Page 30 of 253 FirstFirst ... 52021222324252627282930313233343536373839405580130 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 5041

Thread: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

  1. #581
    nlovertoom's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    College Park, MD
    Posts
    294

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Also, most of the barbarians should NOT be able to besiege towns!!! One of the most unrealistic aspects of the game. At MOST, like a cavalry army they should have to wait out all the turns until the city staves. Gauls, Germans, and steppe people assaulting massive city walls with huge siege towers is laughable and ridiculous.
    "Every man dies, not every man really lives."

  2. #582
    Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    175

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Well I don't think you can modify the availability of rams, ladders, and siege towers by faction, or else that team would have done so in EB1. Regarding barbarian armies, in my limited experience with EB1, the barbarian armies pretty much already are the way that you're requesting. The Celtic units are definitely inferior to Roman units and rely entirely on superior tactics, variety, and numbers. I'm not sure about their comparative costs, but I would agree that they should be considerably cheaper. The Romans are already going to begin with a far stronger economy than their barbarian neighbors, and their units are armed with more expensive equipment, so it makes sense.
    Last edited by B_Ray; October 09, 2010 at 10:43 PM.

  3. #583

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    must... play.... this..... mod......

    I hope factions will be more balanced this time. Are there any efforts to make barbarian armies more realistic? As in, bigger, cheaper, and less able to go one on one with sophisticated Roman or Greek forces (except rare elite units). I feel that a full stack Roman army should defeat a full stack barbarian army 95% of the time. Now, to balance this I believe the barbarians should be able to pay for and field 3 to 4 times the armies as the Greeks or Romans. Roman and Greek units should be expensive and have very high upkeep costs in order to limit the size of their armies. Barbarians should be able to recruit elite units as well but on campaign 90% of their (hopefully massive) force should be cheap, basic levies. Small, elite Greek/Roman armies fighting massive, cruder barbarian armies makes for a more realistic, more entertaining campaign. As a Greek/Roman you have to use great strategy to out-wit and out-last larger foes, and as the barbarians you have to use your numbers to overwhelm small, yet tactically superior armies.
    I couldn't disagree more with you.The armies of the EB are the most realistic I ever seen in a game.In history no nation was balanced.Every nation had its strengths and weaknesses,some were weaker some were superpowers.Balance is for arcade/fantasy RTS,not for a mod that aspires to be as realistic as its gets.
    The Celts,getae and Iberians had excellent armor and weapons.The chain mail was a celtic invention and the gladius a Hispanic(Gladius Hispaniesis I think its called) one.The only faction that fits to your descreption are the sueboz that they didn't had alot of iron,thus they fought unarmoured,but their martial prowess is well established.The romans didn't have(in the republican period at least) superiority in arms or martial skill but they could replace quicker their losses and adapt to their enemy.That means that the romans actually spammed armies and not the "barbarians".

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    Also, most of the barbarians should NOT be able to besiege towns!!! One of the most unrealistic aspects of the game. At MOST, like a cavalry army they should have to wait out all the turns until the city staves. Gauls, Germans, and steppe people assaulting massive city walls with huge siege towers is laughable and ridiculous.
    I'm not a historian but I believe that the celts and the iberians used sophisticated forts.So it is logical to guess that they had experience besieging forts.Maybe a historian could tell us more
    I think that a EB member could explain better the historical reasoning behind the decisions they made,but from what I can tell they researched it very well.

  4. #584
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    must... play.... this..... mod......

    I hope factions will be more balanced this time. Are there any efforts to make barbarian armies more realistic? As in, bigger, cheaper, and less able to go one on one with sophisticated Roman or Greek forces (except rare elite units). I feel that a full stack Roman army should defeat a full stack barbarian army 95% of the time. Now, to balance this I believe the barbarians should be able to pay for and field 3 to 4 times the armies as the Greeks or Romans. Roman and Greek units should be expensive and have very high upkeep costs in order to limit the size of their armies. Barbarians should be able to recruit elite units as well but on campaign 90% of their (hopefully massive) force should be cheap, basic levies. Small, elite Greek/Roman armies fighting massive, cruder barbarian armies makes for a more realistic, more entertaining campaign. As a Greek/Roman you have to use great strategy to out-wit and out-last larger foes, and as the barbarians you have to use your numbers to overwhelm small, yet tactically superior armies.
    If by "more realistic" you mean conforming to the inaccurate commonly held views of the "barbarians" that EB was started to readdress, then no we won't.
    The one main problem with EB was that we couldn't control the relative proportions of units in armies, more elite units were give very high upkeep to discourage the player but this didn't really work once they got rich enough and lead to unrealistic stacks of elites appearing. Because EBII is on M2TW we can now directly control how often you can recruit units, so hopefully this will no longer be a problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    Also, most of the barbarians should NOT be able to besiege towns!!! One of the most unrealistic aspects of the game. At MOST, like a cavalry army they should have to wait out all the turns until the city staves. Gauls, Germans, and steppe people assaulting massive city walls with huge siege towers is laughable and ridiculous.
    The siege towers cannot be helped as you can't be faction specific with them. I don't really understand why you think they couldn't besiege towns, I suppose all those Oppida, Castro's and Murus Dacicus were built for fun then?


