy and even more people would flock to it.

Another things is armor upgrades and heat in the desert (which by the way I think is well potrayed). Armor upgrades could have had reduced fatigue levels in the desert, but right now they increase it. Then again, it would simply add more power to catholics.

And last but not least, the Unit animations. They could have split the files so that one had weapon files, shield files, and unit files. One could have then assembled them using a text document with references that the Unitproduction would simlpy look up. Also, they could have put more time into the unit graphics, or have recruited DJ (either/or). Still, the fact that you don't have to an expert in graphics is a real bonus.

....end Rant.

Reply

YourLordandConqueror, I believe it'd be accurate to portray armour increasing fatigue levels in the desert. Imagine that you'd just been given brand new armour, where as you'd worn none before - and now imagine you're being sent to a dry, searing desert environment in said armour. It'll trap the heat, and you'll sweat profusely. Even without it, but less so. That'll exhaust you. Of course, you said it was well portrayed, so you're probably aware of all this already.

So, why do you think the armour should reduce fatigue in the desert?

Hope this isn't coming off as cocky or arrogant or serious or anything...

Reply

heh - MTW is in all probability drawing its last few breaths.

This forum is one of the few active tubes that still pump blood to its old, anemic community heart.

Martok and the .org as a forum, as well as the patrons here with their dedication and enthusiasm to the game make all this possible. May they all be blessed and favoured by the great Camelord himself

Reply

Sorry, what I meant was fatigue in general, not fatigue through armor upgrades. Armor upgrades represent (in my mind at least) improved armor, not just more armor. Thus, gold armor means well crafted armor of the finest quality, and therefore was both light and and durable, as was gothic armor (especially the milanese variety). As right now, the extra fatigue seems to represent EXTRA layers, and not improved armor.

And Noir, your too much of a pessimist...

Reply

@Innocentius: Sorry to hear about your computer, mate. As someone who's been having ongoing PC difficulties for the last 6 months, you have my full sympathy. Here's to hoping you're not "off the grid" for too long!

I concur with YLC in that I believe you're probably being a little pessimistic.

Granted the MTW community is obviously nowhere near as large as it used to be, but it's hardly dying either. In the last three years (which is when I became more active at the Org), the number of people visiting the Medieval forums both here and at the official site has actually remained pretty steady. This is partially due to the game's ability to retain long-term players (such as Caravel and myself), but it's also partially because new people are constantly "discovering" MTW for the first time. So even when members either quit playing the game (or leave the forums entirely), there's usually someone else that ends up taking their place.

Will this cycle continue indefinitely? Quite possibly not. I concede it might happen that eventually see a day when the MTW community shrinks to just myself and 2-3 other diehards. I'm quite confident it's going to be a good long while before that day comes, however. Like I indicated in my earlier post, the folks here tend be a rather stubborn lot -- myself included.

Indeed. May we all be favored with camel hordes from the mighty Mithrandir.

Reply

Page 1 of 5 1 2345 Last