|
"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
What does everyone think about players that use Rock, none? To me, it seems like an obvious advantage. So much so, that it almost seems like cheating, or "unsportsman-like".
What does everyone else think? --Ed [ December 20, 2002, 04:45: Message edited by: 1FSTCAT ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Nah, the real advantage is taking tiny no-atmosphere gas giants. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
I assume you mean rock/None combination. I haven't seen it used to great advantage yet. That doesn't mean it couldn't be, just that I haven't run into it. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I think we need a better explanation of the supposed abuse.
Assuming there is one atmosphere and planet type that offers more opportunities, it would be self-correcting if players know about it, because presumably more players would tend to pick that combination, resulting in more competition for it. PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I wouldn't go so far as to call it an "abuse", and I did say "seems" like cheating.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
It seems to me like there's always moons floating around, and they're absolutely perfect for a race that can use them... (I'm stating the obvious aren't I?) --Ed |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I don't, because Rock/None has two distinct disadvantages: fewer large and huge planets, and no breathable gas giants. Heck, I consider Ice/None almost a handicap....
Quikngruvn |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
This thread describes this in more detail. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
The main "gamey" reason I consider taking rock/none (or ice/none) is the ability to find a planet with two moons, and build 3 spaceyards, 3 Fleet Training Facilities, and 3 Ship Training facilities in that sector.
The disadvantage is that you have to rely on capturing/trading other pop types to maximize Gas Giant colonization (when you get that tech). This can be a hefty disadvantage, depending on the game setup and the disposition of your neighbors. -spoon |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
rock/none can be dismissed as "gamey" tactic only because people seem to like it and more unique combinations (ice/methane was my Last one in single games) are very rare, thus you can get the most of these planets for your own while the rest will be fighting over the same none/rock moons.
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Yeah, it seems self-balancing due to popularity, and of dubious advantage even if you have that combo all to yourself. There are pros and cons of moons versus larger planets, maps are randomized, etc.
I can see some people choosing it with gamey thoughts in mind, but they're probably wrong if they think it's a big (or any) advantage, except that if it helps them develop a strategy, it might help focus them on a plan. However, building multiple training facilities in the same sector does seem to me like an obvious bug exploit. PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Definitely "gamey", though... |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Rock/None is no advantage. It is not gamey. It is not cheating by any definition. It has advantages and disadvantages over other choices. It depends on your play style. Do you like lot's of little planets spread around, or a few huge ones? Are you a player that prefers a more centralized or a more diffuse empire?
When I lose a game, which I do quite often, rather than look for some reason why the other guy was cheating to explain my loss I try to learn from his tactic and devise a counter to it. Since I have been on this forum the following have tried to claim the "Uber-tactic" crown. Gas Giant Races Fighter Races Berzerker Culture Races Phased Polaron Races Religios Races I have played a lot of games. I have lost to players using all these tactics, and I have won games agaisnt players usign all these tactics. Three words. Rock, Paper, Sizzors. Geoschmo |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Whereas I agree that there is no Ultimate Unbeatable Race Style, you have to admit that a warrior/bezerker religious race weilding PPBs (midgame) and APBs (late game) is more likely to win than an Artist/Gas Giant race that refuses to use those weapons...
I'm not saying the poor Artisans have no chance, but if you had to bet, I'd put my money on the bloodthirsty religious zealots. Fortunately, teaming up with all your neighbors to defeat a power-hungry despot remains as the ultimate balancing factor... -spoon |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
One tactic I have seen used / abused works like this:
Choose Ancient Race. Claim the entire Galaxy. Trade your claim of empty systems that you will never use because they are far, far away to naive computer races for home planets. Watch your score climb like a rocket. Make trade-savvy races surrender because your score is so much higher than theirs. Enjoy unbeatable advantage over other human players. This tactic is so unbalancing, we have actually outlawed ancient races and surrender in some of our games. This is only a problem because the computer players were willing to make these ridiculous trades. Oh well, you can't have everything. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I don't think I've ever played in a PBW game with computer players.
