PDA

View Full Version : Figuring out formulas on SGN stats?



Diamondback
01-17-2014, 00:24
Guys, I need some help with some stats. I thought I had seen someone opine that each chit was ~100# of broadside throw-weight, but from some data Eric sent me that doesn't seem to work on the math level.

The Slade 74 and Temeraire at 6 and 7 respectively number-crunch at around 130# throw/chit, but the two frigates are inconsistent Concorde throws 188# and 1773 Amazon 228, 62-2/3 and 57 lbs./chit respectively. This implies to me that Fifth Rates are meant to be about 60#/chit, so if Third Rates are 130, which implies to me that if it's a linear function Fourth Rates would probably be about 100#/chit. Interestingly, I seem to recall that the sloops planed for Wave 2 don't even muster a 50# broadside...

Help me make sense of this, please?

David Manley
01-17-2014, 02:19
I have a sneaking suspicion, indeed a fear, that you are reading far too much into the process used to determine ship stats. Response to your email coming soon.

Diamondback
01-17-2014, 02:28
Maybe... one of my quibbles with Rich Baker on War at Sea was he liked to Pull Numbers Out of His Arse sometimes on things, like measuring aircraft basing capabilities for the biggest example--I actually developed a house rule total-overhaul* of the game's entire aircraft basing capacity stats to fix his inflation of some carriers' capacities and kneecapping of others (example: US Independence CVL and JP Shoho/Zuiho carried functionally identical airgroups, yet unabashed and self-proclaimed USN fanboy Baker gave Independence Cap 2 and the Japanese carrier only Cap 1, along with screwing the Brits at every opportunity)--so I was hoping for something at least a TAD more scientific than just T-LAR ("That... Looks About Right") that could be better used to extrapolate effects of modifications and stats for one-offs unlikely to see release.
*To the point that I pored through bi-weekly reports about exactly how many aircraft each base and ship USN owned through the entire war and long-hand calculated the "exchange rate" between fighters, dive/torpedo bombers and projected F7F Tigercat heavy fighters... the planning documents for USS Midway turned out to be the Rosetta Stone there. LOL

Maybe this is a side effect of my being a "numbers and hard quantifiable data" guy, though--perhaps also hindered by the fact that this is a HUGE step off Terra Firma for me. You wanna argue WWII or Cold War air I can do that until your eyes glaze over and you just give up from sheer exhaustion, but in these waters... well, it's at the same time good to be broadening my horizons and terrifying having to face being a rookie again after having grown accustomed to being able to invoke the R. Lee Ermey Mail Call tag-line quote about "I've got the answers, so ASK THE QUESTIONS!" LOL

Thanks, Dave.

Avi
01-17-2014, 02:45
Considering we could not "agree" on the distance or time scale, it is hard to see how we can set a proper conversion.

Was there any official answer to the scale questions?

Coog
01-17-2014, 03:47
I have a sneaking suspicion, indeed a fear, that you are reading far too much into the process used to determine ship stats. Response to your email coming soon.

My thoughts tend to be that ship stats are somewhat more subjective than set on a detailed calculation.

The Royal Hajj
01-17-2014, 06:31
Perhaps it's time we start putting together a list of interview questions for Andrea?

HMS Lydia
01-17-2014, 07:06
Diamondback, I think one of the considerations will be factoring rounding. What ever divisor was used, the result is not going to be equal. I know some game designers that always round down, some always round up, some round to the closest factor (which makes the most sense to me). Most designers are reluctant to share formula, which is somewhat silly. Used to be, when you purchased a miniature rules, the author provided a scale in the first 3 pages (turn duration, ground scale). I'm sure there is a formula, and it may have been me that provided the 100# number, but once again there is rounding to be factored.

As a personal preference, I never cared for WaS (or AAM, loved the mini's though, I have tons that I use for other games), or that entire genre of heavily abstracted wargame. I certainly don't think less of players that do like these games, but I just don't care for them, they lack any substance. James Dunnigan that started Avalon Hill, I'm sure would opine that the AH line has gone severely down hill. I don't fit this game in that category. With the exception of one mechanic that simply doesn't make sense, this game is genious.

HMS Lydia
01-17-2014, 08:32
It also occured to me, that values might change depending on research material available. I have several volumes on Napoleonic era sail, but none discuss the specifics of various class ships. You almost need a "Conways All the Worlds Fighting Sailing Ships" or some such. And I'll be some of you do. I have found a lot of information on the internet, but find the sources are not consistent.

