Jump to content

[Poll] Which Fire Emblem Mechanics are the best?


Stephano
 Share

Recommended Posts

If i've learned anything about the Fire Emblem community, its that you can't please everyone. What I am curious about is which is democratically the best Fire Emblem mechanics.

Think about it this way, if a new game was to come out, which mechanics and systems from older titles should be included. I don't want to talk about new mechanics that have not been implemented in a Fire Emblem game before, but rather mechanics that have been in previous titles that have either remained the same or have gone through several iterations. Here is an example, "Which support system from previous titles is the best." 

For this poll, I've included two things: one being a link to the poll itself and another is a chart displaying the game in which old mechanics were used. It's not perfect, but i think i have most of the mechanics covered. If you are looking at a chart and section may not make sense, the question corresponding to that section of the chart is better explained.

Link to Poll:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdkYnSwQ5HntERpU61AZI_oNi9LmrJux9Sc7gfKvqEFuvAZeQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

FE Mechanics - Sheet1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How Should Weapon Ranks Work" does not include Weapon Level, which I feel it should.

I also would have liked if it asked about Gauntlets / Hidden Weapons but I guess they aren't exactly "mechanics."

I will also say this about Holy Blood / Crest systems. If there's not a generational mechanic, I think it's totally useless. It's nothing more than a convoluted way to add extra personal skills unless you can pass those bonuses down to child units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to nitpick the hell out of this.  In order. . .

"Post Game" - Add options of "something else" and/or "a combination of the two" (FE8 tried to do the latter)

"Weapon triangle" - Completely redo this.  Instead, it's "Which game's traditional weapon triangle is the best", with an option of "I don't like the weapon triangle".  My vote is the DS ones, BTW.

"Gaiden chapters" - Again, WHICH type is important.  The DS remakes really sucked at them, while FE6's varying conditions were a lot more amusing.

"Archer range" - Include "Two range, can counter at 1 range under certain circumstances" (Tellius)

"Side stories" - Move this right next to the gaiden question

"Dead units via story" - My answer is "maybe".  I'd allow it under very specific circumstances.

"Support system" - Believe it or not, FE11 had supports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under "one-off mechanics", some of them feel odd. Like FE16's no villages. I wouldn't call that a mechanic. It's just a missing thing, and if we sat around pointing out things that used to exist but didn't in the next game, we'd be here all day. FE6's buyable boots also existed in FE1. In FE1 you can buy an infinite amount of stat boosters, and you've got so much money naturally you could stat cap all of your units before the final chapter. I also have to wonder how explorable dungeons isn't on this list of one-off mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

"Should tomes be weapons or skills" is not a yes or no question, so you might want to fix that.

My bad. Fixed.

30 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Time to nitpick the hell out of this.  In order. . .

"Post Game" - Add options of "something else" and/or "a combination of the two" (FE8 tried to do the latter)

"Weapon triangle" - Completely redo this.  Instead, it's "Which game's traditional weapon triangle is the best", with an option of "I don't like the weapon triangle".  My vote is the DS ones, BTW.

"Gaiden chapters" - Again, WHICH type is important.  The DS remakes really sucked at them, while FE6's varying conditions were a lot more amusing.

"Archer range" - Include "Two range, can counter at 1 range under certain circumstances" (Tellius)

"Side stories" - Move this right next to the gaiden question

"Dead units via story" - My answer is "maybe".  I'd allow it under very specific circumstances.

"Support system" - Believe it or not, FE11 had supports.

A bit “dickish” but thank you for the critique regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mods for the double post.

2 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Under "one-off mechanics", some of them feel odd. Like FE16's no villages. I wouldn't call that a mechanic. It's just a missing thing, and if we sat around pointing out things that used to exist but didn't in the next game, we'd be here all day. FE6's buyable boots also existed in FE1. In FE1 you can buy an infinite amount of stat boosters, and you've got so much money naturally you could stat cap all of your units before the final chapter. I also have to wonder how explorable dungeons isn't on this list of one-off mechanics.

i said the list I put together is not perfect and I may have put items on the poll that may not belong or may have forgotten. I’ll remove the no villages and boots.