  5. #585
    nlovertoom's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    College Park, MD
    Posts
    294

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    @ LongTom
    "I couldn't disagree more with you.The armies of the EB are the most realistic I ever seen in a game."
    Sure, I agree but EB is up against less than adequate mods so being "the most realistic" does not say as much as one would think and certainly does not make the EB team authorities on this period or necessarily correct.

    "Balance is for arcade/fantasy RTS,not for a mod that aspires to be as realistic as its gets."
    Obviously different armies had different abilities and disadvantages, but that's not the issue. The issue is overall game play. It is a video game after all... and if there isn’t a semblance of balance then there isn’t much of a reason to play.

    "The Celts,getae and Iberians had excellent armor and weapons.The chain mail was a celtic invention and the gladius a Hispanic(Gladius Hispaniesis I think its called) one."
    Yes, yes and the early Romans fought more like Greek hoplites, and later they adopted Samnite tactics and Gallic helmets and so on and so forth. My argument is not that the "barbarians" should be mindless hordes; however, I do have a major problem with a half stack of naked fanatics wiping out everything they fight...

    "The romans didn't have(in the republican period at least) superiority in arms or martial skill"
    This is incredibly suspect and honestly just incorrect. Sources? Certainly Dr. William V. Harris and Dr. Arthur M. Eckstein would disagree with such a statement. I do not have the time to go into details but REPUBLICAN gains in the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st centuries BCE do not support your claim. AND since these are the centuries covered by the game (not the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries where I might agree with you more), then you can't argue this as a valid reason to limit the Romans.

    "they [Romans] could replace quicker their losses and adapt to their enemy.That means that the romans actually spammed armies and not the 'barbarians'"
    The Romans had a DEEP pool of reserves NOT numerous standing armies (except on rare occasions of desperate war). There is a terribly important distinction to be made here. The Roman ability to replace armies made them unique in the multipolar system of interstate anarchy in the Mediterranean world, (again) NOT that they had gobs of armies at hand. Unlike (and I’ll admit that these are extreme cases) the "reported" 180,000 Gauls at Alesia vs 60,000 Romans or the "reported" 200,000 Cimbri and Teutones at Arausio vs 80,000 Romans or the "reported" 210,000 at Vercellae vs 50,000. The AI "barbarians" should be able to harness such superior numbers at times w/o them creating stack after stack of elite troops.

    "I'm not a historian but I believe that the celts and the iberians used sophisticated forts.So it is logical to guess that they had experience besieging forts.Maybe a historian could tell us more"
    I am a graduate student in ancient Mediterranean history and granted that the ins and outs of barbarian military efforts in the 3rd-1st centuries BCE is not my field of emphasis, I DO feel comfortable sticking to my guns on the siege issue. The existence of "forts" or oppida as bobbin stated DOES NOT de facto represent the ability to besiege such places. In fact, before Phillip II of Macedon the ability to "storm" walled cities was very VERY rare and certainly not a common aspect of "barbarian" ability, even up to the 5th century CE. As I suspected, the modders just can't get rid of this ability in the game (which is part of it being a video game and not a time machine)

    BTW, its Gladius Hispaniensis, so you were close.
    "Every man dies, not every man really lives."

  6. #586
    nlovertoom's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    College Park, MD
    Posts
    294

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    @ bobbin

    "If by "more realistic" you mean conforming to the inaccurate commonly held views of the "barbarians" that EB was started to readdress, then no we won't."
    HAHA, now now don’t get so defensive. I understand the purpose of the mod; however, at least in EB 1 your efforts to make the "barbarians" more "realistic" (in your opinions) causes legitimate issues in army makeup and game play. (This being said I love your efforts and thank you all. I am a great supporter of your work). The point is not to make mindless hordes of barbarians but there are oversights in favor of the "barbarians" which deserve to be addressed seriously and not just dismissed.