I'm pretty sure the Burden was computed from the Tons Burthen. Some sources give displacement. Displacement and Tons Burthen (bm) are completely different computations. I had to really search to find the Temeraire Class SoL bm of 1,899tn and this may not co-incide with some of your sources. The Elizabeth's were 1617tn, Bellona 1615tn, Arrogants 1644tn, yet they all have Burdens in the game of 5. This gives a spread between 322-380 for a Burthen of 5. If you look at the sample HMS Victory card on Facebook, the number of damage boxes seems to work with the ships rating. Victory, if memory serves me right extended all the way across, with only the top right box unused. I would expect a 2nd rate would end one column to the left, and as you can see based on the released material 3rd rates have 2 unused columns to the right. 5th rates have 3 unused columns, perhaps 4th and and 5th rates will be combined?

David Manley
01-17-2014, 09:28
Like I said, I strongly suspect that the issue is a considerable amount of subjectivity in the derivation of ship stats rather than any rounding errors, divisors etc. I would not be surprised to find that "TLAR" was the overriding principle.

And thats fair enough. I've used the same for a great many of my published rules (much to the annoyance of some - I recall being berated by a chap who spent ages trying to reverse engineer the algorithms I apparently devised for one of my sets and who wanted to check some coefficients, only to find there weren't any algorithms). And I've also taken part in and reviewed a number of formal military operational analysis and mission level modelling simulations that also used the same. The analysts (who had several decades experience each in what is essentially official wargaming) were quite happy with that approach, and indeed said it was entirely appropriate where there are a wide range of variables that you want to wrap up in the model

HMS Lydia
01-17-2014, 10:47
David I agree somewhat, but hopefully that doesn't prevent us from statting new units. If they truly are subjective, anything you stat will have to be subjective as well. Balance then becomes an issue, which of course can possibly be solved with playtesting. Unfortunately there is no-one really left alive that can say what feels right and what doesn't.

David Manley
01-17-2014, 11:46
It actually makes the statting process easier in my experience. Almost like a decision conference or game. Take a starting example, propose a modification along with a justification, discuss if necessary and finalise.

Diamondback
01-17-2014, 12:19
For the record, I'm OK with TLAR backed by experience, or a quick "back of the envelope estimate"--the example I gave, Baker just arbitrarily picked "1 cap=25 AC and a plane is a plane is a plane, type irrelevant except the big multiengines." I also only checked "original flags", so if say HMS Concorde comes up to the stats of the similarly-armed Amazons that can be written off as "gun crew quality baked-in."

HMS Lydia
01-17-2014, 12:25
Yes but I'm trying to figure out why the Chamante's at 540tn BM rate 3 Burden? I understand the Concorde's at 888tn BM. The Charmante's should be about equal in Burden to the Amazons.

Makes sense that Temeraire's have 1 additional FP over the UK 74's at 910# versus 781# in broadside. By the the way both 910/7 and 781/6 equal approx 130. So if not subjective maybe 130 is the magic number?

Diamondback
01-17-2014, 13:20
Only on those two ships... maybe Andrea was ballparking 60 in the 5th Rates. (57 on Concorde, 63 on Amazon.)

The Royal Hajj
01-17-2014, 13:31
Perhaps you guys are lumping all the different rates together to quickly? Think about how he did WGS, different sized guns used different damage amounts. It was fairly complex, but game a good feel. Perhaps here he wanted to simplify it more that every ship used the same types of chits, just different number for them. So what if he add up the throw weight of each type of gun (32lbs, 18lbs, etc.), divided each by it's own denominator, got the chit count for that and then add the other chit counts? That could account for the differences you guys are seeing between "two like ships". Or, he could have already added Carronades in there some how ;)

Diamondback
01-17-2014, 14:28
Also plausible musings...

This does give me an idea for how to handle the various "variant armaments" I've found that I wanted to do custom logs for: just treat them as "proportional adjustments" relative to the class's baseline spec. For example, take the ~1100# upgunned Temeraire variants and just map it to the stats as "Round (Variant Broadside/904) * 7 to nearest whole number"? Extreme examples: this would make HMS Belleisle a 9 (1178/904*7), or for a Slade 74 example the Carronade Crazy fit on HMS Egmont would throw a whopping 13 (1684/781*6) at Halitosis Range. (For comparison, at peak throw in 1783, Victory lobbed 1178#, at Trafalgar 1148, and her Temeraire adversary Redoutable 1079.)

Problem with that too, though... When HMS Castor traded her 12# guns for 32# carronades, her throw went from 174# to 466#, which would make her a Just Plain BROKEN 11 relative to the baseline 4. We don't want a system that lets light-frigates punch in the Heavy SOL weight class. ISTR some rumblings about a little on modifying stats being in the Scenario Book, so maybe I should continue gathering data but keep my powder dry on the analysis side, fighting that "I got all this data LET'S DO SOMETHING WITH IT ALREADY!" instinct.

csadn
01-17-2014, 16:16
When HMS Castor traded her 12# guns for 32# carronades, her throw went from 174# to 466#, which would make her a Just Plain BROKEN 11 relative to the baseline 4. We don't want a system that lets light-frigates punch in the Heavy SOL weight class.

Which leads to ask: Was there some other factor which this rearming Borked? When USS _Essex_ was converted to full-carronade armament, it absolutely *ruined* the sailing characteristics; the unit flat-out wasn't designed to carry anything besides 12-lb. long guns. Be interesting to see some Munchkin decide to grab the carronade-variant _Castor_, only to discover it's too slow to engage frigates, and still underpowered when the SoLs catch up to it....

Diamondback
01-17-2014, 16:34
Good question--Castor was among the last of her kind and may have been intended as an experimental ship; that armament being in 1808 and by 1815 there were only like 3 out of 18 left. Similarly, Egmont appears to have kept her all-carronade load for around ten years, then gone right back to her original design load.

Naharaht
01-17-2014, 21:23
Has firing rate been factored in? Possibly the British ships with more experienced crew receive a higher 'throw weight' per gun than the French.

7eat51
01-17-2014, 21:48
Like I said, I strongly suspect that the issue is a considerable amount of subjectivity in the derivation of ship stats rather than any rounding errors, divisors etc. I would not be surprised to find that "TLAR" was the overriding principle.

And thats fair enough. I've used the same for a great many of my published rules (much to the annoyance of some - I recall being berated by a chap who spent ages trying to reverse engineer the algorithms I apparently devised for one of my sets and who wanted to check some coefficients, only to find there weren't any algorithms). And I've also taken part in and reviewed a number of formal military operational analysis and mission level modelling simulations that also used the same. The analysts (who had several decades experience each in what is essentially official wargaming) were quite happy with that approach, and indeed said it was entirely appropriate where there are a wide range of variables that you want to wrap up in the model

I imagine this is where an emphasis on feel comes in. Unlike many of you here and on the 'Drome, I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of ship and plane stats. I thoroughly enjoy reading such in books and on threads, but never have anything of substance to contribute to these discussions. What I do know is that as I learn the differences in ship or plane abilities, as abstracted as they might be and as non-technically derived as they might be, I can focus my attention on decision-making without getting bogged down with many charts, etc., stuff that I imagine could be necessary if too strong of an emphasis on realism is desired. I enjoyed such things in games when I was much younger, but not any more. So in essence, as a player of my stripe, if Ares gives values based on a general idea of a ship or plane, as opposed to values based on a nuanced set of differences via a complex algorithm, I am fine. As a math-oriented guy, if they do utilize an algorithm, I would enjoy learning their rationale, etc., but that divorced from the actual game.

DB, your comment "TLAR backed by experience" is spot on. This is where the boundary between subjective and objective blurs. Experience, even when not translated into a well defined algorithm, can have a good measure of accuracy.

This thread has been an enjoyable read. Thanks.

The Mad Hatter
01-17-2014, 22:25
Interesting thread!

I'm like Diamondback - I want to understand the math so to speak. This applies to most any games, I'm always curious to know if there's some formulaic way of getting from real world to the tabletop rules.

Coog
01-18-2014, 00:25
Has firing rate been factored in? Possibly the British ships with more experienced crew receive a higher 'throw weight' per gun than the French.

Probably would be handled better with crew quality modifiers like the ace skills from WGF. In the engagements between the British and Americans during the War of 1812, Americans tended to have better gunnery skills. It would be difficult to start factoring in fire factors for each nation as a whole.

Cool Breeze
01-18-2014, 03:15
I enjoyed such things in games when I was much younger, but not any more.

Eric, stop reading my mind! This describes my feelings perfectly, and whilst I was up to speed on such things back in the 80s, I'm pretty much lost in this discussion now, and just don't have the time to research it like I did then, even with the rapid access the Internet gives.


DB, your comment "TLAR backed by experience" is spot on. This is where the boundary between subjective and objective blurs. Experience, even when not translated into a well defined algorithm, can have a good measure of accuracy.

This thread has been an enjoyable read. Thanks.

Agreed, on both counts.

fredmiracle
01-18-2014, 03:19
For me feel is everything. Why? Because no matter how precise the technical stats and formulas are that a game utilizes, the realism that generates will be TOTALLY eclipsed by the hard to model intangibles like limited knowledge, multiple unpredictable actors, chance, strategic imperatives, the moral weight of sending people to die, etc.

Seen that way, I find capturing the historical flavor to be sufficient

Gunner
01-18-2014, 03:44
Probably would be handled better with crew quality modifiers like the ace skills from WGF. In the engagements between the British and Americans during the War of 1812, Americans tended to have better gunnery skills. It would be difficult to start factoring in fire factors for each nation as a whole.

You could always use the Well-Trained Gunners card. Even though it says it can only be used once in a game, there are four cards in the pack.

David Manley
01-18-2014, 05:42
It would be difficult to start factoring in fire factors for each nation as a whole.

There are a few existing rule sets that do it. Although generally those systems that use some form of "fire factor" that is modified for circumstances - crew quality becomes another circumstantial aspect. The gunnery system in SGN, being chit based, doesn't really lend itself to an elegant solution though. Something to which I shall apply the little grey cells.

7eat51
01-18-2014, 10:05
You could always use the Well-Trained Gunners card. Even though it says it can only be used once in a game, there are four cards in the pack.

Official game cards, that is. I never let game rules or components stand in the way of having fun or the goals that I have for a given session. Modify, modify, modify. Just ensure everyone at the table is aware of the changes before play begins.

Gunner
01-18-2014, 11:53
Official game cards, that is. I never let game rules or components stand in the way of having fun or the goals that I have for a given session. Modify, modify, modify. Just ensure everyone at the table is aware of the changes before play begins.

:hatsoff:

csadn
01-18-2014, 18:32
Remember: When using the "TLAR Bombsight", an improperly-trimmed thumbnail can throw off one's aim by upwards of half a mile. [From the Bob Stevens cartoon.] :)

SeaRoyal20
01-19-2014, 12:55
Are we talking ballistics here? I do not think think they are linear.

David Manley
01-19-2014, 13:02
Ballistics is anything but linear :happy:

(unless its interior)

Beowulf03809
01-20-2014, 10:56
As Eric and Curtis said, in my youth I really enjoyed the complexity of chart based gaming. Now in my (still early!) 40s I find enough of life complicated enough. :rum:

I want to trust the developers to provide a game that is fun and "feels" right. In modern assembly-line warfare I expect every M4A3 Sherman to behave pretty much the same, as with every German StuGIII, crew differences aside. But from the reading I've done in AoS (which I know pales by comparison to many of you) I understand that even two ships of the same class were often not "the same" and that a British 74 != French 74. Not specifically "better" or "worse" but "different". The game mechanics simplify many factors down to relatively small number ranges so there's going to be a limit to the variation you can see between Third Rates, for example. But for now at least I'm hoping that where variations were significant enough Aries is reflecting them and where the variations are just not enough to justify another chit draw we should accept that.

It may make it harder to justify to the Home Admiral buying more Frigates if they are all basically the same except in name, but I would rather have that than a situation of future waves of ships having unrealistic "feel" just for the sake of selling new models.

I do enjoy these detailed discussions here to no end and really hope I am absorbing new information in the process. For myself my involvement with historic wargames have usually improved my appreciation and understanding of the real events and people that made that history. I have learned much more about US Civil War and WWII while digging into army and scenario building than I did in formal school. I hope the same comes from my SoG involvement.

