Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject:
Offence Crawler!
Subject description: "The enemy are crawling towards us! GET TO THE SKIPPING MOBILE!"
I dont wanna get into a cnc4 debate, but I've seen a few vid reviews and been following it abit and it looks really crap... but to me that was no suprise
Anyway aside from all the main points, even if CNC4 is good, one thing thats really bothered me was the shitty unit designs (and in TW for the most part)
This one really got me, there was even a vid on gametrailers showing the design stages for this unit which i watched and it didnt explain ANYTHING
It looks to me like a van
Person 1 "Oh how can we make this Van look cool and futuristic"
Person 2 "Give it four legs of course"
Anyway here is the unit, the "GDI Offense Crawler" lol the name makes me laugh. Look at the thing!
I think they took the whole mech revival thing abit to far sticking legs on any old crap in the name of 'coolness'. No it looks retarded.
But even alot of the none mech units looks like crap
Well thats my rant
What's everyone elses thoughts? _________________ Last edited by SMIFFGIG on Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
We can't do shit about it. All I wish is that C&C4 was never made, because it gives a horrible impression of C&C to those who've never played the previous games. And ztype those who dare to call me a WW fanboy, the previous games had their own problems and shitty designs, but far less than what we have in the current game. I do think that TW and RA3 (Though I dislike the latter, it's really a matter of taste whether you like over-the-top goofiness in an RTS or not) were good games. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
DaFool made that mech for Generals out of boredom. I saw it and said it looks like a ztyping frog (i.e ugly)... _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
We can't do shit about it. All I wish is that C&C4 was never made, because it gives a horrible impression of C&C to those who've never played the previous games. And ztype those who dare to call me a WW fanboy, the previous games had their own problems and shitty designs, but far less than what we have in the current game. I do think that TW and RA3 (Though I dislike the latter, it's really a matter of taste whether you like over-the-top goofiness in an RTS or not) were good games.
I have to agree with all the stuff above said. QUICK_EDIT
God sake, type your own views, whats with people posting "This" "+1" "I Agree" etc...
Anyways, i personally feel that C&C4 is alright, i was in the beta so i played it a few times. I became very open to C&C3, RA3 and C&C4 after speaking with the dev team a few times, after all, i only really play C&C games for the story, the gameplay is second best IMO. QUICK_EDIT
its just the general design or lack of, of the units, it seems 'easily identifyable' was the no.1 goal for units and that they are its hard to miss a giant armoured frog.
imo it doesnt matter to much, this seems like just another rts that will be supersceded very quickly and forgotten
its just the fact that it holds the title 'C&C Tiberian Twilight' meh oh wells _________________ QUICK_EDIT
lol, sorry Smiff, but by posting that you open the floodgates to turn this into a C&C 4 debate and I guess a C&C 3 debate nearly. To be fair, I feel if I say I don't like this game, the EA Loyalists will come flying down on my post claiming how I'm a WestWood fanboy who cuddles upto a platinum edition of Tiberian Sun every night or something. Well, the whole "Don't bash EA, be thankful, Westwood was never that great shut up" stage is over in my eyes, it was a fun argument for people to blurt out whenever someone bashed EA, but we've heard it too many times against some good logical reasons why these newer CnC's have been not up to par. I haven't seen a new CnC game where people have had the same impact happen to them as TD, or RA and I guess even to a small extent TS? Yeah so what, TS had shit unfinished crap gameplay, but the story and atmosphere it created was great, it made you want to soldier on through the poor gameplay to the end, and probably the IE.
Did CnC 3 deliver the same kind of atmosphere? No. It wasn't a continuation of TS, it was a CnC $$$ soley going off the name and mostly the c00l mammoth tank, but the gameplay was average, I have enjoyed a good few games of CnC 3 with friends online, though it did get a bit old quickly.
Does CnC 4 deliver the same kind of atmosphere as a continuation of CnC 3, or TS? Seems they are trying to continue more on a TS path with CnC 3 in mind, so that gets jumbled up and just creates a confusing atmosphere for both new and old people to the series? Gameplay?
person wrote:
It's fresh!
So is Mr Sheen and Pine Clean, it doesn't make it fun and it doesn't seem to be mixing well with the reviews all this freshness. Perhaps the words that should be said is.
person wrote:
It's different
Heck, the crappy gay Capture the Zone Flag king of the flagzone mode they have going in CnC 4 could even be an alternate game mode as well as base building. That might have actualy been a bit more fun, having it as an an extra gameplay style / mode, even mixing it into a mission or two, who knows? EA have not boldly traversed into strange new exciting RTS worlds by doing this. But anyway, I guess we should be thankful EA have made the game shouldn't we? We are very very lucky people to have them make these games, and we should by no means show negative opinions about them. Oh wait, I work hard for my money, I don't want to spend my hard earned cash on a half arsed game that doesn't have anything / improve anything the previous games had which is why I paid the money for them in the first place? No I'll just be thankful EA bothered to make the game, spend my valuable money on it, not like it, but fear to tell anyone, incase I get letter bombed by the EA mob and cuddle up to that TS box... Where did I put it...?
If westwood was making this game how it turned out (westwood), I'd be pissed at them as well. If Ubisoft was making this game (not westwood btw) I'd be pissed at them. If cadbury's was making this game I'd still be dissapointed. End of Morphers rant. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
yea, the thing is there is alot of shitty games out there (especially from EA) but also others
Most are easy to ignore, but when its CnC Tiberian Twilight i.e. part of a 15yr old saga that is getting worse and worse. It makes you stop and think, wtf are they doing. How many chances to they need to get this right
How the ztype have they managed to get it WORSE after having a shot with 'Tiberium Wars'
Thats a good point. TW wasn't a bad game, it just needed some improving (which you'd expect would happen over time, I mean RA3 was a better playing game IMO). C&C4 would have been their third C&Cesque title, a chance for them to perfect it but instead they went a different direction and botched the job. QUICK_EDIT
Thats a good point. TW wasn't a bad game, it just needed some improving (which you'd expect would happen over time, I mean RA3 was a better playing game IMO). C&C4 would have been their third C&Cesque title, a chance for them to perfect it but instead they went a different direction and botched the job.
RA3 was not a better playing game. peace keeper and mcv spam... a lot of matches never got up to tier 2 units. TW was not that great either. it was all about rushing your enemy's harvesters.
As far as witch C&C games EALA has made that were fun to play goes as follows: KW>TW>RA3>GEN>TT. (I did not bother to add Uprising, as it did not really aim for multilayer.) _________________ MadHQ's Graveyard - Click here!
(Permissions) - (F.A.Q.) QUICK_EDIT
Well main problem with RA3 for me was the earlier eco killing, which makes the game pointless. But IMO it was more fun to play, and like I said EA could have fixed up their problems if they hadnt redesigned the gameplay completely. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:09 am Post subject:
Can't you guys just create 1 thread and post all your C&C4/EA hating there, and not flood all other C&C topics with your (IMHO silly) opinion on how bad C&C4/EA is? We already know how bad you guys think the game is, you don't have to keep repeating it. QUICK_EDIT
Can't you guys just create 1 thread and post all your C&C4/EA hating there, and not flood all other C&C topics with your (IMHO silly) opinion on how bad C&C4/EA is? We already know how bad you guys think the game is, you don't have to keep repeating it.
While I would normally agree with you, in this case I have to side with the haters. People could spam their good opinions of the game as well, only there arnt any this time around (at least C&C3 had mixed views). QUICK_EDIT
@Crimsonum: Well, there ain't any sparkly vampire faggots and emos in CnC4, just perverted cyborgs, giant frogs, gattling boxes, scorpion-shaped tanks with a mini Obelisk on it's back, etc. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
@Dutchy this is the first kind of actual indepth post I've made BASHING, wait, no, expressing my (silly) opinion on the game, and probably the first time in months I ever decided to talk about CnC 3. Infact I made quite clear I don't care who made it, they did a bad job, EA or otherwise. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Which really helps make GDI look like a military organisation to be reckoned with
It'd be so sad and one-sided if Nod had any good designs, but at least C&C4 is sort of balanced for abysmal designs on both sides QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject:
I actually like that design. Although it is a rocket-man, it could have been a very good unit. If it wasn't a Cyborg Commando. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject:
DaFool wrote:
That was the engineer unit.
WHAT?!!
I was imagining some awesome Jumpjet cyborg with laser gun or something when i saw that. But an engineer is the last thing it looks like. Bah!
I don't think i'm gonna buy "CnC" 4. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
that was the original design. people complained so much they redesigned it, and now it's like this cricket design _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:11 am Post subject:
Purchased digital download for this "game".
I wish I could reverse time and stop myself from doing that. (and EA from making this game at all for that matter)
***WARNING - EA RANT INCOMING - IF YOU LIKE EA DO NOT READ BELOW***
Someone should sue EA for murder, because that's what they have done to the franchise.
No base building? WHAT THE F***?!!!!
Population limit?!! No Tiberium harvesting?!
The visceroids are pug-fugly. and then there's this whole crawler system, it's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
What the hell have the devs at EA been smoking? Tiberium spliffs?
And I'm not done ranting just yet. The music is crap.
Engineers can no longer capture stuff. There's nothing left of Command & Conquer anymore except the "game's" title. Unit behavior is the sloppiest I've ever seen in an RTS.
And here's the fatality: VEHICLES CAN NO LONGER SQUISH INFANTRY!
Seriously, releasing this "game" is like shooting the franchise, bury it's corpse upside-down, using the most disgusting matter to fill the hole it's buried in , but not before having it sexually violated by a tiberium mutaded quasi modo, and then proceed to piss and dump on the spot they buried it.
By comparison, Generals is a true C&C game
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:13 am Post subject:
Fatality? Infantry can't be squashed by tanks?
Wow, that's pretty weak.
Infantry should have never been crushable by tanks, starting in CNC-1.
Not only is it stupidly unrealistic (infantry WILL NOT try to hold their ground from an advancing tank; tanker will rarely actually try to flatten enemy infantry because if he fails, he opens his rear and bottom armor to attack), but it also ruined CNC's balance.
Why would I want to get a Humvee, Nod Buggy, Ranger, Wolverine or IFV when I can just get a " " Tank for only a little more and crush an entire company of Anti-tank soldiers with it?
Heaven forbid you have to strategize, mix your forces and do things other than just give move orders to deal with infantry!
Oh and CNC-4s infantry in my experience were hardly a threat to vehicles, if you made them crushable they'd be 99% without use. (barring those infantry that would have been uncrushable even in earlier CNC gameplay models) _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
I doubt anyone is stupid enough to fire a rocket UP into a tank. _________________ You come for the modding but you stay for the Crap Forum. QUICK_EDIT
Umm,... Its just a matter of balance. I personally liked it, they way it is, but in TS the balance is somehow screwed up, anyway.
Really, WHO is THAT stupid to build a buggy for about 650$ if you can buy a Flametank for about 950$? First of all, a flametank can kill more then just one Infantrie at a time, it can burrow and therefor hide, with alt u may even crush a special infantry like engineer, ghoststalker, etc. just like you want ...
A Buggy/Wolverine/Nod Mod/... - these are just USELESS, too weak armor, too weak weapon, too weak in ANY thing but scouting... And you got infantriy for that.
If you have to criticise smth from, for example TS, then this, cause you may even rush with soldiers, but never, NEVER with these low level vehicles.... Everything lower then Titan/Tick Tank isnt used (But Harvs, and for GDI, APC) _________________
Think of me as Nordos, 'cause Banshee wouldn't rename me QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject:
Regulus wrote:
I doubt anyone is stupid enough to fire a rocket UP into a tank.
Of course you wouldn't. But you don't need a rocket to wreck even a modern main battle tank, like a Challenger II, Leopard or Abrams when the bottom armor is presented to you.
I won't go into details, but tanks usually have less than 2 inches of lower quality steel to protect the bottom. And vulnerable locations on the rear like engine block, can even be damaged by heavy machine gun fire.
@Ordo-
Exactly my point. Infantry being crushable is the primary thing responsible for CNC being regarded as "MOAR TANKS RUSH RUSH RUSH" game.
Damage types dictate a rock paper scissors where
Anti-Tank Inf beats Tank
Anti-Inf Vehicle beats Anti-Tank Inf
Tank beats Anti-Inf Vehicle
But crushable infantry makes it so Tank beats Anti-Inf Vehicle AND Anti-Tank Inf.
And in this respect, CNC-4 did something that no CNC got right. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject:
EVA-251 wrote:
Fatality? Infantry can't be squashed by tanks?
Wow, that's pretty weak.
Infantry should have never been crushable by tanks, starting in CNC-1.
Perhaps, but they were, and in my opinion it was cool. Infantry were that expendable. A couple of rocket soldiers still kicked rear. Crushable infantry is part of the C&C formula.
Instead of removing the crushability, they should've done it like Emperor battle for dune, where there's parts of terrain that's only accessible to infantry. That, plus CnC 3's Angry mob system for infantry would make them very effective despite being crushable.
EVA-251 wrote:
Not only is it stupidly unrealistic (infantry WILL NOT try to hold their ground from an advancing tank; tanker will rarely actually try to flatten enemy infantry because if he fails, he opens his rear and bottom armor to attack), but it also ruined CNC's balance.
I agree with you here, it's stupid they had to be manually ordered to dodge a tank on squishing course.
But it's even more unrealistic they actually can't.
if a tank runs over you, you're dead, or at least out of your opponent's hair.
EVA-251 wrote:
Why would I want to get a Humvee, Nod Buggy, Ranger, Wolverine or IFV when I can just get a " " Tank for only a little more and crush an entire company of Anti-tank soldiers with it?
Mowing them down with a couple of those was actually more effective than crushing. And we didn't even get to mentioning flame tanks. (admittedly, only NOD had those, but still)
EVA-251 wrote:
Heaven forbid you have to strategize, mix your forces and do things other than just give move orders to deal with infantry!
And what if your opponent orders them to dodge it? your tanks start moving, possibly into a trap.
I.E. they get lured in range of base defences/Artillery pieces and then combined with the infantry's antitank weapons, your tanks get torn to shreds.
That worked more than occasionally for me!
EVA-251 wrote:
Oh and CNC-4s infantry in my experience were hardly a threat to vehicles, if you made them crushable they'd be 99% without use. (barring those infantry that would have been uncrushable even in earlier CNC gameplay models)
I made this post after playing 4 missions of "C&C" 4, so I'm not quite sure about that yet.
But the dissappointment was already greater than Fable 1 and 2 combined, so I'm ready to admit I overreacted when calling this a fatality.
But I hope you agree that not being able to build a base was the brutality.
EVA-251 wrote:
Regulus wrote:
I doubt anyone is stupid enough to fire a rocket UP into a tank.
Of course you wouldn't. But you don't need a rocket to wreck even a modern main battle tank, like a Challenger II, Leopard or Abrams when the bottom armor is presented to you.
I won't go into details, but tanks usually have less than 2 inches of lower quality steel to protect the bottom. And vulnerable locations on the rear like engine block, can even be damaged by heavy machine gun fire.
@Ordo-
Exactly my point. Infantry being crushable is the primary thing responsible for CNC being regarded as "MOAR TANKS RUSH RUSH RUSH" game.
Once again I agree, it was a serious blow to the balance. But the feature was kinda cool. There's other ways of rebalancing that, like the emperor method mentioned above.
EVA-251 wrote:
Damage types dictate a rock paper scissors where
Anti-Tank Inf beats Tank
Anti-Inf Vehicle beats Anti-Tank Inf
Tank beats Anti-Inf Vehicle
But crushable infantry makes it so Tank beats Anti-Inf Vehicle AND Anti-Tank Inf.
And in this respect, CNC-4 did something that no CNC got right.
I can't argue with that, you're right. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject:
Bos187 wrote:
Perhaps, but they were, and in my opinion it was cool. Infantry were that expendable. A couple of rocket soldiers still kicked rear. Crushable infantry is part of the C&C formula.
Instead of removing the crushability, they should've done it like Emperor battle for dune, where there's parts of terrain that's only accessible to infantry. That, plus CnC 3's Angry mob system for infantry would make them very effective despite being crushable.
I have to disagree in regards to Rocket Soldiers. Against tanks, they were mediocre all the way until Guardian GIs. In CNC and Red Alert, any moving target barring a Mammoth could avoid a rocket/substantial damage. Not that the damage was significant in any way, either.
Bos187 wrote:
I agree with you here, it's stupid they had to be manually ordered to dodge a tank on squishing course.
But it's even more unrealistic they actually can't.
if a tank runs over you, you're dead, or at least out of your opponent's hair.
Not to do a deflection, but it is no more unrealistic than tank shells not instantly killing soldiers. Infantry not dying from tank shells or being "uncrushable by tanks" is just a way to express unit interactions that cannot be adequately displayed on screen. This was especially true in older RTSs, where everything always landed on target. You couldn't show that the tank shells landed off target and didn't go through the dude, nor could you show that the infantry dodge the crushing attempt.
Bos187 wrote:
Mowing them down with a couple of those was actually more effective than crushing. And we didn't even get to mentioning flame tanks. (admittedly, only NOD had those, but still)
Again, this is very debatable. I am speaking about cost-effectiveness. Take the case of the Allies in Red Alert. Rangers are 600, with 150 Light armor and speed of 6 on open terrain, compared to the Medium Tank's 800, 400 Heavy armor and 6.4 speed.
Rangers that encounter a squad of infantry will likely be able to neutralize them, but at what cost? 3 Rangers might be able to chew through 7-9 infantry, but the infantry are going to take out atleast 1 Ranger, maybe 2.
Meanwhile, a Medium Tank may not kill all 9 in the first run through, but it will win and it will not be destroyed.
And on the bright side, that Medium Tank will be able to go on to fight Soviet vehicles and structures afterwards with similar efficiency. The Rangers go back to the base to collect dust because they can't dent Tesla Coils, War Factories or Heavy Tanks.
This interaction replicates itself in most CNC games.
(coincidentally, uncrushable Shock Troopers is where Rangers and APCs truly shine)
Bos187 wrote:
And what if your opponent orders them to dodge it? your tanks start moving, possibly into a trap.
I.E. they get lured in range of base defences/Artillery pieces and then combined with the infantry's antitank weapons, your tanks get torn to shreds.
That worked more than occasionally for me!
Infantry are too slow for a dodge order to have any meaningful effect; and when in doubt, follow the tried and true CNC maxim: Get more tanks.
Dodging 5 tanks is one thing. Dodging 10 is another.
You describe a very ideal situation in your example that has a few flaws in it.
1: A human player will shift priority to the base defenses provided they aren't overwhelming; in that case, he'll retreat and mass his forces to attack later. (so yes, the trap would work for the meantime)
2: Artillery in CNC have never been anti-tank weapons. The only two effective anti-tank arty units in CNC are the Athena Cannon and Waveforce Artillery. Using the others to support infantry against tank attacks is asking for friendly fire more than anything else.
3: Infantry anti-tank weapons have always done negligible damage to tanks. Generals may be the only exception (as DaFool said), maybe including RA3's Tankbusters, which packed a wallop. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
I just wanted to say, that in TS infantry is even A LOT MORE USED then these low level vehicle, which cant do anythink, not crush nor deal any greater damage and had looooow armor/strenght.
So, let us see, which parts of Infantries are used in TS - if you got enough money ofc.
E1. The typical infantrist. Not usefull? They are the most used scut unit in the game, since both Nod and GDI use them to reveal their opponent just after building up a barrack (BO is Power-Barrack-Reff), its even the most used unit while playing online maps (though its just at the beginning, after that they become useless)
Since Im a Nod player, I will continue with Nod Soldiers. After that I will come back to GDI
Rockets are often used to kill an early JJ. They also are used if you got enough money and got a GDI opponent against you (Tits!). In Visceroid maps they are the most builded unit in the whole game imo, there i can be compared with the E1 at any other online map
Cyborg. Never, NEVER think a cyborg is useless. These are still used in the late game to reveal the enemy. Their ability not being crushable, got a lot of health and amor - and to detect stealth makes them to one of the mayor scout units. Not even Devils can reach these scales. With an SAPC they will reveal mostly the whole base, and can just be stopped by a few things [mass Titans, mass Tick Tanks, mass Banshees, CC, GS, Mammoth] before they can reveal too much...
Engineers. These are also one of the mayor infantry. They are built if you got enough money, not to capture your enemy (you may also do it, but its forbidden at online games) but to repair your own stuff. I saw a guy who saved his construcionyard 2 times from about 12 banshees. Just manage that again! Hard, but possible... They also save your ass, if you canyard and wf get destroyed...
Cyborg Commando (also known as CC) - I think I made my point clear by just mentioning it...
Hijacker. This guy deserves also a lot of attention. It can save you from a dizzie, get you an MK or an enemy/friendly MCV... Really usefull
Interesting think to mention: all Infs which are used to actually attack the enemy has the ability not beeing crushable. Yes, its true, crushable can destroy a lot of balancing, but still, some guys are sometimes used for attacks (Rockets, Cyborgs), in combination with a CC...
GDI Units:
Disc Thrower. I fear them. They are used to rush. And they are goddamn strong!
Jumpjet Infantry (also known as JJ). Even more usefull to scout then an E1, but costs a lot more, is slow, and dies fast, but can reveal buildings and if the enemy hasnt defense he can be deadly... Just through revealing.
Though a disadvantage is, that it need to land to reveal the area to allies
Medics. These are normally useless, but in a combination with a GS... :S
Ghoststalker (also known as GS). This guy is just as OP as a CC. Especially the ability to destroy buildings... He is also really fearsome.
It isnt like that no infantry is ever used, but if they are, they are mostly used to scout/rush, not to attack directly... _________________
Think of me as Nordos, 'cause Banshee wouldn't rename me QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject:
I'm back from some more playing.
I was overreacting after all.
But still, Tiberian Twilight is a sequel to the saga, and in a sequel you would expect more features, or the already known features to be more advanced in that respect.
What tiberian twilight did was the opposite, and that is what I'm pissed about.
The feature was indeed very unbalanced, but simply removing it is a lazy way of restoring the balance in my opinion.
It's part of the CnC formula, and a billions-of-dollars-company like EA should be able to think of other ways to restore balance.
It's not a fatality, but a twin-cheek b****-slap, but it helps the balance, so I'll live with it _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Offence Crawler!
