Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 1011121314151617181920
Results 381 to 400 of 400

Thread: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

  1. #381

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    Two big steps forward:

    - Faction diversity
    - Campaign and Battle AI

    But one giant step back:

    - Streamlined campaign gameplay


    I have put in about 90 hours but have pretty much lost interest despite being fairly excited for this title. The game is a win in many respects - it was released how the devs intended, both in terms of design and functionality. And it's impressive what they've done in many areas - AI, flying units, vehicles, unique campaign mechanics for each race. They have without doubt done a superb job of bringing to life the Warhammer universe, not that I'm much of an expert about that.

    But...I don't find there is enough to keep my interest. Battles look great and the souped-up AI provides a challenge but they are merely the latest iteration in quite a tired formula. It's all reflexes and no strategy in the real time side of things these days.

    As for the campaign, there are some token "depth-giving" features like the Book of Grudges or the Offices in Karlf Franz's court, but let's not pretend they bring much meaningful gameplay to this side of the game. Apart from these, empire management has been stripped down pretty much to just settlement management and diplomacy - neither of which offer much scope for serious strategizing.

    I very rarely feel like I'm playing the game in anything but the most obvious way and - even if I did contrive to inject some novelty into the campaign by going off-piste and doing something less obvious - there would be scant repercussions.

    Meaningless micromanagement has reached an all-time high. Items and followers feel like a nice gimmick at first but quickly become a chore. Character development is decent but incredibly linear and rarely offers scope for Lords/Agents fulfilling highly specialised roles.

    I may discover a second wind with this game, but right now I'm finding there's fundamentally not all that rewarding about it. Like the novelty has worn off and revealed a rather shallow game. I've always favoured campaign over battles, though, and it seems the design focus is leaning more towards the latter in general recently.
    Can you go into more detail here about what you think is missing from the campaign gameplay? It has been awhile for me since I really got into a TW game a lot, and probably M2TW is the one in which I have the most experience. Aside from setting tax rates of individual settlements, I don't remember the campaign play being much more complex at all in that game. Are there specific mechanics you wish they had included from past titles into this one?

    That said, I think the appeal of these titles is the battles, units, magic, etc. and not in having a campaign map with the richness of something like Europa Universalis or Crusader King. If the campaign mechanics were much more complicated in TW WH, I think it would be kind of tiresome as this is not really the primary appeal of the game for me (and most others I think).

  2. #382
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    The AI never attacked me in my game.

    Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk





















































  3. #383

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by jahjeremy View Post
    Can you go into more detail here about what you think is missing from the campaign gameplay? It has been awhile for me since I really got into a TW game a lot, and probably M2TW is the one in which I have the most experience. Aside from setting tax rates of individual settlements, I don't remember the campaign play being much more complex at all in that game. Are there specific mechanics you wish they had included from past titles into this one?

    That said, I think the appeal of these titles is the battles, units, magic, etc. and not in having a campaign map with the richness of something like Europa Universalis or Crusader King. If the campaign mechanics were much more complicated in TW WH, I think it would be kind of tiresome as this is not really the primary appeal of the game for me (and most others I think).
    Compared to Attila, Warhammer campaign is bare bones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fanest View Post
    I hope noting will get transferred to historical settings apart from 1v1 unit animations.

    Game is just dumbed down in almost every aspect. Most of new solutions they came up with did not fix old problems but circumvented them like new siege battles mechanics for example. Naval battles are removed, religions, taxes, sanitation/diseases, family tree, political system, diplomacy, public order, corruption, building chains, governors all this things that made campaign more challenging, made u spend time on campaign map managing ur provinces to your liking are for the most part gone or heavily dumbed down.

    Not to mention ridiculous battle pace - watched some recent tournament battles and most last between 2-3min.
    War is Hell, and I'm the Devil!

  4. #384

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I do agree that campaign gameplay needs to be a bit more interesting, especially for the next historical title. I think for the Warhammer universe, campaign gameplay is really neat and on point, but for a next historical title, I would like to see some more mechanics in regard of society, politics and/or culture.

    For example, I liked the idea of TW: Napoleon, where the amount of universities and characters you installed in them would impact your research. Instead of just collecting an item or a retinue from somewhere that would give you a bland +10% research bonus. Also, having two different types of citizens (lower and upper class) was a cool feature and opened some interesting strategic choices.

    That being said, I don't think Warhammer loses lots of strategic depth by dropping some of the features in later TW titles (Rome 2 / Attila). For example, Chaos and Vampiric Corruption are much more interesting on the Warhammer map than it was the case for religion in previous titles. There, it was basically just a PO modificator, while in Warhammer it can cause attrition and does a lot on the immersion side of things (graphical impact). You could certainly expand this, but I think it has more depth than just religion/culture previously.

    I agree with something someone said earlier: In Warhammer, your campaign map strategy is basically often just a "bad" or "good" - there is very little variation to play the game differently but still equally effective. You can perhaps tech towards other unit types - but thats already it. You can perhaps try to follow more or less confederation (so different ways to expand, which is an awesome feature by the way - love the confed mechanic from Warhammer), but that's about it. I guess for Warhammer it is alright, since the factions are so different anyway, and since your campaign will most likely be long enough to provide some variation and replayability.

    But for the next historical title, it would certainly be cool if these strategic choices and options would be expanded. But that heavily depends on the actual setting - late medieval ages could see the return of some cultural/political mechanics, a stone age Total War could see your own religion/faith coming to life, or perhaps one day we will see lots of geographical options for the campaign map (build dams, different kinds of fortifications etc).
    Chronicles of Cimmeria - A Kimmerios Bosporos AAR (EB2)
    The Age of Peace - A TW: Warhammer Empire AAR
    Blood Red Eagle - The Sons of Lodbrok Invasion of Northumbrialand [complete]
    Machines - A Sci-Fi Short Story [complete]

  5. #385
    McCarronXLD's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    1,148

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    No I think Total War: Warhammer was a huge step backwards. Mostly in regards to animations. There are no longer any kill animations everyone is just swinging in the air, no matched combat, etc. It also really dumbed down armies. The leaders are the only things you can get attached to, but even they are really bland. CA put all their eggs in the Legendary Lords basket. Attilla did a good job of having a family tree, politics and army traditions. That sort of depth was fun.

    Also I'm still not sure how I feel about the conquering restrictions. I get that CA is trying to reshape how we play the game so that we don't steamroll and things don't get stale... but they haven't found the solution to that yet. The current system just makes it so our games end faster. Steamrolling is still a problem, but now we just have less to steamroll.
    "You hurt me long ago; my wounds bled for years. Now you are back, but I am not the same."

  6. #386

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I think the moment when CA started to cut out STRATEGY aspects, and replacing them with RPG aspect, game stopped to be a Strategy game.. its a strange mix of both, where both are actually undeveloped. Dont get me wrong, im all for a good RPG game.. (my favorite is Witcher3), even a strategy game with a bit of RPG could be fine... but for that, it must still keep strategy as the main part, instead of being cut down to a barren minimum..
    Last edited by Flinn; July 07, 2016 at 09:42 AM. Reason: removed off topic comments

  7. #387

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    The game would be a step forward, with magic and monsters and a decent AI, if it wasn't for the hateful campaign where random armies comes and razes your provinces from behind and there is nothing you can do to prepare or know.
    Last edited by Flinn; July 07, 2016 at 09:44 AM. Reason: edited out offenses

  8. #388
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Gents, once more I had to remove some off topic and offensive comments on this thread, which is not nice at all; I wish to remind everybody, for the umpteenth time, that if you want to discuss CA policies there's a dedicated thread to do so; when there, please read the OP, as it explains very well what is allowed and what is not.
    Last edited by Flinn; July 07, 2016 at 09:52 AM.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  9. #389

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by drillmaster View Post
    I think you re not being fair here guys. CA has done huge changes for the better. All games after M2TW are progresively better. They might have additions you dissagree with but they are steps forward.
    I didn't read this whole thread, but I disagree that what they have changed is a step forward.

    Specifically, the campaign AI in TW:Warhammer is broken. Not in the OP way, but broken as in it stops moving at a certain point in the game and waits to die. Every AI on the map just shuts down; as if the AI players all rage quit and went to play Overwatch and left their Agents on auto-manage.

    You'll send some armies out towards a guy you are at war with and see him with 20 Full Stacks camped at a random settlement. You go take a couple towns. Watch some LCS matches and end turn 20 times, go back to his settlement and he still has his 20 Full Stacks camped there. Waiting for the Holy Comet to come and deliver him from the mortal coil.

    .
    Last edited by Flinn; July 12, 2016 at 03:29 AM. Reason: removed a disruptive comment

  10. #390
    Aenerion1's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    51

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Minrog View Post
    Specifically, the campaign AI in TW:Warhammer is broken. Not in the OP way, but broken as in it stops moving at a certain point in the game and waits to die. Every AI on the map just shuts down; as if the AI players all rage quit and went to play Overwatch and left their Agents on auto-manage.
    In my campaigns even at turn 150-200 the (surviving) AI factions are very much alive and kicking, and doing stuff. When Archaon and Chaos dies, theres a brief period where there's not much going on, but very soon factions are backstabbing each other again after being united vs Chaos.

    So no clue what you are on about.

  11. #391
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,877

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aenerion1 View Post
    In my campaigns even at turn 150-200 the (surviving) AI factions are very much alive and kicking, and doing stuff. When Archaon and Chaos dies, theres a brief period where there's not much going on, but very soon factions are backstabbing each other again after being united vs Chaos.

    So no clue what you are on about.
    Yeah. Both my Dwarf and Empire campaigns are past 200 turns already. For me it gets more exciting after I 'completed' the game. It feels like it's different age where old alliances are now broken after the Chaos invasion has been checked.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius


  12. #392

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I don't know how much it is "step back" per se, but I'm finding the immersion of this game to be a bit lacking. I'm having to factor in the fact that I've never been an avid fan of Games Workshop stuff in general, so I'm automatically going to get a fair amount less out of this than someone who's read all the Army books and played TT for a decade or so.

    I have put in loads of hours familiarizing myself with the basics of the lore since the game was announced, though. The rest I was kind of hoping would be interwoven into the game, introducing me to more in-depth parts of the WHFB setting as I played through... but the problem is I haven't really found that to be the case. The online encyclopedia is an obvious obstacle - no one enjoys navigating that clunky piece of crap and it's pretty annoying CA decided to stick with it despite it being widely hated on.

    It feels like a bit more could be done to bring interesting aspects of lore/setting to the fore. Faction specific features like Book of Grudges, Empire Offices and Corruption just aren't doing it for me, perhaps because they are very obvious adaptations of features from previous games or mostly cosmetic.

    What frustrates me is that the Warhammer world is overflowing with character and intrigue, but a lot of this fails to make it through into the player experience. I know it's a big ask and I'm not expecting this game to capture more than a fraction of all the weird and wonderful stuff that's been written about each race. But currently, the campaign feels quite empty and mechanical - and that's not because of unreleased races that will appear later in DLC; it's because of a lack of immersion-providing mechanics on the campaign side.

    Having put a fair amount of time into both RII and Attila, I've perhaps reached my limit in terms of how much entertainment the core mechanics of this generation of TW games provide. This makes interesting depth-giving and role-playing elements of the game all the more important because I'm playing more for my imagination to be stimulated than my technical skills to be tested.

    Tl;dr The game is excellent and CA have done a great job on it, but as a vet of the series with limited knowledge of WH, it's failing to grab my attention and provide a really immersive experience.

  13. #393
    axicup's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Siberia
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    I don't know how much it is "step back" per se, but I'm finding the immersion of this game to be a bit lacking. I'm having to factor in the fact that I've never been an avid fan of Games Workshop stuff in general, so I'm automatically going to get a fair amount less out of this than someone who's read all the Army books and played TT for a decade or so.

    I have put in loads of hours familiarizing myself with the basics of the lore since the game was announced, though. The rest I was kind of hoping would be interwoven into the game, introducing me to more in-depth parts of the WHFB setting as I played through... but the problem is I haven't really found that to be the case.
    You know, I personally found TWW the most immersive TW game I've played. Probably because of my love for the universe. I spent combined hours looking at scenery, map detail, unit detail and reading the clunky piece of crap that is the encyclopedia.
    But I agree with you that the game lacks lore. The LL quests we have are both nice and silly, serving simply as distraction that is not woven into the plot. Currently we have a simple, straightforward and rather barebone plot of the Chaos Invasion. They don't even tell you much about it, it's just: "Howdy, some chaos stacks have spawned, go get them", "Congratulations! The winner is you! Now return to the main menu".

    There are little bits and pieces of lore in the Chapter Objectives, similar to what we had in Attila and Rome II. But they don't form a singular plotline, they are just that - bits and pieces, akin to the LL quests. But they could have been interwoven with your progress, they could have been so much more than just lines of text on the optional objectives you go and look for when you're bored. I'm also sure it could be done in a way that would not be railroading the player, if some thought was put into it.

    I don't know if you've ever played the Call of Warhammer mod for Medieval 2, but it had more lore put into it. Sometimes you'd get info about some specific regions (eg, Marienburg), sometimes you'd get a popup about a legendary character that appeared somewhere on the map with their backstory attached. Does not count as a 'plotline' but it was trying to immerse you into the universe every couple of turns.

    Total War: Warhammer needs better, much more varied events, for a start. Then, it would've been nice to see some quests that are truly integrated into the campaign, that are connected with what you do (what you've done) and make sense. And that means no talking about "not beign worthy of lifting Ghal Maraz" while swinging it around all the time.

  14. #394

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by axicup View Post
    You know, I personally found TWW the most immersive TW game I've played. Probably because of my love for the universe. I spent combined hours looking at scenery, map detail, unit detail and reading the clunky piece of crap that is the encyclopedia.
    But I agree with you that the game lacks lore. The LL quests we have are both nice and silly, serving simply as distraction that is not woven into the plot. Currently we have a simple, straightforward and rather barebone plot of the Chaos Invasion. They don't even tell you much about it, it's just: "Howdy, some chaos stacks have spawned, go get them", "Congratulations! The winner is you! Now return to the main menu".

    There are little bits and pieces of lore in the Chapter Objectives, similar to what we had in Attila and Rome II. But they don't form a singular plotline, they are just that - bits and pieces, akin to the LL quests. But they could have been interwoven with your progress, they could have been so much more than just lines of text on the optional objectives you go and look for when you're bored. I'm also sure it could be done in a way that would not be railroading the player, if some thought was put into it.

    I don't know if you've ever played the Call of Warhammer mod for Medieval 2, but it had more lore put into it. Sometimes you'd get info about some specific regions (eg, Marienburg), sometimes you'd get a popup about a legendary character that appeared somewhere on the map with their backstory attached. Does not count as a 'plotline' but it was trying to immerse you into the universe every couple of turns.

    Total War: Warhammer needs better, much more varied events, for a start. Then, it would've been nice to see some quests that are truly integrated into the campaign, that are connected with what you do (what you've done) and make sense. And that means no talking about "not beign worthy of lifting Ghal Maraz" while swinging it around all the time.
    ^ Exactly my thoughts on the matter.

    When it comes to the visual side of the game, the attention to detail is almost flawless, but in terms of lore and gameplay... a fair amount to be desired, in my opinion.

    The two major obstacles to CA in achieving this I imagine are:

    - The danger of imposing too strict a sequence of events on what is primarily a sandbox experience.
    - The huge diversity between races meaning that any depth and fine detail designed for one race must be replicated across all others for balance. That's a lot of work.

    Still, there are instances, such as your excellent example of the barebone plotline of the Chaos Invasion, where a bit more effort lavished on it would have gone a long way. I haven't played Call of Warhammer, but I really like the sound of what you outlined - dynamic events occurring in the campaign with some accompanying text that nudges the player to learn a bit more about the lore.

    That kind of stuff was the bread and butter of earlier TW games, when pretty graphics and high octane battles weren't the series' main drive and therefore relied more heavily on atmosphere and immersion. Crucial to that is the game's capacity to encourage players to build up a mental picture of the game's setting, with engaging characters and compelling backstory. History games had no problem with that last part, as real events are naturally intriguing and history is not short of fascinating developments. The games pre-Rome II were particularly good at capturing this.

    But I was hoping with this one they would try a little harder to create this atmosphere and immerse the player in the lore, because CA must have known that a good portion of players would be coming to this titles with very little prior knowledge of WHFB.

    Despite quite a bit of effort evidently being put into it, I still feel largely remote from the characters and events in any given campaign. The mechanics work and provide some degree of entertainment to master, but I find myself craving a much greater sense of involvement in the campaign which current mechanics are doing very little to cater for.
    Last edited by Fredrin; July 15, 2016 at 07:10 AM.

  15. #395
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Gents, since my last warning I had to edit more posts and actually delete 3 of them; as I said many times before, everybody is entitled to have his own opinion and one oughts to respect it, the fact that one doesn't share the same view does not allow for offences or off-topic personal references; similarly, if one wants to talk exclusively about CA and not follow up with the topic in discussion, there's a dedicated thread for this kind of discussion, stickied on this forum. This is the last warning, from now on the TOS will be applied with extreme rigidity here and infractions will be delivered for any offense, off topic remarks and such.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  16. #396
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I didn't have a lot of expectations for Warhammer at first, and was enjoying the experience. It was a new setting with a lot of neat little touches.

    But as I drew to the end of the campaign I finished (Empire), it started dawning on me that overall it's a fairly boring Total War title. There's pretty much no strategy on the campaign side of things, even though they made a very welcome change - scrapping the army limits and replacing it with an added upkeep expense for each additional army. No food, no squalor, no negatives to building certain things. Every region in every province ended up looking the same. There is no real strategy to it, just keep conquering and you'll make money out of the wazoo without anything to really spend it on.

    Not to mention the fairly scant amount of units available. Granted, I thought some of the more story based stuff was neat - but not enough to save the whole game.

    And then the battles themselves, they go by WAY too fast. Blink and they're over. There's not a whole lot of units, but what's there between the factions is varied, but again that in my eyes is not enough to save the game when it's still fairly boring.

    Which isn't something I ever foresaw myself saying about Total War. It's honestly a step backwards, everywhere but in the graphics department.
    I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  17. #397
    SPARTAN VI's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,626

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I'm on the opposite camp. The more I play the game, the more it dawns on me that this is one of my favorite TW titles since RTW. The diversity in the racial play styles is challenging and wildly fun. I went from playing Dwarfs to Vampire Counts, who are basically polar opposites as far as playstyle go. I'm simply having a blast experimenting with tactics and tailoring my army composition to my opponents' distinct strengths & weaknesses. E.g. I tend to field more Direwolves and Fell Bats to counter squishy Empire gunners and artillery crews. However, I switch out both in favor of slower but harder hitting Vargheists and Knights versus Dwarfs where devastating charges are basically a requirement to break them.

    My largest complaint is also the battle speed. It's definitely too fast, and I'm considering modding a 15-20% damage reduction across the board to lengthen battles (I'd leave magic alone). I'm also a little bummed that the Tech trees for every race basically amount to unit stat and economy buffs. In the last Total War games, Research would unlock units, buildings, abilities, and such. At the same time, where CA did us dirty on the Tech tree, they've paid us back in Hero/Lord progression and customization. Overall TW:WH is an excellent Warhammer game, but the design philosophy wouldn't work as well in a historical Total War game (e.g. dumbed-down tech tree, little campaign-side management).
    Last edited by SPARTAN VI; July 25, 2016 at 01:32 PM.

    2016 TW: Warhammer Modding Winner!

    SPARTAN VI's Building Progression Icons Mod
    Streaming Total War & Strategy Games - SPARTAN VI's Game Night

  18. #398

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by SPARTAN VI View Post
    Overall TW:WH is an excellent Warhammer game, but the design philosophy wouldn't work as well in a historical Total War game (e.g. dumbed-down tech tree, little campaign-side management).
    Agree.

    I'm finding myself making a lot of allowances for this game because its setting revolves around battles, magic and other fantastical stuff. It makes more sense that a game like this is light on campaign depth, even though it is killing the game for me.

    Also, the insanely fast, frenetic battles have reached peak arcade in the series. It's a personal playstyle preference, but I much prefer battles to depend on tactics and environment than abilities and fast micro. They've been going steadily downhill since Shogun II and the formula has lost its lustre as far as I'm concerned. Artwork, graphics and special effects are all top notch but gameplay would benefit from some major innovation imo.

    I'm happy for those who are finding this game a blast, but I agree with Illuminati when he says it's dull.

    It's like the feeling you get when you take a total hotty on a date only to discover she's not nothing to say for herself

  19. #399
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    teesside
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    It's ok but I just can't get into it. I quit after 30 minutes every time I play. Personally I think it's more for the Warhammer fans than TW fans. Also I find the units boring. There are no special formations. Hollow square, shield wall, etc, and even cavalry doesn't have wedge formation. I mean... what???

  20. #400

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Yeah I've stumbled upon the first article actually criticizing TW series. Check it out - it's a PC gamer piece. Talking about crappy agent management. Playing first games of the series I can't remember I had any issues with agents.

Posting Permissions

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