:rum:

Cmmdre
01-20-2014, 11:35
As Eric and Curtis said, in my youth I really enjoyed the complexity of chart based gaming. Now in my (still early!) 40s I find enough of life complicated enough. :rum:

I want to trust the developers to provide a game that is fun and "feels" right. In modern assembly-line warfare I expect every M4A3 Sherman to behave pretty much the same, as with every German StuGIII, crew differences aside. But from the reading I've done in AoS (which I know pales by comparison to many of you) I understand that even two ships of the same class were often not "the same" and that a British 74 != French 74. Not specifically "better" or "worse" but "different". The game mechanics simplify many factors down to relatively small number ranges so there's going to be a limit to the variation you can see between Third Rates, for example. But for now at least I'm hoping that where variations were significant enough Aries is reflecting them and where the variations are just not enough to justify another chit draw we should accept that.

It may make it harder to justify to the Home Admiral buying more Frigates if they are all basically the same except in name, but I would rather have that than a situation of future waves of ships having unrealistic "feel" just for the sake of selling new models.

I do enjoy these detailed discussions here to no end and really hope I am absorbing new information in the process. For myself my involvement with historic wargames have usually improved my appreciation and understanding of the real events and people that made that history. I have learned much more about US Civil War and WWII while digging into army and scenario building than I did in formal school. I hope the same comes from my SoG involvement.

:rum:

Well said Lawrence. I know I have enjoyed learning more about the AoS and a fun new game at the same time.

HMS Lydia
01-20-2014, 11:55
Guys, first of all, Diamondback and I are not trying to complicate or punch holes in the game. I like the way the game plays, had two really excellent games yesterday. What we were after was to add to or provide variation to the available units. In order to do this without throwing things to far out of balance, you need to understand the math behind the conversions. If it was totally subjective, and maybe it was, then your home grown upgrades will also have to be subjective.

I don't think you can apply a lot of science to wargaming, probably leans more to art. But, there is generally a math to wargaming. I'm definitely okay with keeping the math light. But generally, an algorithim based wargame can be backward engineered, which makes adding home grown elements easier. Especially if you don't have a lot of knowledge in the background.

Diamondback
01-20-2014, 18:20
Precisely--if we can figure out how gunnery chits are assigned, we can use them to create new varaints from an existing baseline--like creating Bellona's downscaled descendants the St. Albans-class 64's, or the all-carronade Egmont, or using a Temeraire stat set to create their frighteningly up-gunned sister HMS Belleisle. Little things like that that might otherwise take a long time to show up if ever. :)

Gunner
01-20-2014, 18:30
So can I assume that the system Ares uses is a big secret, or is it that no one approached them for their formula?

7eat51
01-20-2014, 21:14
:hatsoff:

Ed, this came up last night. Some friends were over, and we were discussing Pathfinder. I said, as a GM, I have no problem if someone wanted to play a good-aligned assassin. One of the guys said, "Pathfinder prohibits such a thing." I gave a little sermon; he saw my point. We must always remember: games are for players, players are not for games.


So can I assume that the system Ares uses is a big secret, or is it that no one approached them for their formula?

They shared with us the thinking behind the point system for WoG. I would imagine when they have some time, we could have a peak or two behind the curtain here as well.

I always enjoy hearing about the logic behind such decisions as rules. It can be quite educational, and that on many levels.

fredmiracle
01-20-2014, 22:38
I guess by wave 2 when we have the "heavy" fifth rates, first rates and (big?) sloops we will have pretty good grounds for interpolating other ships in the continuum. There's not that much granularity to work with to begin with. And I don't get the impression that there's a lot of science around question like "why does Concorde get an extra aft gunnery at 4 hull boxes."

I think with a modest amount of data, contextualized by the ships already produced, it will be easy to come up with good ballpark figures. You're minor variations will probably be equally valid and justifiable as mine (or the game designer's), and we can kibbitz about them endlessly if we want. Extreme outlier/oddball configurations will probably require falling back on special rules (ours or Ares') with the primary goal that it "feels right"

David Manley
01-20-2014, 22:57
I've seen the wave 2 stats but I dont know if they are the final ones yet. If they are then yes they will help a lot. And yes, the granularity doesn't give Andrea and co much wriggle room to play with.

Пилот
01-21-2014, 02:55
...
It may make it harder to justify to the Home Admiral buying more Frigates if they are all basically the same except in name, but I would rather have that than a situation of future waves of ships having unrealistic "feel" just for the sake of selling new models.
...
Well pointed!

Beowulf03809
01-21-2014, 11:51
I'm really looking forward to any progress made on the decomposition of stats, tbh.

For example...you look up one of our current ships on line and see some of the engagements it was in. You find one that includes a couple ships on each side that are SIMILAR (as far as Third Rate and/or Frigate) to ships we currently have but of course they're not the exact same ships. Checking details of those ships you may find that they have more or fewer guns than our current cards, or is a slightly larger or smaller ship, etc. You could always just use something from our existing inventory but if you wanted to be a little more historic it would be nice to know that you can adjust the broadside value up or down, or print a different damage box sheet to use, etc.

Obviously not a big deal but it would still be a nice option if you're trying to remain a little more accurate with exactly which ships faced off.
:rum:

Diamondback
01-21-2014, 15:49
Ed, for some of us part of the fun is the "reverse engineering". :) I trust AA and AM (esp since the latter IS a professional naval historian IIRC) to have good reasons and sound logic (even if it's just "gut check") behind the stats they chose.

Gunner
01-21-2014, 16:46
And that helps me how? All I'd like is a layman's explanation.
I never did like the, because I said so explanation.

fredmiracle
01-21-2014, 19:11
For example...you look up one of our current ships on line and see some of the engagements it was in. You find one that includes a couple ships on each side that are SIMILAR (as far as Third Rate and/or Frigate) to ships we currently have but of course they're not the exact same ships. Checking details of those ships you may find that they have more or fewer guns than our current cards, or is a slightly larger or smaller ship, etc. You could always just use something from our existing inventory but if you wanted to be a little more historic it would be nice to know that you can adjust the broadside value up or down, or print a different damage box sheet to use, etc.

I get this. Going in, I thought maybe the most useful piece of "hard evidence" would be to see how they treated the couple of 32 gun frigates that had been up-gunned to 34. Granted, this represents a negligible change in total weight, but it was still something tangible that might form the basis for further extrapolation.

Of the eight Concorde frigates, then, here's the "total gunnery (average gunnery)" by which I mean simply the adding up of all gunnery factors, and the average of all the gunnery factors--including all broadside arcs and all hull boxes. These struck me as the best way of understanding the gunpower of a ship, considering not only it's initial capacity but the ongoing firepower it will have as it suffers damage through the engagement.

So, here's what I saw:
- HMS Concorde-32: 40 (1.7)
- HMS Unite-32: 40 (1.7)
- Couregeus-34: 38 (1.7)
- Unite-32: 36 (1.6)
- Junon-32: 36 (1.6)
- Hermione-34: 36 (1.6)
- L'Inconstantine-32: 36 (1.6)
- La Concorde-32: 35 (1.6)

So some points: first off being upgunned by two guns seems to have no discernible effect on gunnery (which, however, is not necessarily wrong given that it is a mere 6% increase in firepower). These ships simply slot into the continuum of gunnery for the class without appearing to me to stand out in any way.

Second, of course we can speculate on other reasons for stats variations that drown out the small difference of two guns (crew ability? presence of carronades? exact details of the ordinance?). But whatever these might be, they take the form of a plus one chit on specific arcs on some specific hull boxes, distributed in quasi-random fashion, and therefore appear to me quite daunting to understand and apply in any systematic way. The big outliers, the British ships, do seem to gain fairly consistently on either the rear arc (HMS Concorde) or the front arc (HMS Unite). But even there HMS Unite loses some rear arc gunnery in a few spots, and also gains at least one center broadside. So what to make of that? Is there some British effect that is being refracted through the lens that each ship had some heaver guns mounted either fore or aft? I'm not enough of a naval historian to know, but I'm a skeptical that it's that scientific. Anyway, I can't derive any guiding principles from this that I could apply myself.

Third, it should be noted that all these variations are in the end pretty minor--on average the most extreme difference should still only affect you by only one chit in every eight shots or something like that. (Though one can argue that the more skilled captain will exploit such variations to improve on random chance)

At that point I decided maybe this was a fools errand, although I'd be interested if someone is able to discern a useful pattern I missed.

Beowulf03809
01-22-2014, 08:45
About now the designers are sitting back going "Holy Battle Sails...they're actually looking for patterns in this stuff!"

:surrender:

csadn
01-22-2014, 16:55
About now the designers are sitting back going "Holy Battle Sails...they're actually looking for patterns in this stuff!"

They're selling to gamers -- what the hell did they expect? :)