    "The one main problem with EB was that we couldn't control the relative proportions of units in armies, more elite units were give very high upkeep to discourage the player but this didn't really work once they got rich enough and lead to unrealistic stacks of elites appearing. Because EBII is on M2TW we can now directly control how often you can recruit units, so hopefully this will no longer be a problem."
    NOW YOU ARE TALKING! This makes me very hopeful. If done well, this could satisfy all such complaints. GOOD LUCK!

    "The siege towers cannot be helped as you can't be faction specific with them. I don't really understand why you think they couldn't besiege towns, I suppose all those Oppida, Castro's and Murus Dacicus were built for fun then? "
    The siege tower problem is what I suspected. Now, regarding "those Oppida, Castro's and Murus Dacicus" again sources?? You just throw that out there like the fact that they existed somehow means that the "barbarians" on a regular bases had the abilities to besiege them... which they just did not. Oppida were not necessarily fortified and were hilltop towns. Obviously their purpose was security and defense; however, show me the evidence that these were taken by siege (other than by the Romans). The hilltop towns or oppida were so formidable precisely because they COULD NOT be besiege by "barbarians." Castra (which is the plural for castrum) were simply Roman military camps. Again, obviously their purpose was security and defense; however, show me cases of "barbarians" besieging a Roman camp successfully... The Murus Dacicus (or Dacian wall) again does not demonstrate a "barbarian" ability to perform sieges. Also, this is a technique of the 2nd century CE and later, making it irrelevant for our conversation. Now with all this in mind and just as an example, Caesar built the double walls at Alesia because he KNEW that the Gauls could not breach such fortifications (and that’s the mid 1st century BCE). I appreciate your efforts to defend the "barbarians" at every turn but maybe you misunderstand or at least your justifications are weak? Blaming it on an inability to mod out the siege aspect for "barbarians" is perfectly acceptable. However, try not to let the "barbarian bias" get the best of you. The ability of the "barbarians" to besiege towns or forts on a consistent and successful basis is not well supported and I believe a losing argument.
    Last edited by nlovertoom; October 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM.
    "Every man dies, not every man really lives."

  7. #587

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    Obviously different armies had different abilities and disadvantages, but that's not the issue. The issue is overall game play. It is a video game after all... and if there isn’t a semblance of balance then there isn’t much of a reason to play.


    "they [Romans] could replace quicker their losses and adapt to their enemy.That means that the romans actually spammed armies and not the 'barbarians'"
    The Romans had a DEEP pool of reserves NOT numerous standing armies (except on rare occasions of desperate war). There is a terribly important distinction to be made here. The Roman ability to replace armies made them unique in the multipolar system of interstate anarchy in the Mediterranean world, (again) NOT that they had gobs of armies at hand. Unlike (and I’ll admit that these are extreme cases) the "reported" 180,000 Gauls at Alesia vs 60,000 Romans or the "reported" 200,000 Cimbri and Teutones at Arausio vs 80,000 Romans or the "reported" 210,000 at Vercellae vs 50,000. The AI "barbarians" should be able to harness such superior numbers at times w/o them creating stack after stack of elite troops.
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    I believe that a mod that focus in history should have balance in MP not single player.The saka campaign shouldn't be as easy as roman.Maybe its my cup of tea to want great challenges,but I believe the game balance is in generall terms good.
    Thats I meant that Roman spammed troops,like in Pyrrhic campaigns.
    If I'm not mistaken the Teutones and Kimbroi were more a migration horde so they had their families and elder with them,so the numbers included these non combatants.Also I think the roman historians generally reported great enemy numbers to glorify the roman successes.
    The ai in rome recruits the best unit for the money it costs so nothing can be done there.Medieval II has better options in recruitment so hopefully they can improve the AI armies.
    As the EB team are authorities or not, personally the reasoning and proofs they provide for their units is enough for me.In addition every single historical magazine and book I've ever read pretty much agrees with their options.Maybe if you have ideas and arguments about their current work it will beneficial for the whole community to state to them so they can improve their work.

  8. #588

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    The thing your are complaining about is the fact that the AI recruits elite after elite and you have to fight them with your levies right? Well this issue comes from the RTW-engine, the AI simply chooses the unit that has the best rate of cost and power. The elites are much more expensive than they should be if this issue would be modable (as it is in MTW2). Play EB on medium campaign difficulty to avoid a fragment of this exploit.

    XSamatan

  9. #589
    nlovertoom's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    College Park, MD
    Posts
    294

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by LongTom View Post
    Maybe if you have ideas and arguments about their current work it will beneficial for the whole community to state to them so they can improve their work.
    That is all I am doing, throwing my cap into the ring. It's all love and positive debate. I think they have a chance with the new recruiting system to do something epic. I figure the more questions and opinions the better.
    "Every man dies, not every man really lives."