I did see a player once take advantage of a another guy who missed a turn by geting the AI to trade him some his planets and grab his population. It was 'clever', but not the way the game should be played IMO, and I haven't played with the guy since. I agree with Geo that none of these things are unbeatable. Especially planet/atmosphere combos. Talisman can be real tough, but they tend to attract anti-religious coalitions pretty quick. Having a good starting position always seems more important to me. I.e. room to expand, some good planets, a weak neighbour with different colonization/atmosphere breathers. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Definitely "gamey", though...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it's so obviously senseless, that it counts as a bug. There is no reasonable explanation why moons should multiply the training rate. At best, it's an "idiotic design exploit", but I think it's actually kinder to call it a bug. I guess it's a good thing to discuss in the game introduction so players know whether it's not allowed, or if they should go hunting for moons... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif As for the talisman, it's a massive advantage, only balanced if the other players in the game realize it and organize to prevent it from ruling the quadrant before it's too late. I would agree that the cultures and traits are not all well balanced in terms of cost, although this can be corrected in a mod (e.g., Proportions). Has no one made a mod that corrects this balance problem for the standard set? PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Training facilities is a technology a militaristic race would love. If Klingon's actually existed, I'm sure there'd be training facilities on every moon. Non-stop training, yeah. [Insert you favorite Kligonese statement here] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
gee, i always wondered what trading systems was for, or what it did.
planet types dont unbalance a thing. i used to have a huge advantage playing gas, because no one else did. then everyone started taking it. now its more of an even mesh, and i usually pick a planet type at random. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
The multiple training facility thing is an exploit yes, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I am not positive that on balance it's much of an advantage at all. The player doing it has to waste extra facility spots, and the only benefit is faster training. It only take 7 turns as it is to fully train a ship or fleet, for the cost of two extra facility spots (6 extra if you want ship and fleet training facs) you get your crews trained in 3 turns. But the max training is still 20%. That 4 turns isn't going to turn the course of a game.
Do I wish the game would not allow it? Sure. It's kind of hinky, and the game isn't clear on what the rule should be. Any time you have stuff like this it can cause problems between players and I hate that. It's like the mines per sector thing was. Is it a major concern that would cause me to go hunting a players moons? Not a bit. It's just not that big a deal. Geoschmo |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Actually I think Religious has become a disadvantage because every game I've played in the Last six month has had the religious player suffer a coalition against him.
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I agree with the "almost a disadvantage" PoV. The games I play are always with "Can only colonize atmosphere type." option in the game setup (which obviously affects my PoV). This means that there are NO gas giants I can colonize (yes, I am still trying to eek out a living amongst the moons) and production can be seriously hampered (the population production / construction bonuses are NICE) unless I am lucky with the map. Great use of units and the proliferation of SS construction yards in my empire nicely balances it though. If one does not mind utilizing units extensively, the extra moons (which often outnumber the possible gas giants with a breathable atmosphere for other races) are perfect. Also, with one or two trustworthy allies, moons can make great supplemental defences for an ally's planet.
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
I never said PPB are perfectly balanced. I think they might be a little cheap to research, and at level 3 they are a bit strong IIRC. But overall they aren't the uber waepon that people claim them to be. They are simply too short ranged and too expensive to be the ultimate weapon. Those are huge weaknesses that are easily countered. Geoschmo [ December 20, 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I would say the None races, with Rock/None being generally better the Ice/None, have little advantage over other races, unless you play the players can only colonize their own atmosphere type (None). In this case, they have more potential sites for building shipyards than any other races (other races will need more orbital shipyards). However, the None player will have very few worlds that can utilize planet bonuses, because what good is +20% bonus if you have to give up one of your 5 facilities to get it. None worlds are smaller and thus easier to take out (fewer weapons platforms possible).
[ December 20, 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: LGM ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Well, to get back to the original topic...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I guess I was in a bad mood Last night. I also hadn't considered how a Rock/None race would deal with getting the Gas/None and Ice/None techs. I can see where that's their counter-balance, now. They give a good start, but beyond that... Thanks for the perspectives, guys. I see it in a totally different light, now. --Ed |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Religious isn't nearly as big an advantage when more than one player takes it, either. In one of my PBW games, we've got 3 Religious races and 1 Ancient race, out of 5 players. I remember another PBW game where the first three empires I met lived on Gas Giants.
Things go in and out of fashion, as opponents find countermeasures, and people get tired of playing the same race every game. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Training facilities is a technology a militaristic race would love. If Klingon's actually existed, I'm sure there'd be training facilities on every moon. Non-stop training, yeah. [Insert you favorite Kligonese statement here]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, except that there is no reason why having a moon would help training at all. Being able to build more training facilities in one spot is one thing, but that's not allowed... unless you have a moon. Makes zero sense. Also, since moons are also (unrealistically) rare, it also nonsensically limits the systems where this nonsensical technique can be done. It also can't be done until the race has enough colonization tech to colonize both the planet and the moon in a particular sector. None of that has any sensible explanation. I don't object to the idea that you could build more extensive training facilities in one place and get better training, but the restrictions on where this can or can't be done make zero sense, and also introduce a silly reason for trying to get a moon (or better, two moons) and its planet colonized together. It just doesn't make any sense. PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably because the players didn't manage to develop it or exploit it. As I think I said, it's only a huge advantage once it gets to that point. But at that point, it is a huge advantage. Especially in an unmodded game in the late-tech stage, where most people have access to the same things, and hitting at long range is fairly difficult, except for talisman players, who hit all the time. The players have to be skilled enough to realize how to take advantage of it well, which isn't all that hard, and they do have to surivive to that point. But once there, it's a massive advantage. Not always insurmountable. The real counter, as I and others have written before, is coalitions against them. Diplomacy is often the most powerful part of the game, perhaps second to skill vs. newbie-ism. PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
You are correct Pvk, but you are proving my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's the skill of the player that makes the difference, not the uber weapon or tactic. I don't agree it's unbalenced. I used to, but after some success against it recently I am no longer convinced.
I am not saying it's not a nice thing to be able to hit every time, of course it is. I am simply saying it's not the ultimate weapon. If it were then a less skilled player could use it and be victorious. As far as Furball 3 is concerned though, it was a high tech start and six of the twelve races were religious races. Those two factors should have compensated for the two biggest weaknesses of the tailsman. It's cost to research and the tendancy for players to gang up on religious races. But despite this the Religious races are all but dead. In the DimX2 game I faced an opponent who was highly skilled and used the Tailsman to it's utmost potential. For a short time he was effectivly holding off a four empire coalition. But I believe Mark to be a highly skilled player and believe he would have done very well in the game even if he had chosen another racial trait. Geoschmo [ December 21, 2002, 21:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
I don't like the Talisman because I don't think anything should be 100% guaranteed. If it had isntead something like a +50% to hit bonus (stacks with Combat Sensors), it would be much better for gameplay.
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one. - Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else. Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is. -spoon |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons. Quote:
This is a definite advantage and one that is in many cases used as an exploit to quickly defeat newbies. However, combine this advantage with multiple ship training facilities per sector and the religious talisman and you have ships which are virtually invincible, but skilled players have a way of making cocky arrongant SOBs(*tries to look innocent on both counts*) who use a multiple advantage to try and gain a major edge $h1t themselves in surprise when they pull a suprisingly effective new strategy out of their @$$ and use it to defeat such a multiple advanatge. [quote][QB] - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.[quote][QB] I'm not familiar with this one as I have never actually played with Maintenance Reduction as a characteristic. What is the problem with it? |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
However, I do think it's pretty close to the most powerful device. Like Fryon, I also dislike that it's 100% (I prefer what I did in Proportions, which is to make it offer bonuses that slowly get better but also more expensive, and only a massive research effort will get the always-hits ability). Getting ganged up on is more powerful, though, especially if it happens before the device is developed! Quote:
I imagine in this game they fought each other, and/or were ganged up on, and/or they got smashed before they could deploy the talisman effectively, and/or they didn't use proper taliman tactics or designs. Quote:
PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
this is just sillyness. everything can be countered by something else, there is no fixed way to win. there are some things that are not so usefull, but there are no things that are always best to use.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down. |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
You plan and strategize and think you have it all worked out and then still get beat anyway, and badly. Or you think you don't have a chance and something happens in the game and you end up on top. It makes me want to play that much more and figure out why it didn't happen the way I expected. If this is what you really believe, I feel sorry for you. Because you are missing the beauty and the challange of the game. It's not about the end. It's not about finding the best course form point A to point B, or the most efficent ways of killing the other guy. It's finding out what you are made of, and what your opponent is made of. I don't disagree with you about your list of things that are smart choices. But they aren't the only choices. There are so many variables in this game that no one strategy can win every time, you said it yourself. And even a very good strategy is only as good as the paper it's printed on. What separates the losers from the winners in this game is not the ones that design the best startegies. It's the ones that counter their opponents strategies the best. And that's not something you can plan. Unless you are playing against someone that plays the same way everytime. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Now, on to the specifics: - Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one. Well, duh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But is it better than what you could have used those extra facility spots for? Depends on the spefic game, but I can think of several cases where it wouldn't be. - Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else. Slightly maybe. You might be able to design an PPB ship that would defeat an equal size and tech cost ship in one on one combat. But what would it prove in a real game? Not much. Very few combats are one on one involving empires with exactly equal levels of technical development. Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. If you are playing against someone that doesn't understand how combat works, you are already unbeatable, combat bonuses or no. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is. See previous answer. Geoschmo EDIT: Dang it puke. You stole all my answers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ December 21, 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod. As for other options giving an analagous advantage to training, that's not valid in the standard set, particularly with faster than High research costs, because it doesn't take long to research to the max, and since the advantages stack additively, any 20% stacking advantage that your opponent doesn't get (and you can get another 20% with fleet training) is a MAJOR advantage, which can turn the tide of battles, and which in this case costs no maintenance or design space. Quote:
I would say that PPBs are probably the best all-around weapon in SE4. They can target anything but seekers, do major damage compared to other direct fire weapons with the same fire rate, and they are fairly inexpensive when compared to other, more powerful, weapons. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree PPBs are somewhat too cheap, too easy to research, and too potent. However, I don't think they're necessarily the best. For one thing, many players never deploy unphased shields, leaving PPB Users with overly expensive weapons limited to range 6. Unless your opponents are using a lot of unphased shields, APB or MBs are generally more efficient, for example. PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
As far as your desire to mod that 1% maximum, why not eliminate the sector training facilities and allow all races access to the system training facility the psychic races have in the stock game. IMHO it makes more sense for training to be system wide anyway, and you can limit those to one per system effective. Geoschmo |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
okay, i admit, the moon training thing is really annoying. not so much in the standard game, but more so in games with more moons. like FQM games. when you have 5 or 7 moons in one sector, you can train ships to full in a single turn. THAT could be abusive. I would indeed like a per-sector limit on training. or even an optional per sector limit, in the form of another ability, or a variable, or somesuch.
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. It's not a big balance problem. It's mainly annoying. It is a valuable thing to do if it's allowed, it tends to reduce the interesting need to spend time and maintenance resources training a fleet, and it doesn't make any sense and smacks of munchkinism. So, I'm simply saying I'd be well pleased to see it fixed, and I'd usually prefer to have a house rule in games I play to not do it. That's all. No big deal. I'm only posting repeatedly because some people said they didn't understand why it made no sense, etc. Quote:
PvK |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-spoom |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Originally posted by spoon:
Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue. There's logic in this. However I would contend that there are simply too many variables in this game to do a strict apples to apples comparison between techs. To do this what standard do you use? Damage to tonnage ratio? Or damage to cost? Or maybe damage to research cost? PPB doesn't come out on top with all three I know that. And there are other factors to consider. How far apart are your empires at game start? What is the political situation with the other empires? All of this has great impact and cannot be adequatly planned for in every instance, and does not fit easily into raw spreadsheet analysis. I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance... Not what I am saying at all. One of the greatest things about this game is that it has so many different things to offer. My point was only that a person that approaches the game from a strict cost/benefit/efficency analysis perspective is not likely to enjoy it for as long. Not that they wouldn't enjoy it just as much while they do. You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome. On the contrary. If I ever asserted these things didn't matter, I didn't intend to. Of course they matter very much. But they aren't the only thing that matters. I am simply saying that there is no formula for success in SEIV that you do A then B then C and you will win. If there was then the AI could kick all our butts all the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You appear to agree with me on that point. Not everybody does. Not everything I have said in these Posts is intended directly for you. True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure. Can't argue with that. Good planning is crucial to victory. It's hard to overcome poor planning. But my contention is there are other plans that could be equally as effective as yours. A lot depends on a persons style of play. You need a plan that meshes well with your personality. I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s). Nah, let 'em learn the hard way. The way we all did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif EDIT: By the way, why not put these theories to the test Spoon and join the King of the Hill league. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Geoschmo [ December 22, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will see
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
research 120 construction 120 defense 120 offense 120 minerals 120 maint reduction 110 Advanced Storage Hardy Industrialist Ancient Race You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it! |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
You were right, there is a way to guarantee victory in SEIV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
(oops messed up the quotes, sorry about that...)
Quote:
Quote:
[/qb][/quote] If you have either APBs or Phased shields in the mid-game, you have pretty much used ALL of your research to get there. Those two components don't usually appear until the late game. Null Space weapons are less effective midgame, since Light Cruisers are the dominant ship, and don't have enough room for significant armor and shields (the latter being skipped by PPBs anyway). And using PPBs doesn't preclude using your own missile swarms as a surprise maneuvre. PPBs are the best, but not overwhelmingly so. Other weapon choices will still work, but just not as well. Quote:
[/qb][/quote] Bezerkers aren't prevented from researching those things either. In the end, unless you purchased some Aggressiveness, you will be at -65% to hit (or whatever the amount is). PDCs defeat seekers and fighters, which are your next best option, and ramming, well, good luck! Quote:
i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down.[/QB][/quote] hehe. I disagree with your conclusion that Maint Reduction is worthless in small games and only ok in medium games. It lets me support 5 ships to your 3. Unless I take Merchant. Then I get 5 ships to every 2 of yours. Tough to overcome those odds. I think a game with balanced choices is better than a game with lopsided choices. -spoon [ December 22, 2002, 04:56: Message edited by: spoon ] |
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
OK... I'll bite
How is maintenance reduction broken. I have tried searching for threads on the subject and have not found anything interesting. I found some other interesting things though.... |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.