For Dungeons, I find the dungeons in FE8 and FE15 to be similar enough to where they can be considered the same thing. Although I do see the argument that they are different.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stephano said:

A bit “dickish” but thank you for the critique regardless.

That was me being blunt.  Quite frankly, if you don't have full knowledge of the game series, and attempt to make something like this, expect someone to point out some of the things that went wrong with it.  If you think this is some sort of personal insult, then learn how to distance your personal self from whatever work you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to explain some of my responses because I have poor time management skills.

Spoiler

"Which Skill System is Best?"

  • FE4/FE5, skills contribute to the identity / niche of units more when they're largely unit-locked. They feel more like skills and less like equipment.

"Post Game, Trial Maps, or NG+"

  • The real answer is that thing the Last Promise did.
  • Honestly I don't care, but trial maps which let you take the villains on cool new maps sounds nice.

"Which Recruitment style is the best"

  • Traditional recruitment is great because it makes your army feel more like this dynamic entity and talking to enemies on the map gives you additional objectives to work towards. Having every character join you by default

"Do you like Route Spits or different points of view"

  • Points of view sounds cool and all, but I like having one adventure that can go countless ways instead of two less flexible (and more sloppily constructed) adventures.

"Rescuing, Pair Up, or neither"

  • I actually really liked Conquest's pair up system, I'd like to see it tried out again.

"Do you want to be able to recruit all characters in one playthrough"

  • I don't really care, though I can see how being able to do this can make route splits seem less important
  • Having to choose which unit you want to recruit can be an interesting decision, so on review I think I voted wrong by saying "yes"

"Do you like the traditional weapon triangle"

  • I don't dislike it, but I don't necessarily think the weapon system is ideal. I don't think all the weapon types have their own niche and so axes and lances can end up feeling a bit samey, I feel. I didn't really miss axes in Shadows of Valentia, for instance, because the distinct traits of axes are only slightly different from lances.
  • I am definitely not a fan of making the weapon triangle into a series of skills, though.

"Are Avatars good?"

  • I don't necessarily like Corrin and Robin, but I think Kris actually had the right idea. Having a unit in your initial party who can be whatever class you want adds some variety to the early game on subsequent playthroughs.

"Should you have to dismount or have an indoor penalty for mounted units?"

  • No, balancing around a unit's advantages by taking them away is no bueno.

"Do you like Gaiden/ Paralouge chapters?"

  • Yeah, it was cool to have not just optional side stories, but ones where you had to meet certain requirements to reach them. More things you got to consider.

"Open Map, Linear, or Traversable Bases"

  • Linear, assuming that means I can still do base conversations or whatever. I like to go from one map to the next without too much heel dragging.

"Should there be child units"

  • "No/ Only if the Story DEMANDS it."
  • I don't think is quite the best answer. Whether there are child units or not should be a gameplay consideration first. The story should then be crafted to accommodate that. I'd be interested to see the FE4 generational mechanic again, but not because I have some multi-generational war story in mind. I want to play another eugenics simulator.

"Which calculation of Attack Speed (AS) is the best?"

  • Speed - Weight makes weapon weight a more prominent consideration.

"Should you be able to change a units class? (EX: Archer->Knight)"

  • Limited reclassing is fun, I think it's worth specifying between Shadow Dragon, Fates, and Three Houses ways of changing classes. I personally liked the Fateswakening version the most (never used Heart/Partner seals though), but if not that I would actually rather have no reclassing.

"What should the range of archers be?"

  • More than two. After all, the point of an archer is to hit the other guy before they can hit you.

"Should Archers have 1-2 range?"

  • Frick no.
  • Balancing around an advantage by getting rid of it is a trash idea, likewise trying to balance around a disadvantage by getting rid of it is absolutely garbage.

"Should games have third tier promotions"

  • I don't think third tier promotions really added anything, to be honest.

 

"Should there be Holy Blood/Crest System?"

  • Without a generation mechanic, I consider it redundant.

"Should Summoning return?"

  • Summoning was one of the cooler things about Sacred Stones

 

58 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That was me being blunt.  Quite frankly, if you don't have full knowledge of the game series, and attempt to make something like this, expect someone to point out some of the things that went wrong with it.  If you think this is some sort of personal insult, then learn how to distance your personal self from whatever work you do.

He handled it in stride, I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so i broke off answering the poll for a few reasons myself, to wit

 

which recruitment style is the best: the 'traditional' style is limited as hell and i'm not a big fan of it, but it's I Guess my favorite of them

should there be child units: yes, but 'child units' as in customizable guys, i don't actually care if they're canon children of the units in the party or whatever

which version of attack speed is best: none of them, this is a literally meaningless question without the context of the numbers from the game in question

 

i respect what you're trying to do, to put together what is the ideal community-voted fire emblem, mechanically, but the fact of it is a lot of the questions are asking things that are completely meaningless without numerical context (attack speed, dismounting, etc.), things which are either great or terrible depending on the numerical context (bonus exp, weapon arts, etc.), or things where none of the options are The Best because the game literally has to be designed around the fact (archer range/counter, branching promotions, etc.)

 

in short, you're gonna get responses like 'branched promotions are good, actually', but from people who love fe8 for a large variety of reasons; or 'pair up is way better than rescue', but from people who love fe13/14 for a large variety of reasons, and so and and so on

 

EDIT: to offer a constructive criticism instead, think about asking questions like 'should weapon weight be mitigable easily, based on unit, or not at all' rather than equation questions like the attack speed one, and so on. delve into the reasons behind the mechanical decisions made by fire emblem's games, and ask if their rationale is good, rather than asking if the system itself was good, yeah?

Edited by Integrity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

That was me being blunt.  Quite frankly, if you don't have full knowledge of the game series, and attempt to make something like this, expect someone to point out some of the things that went wrong with it.  If you think this is some sort of personal insult, then learn how to distance your personal self from whatever work you do.

From the list of things you pointed out, the only thing I had incorrect was supports in FE11 (They’re invisible so they can be easy to miss) The other content in your post was more or less opinion on how to improve the wording, lanuage, ect, of the poll itself which I appreciate. So I’m not sure where me not being knowledgeable comes from unless you would like to point out more mistakes I’ve made (feel free).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Integrity said:

i respect what you're trying to do, to put together what is the ideal community-voted fire emblem, mechanically, but the fact of it is a lot of the questions are asking things that are completely meaningless without numerical context (attack speed, dismounting, etc.), things which are either great or terrible depending on the numerical context (bonus exp, weapon arts, etc.), or things where none of the options are The Best because the game literally has to be designed around the fact (archer range/counter, branching promotions, etc.)

Yeah, but the very nature of a democratized combination of factors means that there will be no coherent vision / design behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yeah, but the very nature of a democratized combination of factors means that there will be no coherent vision / design behind them.

yes, that's my point, any collaborative response to this poll would result in a shithouse game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised but also happy to see that many people want capturing to return. It was the best existing mechanic for me. This also negates automatically the answer of repairing weapons other than the hammern staff.

Most of my answesrs refer to Judgral and Tellius since both series introduced the most relevant things in FE like weapon triangle, weapon weight and manual skill system. 

Though I belong to the majority who prefers 2D battles. FE10 had great animations, not gonna lie, but Judgral's 2D animations were quite aesthetics too. Leif's crit is the most hilarious animation for me - love  watching them so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of these questions would be better as check boxes instead of single answer. 

I'm in favor of both NG+ (3H) and a postgame (like SoV, although Awakening is okay too)

Weapon triangle like RD should be an option, where the higher difficulties get rid of it.

Avatar sort of like Kris, as a playable character supporting the main lord, but with minimal story impact.

I'm in the minority where I think FE should keep moving into 3D. 

IMO reclassing kind of makes branching promotions redundant.

I think my only "no's" were child units and HB/Crests.

Going over my answers, any game with all the things I want would be a broken mess lol.

Edit: lmao child units are 100% no

Edited by trainer_derp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick critiques:

Does "different pov" mean Elwood/Hector style stories or radiant dawn with different parties? I couldn't decide what I thought it meant. 

Not having fates as a separate choice in the weapon triangle feels wrong to me. Only game in the series where every single weapon is subject to the triangle. 

Random thoughts on results: always interesting seeing those. Most of them are expected but certainly some odd (to me) ones. 

Surprised so many are in favor of weapon arts; I find them far too skewed in the player's favor. 

I always thought people didn't care for third tier promos, guess that was wrong. 

I don't know how you used Kaze as an example of story death and got more yes than no. That whole deal was one of the dumbest things in the series; zero heads up or hint that you need to hit an arbitrary rank or a character dies forever. Equally surprised "fe4 gen 1" wasn't the example. 

I wonder if anyone thought "best form of canto" meant like a ranking, because fe9 (/3H) super canto was incredibly busted.

Stamina was a great idea and I wish it'd return, especially in the recent era of juggernauting heavy entries in the series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought on some question:

-Skill system: It seems controversial for me to argue. And I think for quite a while since the GBA era, the mechanic of skill isn't so well improved.

-Post Game, Trail Maps, or NG+: I'm not a fan of those, although some people may like it. To me a whole campaign is good enough if well designed.

-Recruitment style: is not really important to me.

-Route Splits or Different points of view: Perhaps it's more of story related and repayable value. If so then it's more depend on the writing and level design.

-Rescuing, Pair Up, or neither: No comment.

-All recruitment or not: to me it's depend on whenever or not the game is rich in term or replay value. If the game is already rich in replay value by other means, it doesn't matter. But if I don't feel like wanting to play the game again from the beginning then it will make me feel more tedious.

-Weapon triangle: I know it's a tradition in FE but recently playing Vestaria Saga proves otherwise. Weapon triangle may seems standard in most Fire Emblem, but it lack of depth and giving a bit of issue in term of balance. For example, because axes are generally low in accuracy, having an accuracy penalty on an already low accurate weapon make most of axes users become undesirable. Or bow mostly have 2-2 range which making it less useful in term of counter attack when in reality it is more than something for 2-2 range.

I think a better alternative is to give each type of weapon a unique feeling about their performance instead of giving them advantage over one another:

For example, bow maybe useless for melee but can cover larger range at a cost of less accuracy and damage the further it fire.

Axes can still be inaccurate and hit hard but there are still options for accurate boost on support to compensate it's weakness and without weapon triangle, it won't be too difficult to use when your unit become more experience making them a better weapon overall later game.

Spear in reality are cheap and easy to use, we can make it to be a more cost efficient type of weapon compare to the other by making it generally cheap and low on proficiency requirement. Some spear are long which mean some of them offer passive skills that allow unit to attack first which also make them a favorite kind of weapon for passive fighter.

Sword in general can be more skill demand to be able to wield and none of them offer range attack. However, they offer plenty of quirks such as being magical, having high critical rate, can multi hit or high critical rate.

Light magic are more of a defensive magic. Thing like flash bang are useful at disorienting opponent which make me wonder why there aren't any use of light as mentioned. Things like lower accuracy for a turn or slow down opponent may come in handy. But because light doesn't have so much mass, it shouldn't do so much damage.

Elemental magic are more of exploiting weakness. Fire burns clothe but not so much effective on reptile. Electricity are more dangerous against metallic armor and wet target but doesn't do much on non conductive suited unit. Cold magic may slow down opponent but does not much against roped mage, cleric and furry horses. Earth magic explode the ground or causing bump/mud on the road which stops cavalry but isn't effective against foot unit who find little problem on rough terrain and dodging explosion. Some magic do no damage but apply status effects which make target more vulnerable. For example, soaking water make electricity more effective but fire less effective. Oil soaking de-buff a certain stats depend on either if it applied on leg, face or hand; also it make unit more flammable. Maybe there could be an air magic that lower air density -> lower oxygen intake -> people get tired faster -> drastically reduce attack speed.

I think warfare is not all about fighting, sometime making use of environment, science, insect, disease, chemistry to your advantage can also be called magic.

-Should there be forging? But what about research instead? For example, you are struggling when your opponent is having so much cavalries flanking from all directions, that's when you find out you should develop a better weapon to counter this threat. And there come the pike which offer attack first or Phalanx formation which may be another type of weapon or support skill which can punish active unit more effectively. Now those tech become available in your shop for a reasonable amount of price and maybe require some special material. I think, it maybe more creative than forging. But I don't know how will it turn out in actual game play though.

-What should be the range of archer? I think it should be greater than two with fall off effect. I don't think giving them too much range is broken as long as there are draw back to balance thing out.

-Should archer be able to retaliate at one range under certain circumstances? In reality, it's a yes and no. Yes because some historical example shown that archer does carry light weight and quick draw weapons such as short sword and knife. No for a two handed weapon. Also light and quick weapons tend to be more of a back up weapon, they have short range and not as powerful as dedicated melee weapons. Which mean they can still melee, but properly they may not be able to attack first or does little damage. Archer in reality can be countered by well armored infantry and they are even more vulnerable when being flanked than other type of unit.

-How should weapon rank work? I think game should be more generous in term of weapon rank. Why should we restrict a well trained unit to use a high rank weapon of one type when they can use a high rank weapon of other type. It's reasonable if the character is under leveled but it's stiff when characters are high leveled. I like it when all weapon ranks become one stats that will level up like any other stats which is more elegant. Of course what type of weapon a unit can use is still depend on their class.

-Should game have third tier promotion? I don't think we should have a big power gap between your unit and enemies unit. Having a juggernaut may seem to be baddass, but also seem mindless.

-Side story? Depend on how much it will contribute to your experience. A well designed long campaign for me is still better and a bunch of additional contents , micro transaction and dlc.

-Should unit be killed off or betray you during the story? Yes if it add more value in term of experience. One of my most beloved moment is when I see Eyvel be turned into stone and at the end of that chapter, Leif promised her that he would come back as a better man to save her. The end of generation one in Fire Emblem 4 is also a great motivation to continue. But not all thing are absolute. I didn't have so much empathy to Orson as other two mentions above because it doesn't seem to have as much depth in his character and story compare to the previous.

-Should there be Holy Blood/Crest System? That would come to the question whenever or not it is significant to overall experience. I would like it to be a personality defined aspect of a character instead of what they take for granted. Perhaps it should be something that choose them because who they are instead of where are they born into. Perhaps it should be both. For example one will have a minor alignments as inherited from a random parent, another minor from the most influencing person of their life (either their love or mentor) one major which they get when their character is fully developed. This could lead to an interesting situation like having a character who is orphan happen to find out their parents identity because of their clue about their alignment or characters who is struggle to define them-self happen to be awakened in a certain critical moment.

-Should repair weapon allowed? Yes, as long as the price are reasonable and gameplay aren't too broken.

-Should there be Leadership Stars? No and yes. No because Leadership Stars is a bit shallow in my opinion, yes because we can replace it with leadership skill. Thing like some sniper in practice usually have a spotter who will have wider vision and experience to guide them can be an example of leadership. It will be depend on what type of bonus they provide for their team. Some will be better at boosting morale. Some like Fire Emblem 5 Kempf should detrimental to their team performance. Other tend to be reckless but instinctual which maybe not good for helping their team avoid getting hit but better at rush down opponents with great haste and power. See chess personality for more detail.

-Access to convoy: Yes, it's a useful mechanic. But can a storage dude be more of a storage dude? Maybe he can slowly repair weapon in his first inventory, have discount shopping skill, deploy mini unit that do gather intel, visiting houses, fetching and delivering remotely (like summoner).

-Best form of canto: Ultra Canto is my favorite. This mean hit and run is a viable tactic. Some may argue it to be imbalance. But I think that the imbalance is not about Canto but about how other mechanic and level layout effect Canto. Ultra Canto will be imbalance if the map is too big, too empty and too much backtracking. I think that most Fire Emblem fail to provide situation where a slow but durable unit or a foot unit is needed. Thing like having a clash where a vanguard is viable; having a cliff, tree and vines where a light armored foot unit can limb but not horse; enemies reinforcements form the rear while your objective is far ahead can balance out Canto and give different units their moment to shine. The game shouldn't be too stress or rank on low turn count either but instead only do so when faster pacing is needed.

-Should summoning return? If you mean summoning as a gacha mechanic, the answer is absolutely no. I don't like game that doesn't come a whole in one time transaction and mobile game overall. It is a time sink and money sink mechanic that shouldn't exist. But if you mean summoning as of FE8 the answer is yes, but it should be improved and expanded. Take an aircraft-carrier for example. It does give more tactical option an also a viable tactic. During medieval, using a swarm of hornet is also one of the most effective strategy. Anything may add the depth of the game, but I think only testing it will tell whenever or not it should be implemented.

-Should dancer be able to refresh more unit? Not necessary. In Vestaria Saga, there is a dancer that can disarm enemy instead of giving a unit your turn. I think that other way around seems to be more interesting than how many unit she can refresh.

-Should a beast character transform? I think why not just beast but other thing as well. Trebuchet, it's a siege weapon with great range but can't move unless packed, but packing cost a turn or a few turn. Heavy armor unit, what if they can just take off their armor sometime, let a horse haul it and then deploy them elsewhere which solve some of their problem. The question is why do we have beast unit when they are not much different than a normal unit who use a conventional weapon, or a beast unit who sometime work and sometime rest? There should be some meaning to such thing instead of just different stats and gimmick.

-Which is the best support system? I think the best support system is something that doesn't require too much time cramping a certain group of people together. It is because this will make the overall formation too stiff, and gameplay too tedious. Which is why I like it most in Fire Emblem 5.

-Base exploration: not necessary, I like more action, what's the point of walking around?

-Should dancer be able to fight back: A combat dancer is a bit shallow in my opinion. But a dancer who can do more than just fighting and refreshing unit is more welcome.

-Should there be base conversation: If you are prefer to character talking with each other in their base then my question is it's not really necessary because it's not much of a meaning overall and sometime they would have pointless dialogue as well.

-Should there be weapon art: no comment. I haven't played Three Houses so I don't have enough experience to argue.

-Should FE be 2D or 3D: Whatever developer feel more comfortable. But I prefer 2D for cost efficient.

-Which calculation of attack speed is the best? If there is no rescue then Con is pointless. I prefer Speed - (weight - Strength/Con)

-Class change? Although class change seems cool, I think giving too much of class change making characters become less defined. However, making classes imbalance (for example: armor knight too slow, axe user too inaccurate) is the real problem. I will choose no.

-Should there be branching promotion? There a line between having a depth mechanic and having a complex mechanic. Whatever it is more elegant is better. I will choose no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very much conflicted on combat arts. On one hand, they are useful, make steels useful, and can be cool. On the other hand, I like having physical units be simple to manage. Three Houses seems to have ended up making the physical units more complicated than the magic units, which doesn't make sense to me.

Some solutions:

  1. Give mages more maintenance. For example, the magic system would be like Three Houses', where the magic is restored after each map. But give mages a 'tome' (spellbook) with a limited number of spell slots (maybe divide into white book, flame book, thunder book, etc.). The player is limited to only a few spells and has to choose them strategically. Different spells have different amounts of MP, e.g. Fire has 10 uses while Thoron has 8. These uses are replenished after the map, but the tome itself has a durability that lowers either by deployment or spell usage. Eventually the tome needs to get repaired or replaced. You can further complicate the game by adding tomes with different effects (different number of spell slots, stat bonuses, favoring certain spell types, etc.).
  2. Enable mages to choose different branches for skills/weapon ranks. They would play more like Three Houses' skills (but magic oriented). Physical classes (and hybrids) stay on the traditional weapon rank method.
  3. Reduce the total number of combat arts, or limit the number of combat arts a unit can learn.

1 makes the game more complicated. 3 makes it more simple. 2 is a way of mixing Three Houses' skill system with the traditional weapon rank system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...