  10. #590

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    I have a very minor question.
    What are the current thoughts about clothing color in the EB team now that the option to have many different soldier appearances in the same unit exists? I know it may sound silly, but getting involved in reenacting and hearing all of the arguments about Roman tunic color and such has made me curious. I have no opinion on the matter, as I said I am merely curious about it.

  11. #591

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    In fact, before Phillip II of Macedon the ability to "storm" walled cities was very VERY rare and certainly not a common aspect of "barbarian" ability, even up to the 5th century CE.
    I would argue even after Philip II it was very, very rare to storm walled cities. As Dr. Goldsworthy notes (the Punic Wars, Roman Warfare) fortifications were normally taken by stealth or by treachery, not by assault because without incredible personalities like Philip or Alexander (the siege of Tyre comes to mind) an army simply could not sustain the casualties necessary to storm walls and take a city. It was only when the Romans had an army of paid professions with inexhaustible sources of auxiliaries to do the job that storming fortresses (such as Damascus, Jerusalem, Masada) became normal. This is even true for ancient powers like Carthage or advanced powers such as the successor states, it was certainly also true for the Celts. That they could have theoretically does not mean they in fact did. Even the siege of Constantinople in 1453, with guns took 7 months because casualties sustained from a handful of defenders on a 5th century wall was too devastating for the morale of the highly trained and paid Turkish army to push through. Even the last assault which finally breached the walls was nearly repulsed, but for the fact that a gate by the sea walls had fallen and the Turkish standard was foisted above it.

    So while the Barbarians were certainly not walking around grunting and living in mud up to their waste (the general American conception of anyone without cable tv) they were not in general organized for direct assaults on well fortified positions, even if they possessed as strong a siege science as the Macedonians.

  12. #592
    Giorgios's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,722

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by carbonem vestigium View Post
    Even the siege of Constantinople in 1453, with guns took 7 months because casualties sustained from a handful of defenders on a 5th century wall was too devastating for the morale of the highly trained and paid Turkish army to push through. Even the last assault which finally breached the walls was nearly repulsed, but for the fact that a gate by the sea walls had fallen and the Turkish standard was foisted above it.
    Just as a quick clarification- Constantinople didn't last that long. The siege proper was over after two months, not seven. Your other points are entirely correct though.

  13. #593
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by nlovertoom View Post
    HAHA, now now don’t get so defensive. I understand the purpose of the mod; however, at least in EB 1 your efforts to make the "barbarians" more "realistic" (in your opinions) causes legitimate issues in army makeup and game play. (This being said I love your efforts and thank you all. I am a great supporter of your work). The point is not to make mindless hordes of barbarians but there are oversights in favor of the "barbarians" which deserve to be addressed seriously and not just dismissed.
    Yes, sorry I was a bit short, we tend to get a lot of people who just post "x is wrong and must be changed!" without ever providing any evidence or reasoning, it can result in us being a bit brisk with people sometime.

    NOW YOU ARE TALKING! This makes me very hopeful. If done well, this could satisfy all such complaints. GOOD LUCK!
    Thank you!


    The siege tower problem is what I suspected. Now, regarding "those Oppida, Castro's and Murus Dacicus" again sources?? You just throw that out there like the fact that they existed somehow means that the "barbarians" on a regular bases had the abilities to besiege them... which they just did not. Oppida were not necessarily fortified and were hilltop towns. Obviously their purpose was security and defense; however, show me the evidence that these were taken by siege (other than by the Romans). The hilltop towns or oppida were so formidable precisely because they COULD NOT be besiege by "barbarians." Castra (which is the plural for castrum) were simply Roman military camps. Again, obviously their purpose was security and defense; however, show me cases of "barbarians" besieging a Roman camp successfully... The Murus Dacicus (or Dacian wall) again does not demonstrate a "barbarian" ability to perform sieges. Also, this is a technique of the 2nd century CE and later, making it irrelevant for our conversation. Now with all this in mind and just as an example, Caesar built the double walls at Alesia because he KNEW that the Gauls could not breach such fortifications (and that’s the mid 1st century BCE). I appreciate your efforts to defend the "barbarians" at every turn but maybe you misunderstand or at least your justifications are weak? Blaming it on an inability to mod out the siege aspect for "barbarians" is perfectly acceptable. However, try not to let the "barbarian bias" get the best of you. The ability of the "barbarians" to besiege towns or forts on a consistent and successful basis is not well supported and I believe a losing argument.
    I know places like Danebury and the Heuneburg show signs of violent destruction (the former explicitly). The sheer scale and advanced nature of some celtic fortifications, such as the Maiden Castle, Otzenhausen or Bibracte, while undoubtedly having a element of "showing off" about them, imply that violent assault and capture was a real concern.
    There is also reference to celtic defenders undermining Roman siege works at Avaricum which again implies at least a passing knowledge of siege warfare.

    As for the Castros, I was referring to the fortified villages and towns found on the Iberian peninsula during the period, which again possessed impressive fortifications.

    To address your original concern, it would be pretty unrealistic (and probably impossible) to remove the ability to besiege settlements from the "barbarian" factions, while I agree that direct assaults like you see in total war games would be uncommon, this is also true for most factions. In the end we are constrained by the limits of the game.
    Last edited by bobbin; October 13, 2010 at 12:14 PM.


  14. #594

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    What about eastern barbarian nomads, in the engine do they have the ability to make siege engines in the Medieval II engine? Assuming they will be based on the Mongol faction from the vanilla game, but I never found out playing vanilla if they were allowed to make siege engines (of course it's a little different seing as the Mongols had Chinese siege engineers, advisors etc.) but I don't know if the game incorporated that.
    Originally Posted by Tyer032392:
    "The problem about having troops killing soldiers is that if CA implemented that, than they will earn the ire of Jack Thompson, and that is something CA doesn't need. If anyone doesn't know who he is, google "Jack Thompson"."

  15. #595
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    That was one of my points, you definitely cannot make siege towers only available for certain factions and you might not even be able to remove them in the first place.


  16. #596
    Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    175

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    For what its worth, I think the various barbarian armies tend to fare worse in city assaults in the first place due to their overall lack of armor, which makes them more susceptible to tower arrows, particularly from the side and rear. I realize this doesn't provide a direct reflection of their inferior siege technology, but it does produce the same effect: greater casualties when assaulting city walls.

  17. #597

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    @B_Ray, I am afraid I would have to disagree with some of what you said. For instance, the Guals probably tended to have superior armor than the Romans for a long time, and some tribes may have had perfectly good siege technology. For instance, think how much Roman armor is Gallic in origin, Scutum, helmets, lorica hamata etc. The Gauls even took Rome in the "early days", granted it was in all likelyhood not the most siege proof city at that time.

    Also remember, barbarian is a term that covers a wide range of unrelated peoples, some civilized (with urban/partially urban based cultures) some not. Pretty much anybody not Hellenic, at least Hellenized, or Roman/Romanized. So while the Germanic tribes and Scythians, were lightly armored and probably had little siege technology if any, the Gauls, Numidians, Parthians, etc. probably had quite good siege understanding.

    However, the debate is kind of unimportant, since if I understand Bobbin correctly, with this engine, aside from as you said armor,there is no way to prevent any faction from having Rams, Saps, Towers. The best they can probably do is not allow some factions to have catapults and the like.
    Last edited by Fabricus; October 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM.
    Originally Posted by Tyer032392:
    "The problem about having troops killing soldiers is that if CA implemented that, than they will earn the ire of Jack Thompson, and that is something CA doesn't need. If anyone doesn't know who he is, google "Jack Thompson"."

  18. #598
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabricus View Post
    @B_Ray, I am afraid I would have to disagree with some of what you said. For instance, the Guals probably tended to have superior armor than the Romans for a long time, and some tribes may have had perfectly good siege technology. For instance, think how much Roman armor is Gallic in origin, Scutum, helmets, lorica hamata etc. The Gauls even took Rome in the "early days", granted it was in all likelyhood not the most siege proof city at that time.
    I think he is talking about in the game, not history.


  19. #599

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Ah, a small misunderstanding then. Anyway, it is kind of annoying how Sega hardcoded so much of the game. I wonder why, and they say Empire and Napoleon Total Wars were worse for mods?
    Originally Posted by Tyer032392:
    "The problem about having troops killing soldiers is that if CA implemented that, than they will earn the ire of Jack Thompson, and that is something CA doesn't need. If anyone doesn't know who he is, google "Jack Thompson"."

  20. #600
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

    Hardcoding is supposed to make a program run faster and more efficiently, that's what I've heard anyway.

    ETW and NTW were poor modding potential not due to hardcoding (I think it is technically less hardcoded that M2TW/RTW) but because a lot of the files were converted to binaries and were generally very complex to work out.

    Recently though a guy called taw has been making some serious inroads into improving ETW/NTW modability, so full conversion mods might actually become a possibility in the near future.
    Last edited by bobbin; October 14, 2010 at 04:52 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •