Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
For background I've been playing EE since it was released several times a year... Overall I love the game, but there are a *few* things that have seemed off about the game. I'm not at a point yet where I am recommending them, but I'm curious to get some community feedback.
Virtually every game has seen an unstoppable Germany, typically capturing Moscow in 1941 (first turn) and Baku in 1942 and a Russian surrender in 1943 (although the game is generally conceded after both Moscow/Baku fall).
Specific issues seen:
1) Moscow falls in first turn of Barbarossa
2) Germany sees minimal impact from Russian Winter
3) Germany has no problems moving things strategically in Russia
4) Subs rise faster and drop slower than historically
5) Early Low Country attack and Pathological France
6) No Russian encirclements during Barbarossa
7) Bombers - casualty rate too high to make useful early
Within the scope of the standard and optional rules I think a few of the optional rules should be standard (they are just too important).
1) build over time
2) Limited special action builds
3) terrain stacking limitations
Below is a list of things we are trying out and why:
Rule: Allied requirement for Britain/US to spend 2 SA (1 each) on invasions.
Experimental Mod: Only required when invading the European mainland.
Rationale: Original rule makes sense for big political invasions, but 2 exceptions already exit (Morocco - US, Egypt - Britain)
Effect: Makes Allied invasions of secondary targets a bit easier and eliminates the exception for Morocco/Egypt.
Rule: Phony War restriction
Experimental Mod: Eliminate restriction (Germany may attack westward at any time). Lend Lease to Britain and France (new) starts as soon as Germany violates phony war.
Rationale: The current rule prohibiting attack is arbitrary (no built in game rationale), and does nothing meaningful to discourage taking the low countries in bad weather the turn before the France attack. Additionally it prevents a pathological situation (see below).
Effect: For a historical attack (Low Countries and France in first turn of clear), this works exactly the same as the current rules. If Germany attacks early, then both France and Britain will be a bit stronger.
Pathological France: Germany takes Marseille and surrounds Paris, but refuses Vichy. French units die from OOS. Germany forgoes it's WERPS for Ploesti and free minor build. Gun's and Butter NEVER kicks in (as France is still in game). Britain does not get Lend Lease.
New: Germany loses it's standard operational and strategic move for the JF-1942 (they can still spend SA).
Rationale: Historically, the biggest effect of the initial Russian winter was not the casualties, but the virtual paralysis of the German Army.
Effect: A little less freedom for Germany during the historical bad winter.
New: German strat moves limited to half in the Eastern weather zone during bad weather (snow/mud). Alternately set a fixed limit (e.g., max 3).
Rationale: Historically, Germany had a lot of logistics problems in Russia during bad weather due to the limitations of Russian Rails and (especially) poor roads.
Effect: Harder for Germany to move massive troops from E to W to counter an invasion.
Rule: Up Front...
Modification: the Russian "front-line" is redefined as 2 deep.
Rationale: Moscow shouldn't typically fall in the first turn of Barbarossa AND there are no encirclements (other than the silly stack in Bessarabia) - the entire Russian line dissolves with the initial attack. Historically, a bit part of the reason Germany didn't get to Moscow is that they were busy encircling and destroying pockets of Russians.
Effect: Causes Germany to spend it's first turn encircling/destroying the up-front Russians. Effectively prevents first turn capture of Moscow, unless willing to take the almost guarantee of being cut off.
Rule: Subs
Modification: lower German build from 8 to 6
Rationale: Historically, the worst year for subs was 1942. In game, subs ratchet to the top in (very) early 1941
Rule: Bombers
Modification: change interceptors such that they hit on a base 6. Excess interceptors (> escorts) get a +1. Note this is basically how fleet combat works.
Rationale: Interceptors are currently so deadly that it's really not worth using bombers until you max bombers/escorts AND are in at least 1943. This is very ahistorical as bombers were used extensively all during the war by the Allies.
Please note - I don't claim these are all necessary or balanced, but things we are experimenting with.
Would love to get some feedback and discussion...
Also if anyone lives in New England and wants to play FTF -or- play online using IEE, drop me a line...
-Korval
-
Jon M
United Kingdom
Hitchin
Herts
-
I don't understand the Pathological France thing.
Apart from that some interesting tweaks.
