Territory Income Bonus: for Classic, Revised, 1941/42.2 etc


  • 2019 2015 '14

    First to CWO Marc: What you just laid out was in fact the very first thing I tried. But the problem came in doubling all the territories that had a base value of 2 ipcs or more. 🙂

    It was easy enough to change the 0s to 1s, and the 1s to 2s, but doubling the 2s to 4s and the 3s to 6s, is where it gets all out of whack. This is actually what convinced me that there was some underlying weirdness to the base 0 arrangement in the first place. There is also something kind of magical about that base 3 ipc territory (worth exactly the replacement cost of a single infantry, and desireable as a potential factory location) which you kind of lose by simple doubling.

    The next idea we had was to simply add 1 to all territories across the board, effectively raising the printed production numbers by +1. This held up much better, and it comes very close to working. But again the problem was with the factories. This time it was the new factories rather than the starting ones, which become problematic. Because adding 1 directly to the production totals, makes every space at OOB 1, into 2 and thus viable for a factory. (Mainly this was a tank drive issue, esp. for Japan.) There was also an issue with the double dip, where if you added the numbers into normal production/income, you made that double dip even more extreme.

    It was at that point we tried separating the bonus cash into a separate phase, and putting it at the beginning of the turn. Using the simple count and add method. Which, much to my surprise, actually worked and rather well. So that’s why I offered it as a viable house option for high economy games on the basic boards.

    To Baron:
    The only issue I see arising from the “just conquered territory” thing, is that it requires players to track the games history. What I mean is that, at a glance, it might not be so easy to remember who conquered what and when. Especially if there is a break in the game, and you come back to it later. So if you want to do it that way, I think you’ll have a situation where people might get confused about the amount of the bonus. It could work though, it just seems a little more complicated than what I was shooting for.

    I also think 5 ipcs per Nation is a bit low to have much impact, since that doesn’t even allow for the purchase of an additional tank in games like 1942. It doesn’t really bring things from Low to High economy. But if the goal is just to lower the overall bonus, then I suppose you could borrow from a game like risk, and divide the total by 1/3 (or maybe 1/2 but I would probably favor thirds since infantry costs 3 so there is a kind of built in 1/3 to the game already), but you’d have to round down in that case not up to find the total if you wanted it.

    The only problem I have with that (aside from the additional math) is that it creates a baseline of <1 which is inherently more complicated than just 1. Anytime you work with fractions. And the total of 70 territories is not divisible by 3, so you’d always have a remainder somewhere. 1/2 might work, but again, it disproportionately advantages nations which can hold an even number of territories instead of an odd. I’m also not sure .5 ipcs would make enough of a differences in persuading someone to go for a base zero ipc territory like Caroline Islands or Iceland. Whereas 1 ipc does seem to make enough difference, or at least that has been the experience in every game we’ve tried with this rule in play.

    When the bonus gets you into double digits +10, +15 etc it changes the purchasing options in a way that +5 doesn’t. When the totals across the board go up by a third, it effects the overall unit replacement costs, which mitigates the straight-jacket of the OOB starting unit set up somewhat. With the effect that the whole game isn’t tied to it anymore. Now you can do other things, because your purchasing power is increased. Instead the game becomes more about what units are purchased each round, with less emphasis on the starting unit arrangement and the opening round battles. It doesn’t eliminate that starting unit emphasis completely, but it does provide for more flexibility as the game goes on.


  • 2017 2016

    Thanks for the long reply post.
    Help understand the history of this HR.
    I never thought that double dips was such a problem when all territories get +1 IPC bonus.
    Thanks sharing your experience.

    Probably one interesting aspect of your HR:

    When the bonus gets you into double digits +10, +15 etc it changes the purchasing options in a way that +5 doesn’t. When the totals across the board go up by a third, it effects the overall unit replacement costs, which mitigates the straight-jacket of the OOB starting unit set up somewhat. With the effect that the whole game isn’t tied to it anymore. Now you can do other things, because your purchasing power is increased. Instead the game becomes more about what units are purchased each round, with less emphasis on the starting unit arrangement and the opening round battles. It doesn’t eliminate that starting unit emphasis completely, but it does provide for more flexibility as the game goes on.

    You probably have a point here:

    I’m also not sure .5 ipcs would make enough of a differences in persuading someone to go for a base zero ipc territory like Caroline Islands or Iceland. Whereas 1 ipc does seem to make enough difference, or at least that has been the experience in every game we’ve tried with this rule in play.

    You defend well your HR, I could say.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Anytime, I always enjoy discussing this stuff, and the people here always have great feedback and thoughtful responses 🙂

    Yeah, the double dip is interesting. On the one hand it is hard to get rid of completely, because the basic game is built in such a way that Russia, Germany and UK are all dependent upon it to maintain economic parity with each other. But at the same time if you try to up the money via the printed production value universally +1, then that same double dip starts to swing more dramatically. This is why it seemed simpler to detach a bonus from the production values, so you are adding in money without altering production, and then put it into a kind of seperate phase based on the total territory controlled count. When you stick that phase right before unit purchase, it seems to work out nicely in terms of the overall flow of the gameplay. Pretty easy to adopt, not too much additional math or too many additional things to track, but it gets that money into play. What’s cool about it I think, is that it allows the double dip to persist, but then gives this extra bonus which encourages holding territory rather than trading it. So you get a little of both in play, but it’s not overly distorting.

    For example, Germany can retain their sizeable double dip/normal income pretty easily, but they start to drop on the bonus cash as the game goes on, if they cease to expand and instead fall into the defensive ball. Russia has a similar problem, and also the inherent problem of being the nation with the least amount of land and normal money. But they do get a slight edge, since the western allies can recover their territory so it is held at the start of their turn (thus giving the bonus.) And this is in the tradition of A&A I think, where part of the western allies job to win, is to support Russia. The part that I like best though, is what this rule does to the Japanese/American game. And it’s hard to explain in words what goes on here but I think of it like this.

    With this rule in play, if Allies go full KGF and ignore all land at 0 ipcs (which has been traditional on many boards) Japan grows monster on the bonus. If Allies go full KJF and ignore all land at 0 pics, the same thing happens with Germany, they grow monster. So in a way the rule encourages the Allied split theater game. Which usually never works on any A&A board because the Allies don’t have enough money to support it, so they opt all one way. But now the Allies can get enough money to make that playstyle effective. And they are encouraged to do so especially by the Japanese position against the US/UK in full KGF, or the Sea Lion potential of Germany if they go full KJF. Again its harder to show, but the values seem to work. Or at least, if more people try, I am hopeful to get actual feedback from games. Allied wins, Axis wins, after action reports 🙂


  • 2017 2016

    With this rule in play, if Allies go full KGF and ignore all land at 0 ipcs (which has been traditional on many boards) Japan grows monster on the bonus. If Allies go full KJF and ignore all land at 0 pics, the same thing happens with Germany, they grow monster. So in a way the rule encourages the Allied split theater game. Which usually never works on any A&A board because the Allies don’t have enough money to support it, so they opt all one way. But now the Allies can get enough money to make that playstyle effective. And they are encouraged to do so especially by the Japanese position against the US/UK in full KGF, or the Sea Lion potential of Germany if they go full KJF. Again its harder to show, but the values seem to work. Or at least, if more people try, I am hopeful to get actual feedback from games. Allied wins, Axis wins, after action reports Smiley

    Your making three hits with one stone:
    Did you ever read the thread I started based on your post in the Harris Game Design forum?
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32221.msg1207041#msg1207041

    Probably it is the solution for this problem:
    Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Oh wow, I didn’t realize there was such a robust discussion going on there. I thought my post on the Larry Boards just fell flat, didn’t know it was picked up here. I just read through those posts right now, solid feedback. 🙂

    I think I get a better sense now for CWOMarc’s position as well, when people try to conflate production value with things that clearly can’t be considered strictly “production.” I would say just as an aside though, that in my mind I have always regarded IPCs as generic game points. Even though they are used to model the game’s economy, I have always found it hard to be terribly strict in my interpretation of what they are supposed to represent in the story of the game. I am perfectly comfortable adapting the language of their definition, if it will get rid of the zero ipc territory phenomenon. Nothing would have pleased me more than if that acronym IPC was left undefined, or at least less defined.

    I will make these simple points, which I think argue for some flexibility here, in terms of the relationship between discrete geographic units (territories) and how they relate to production:

    In Classic Western Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (France, and NorthWestern Europe) which taken together are worth 8 ipcs total in 1942.2

    In Revised Southern Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (Italy, and Southern Europe) now worth a 5 ipcs total in 1942.2

    In Revised French Indo-China is worth 3, now it’s broken up into Burma, FIC and Malaya worth 4 all together.

    Okinawa used to be 1 ipc, now its worth 0 etc

    And changes like this have happened in each iteration of the game, dozens of times, all across the mapboard. There is routine movement and adjustment of ipcs values all the time, plus 1 here minus 1 there, and territories have been divided and merged countless times. This with the effect that the overall ipcs that a particular region of the map (described as a territory) produces have changed several times already. If the values were strict in the real world/historical sense, then you shouldn’t be able to just break the map apart to add more territories or alter the IPC values. It would bust the internal logic of the behind the scenes economy wouldn’t it? But that doesn’t seem to be the case, as evidenced by the frequent changes (either to the geography or the production associated with it), and the fact that we just accept these changes as given, everytime a new mapboard comes out. So if there is enough freedom to do all that, shouldn’t there be some flexibility when it comes to making all territories of the map worth at least 1?

    I mean, if it makes the game more fun, to me that seems totally doable.


  • Customizer

    Black_Elk,
    You had a couple if ideas. One was simply doubling the IPC amounts of the printed values and the other was simply adding +1 to the printed IPC values. You mentioned that the problem with one or both of them was in placing new factories; that certain territories that could not support a factory now can.
    This is easy to fix. You simply say that the doubling of IPC values or adding +1 of IPC values is ONLY for the collect income phase of the game. Placement of new factories is dependent STRICTLY on the printed IPC values. This way you get more IPCs per nation during collect income but no new factories in weird locations. Problem solved.

    Another possibility to increase everyone’s spending potential is to simply lower the costs of new units. You could cut everything in half and everyone would be able to buy a lot more stuff with the money they already have. More pieces, bigger battles, no overly complex rules, more fun.


  • 2017 2016

    @knp7765:

    Black_Elk,
    You had a couple if ideas. One was simply doubling the IPC amounts of the printed values and the other was simply adding +1 to the printed IPC values. You mentioned that the problem with one or both of them was in placing new factories; that certain territories that could not support a factory now can.
    This is easy to fix. You simply say that the doubling of IPC values or adding +1 of IPC values is ONLY for the collect income phase of the game. Placement of new factories is dependent STRICTLY on the printed IPC values. This way you get more IPCs per nation during collect income but no new factories in weird locations. Problem solved.

    Another possibility to increase everyone’s spending potential is to simply lower the costs of new units. You could cut everything in half and everyone would be able to buy a lot more stuff with the money they already have. More pieces, bigger battles, no overly complex rules, more fun.

    Your first fix about IC placement is the simplest.

    However, I would like to emphasized the difference between single collect income phase at the end of the turn vs Collect Income + T.I.Bonus phase at the start of the turn.

    The big difference, I think, is that strategy and approach get a more cautious dynamics in combat with T.I.Bonus.
    Generally speaking, all players care about maximizing IPC gain, but don’t necessary care about keeping the territories conquered since it doesn’t affect directly the purse.
    For example: empty territories which can be blitz back and forth changing ownership during the process is advantageous for both players.

    But the T.I.Bonus at the start become a reminder that you loose the opportunity for gaining 1 IPC for each territory conquered but abandoned to the enemy before the beginning of your next turn.
    This aspect can be a real incentive to modify the strategical management of skirmish/borders war.

    Otherwise, the single Income phase increasing the double dip effect on “swinging territories” (don’t have better expression) is still going on, but at an higher level of money: each territory exchange means an additional 1 IPC bonus worth of units bring on the board.

    In addition, reducing in half the price of units will not increase “0” value territory struggle.
    PTO islands won’t be interesting to fight for.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    The next idea we had was to simply add 1 to all territories across the board, effectively raising the printed production numbers by +1. This held up much better, and it comes very close to working. But again the problem was with the factories. This time it was the new factories rather than the starting ones, which become problematic. Because adding 1 directly to the production totals, makes every space at OOB 1, into 2 and thus viable for a factory.

    If factories are the problem with an otherwise satisfactory method, then how about having a house rule that simply states “All named territories count for 1 IPC higher than their printed map value – except for the purpose of building factories, for which the printed map value continues to apply.”

    Edit: Oops, I posted this before noticing there was a page 3 to the thread, where knp basically said the same thing as I posted.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    For the record.  This bonus income program is heavy handed in favour of the allies.

    1. The axis empires will always consist of more “trading” territories than the allies. Meaning they will receive leas bonus income on average per turn than their allies.

    2. The axis have to expand quickly, to even reach economic parity, which is now disparged by the fact the allies will receive heavier income bonuses early.

    3. Each turn a unit is on the board it provides its side “strategic value”.  The earlier units are purchased the more game impact they have.  With bonuses heavier for the allies in the beginning, they will have more “unit opportunity”. Affect balance.

    That said - by adding more game units one can argue that the luck factor in games is reduced.  Which also compounds the problems of the axis, as they are leaa likely to get lucky.

    In the end, this could make for fun gaming, but make no mistake, its extremely uneven.


  • Customizer

    Gargantua is right. I didn’t even think about that. Just think of the UK. They have little 1 and 0 IPC territories all over the place. Sealion would be impossible because Britain would simply have too much money to spend on defense.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    I suspect that Gargantua has not actually tried the rule yet, but is making his observation about “extreme” unbalance in the abstract. Am I wrong Gargantua? 🙂

    As I’ve tried to stress, it is worth trying the rule in an actual game, because there are subtle game balance effects that are not particularly intuitive but which do seem to even out, almost immediately after the first round. At first I thought, as you do, that the rule would heavily favor the Allies. But one thing that is hard to see, until you play it out, is how the bonus effects the midgame. For one thing, Germany requires much less money on the bonus to retain a forward fighting position against Russia, and the additional money makes a naval purchase or air (for naval nuke against UK) easier to afford, without yielding so much ground to the Soviets. Alternatively a consistent inf wall approach, makes G much harder to crack on direct invasion. This is from the KGF perspective. From the KJF perspective, the difference is, all those valueless islands add up for Japan. So a KJF that ignores them, leaves Japan with enough money to make a much more effective defensive of the home island and the mainland. A KJF that does focus on the islands will necessarily move more slowly than one which just jumps south.

    Also, and this is very important, the UK is perhaps the most dependent of any Nation upon the double dip to maintain economic parity. It is more important for them even than Germany. In all the old boards, the British empire is designed to basically collapse, and the way you make up the money is by double dipping in Europe. We’ve all seen this play out, where France alone is worth as much as basically everything east of Suez. Africa can be made up in Eastern Europe etc. But the bonus is dependent on territory held at the beginning of the turn. So their boost drops sharply after the opening rounds, while Germany and Japan’s increases in inverse proportion to what UK is losing. The UK situation is highly dynamic. It is much harder for them to recover their starting territory than it is for the Axis to take it. Basically they are reliant upon the US to do this for them. So by round 3, it is quite possible for them to go from holding 20+ territories at the start of the game down to just a handful. And territories which are not held at the start of the next turn do not count for the bonus. So even if you are recovering income on the double dip, your bonus income relative to the Axis will drop quickly. The UK home island, the Canadas, and Iceland are only worth 4 taken together on the boost. Almost everywhere else on the board is vulnerable to Axis attacks, in the first few rounds. In short the challenge for UK has more to do with their production limits than their starting cash/bonus cash.

    You also have more aggressive builds that can be supported by both G and J. So the lopsided war you might expect, ends up being a lot less lopsided than it seems at first glance.

    It is true that the rule does advantage the Allies initially, which is part of the point, because the OOB game in 42.2 is unbalanced in favor of the Axis. In Revised, where the OOB advantage is to Allies, I will sometimes include a Berlin Boost +5 to balance G against experienced allies. The standard Axis Bid may also be necessary for Revised against an experienced Allied opponent. Classic may require a larger Berlin Boost +10. But Japan does pretty well without any assistance on all boards. Personally I find this rule at it’s best on the 1942.2 and 1941 boards.

    To point 3, the “strategic value” of surviving units holds for both sides, and the Axis start with more of them, so the ability of Germany and Japan to get extra ships and tanks early is much the same as it is for the Allies. This is because they are not directly threatened in the first and second round the way that the Allies can be. And also because the Western Allies must build many more transports than the Axis to get their units into the fight. If you just try to model what might happen in your head, or by playing a game against yourself in tripleA, you’re not going to see the midgame balance. Fighting into the 3rd round, it becomes much clearer, and you start to see how the rule holds up. Basically if the Allies do nothing to adapt their strategies from the normal game, Axis can win pretty handily. I’ve seen it happen many times. I’ve also seen Allies pull ahead quite handily, if the Axis player does nothing to adapt their strategy from the OOB game. And of course, much of this still comes down to dice rolls and individual battles.

    to knp7765, the problem with overall doubling was starting factories. This is kind of easy to imagine when you think about Germany at 20, or Russia at 16. Basically the geography and the ipc totals just don’t support the simple doubling very well, as it pretty much eliminates a production cap in regions where the production cap is usually significant. It also proved extremely damaging to SBR. Since it was almost impossible to bomb up to the cap on a starting factory, and the damage was too easy to repair. So that was that for the simple doubling.

    The add +1 method at normal collect income, is the one that balanced better, the main problem here was new factories and the enlarged double dip. Basically it made it too easy for esp. USA and Japan to push inf by simply purchasing factories chains in front line territories at 2 (that usually wouldn’t support them at 1). You could eliminate that issue with a rule stated the way CWO Marc and KNP put it, but then you would lose the cool effect of having the bonus at the start of the the turn, which is something I quite liked for the gameplay. You also lose that Russian initiative bonus, if you do it all during normal income, since they would have to wait until the second round, which would probably make the German tank drive too hard to defend against. And again, the double dip gets much larger. It could work, but I haven’t tried it like that to my satisfaction, so I would just be musing without any experience to back it up.

    Basically the reason I keep coming back to the rule I proposed at the outset, is because I have tested that one and it seemed to hold up. Changes to it, I would have to play first, before giving any recommendations. Just because I have seen firsthand, how sometimes what you expect to happen and what actually happens in game, can end up being quite different and dramatic. Gargantua’s concern about the Allied advantage being one of the main ones, that I was not able to dispel for myself, until I first played several games to conclusion.

    Finally to the Sea Lion point, the limit on UK is not money but production. It is the fact that they can only drop 8 units on UK, and the fact that USA is two rounds out with fighters, that gives Germany a Sea Lion option. In simple terms, this is not a game breaking round 2 sea Lion we are talking about here, but a risky round 3 Sea Lion, a double attack Sea Lion, or an endgame Sea Lion. England has a defense against round 2 Sea Lion, but it gets harder as time goes on, if they are dedicating all their money to defense of the home island (giving up India, not building ships etc.) And again, the starting bonus that UK receives is much larger than the bonus they receive in later rounds. Into round 3/4 that bonus will start to drop, from 20 to 10 or into the single digits, whereas both the Axis will climb, unless USA does something to one or the other.

    Oh also, to the point about lowering unit costs as an alternative to raising the total ecomony. The problem here is infantry. Inf at anything other than 3 ipcs is too jarring for anyone used to A&A. Its a major part of the built in mental math that we are all habituated to. Altering the cost of individual units but not altering the cost of inf is just distorting and also cumbersome in that then it wouldn’t be universal across all units. Again though, it is the difference between something I have tried and can speak to, and something untested. The effect might be similar, but I haven’t tested that alternative the way that I have the rule stated in the original post.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    ps. I missed that first post by Baron, which made some points I was hoping to emphasize. And also providing a shorthand T.I. Bonus
    Good looking out 🙂


  • Customizer

    @knp7765:

    Black_Elk,
    You had a couple if ideas. One was simply doubling the IPC amounts of the printed values and the other was simply adding +1 to the printed IPC values. You mentioned that the problem with one or both of them was in placing new factories; that certain territories that could not support a factory now can.
    This is easy to fix. You simply say that the doubling of IPC values or adding +1 of IPC values is ONLY for the collect income phase of the game. Placement of new factories is dependent STRICTLY on the printed IPC values. This way you get more IPCs per nation during collect income but no new factories in weird locations. Problem solved.

    Another possibility to increase everyone’s spending potential is to simply lower the costs of new units. You could cut everything in half and everyone would be able to buy a lot more stuff with the money they already have. More pieces, bigger battles, no overly complex rules, more fun.

    There’s some good stuff here that could go many directions. When I get some more time we’ll have to talk about this.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    I would say just as an aside though, that in my mind I have always regarded IPCs as generic game points. Even though they are used to model the game’s economy, I have always found it hard to be terribly strict in my interpretation of what they are supposed to represent in the story of the game. I am perfectly comfortable adapting the language of their definition, if it will get rid of the zero ipc territory phenomenon. Nothing would have pleased me more than if that acronym IPC was left undefined, or at least less defined.

    It’s just occurred to me that “generic game points”, or GGP, is virtually the same acronym as GDP, which stands for Gross Domestic Product, the market value of all the goods and services produced by a country in one year…so perhaps there’s potential here for developing some kind of alternate A&A income unit.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    GGP! I love the ring of that 🙂


  • 2017 2016

    Hi Black Elk,
    If you ever played your Territory Income Bonus in a 1942.2 setting,
    have you ever tried to introduce a kind of sub on patrol against merchant marines?
    As it is inside G40. There is probably some SZ that can be identify as vulnerable sea-lines.

    It could be a way to reduce the total amount of IPCs via Subs and warships presence (in addition to STrB raid).

    So, it could be as simple as:
    at the beginning of the player’s turn,
    each territory worth 1 IPC but
    for each enemy Subs in the ocean near IC (up to 2 SZ away) you substract 2 IPCs and
    substract 1 IPC for each warship and plane on a carrier, but not for the carrier.

    What do you think of this addition?


  • 2019 2015 '14

    I think the territory income bonus could easily support HRs for submarines. I have always found subs to be rather complicated and somewhat underpowered in A&A. On the old boards my HR for subs doing economic damage was pretty simple. Any submarine may elect to do economic damage on factories in range of a sea zone (2 spaces), but most forego movement to run the attack. The defending factory hits at a 1, to destroy the submarine immediately, same as sbr. Otherwise the sub does a run on the Nations shipping at a cost of 1d6 at the factory being attacked.

    Subs are cheaper now than before, so it might make sense if the factory hit on a 2 instead of a 1. But I like doing it that way for ease of use. Basically having them work like bombers do. SBR in this case can stand for Submarine Battle Run, or “Submarine Blockade & Raid”, or something like that 🙂

    In the old games income was removed directly, but in the newer games I would just keep it the same as sbr mechanics for simplicity. Or you could try other ways to implement them, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work with the T.I. Bonus. I’m not sure if the OOB game in 1942.2 would support subs doing economic damage without some kind of boost to overall income. I can imagine UK getting strangled early, or Germany getting strangled late:) But with the bonus at least you’d have more money to buy both subs and destroyers (to kill enemy subs before their economic damage got too insane). It would be an incentive for the purchase of ships, especially destroyers to counter.

    The 1942.2 setting is I think the optimal one for the income bonus.
    I like it with the option +1 ipcs for each Victory City controlled at the start of the turn.

    In case anyone is curious with the VC rule added the numbers look roughly like this in 42.2 for the opening round

    Russia +2
    G+4
    UK+2
    J+3
    USA+3

    It is also possible to give the VC bonus separately, instead of the T.I. bonus, in which case I like it at +2 ipcs (or you could do 2 ipcs with the T.I. Bonus as well, making the territory worth a total of 3 ipcs if you include the normal T.I. bonus, 1 for the territory 2 for the city.) I see lots of different ways such rules can be used


  • 2017 2016

    I believe this thread below maybe looking for some ideas here and concept such as “double dipping”.
    So I bumped it to reactive this TT income bonus thread.
    Re: House rule proposal
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38261.msg1563914#msg1563914


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 1
  • 15
  • 1
  • 1
  • 10
  • 15
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games

40
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts