G40 Enhanced begins. All are welcome.


  • 2017 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    Ok so we have 2 different conversations going on, and one I believe is definitely off topic.
    This is clearly one conversation off topic.

    Baron: Im not sure how many games of global you play, or how competitive they are, but G40 has no problems with warship buys. Many are purchased. I believe ship to plane to land costs are near perfect right now, any deviations could have balance implications.
    Sorry, you are right I’m still too influenced by Classic, 1942 and 1941.

    You point out that you must build land to actually get money, transports to move your land and warships to protect said transports and/or destroy them.
    What are you saying?
    This is how it is meant to be yes?
    This best illustrates some form of realism yes?
    The point is ground units are the primary units, never naval units.

    In these other version of the games in which you don’t have as much money as in G40, buying sea units can hindered your chance of victory.
    What I meant is buying an expensive fleet is just to protect transport, and it is just a mean to move ground units. Even destroying a whole fleet, with another is not the key to victory. Moving ground units is the major points, and the more units you have the more you can conquer over others.
    Capital ships and cruisers are the most expensive units (are the biggest miniature and are very funny to play with) but have nonetheless a secondary function vs the far cheaper ground units.

    From these twos criterias, and if there is no historical accuracy goal,
    I would add that
    1- like having more buying options and
    2- being able to put more variety of units on the board.

    More units is most of the time not a good thing.
    It can water down the game, and would increase time required if anything.
    Here is two new criterias which are also to be considered.
    Cruiser v BB is a great example of too many units.
    However if there is a niche to be filled then …
    Sorry, I don’t understand the example, what I usually eared is that there is only Sub and Destroyer spam. Not much BB or Cruiser buying.

    I do not wish to abandon historical realism, only that gameplay should be more important.
    Ok. That’s right.

    The first scale of cost for unit was the lowest.
    Here is the most historical I think, because it will create clearly a lot of buying for destroyer and cruiser pairing and almost no BB buying:
    SS 6 TT 7 DD 8 CA 10 CV 16 BB 20.

    However, it will outbalance what was considered balance in OOB combat (ex.: 80 IPCs) :
    4 DDs + 4 CAs vs 4 BBs.  49% vs 46%
    1 DD + 6 CAs vs 4 BBs.   32% vs 63%
    It becomes:
    5 DDs + 4 CAs vs 4 BBs. 74% vs 23%
    8 CAs vs 4 BBs.              66% vs 31%

    Finally, having a more competitive BB (as the maths showed in the earlier post) but still historical (keeping a small cost advantage for DD+CA over BB):
    DD 8 CA 10 CV 16 BB 19.

    (76 IPCs) 2 DDs + 6 CAs vs 4 BBs.  59% vs 36%

    It keeps also what you seems to like the R1 buying opening which let ANZAC and Italy built 1 cruiser.


    By the way, I remembered (in Kion maths) that BB vs CV, CV was the weakest and that’s explain the 15 IPCs CV.

    After calculation, Carrier vs DD or CA showed that on average for DD at 8 and CA at 10, CV+ 2 planes should cost 36.25 IPCs, so OOB cost for CV is at the good place.

    If I try to summarize the points,
    Subs can be 6 or 7 IPCs (and still be a competitive units, but less interesting fodder),

    Destroyer was OOB good at 8 (no need to change anything).

    Cruiser need a fix up to 10 IPCs, but can also be good at 11 IPCs under some helping circumstances (giving some other capacity, or if BB is at 20 IPCs, etc.)

    Carrier was good OOB at 16 IPCs and could also benefits from the TcB reduction to 10 IPCs.

    Battleship is balance at 19 IPCs (CA at 10 or even 11, to keep parity with DD+CA),
    and going down to 18 IPCs (with CA at 10) make it statistically a more powerful unit vs DD, CA and CV,
    and keeping OOB at 20 IPCs will make it far less attractive vs 10 IPCs CA (unless for the double hit).

    Depending on which part of historical accuracy we look:
    no building of new BB during WWII (keep OOB) or
    how its heavy guns and armor plating make it far superior in naval battle vs DD or CA, or CV in direct contact (someone can still choose 18 IPCs).

    There is for all taste here,
    I don’t see compelling reason to determine one cost structure over an other inside these parameters.
    Do you see any?



  • Yes 20 IPC BB is best.
    No change from OOB.
    Far more historical realism.
    Still has a place in the game as a heavy hitter and with it’s staying power (2hit).

    Your point about warships playing second fiddle to land units is both true and should be true IMO. I really fail to see what you are trying to say with regards to this.
    What did naval do in the real war? What does control over water get you in reality? No direct income, but indirectly via convoy and troop transports. This is played out just as it should be in this game. I.e. Warships solely to protect transports and/or destroy them or to convoy raid/prevent enemy from convoy raiding.

    Naval purchases are crucial, but a good player will punish you for overspending on it.
    This is a very healthy game mechanic.

    SS 6
    DD 8
    CA 10 *
    CV 16
    BB 20

    Transports 6 or 7 ?
    This is something that needs looked into a bit deeper…


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

    Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.



  • @Gamerman01:

    Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

    Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

    Yes 😉 but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
    You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lol

    I think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
    With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA


  • 2017 '16

    @Gamerman01:

    Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

    Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

    That is another criteria:  original  feature vs Larry OOB.
    When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser.

    About TT is there any other way than playtesting?
    I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
    My old Iron Blitz version could do it.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    @Baron:

    About TT is there any other way than playtesting?

    Playtesting would be the way to go, yes.

    I wonder if Triple A can eventually add a feature allowing to change cost of any units at will?
    My old Iron Blitz version could do it.

    Right.  I had Iron Blitz too.  🙂  Marines!


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    The Cold War scenario was cool!
    UK+USA vs. USSR with all powers having all techs!


  • 2017 '16

    @rjpeters70:

    I thought Iron Blitz was a terrific game.  Never understood why Marines weren’t incorporated into the main game.

    If I remember:
    Marines A1D2M1C5, attack 3 in Amph Ass.
    Can have 2 in TT
    Seems a balance problem.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    The only advantage marines have over tanks is transport efficiency.  Any marines that survive are just normal infantry, unless they embark on another amphibious assault.

    In Classic, though, you could only transport 1 tank, or 2 infantry.  Take your pick.

    With current rules of being able to transport 1 tank + 1 infantry, the added capability of marines is not as dramatic as it was in the old Hasbro CD game Iron Blitz



  • USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
    Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs

    Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
    I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
    Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12

    That is another criteria:  original  feature vs Larry OOB.
    When there is just the rule change without argument, it appear like G40E cost is a minor correction by someone fond of cruiser

    .

    Not sure if this is just a statement or what…there has been loads of analysis on this subject, and 10IPC cruiser was proven to be the most logical, here and several other threads.

    I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
    OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
    Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
    Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
    Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
    It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.


  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    Uncrustable, in my incomplete knowledge of TripleA I do not know of a way to edit unit stats

    You might want to contact Veqryn as you are getting to the point of wanting to try things out using Triple A


  • 2017 '16

    To what extent does Larry H admit the 12 IPCs cruiser was broken?
    G40 revised was an opportunity and he stays on OOB cost.

    On the forum we know well all the analysis behind the 10 IPCs CA.
    But someone new on it will think like Larry: 11 ok as HR, but 10 is too detrimental vs BB.

    Usually we explains rules not all the reasoning behind.
    At first glance on cost, not talking about all other interesting feature of G40E, no one could guess how much analysis there is in.


  • 2017 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    @Gamerman01:

    Um, so after all that you actually agree with Larry except for the price of cruisers?  :lol:

    Decision on transports should be easier.  I think lowering the cost to 6 would make the game more exciting.  7’s not bad (if it was, people would be noticing and complaining), but 6 may be better.

    Yes 😉 but they must be 10. That is what we came to.
    You could change BBs to 19, but I feel unnecessary and 19 is such a terrible number lol

    I think 6 would be better for transports aswell, but unlike cruisers this would entail balance implications. Most notably sealion.
    With tacbomber (10), cruiser (10) and transport (6) changes, we may fix the 6 VC pacific rule, I believe the fixed costs would be enough to encourage island hopping strats by USA

    Yep. 19 sucks. 18 & 20 are more easthetics numbers.  😄

    I think some players will have this kind of line of thinking once cruiser cost at 10 IPCs explained and understand:
    @MrRoboto:

    Yes I agree. 10 IPC cruisers are still weaker than everything else except 20 IPC battleships (which are the 2nd worst sea units right now).

    I think the main point of cruisers and battleships being too weak is because they don’t really have a certain role to perform.

    Subs: By far the best attacking unit. Still very strong on defense due to being cannon fodder cheap. Strong convoy. Requires the enemy to have destroyers.

    Destroyers: Cannon fodder against air-only attacks. Blockers. Prevent first strike and submerge.

    Carriers: Carries planes, which not only have a longer range than ships, but also are not blocked by destroyers.

    Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
    So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.

    But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
    One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).

    Once said, based on that idea that a costlier unit should not be equal to a cheaper ones , so must be a bit more powerful than the cheaper ones to get some interest, I rather prefer where you stand when you posted this (but keep OOB Sub at 6):

    @Uncrustable:

    Analyze it anyway you choose
    SS 7  SS 6
    DD 8
    CA 10
    CV 16
    BB 18

    Those costs are extremely balanced amongst themselves, with zero change to in game balance
    They require no other change to OOB rules.

    Average price of naval units OOB: 12.4, Avg price with above changes: 11.8 (Excluding transports) 11.6 IPCs

    SS are still the best offensive unit, and remain by far the best at SBR, along with sneak attack etc. However they are no longer powerhouses.
    DD are still best overall fodder unit, best blocker, along with only ASW unit
    CA now are near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with best amphibious support unit now becomes a viable purchase in many scenarios
    CV unchanged, still by far the most versatile (indirectly)
    BB near on par with DD with regards to pure combat, along with bombard and 2 hits.

    The actual DPS/HP of fleets will not change, what will change is the composition.
    And there is much good reason for each unit to be purchased depending on the situation, rather than cruisers being almost always a complete and worthless waste, with BBs being rare as well.

    These changes were discussed in much detail by KionAA, Baron as well as myself.

    But, ultimately, you choose your cost structure.
    I will no more insist about CA or BB cost.
    I’m open to discuss on Transports, but I think the real interest will be about the possibility to adjust prices on  AAA.

    The question is which option is the more time-consuming for AAA developers: creating directly your version with a specific cost structure or a module which allow anyone to play with cost of any units.

    I’m pretty sure this customizing function will interest many players.


  • 2017 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    USA inf +1 attack on amphib assaults first round of combat
    Japan inf +1 defense on islands first round of combat are a couple of good NAs
    Gamerman is it simple to change price of units in tripleA?
    I really want to start play testing these cost changes in earnest.
    Tacbomber 10, cruiser 10, transport 6, bases 12

    I would like to talk about submarines. As I found out through some play testing of my own that 7 is too much, you will see a drastic reduction in sub purchases.
    OOB there are plenty of DDs, SSs and CVs purchased. BBs are purchased rarely, and cruisers almost never. SS are very powerful at 6 but you always need destroyers as blockers alone.
    Especially in the pacific it is not uncommon to see 4-6 allied destroyers used to completely shut off half of the pacific theater from japan aggression. Keeping a constant flow of destroyers is many times paramount to a successful strategy.
    Increasing subs to 7 would wreck sub purchases, for one more IPC you get a destroyer that can block any unit and has +1 defense.
    Basically powerful submarines are necessary. I believe Larry got this right.
    It is cruisers that are flawed (severely so) and Larry has all but admitted this.

    I agree with you on all this.

    Maybe just add for Marines NA of USA that it is only for PTO (to keep it historical as much as possible)?
    I suggest to read this thread on Marines, it can help having a bigger picture:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg748607#msg748607

    This NA is good for Japan on defense.
    But weird for USA on offence because the first round is the landing phase, the most difficult when no Inf is at his best when reaching the beach.

    But it is simpler for game mechanics at a strategical level.



  • I think a better way for the 2 NAs

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

    All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
    So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle
    Does not stack with artillery bonus

    Mech are not considered infantry


  • 2017 '16

    Hi, we agree.
    I think I tried to answer to an older version of your post.
    Isn’t?

    I come to the same conclusion:

    @Uncrustable:

    I think a better way for the 2 NAs

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat

    All USA infantry assaulting an island get +1 attack after the first round
    So normal attack during 1st round, +1 during the rest of the battle

    Does not stack with artillery bonus

    Mech are not considered infantry

    All japan infantry on a island defend at +1 during the first round of combat
    Except for Japan?

    USA will usually lost infantry on the first round.
    Often, the second units on a TT is a Art, already A2.

    So this US NA is not even vs Japan.

    Basically, any surviving Inf paired with Art, already get A2.
    It is only the remaining and unpaired Inf which will get this bonus.
    On the first round (the more important) they attack @1.

    What do you think of this slightly modified US’s NA:
    US Marines: all Inf attacking an island in PTO except Japan and Australia get
    Attack @2 after first round of an amphibious assault.

    So if any US player want some ground punch on the first round, he will anyway put some Art unit on the transport.



  • First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island, secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

    Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
    This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

    What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?


  • 2017 '16

    First Australia is already excluded seeing as its not an island,

    good.

    Secondly i see no reason to exclude Japan. If there were to be an invasion there that would probably have been the fiercest fighting in all the war.

    Historically, probably true.
    The cons I see, is:
    Are your sure it will be balance, because Japan can become an island fortress?
    To limit this in another way:
    Maybe, just allowed the Japanese NA for just one time (as the Kamikaze token) per island (including Japan)

    Also would only complicate matter, basically USA would not need much artillery.
    This would save them and better promote some island hopping.

    You mean by letting Inf A2 after first round on Japan, US player will not buy much Art in PTO?
    Otherwise (if Japan not include), US player will still have to buy Art.
    Do I understood what you mean?

    What does anyone think of allowing cruisers/battleships to bombard even after a naval battle in that same seazone ?

    I don’t see this as a major unbalancing problem.
    I played classic with additionnal cruiser and battleship bombarding even after naval combat.
    This is a one time shot anyway.

    The only impact is that Destroyer loose one aspect of their blocking effect, since 1 single DD can forbid many CA and BB to bombard an island/shore.

    Just how far players are ready to let go this chess like feature, I don’t know?


  • 2017 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    You asked about SS @7 IPCs.
    I wonder if we can add some sense to them with these prices…
    That is: When a submarine is not submerged, there are no special rules regarding aircraft vs subs. When a submarine is or is not submerged does not change from OOB. However a sub still can never act as a blocker.
    While not submerged, or at the surface, a sub does not have a first strike ‘sneak attack’
    While at the surface it can hit enemy air units, and enemy air units do not need a destroyer to hit the sub.
    Once a sub submerges it can no longer hit aircraft, aircraft then need a destroyer to hit the sub.
    A submerged sub retains it’s first strike ‘sneak attack’ as long as there are no enemy destroyers present.
    Also a submarine may submerge and retreat the battle, without leaving the SZ. So long as there are no enemy destroyers in the battle.

    According to the rules (if I’m not mistaken) a submarine is considered ‘at the surface’ or ‘not submerged’ until it’s owner decides whether or not to submerge it. Once submerged it remains that way until the end of the battle, where it then resurfaces.