However don't you think that the stacking limits are making it easier for the Germans to take Baku? I would suggest ditching that rule.
I would also suggest ditching the loss of Strat Moves for the Soviets on the fall of Moscow.
Interestingly no encirclements occurred in the war on the scale of the areas in this game so that is reasonably historical.
How about ditching the up front rule entirely? e.g. set a limit of at least two blocks per front line area. Less fiddly and gives the Soviets some more options/interesting things they can do.
-
john f stup
United States
damascus
Maryland
-
i haven't read your thread carefully yet but there are 2 things i would like to comment on now. #1-if the soviets surrender in '43 then i think someone must have blundered. the only optional rule we use is the extra SA in July '41. Baku should never fall and sometimes Moscow holds out and if does fall,it usually falls(or is abandoned) later to the Soviets.
#2-concerning strategic bombing with hindsight it probably was a waste of resources and men historically to do it earlier when they flew out of range of fighter support. this is just my opinion but i have lots of games under my belt both with 2 good players and solo playings of this game. thanks for the post and i hope to hear other comments and i may make make some more replies later, i think the game does good job bringing out the flavor of the situation without a lot of extra rules to burden down the players but they are available in the optional rules if players want use them and the base game is user friendly for those who want to experiment with variants. it is sort of like A&A's in that sense although a few steps up from that series of games.
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
"Pathological France" - is just a term I made up to talk about a rules exploit.
2nd ed. Rule 9.34 (paraphrased)
US lend lease to Britain begins in first Allied production phase following:
1) control Paris
2) Declaration of Vichy France
Germany can "exploit" the rules if desired to make sure that Britain (and Russia) does not receive Lend-Lease.
Germany:
1) captures Marseilles
2) surrounds Paris, but REFUSES Vichy when offered
3) French units dies OOS
4) Germany takes every territory in France *except* Paris
5) France is not conquered, because Paris (a resource center) is still Allied controlled
Since there are no supplied spaces in France, France can't actually build any units and Germany can conquer France at any instant trivially just by moving a unit into Paris.
Advantages:
1) no "free" LL to Britain 1d6 for 4 turns of 1940 and 6 turns of 1941
2) no "free" LL to Russia 1d6 for 4 turns of 1941
3) no LL to Britain/Russia in 1942
4) North Africa is secure (Italy Neutral)
5) If playing with Expert Rules, Germany Resource centers are reduced from 6 each to 5 each following fall of France until at war with Russia. Because France has not fallen, German production stays at full.
Disadvantages:
1) Italy is neutral
2) Axis Minors are neutral
3) no Ploesti WERPS
4) no free minor step build
I'm not sure it's actually advantageous to Germany, although my feeling is that it *is* worth doing if going after Britain. 1d6 less income for most of 1940/1941 is a lot of money...
This is doubly true if not playing with "build over time rules" - because it makes more likely that Britain will miss an ASW build.
-Korval
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
nhojput wrote: the only optional rule we use is the extra SA in July '41. Baku should never fall and sometimes Moscow holds out and if does fall,it usually falls(or is abandoned) later to the Soviets.
We have *never* used the extra SA as the Germans are already overwhelmingly powerful.
With good play, Germany can go into Barbarossa with all 5 SA, subs at 60, all armor (but elite) fully built, and virtually all infantry fully built.
Germany can take Moscow in the first turn of Barbarossa with 5 SA.
IMHO a sixth SA means that Baku is a reasonable target for the first turn of the invasion.
-Korval
-
James Pinnion
United Kingdom
Peterborough
-
Why do the French units die oos? This isnt paths of glory!
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
No, EE is not POG... But OOS still is bad...
2nd ed rules 3.1 & 3.2 (paraphrased)
For a major power home area to be in supply, it must be able to trace supply to another friendly controlled home area or resource center.
Self sufficient exceptions do NOT include Paris.
Thus an isolated Paris is OOS.
3.6 (paraphrased)
OOS units are eliminated during final supply determination phase.
So according to the rules, yes they die. IF France has a SA, he can spend it for limited supply. This causes all OOS units in Paris to take a step loss instead of being eliminated. France can do this a for a few turns, but eventually even their biggest unit (a INF-4) will be eliminated.
French units can try to attack out to break their encirclement, but they are throwing half dice and GSU don't work.
-Korval
-
Andrew Harding
United Kingdom
Cardiff
Wales
-
I agree that expert Axis play leads to them being too strong for Barbarossa (on the order of 100 WERPS above the 1941 start). I feel that many of the other problems you mention flow from that - the deep, thin penetration is a lot safer when you've got a dozen or more extra blocks to keep the supply line open. I prefer to bid for the Axis (high bid plays Axis and must skip their bid in production before war with Russia; I've won with bids over 100.)
Interesting take on France. I'll have to think about this one - my initial take is that it hurts in 1940 (as the Allies I'd happily swap 3.5 not-fighting-in-Egypt British WERPS for two free fleet losses and ~6 Axis WERPS a turn) and by midgame you'll want those extra Axis blocks. Would be interested in playing you to see it tried.
I've held Russia, though not consistently against experts starting in 1939. The stacking rule is the most pro-Axis of the Designer's options - more so than any of those actually in the Axis section. The Soviets need equal stacking rights.
Agree on sub production being too high. I like tying this one to ports controlled - one sub per turn per Atlantic port. Being willing to fight tooth & nail for France can encourage slower sub production somewhat.
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Aharding wrote: I agree that expert Axis play leads to them being too strong for Barbarossa (on the order of 100 WERPS above the 1941 start).
Concur - honestly one of the "easiest" fixes is to just drop Germany's production by 5 (1/resource center). Not the Gun's & Butter, but for entire game. Interesting side note (since you are British) - I was reviewing the US Strategic Bomber Survey summary (written just after WW2). Britain produced MORE arms than Germany in 1939/1940. Amusingly enough, dropping German production from 30 to 25 would bring the game production into agreement with this...
Aharding wrote: Interesting take on France. I'll have to think about this one - my initial take is that it hurts in 1940 (as the Allies I'd happily swap 3.5 not-fighting-in-Egypt British WERPS for two free fleet losses and ~6 Axis WERPS a turn) and by midgame you'll want those extra Axis blocks. Would be interested in playing you to see it tried.
I'm not actually a fan of Pathological France, my buddy discovered it. If I was trying, I would go France, Spain, and plan for a 1941 Sealion. I would be tempted to kick over France to bring Italy as soon as I had Gibralter in the bag. So it would most likely only be a few turns of lost income.
Aharding wrote: Agree on sub production being too high. I like tying this one to ports controlled - one sub per turn per Atlantic port. Being willing to fight tooth & nail for France can encourage slower sub production somewhat.
If France falls early in 1940 (which it should), then this only impacts 3 turns of sub builds, probably not enough to be meaningful. At one point, we tried applying a +1 to ASW and -1 to subs until one of either Normandy/Bordeaux was German controlled/supplied. Good effect, but again it only impacted 3 turns and in the net it felt like being "overly-fiddly."
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Aharding wrote:
(as the Allies I'd happily swap 3.5 not-fighting-in-Egypt British WERPS for two free fleet losses and ~6 Axis WERPS a turn) and by midgame you'll want those extra Axis blocks. Would be interested in playing you to see it tried.
I see a discrepancy... You are fighting in Egypt (defending?), when I play the Allies I am fighting (attacking) in Libya.
Consider this...
Britain commits *nothing* to France.
Britain 3-4 blocks (INF-3/militia maybe an ARM-3).
Gibraltar INF-3 (if there is any chance of Spain being attacked)
Malta INF-3
Alexandria INF-3
Egypt attack force INF-4 x4, ARM-4, ARM-3, ARM-3, GSUx2
Atlantic Fleets - 3
Med Fleets - 4
This is why keeping Italy neutral can be an advantage... Seeing Italian Morale collapse in 1940 is so much fun... Rare, but fun...
-
Andrew Harding
United Kingdom
Cardiff
Wales
-
Yep, I fight hard (up to six BR blocks + GSU + aggressive attitude) in France so don't have usually have the strength to push hard in Africa. I've won a lot of games in 1940 as the Allies, far too many Axis players take France for granted.
I moved to the UK a couple of years ago (previously Australian).
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Aharding wrote: Yep, I fight hard (up to six BR blocks + GSU + aggressive attitude) in France
Do you defend France with an up-front (Pas & Metz) or rear (Paris/Normandy) defense?
I've only seen Germany defeated in 1 game during the France attack, when I tried to get cute and not take Vichy.
Even with the biggest possible British commitment (not building ASW in 39 and early 40), Germany still seems able to stomp France. Although it can be very expensive...
Usually when the British commits massive forces, they squat in Pas. Often a good time to go thru Metz.
I always have my 5 SA built, take the Low Countries in bad weather (turn before France), and don't build a lot of Armor (and defer to last turn).
Metz is often viewed with too much trepidation.
Although the first round hurts, with 5SA, there is no hurry. You can afford to step in with a regular attack, take your lumps, fortress evaporates, then assault until dead, then Paris.
German building too much armor leads them to discard the thought of going thru Metz since armor can't shoot the first turn. Self-fulfilling prophecy...
My group generally builds subs at close to max rate every turn before France falls. Leads to higher casualties in France, but sure hurts Britain... I would probably default back to Rick Young's original recommended strategy if I saw a massive British commitment and just build subs to 13.
-
Andrew Harding
United Kingdom
Cardiff
Wales
-
Neither. If I've been passive I'll defend Paris and Metz heavily with reinforcements in Lyon and a decent FR block in each other area next to Paris except Pas.
-
Rick Young
United States
Durham
North Carolina
-
I am following this conversation with interest.
I am in the early stages of redesigning EE, and I will certainly want to eliminate further inaccuracies and gamey tricks.
I also want to eliminate a lot of the existing exceptions and speed up play.
Thanks for originating this thread and thank you also to the contributors.
I am very proud of EE, for its time it was ground-breaking, historical, and fun. Here we are almost 10 years later and you guys are still playing and enjoying it. Its a very small number of games, which of course includes EE, within my collection that can boast the same.
After a decade though, I think I can hone it and make it even better.
I'm about to try anyway, wish me luck!
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Rick Young wrote: I am following this conversation with interest.
I am in the early stages of redesigning EE, and I will certainly want to eliminate further inaccuracies and gamey tricks.
I also want to eliminate a lot of the existing exceptions and speed up play.
Thanks for originating this thread and thank you also to the contributors.
I am very proud of EE, for its time it was ground-breaking, historical, and fun. Here we are almost 10 years later and you guys are still playing and enjoying it. Its a very small number of games, which of course includes EE, within my collection that can boast the same.
After a decade though, I think I can hone it and make it even better.
I'm about to try anyway, wish me luck!
You should be proud of it, it's a great game. While I think there are several opportunities for tweaking, refinement, and cleanup - I believe the game is fundamentally sound.
I'll be happy to throw observations and ideas at you :>
I would love to see GMT make an optional mounted map for this game like they have with several others. I just ordered my POG mounted map and would love to buy one for EE.
Another quick "gamey trick" - strat moving non-cadre infantry out of Russia before the Russian winter and strat moving them right back after the Russian winter effect.
Two suggestions:
1) adopt limits on eastern weather zone strat moves (I didn't include this as a rationale in original to save space, but it was another reason)
2) allow infantry cadres to be affected. If Germany is silly enough to not add a step to them during production, let em freeze! :>
-Korval
-
Andrew Harding
United Kingdom
Cardiff
Wales
-
Glad to hear you're taking another look at EE - it's a fine game. Anything I can do to help just ask.
-
tapio talvisalo
Finland
Espoo
Uusimaa
-
Rick Young wrote: I am following this conversation with interest.
After a decade though, I think I can hone it and make it even better.
I'm about to try anyway, wish me luck!
Good luck, great game! :)
- tapio
-
-
Rick Young wrote:
I am in the early stages of redesigning EE, and I will certainly want to eliminate further inaccuracies and gamey tricks.
Dear Mr. Young!
I apologize for off-topic, if I may dare to ask: do you plan EE redesign or maybe combined EE+AE redesign to make combined games possible more easily? 
Thank you very much!
-
Rick Young
United States
Durham
North Carolina
-
I am looking at a World Engulfed as an option, yes. The list of things I've nailed down so far:
5 turn years (2 summer turns, then one turn per each other season).
lower block count, working with about half now.
stacking limits in all areas.
more counters, including assets that can be committed to battles a la FAB series, and counters for garrisons that can free up blocks from garrison duty.
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Rick Young wrote: I am looking at a World Engulfed as an option, yes. The list of things I've nailed down so far:
5 turn years (2 summer turns, then one turn per each other season).
lower block count, working with about half now.
stacking limits in all areas.
.
Rick - First reaction is sounds like less game...
It would be nice for Europe & Asia to be compatible, but IMHO I wouldn't make it a priority. I don't know what the sales were like, but my experience is that people are less interested in the Asia front AND the mega games are even less appealing.
I've been down this route with Advanced Third Reich/Rising Sun and Columbia games. In every case, the 'other' front and mega game were interesting, but almost never actually played.
There needs to be free or moderately priced upgrade path for current owners.
If you are radically restructuring the game, there are a lot of things you could do to simplify...
Abstract Strategic Warfare almost completely (fixed cost by year), Abstract the Africa Front, Abstract Norway, Eliminate Fleet Combat and Fleet Maintenance.
Personally, all I really want is to see a set of rules tweaks, maybe some variants (ala A3R variant counters), and I wouldn't mind seeing a small set of expansion blocks and rules for exchanges.
e.g.
Extra Russia Elite Infantry
German Siege Artillery
Mech Infantry (lots for US/Britian, few for German, non for Russia/Italy)
Cav Units
Example:
Mech Infantry (cost 3/1) moves 2, acts as infantry
US/Britain may exchange INF-4 for MINF-4, INF-3 for MINF-3
Germany may exchange INF-4 for MINF-3.
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Another thought BTW is to add a "sliding scale" concept to SA cost...
Cost
1 = 5
2 = 5
3 = 10
4 = 15
5 = 20
etc...
-
Timothy Phelps
United States
Canal Fulton
Ohio
-
Korval wrote: There needs to be free or moderately priced upgrade path for current owners.
No there doesn't.
-
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
-
Asyncritus wrote: Korval wrote: There needs to be free or moderately priced upgrade path for current owners. No there doesn't.
Technically of course you are correct. Rick & GMT can do anything they want...
However... There is a base of players that already own the game. A number of these (including myself) are unlikely to purchase a complete new version.
It's a rather economically constrained time for a lot of people. Many people may be unwilling to lay out a big chunk of cash for components they already have (e.g., blocks).
Speaking for myself, if GMT/Rick released a modestly priced version 3.0 upgrade consisting of a variant set, new rule book, and small set of new blocks I would probably buy it.
I would also probably buy a mounted map.
I definitely would not lay out $100+ for a complete new game...
I would argue it makes more economic sense to entice current owners to upgrade at a modest cost, because they are unlikely to lay out the cash to buy a complete new version...
-
Kurt Keckley
United States
Bakersfield
California
-
Rick Young wrote: I am looking at a World Engulfed as an option, yes. The list of things I've nailed down so far:
5 turn years (2 summer turns, then one turn per each other season).
lower block count, working with about half now.
stacking limits in all areas.
more counters, including assets that can be committed to battles a la FAB series, and counters for garrisons that can free up blocks from garrison duty.
Rick,
My group has been playing what we call "World Englufed" for about 3 years now. It is an extreme variant by BGG User Shaka of Carthage. It's most appealing additions included historical event cards based on John Prado's Third Reich, new rules for naval combat, diplomatic tracks for all of the minors, extreme stacking limits and changes to the block counts.
The Pacific war is abstracted through card draws and affects both the WAllies and Russians.
US entry into the war is also a card draw. They can come in early or very late. In our game this weekend they didn't arrive until 1943. Luckily, the Russian steamroller got an early jump.
If you are interested in the other many many variant rules, I'll let Shaka chime in.
Kurt
-
Barry Lew
United States
North Hollywood
California
-
I've played EE quite a bit before developing a variant.
Quote: Within the scope of the standard and optional rules I think a few of the optional rules should be standard (they are just too important).
1) build over time
2) Limited special action builds
3) terrain stacking limitations
I agree. I believe all of the Optional 13.xx rules should be used.
Quote: Rule: Allied requirement for Britain/US to spend 2 SA (1 each) on invasions.
Experimental Mod: Only required when invading the European mainland.
Rationale: Original rule makes sense for big political invasions, but 2 exceptions already exit (Morocco - US, Egypt - Britain)
Effect: Makes Allied invasions of secondary targets a bit easier and eliminates the exception for Morocco/Egypt.
I've never seen this as a problem. I would leave it as is.
Quote: Rule: Phony War restriction
Experimental Mod: Eliminate restriction (Germany may attack westward at any time). Lend Lease to Britain and France (new) starts as soon as Germany violates phony war.
Rationale: The current rule prohibiting attack is arbitrary (no built in game rationale), and does nothing meaningful to discourage taking the low countries in bad weather the turn before the France attack. Additionally it prevents a pathological situation (see below).
Effect: For a historical attack (Low Countries and France in first turn of clear), this works exactly the same as the current rules. If Germany attacks early, then both France and Britain will be a bit stronger.
I don't see the problem here. There was a phoney war. If you want to eliminate the political restrictions, there are some rules in the 14.xx section that cover this.
Quote: Pathological France: Germany takes Marseille and surrounds Paris, but refuses Vichy. French units die from OOS. Germany forgoes it's WERPS for Ploesti and free minor build. Gun's and Butter NEVER kicks in (as France is still in game). Britain does not get Lend Lease.
So Germany decides to conquer France (ie refuse Vichy), but never completes the actual conquest. Isn't it interesting what gamers come up with? Use the optional rule France Fights On (14.354), without the condition of France being "conquered".
Quote: New: Germany loses it's standard operational and strategic move for the JF-1942 (they can still spend SA).
Rationale: Historically, the biggest effect of the initial Russian winter was not the casualties, but the virtual paralysis of the German Army.
Effect: A little less freedom for Germany during the historical bad winter.
Here you have a different interpretation of what the Russian winter effect should be. Take a look at 14.41 and 14.42.
Quote: New: German strat moves limited to half in the Eastern weather zone during bad weather (snow/mud). Alternately set a fixed limit (e.g., max 3).
Rationale: Historically, Germany had a lot of logistics problems in Russia during bad weather due to the limitations of Russian Rails and (especially) poor roads.
Effect: Harder for Germany to move massive troops from E to W to counter an invasion.
Agree that EE doesn't reflect the difficulties the Germans had in converting the Russian rail lines. If you want to use the above, suggest the limit of Poland, instead of the Eastern weather zone.
Quote: Rule: Up Front...
Modification: the Russian "front-line" is redefined as 2 deep.
Rationale: Moscow shouldn't typically fall in the first turn of Barbarossa AND there are no encirclements (other than the silly stack in Bessarabia) - the entire Russian line dissolves with the initial attack. Historically, a bit part of the reason Germany didn't get to Moscow is that they were busy encircling and destroying pockets of Russians.
Effect: Causes Germany to spend it's first turn encircling/destroying the up-front Russians. Effectively prevents first turn capture of Moscow, unless willing to take the almost guarantee of being cut off.
This is more of an issue of how EE reflects the Eastern Front. I think you will find that even with the above, Germany can still take Moscow. Because of that, I took a different approach.
Quote: Rule: Subs
Modification: lower German build from 8 to 6
Rationale: Historically, the worst year for subs was 1942. In game, subs ratchet to the top in (very) early 1941
Be careful trying to fit the historical results into a game system where players don't have to follow the steps there historical predecessors did. As a house rule that fits the playing style of your gaming group and is something that everyone agrees to, go ahead and try it.
Quote: Rule: Bombers
Modification: change interceptors such that they hit on a base 6. Excess interceptors (> escorts) get a +1. Note this is basically how fleet combat works.
Rationale: Interceptors are currently so deadly that it's really not worth using bombers until you max bombers/escorts AND are in at least 1943. This is very ahistorical as bombers were used extensively all during the war by the Allies.
Agree that in the game, you don't want to use bombers unless you have quite a few or the German player hasn't built many interceptors. Is it historical? Probably not. If you want to reflect the British night bombing, don't allow any escorts or interceptors, and have the bombers hit as if its bad weather.
While EE is a great game, it is nice to see people looking for improvements.
Good luck,
Barry
-
|
|
Posted Thu Feb 2, 2012 4:21 pm