    Basically a sub has 3 options:
    Stay at the surface (acting as a normal A2D1 unit)
    Submerge (use current OOB rules)
    Submerge and retreat from the battle (remaining in the SZ)

    In OOB rules a destroyer effectively blocks enemy submarines from submerging.
    With these rules a submarine could still submerge, but an enemy destroyer blocks both the sneak attack and submerge and retreat while allowing friendly aircraft to target enemy subs.

    This would give subs a little more power.
    However considering there is only 1 IPC difference in cost from a destroyer, and submarines cannot block, I think there will be good reason to have some of both.

    Is this too powerful for subs?
    With this they can now act as proper escorts for transports. Albeit at a very low defensive roll (1)
    This would certainly change some of the core dynamics of the game.

    What do you think ?

    On Subs, here is a different way to improve planes vs subs battle.
    1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.
    b) All sunken subs can retaliate @1 (against successful planes only) but not undamaged subs.
    c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

    2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
    b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
    But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
    c) As above, all sunken subs can retaliate @1 (vs successful planes) but not undamaged subs.
    d) After the first round all subs can still submerge (as OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

    3a) When planes and other warships except DD attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
    b) All subs rolls as OOB a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
    c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

    4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.


    Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
    But when there is only defending planes, subs can be chose as casualties (contrary to OOB).



  • That is pretty complex

    I think with cruisers at 10, OOB subs are best


  • 2017 '16

    I still think Subs vs planes should be improve, here is a less radical way.

    Planes should be able to hit subs anytime they don’t submerge.

    Subs on defence should be able to escape destroyers (in an other way than sinking all attacking DDs).

    Subs should be used anytime (even when no DD is present) as sea-fodder casualties against planes to protect more important vessels.

    If I kept the more important aspects of my last post:

    1a) Planes only (without DD) can attack subs only naval group (or with transport) A@1.

    c) After first round attack, all surviving subs can submerge in the same sea-zone.

    2a) When planes only (without DD) attacks Subs+ other warships, Fg A3 StB A4, as OOB
    b) However, the defender can now choose to sink Subs instead of surface vessel (contrary to OOB).
    But, to do it, the defender must announce at the start of the first round that his subs are not submerging.
    c)
    d) After the first round, all subs can still submerge (as in OOB Sub Surprise Phase).

    3a) When planes and other warships (without DD) attacks Subs only, all planes A@1.
    b) All subs rolls, as OOB, a surprise defense strike @1 or can elect to submerge in the same SZ.
    c) If Subs elect to submerge instead, only planes can attack @1 and it is played as in 1a above.

    4a) When DD is present, all is played as OOB except all defending Subs can submerge after first round.


    Subs on offence cannot hit planes.
    But when there is only defending planes (against subs+ warships/planes), subs can be chosen as casualties (contrary to OOB).


  • 2017 '16

    I think it is also possible to consider subs vs planes in the opposite way:

    Planes cannot hit any subs (even when DD is on their side) if their is any other elligible casualties. (Said otherwise, Subs are chosen last by planes.)

    So, in any battle of planes (+ other type of units) vs subs+warships, the presence/absence of destroyer will not change the way the subs casualties can be picked against owner’s unit.
    Planes will be mostly against surface vessels,
    surface vessels can hit both planes, warships and subs,
    and subs can hit any ships but no plane.

    Still as OOB, planes needs DD to attack subs.

    DD works as OOB for everything else except:

    Even when attacking DD is present, all defending Subs which survived can submerge after first round attack, and on any other round.

    It may includes this addendum: “… instead of having their defensive roll @1”

    Of course, all destroyed Subs have a defense roll @1.


  • 2017 '16

    Uncrustable,
    why don’t use this game mechanics instead when attacking transports?

    @Baron:

    @Baron:

    @Uncrustable:

    Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
    -When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
    -Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

    This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

    It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

    When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one TT can escape.
    Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.
    Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

    The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

    Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule: a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

    Since I play-tested it,
    I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving TT than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

    I should add this detail:
    transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

    Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

    Which means, for instance, if their is 2 transports at the beginning of a round and 2 are hitten by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 56
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
  • 13
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

81
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts