Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Shrayes_Bhagavatula

Small Quibbles and how to fix them. Part 1

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,046 posts
4,367 battles

So then. After making that Friedrich der Grosse review, I decided to take a look at some of the problems that I noticed across the game, ranging from the usual CV hate and complaints about useless AA, to more minor but significant examples that make themselves known to me whenever I take that particular ship out for a spin on the PTS or on my main account. This is a rather long list, and I really cant just make a TL;DR about it because then people just don't get the damn point about what I'm trying to say. So then, let's get started.

TOPIC 1: CRUISERS

ISSUE 1: Japanese Cruiser Armor

Why it's an issue: Japanese cruisers, with the exception of the Zao, are notoriously squishy. Anything with big enough guns ( 220mm or larger )  that has the good sense to fire Armor Piercing the moment one of these things shows full broadside will, with some good RNG, send the poor bastard back to port with one very bad taste in their mouth. The Zao is an exception, because of the fact that it has a pretty trollish turtleback armor scheme that often foils what would otherwise have been a ritualistic paddling. Even the Azuma and Yoshino suffer this quite a lot ( though this is due to the stupid Yamato armor profile that the B-65 cruiser project adopted ). I know for a fact that almost anyone who reads this has been sent one-shotted back to port in a Japanese cruiser at some point in their life or another, myself included.

How to Fix it: Slight improvements to the armor scheme, such as a hidden citadel like the one found on American cruisers, would do the trick. Either that, or giving them a repair party to compensate for that squishiness could work. I'm not saying it should be as powerful as the Royal Navy's portable dry-dock, but that at least gives them something useful to work with when facing off against mondo-caliber guns. ( Remember, even Moskva can land consistent citadels at fairly long ranges )

ISSUE 2: USN Heavy Cruiser Bow Armor Plating

Why it's an issue: This is not the fault of the cruisers themselves, but the fault of the influx of large caliber guns into the game. With an ever increasing number of Battleships with 457mm guns, which have the ability to rip a new [edited] through the bows of USN Heavy cruisers, the cruiser line is just suffering more and more. Adding to this problem is the fact that even the deck and upper belt armor of high tier USN Heavy Cruisers ( Baltimore, Buffalo, Des Moines, Salem ) is just 30mm thick, which means they can get overmatched by those same large caliber guns, often times with catastrophic results.

How to Fix it: Give the USN heavy cruisers an upper belt and deck armor profile similar to that of Puerto Rico, or increase the bow and stern thickness to 32mm. While that last one might not come to muster, it makes sense, given that the USN Cruisers are designed to basically be jack of all trades cruisers that can deal with anything that gets thrown at them. However, what's the point of calling them "jack of all trades", when the only jack they're pulling is the one-way ticket back to port the moment a Kremlin shows up?

ISSUE 3: German Cruiser Armor Piercing

Why it's an issue: German cruiser AP sucks. Not because of the damage, oh no. Those guns hurt like absolute hell the moment you land a good broadside. No, it's because of the fact that the penetration absolutely sucks. the Hindenburg has some of the worst penetration of all the Tier 10 Heavy Cruisers, with just over 400mm of penetration at what are supposed to be point-blank ranges, and, following the artillery graph provided by that super-helpful website, the penetration drops off like a brick falling off a building. I'm not saying that German Heavy cruisers are supposed to be [edited]-slapping the hell out of anything that shows broadside, but it would be nice to be able to do consistent damage at longer ranges without having to switch to that godawful HE ( as nice as that 1/4 HE pen is )

How to Fix it: One of four things can pass to muster here. One, German Cruiser AP can either receive a higher Krupp value, in order to increase overall penetration at all ranges. Two, German cruisers can receive improved autobounce angles, like the ones found on USN Heavy cruisers from Tier VIII and above, which would allow them to have a greater chance of penetrating something even at longer ranges for some damage. Three, German Cruisers can receive an even greater DPM boost over the one that they recently received, in order to throw out a massive amount of shells in a short amount of time. Finally, German Cruisers can receive improved HE shells to at least compensate for the loss in penetration power at longer ranges.

TOPIC 2: DESTROYERS

ISSUE 1: American Destroyer Hull Plating

Why it's an issue: Ever since the IFHE rework went through, American Destroyers have lost a LOT of their ability to stand up to other destroyers in gun duels, and there is a fairly good reason for this: the hull plating. The USN Destroyers have a fairly atypical 21mm armored midsection that should allow them to stand up to other destroyers in an HE firing contest, but with almost all enemy destroyer guns packing 21mm of penetration ( save the 113mm armed Daring, which has 19mm of penetration ) post rework, they now suffer as badly as other destroyers when it comes to an HE shell firefight.

How to Fix it: Increase the central hull plating to 24mm. While this would not sound like much of a difference, it would mean that most of the advantages that the equal-or-higher caliber destroyers had over the USN Destroyers would be almost completely negated, while the Gearing, which severely lacks in gunpower compared to some of the other destroyers at her tier, would at least be able to outlast them in a duel. At the same time, this would also make the USN destroyers more vulnerable to AP shells from other DDs, thus providing a measure of counterbalance that wouldn't be gamebreaking.

ISSUE 2: The Yueyang

Why it's an issue: Poor Yueyang. Ever since the day that Wargaming decided to butcher this ship because the Holy Spreadsheet told them to do it, Yueyang has been the butt of everyones' joke, even mine. I mean, isn't Yueyang is supposed to be an Allen M. Sumner class destroyer, which is basically a smaller Gearing? It should absolutely rock!  The whole reason why it suffers is because almost every single gun-based destroyer can overpower it in a fair fight, which is largely down to two things. One, it's gun reload got absolutely butchered, and two, it has DWTs, which cannot hit DDs at all.

How to Fix it: Just give Yueyang a better reload. Maybe not her old reload, but something along the lines of around 3.5 seconds or something. Giving her the option to use Chung Mu's torpedos wouldn't be a bad idea either, as it would allow her to use the more powerful, but shorter ranged torpedo option that Fletcher and Gearing captains can use

 

That's all for today. This will become a three part series where I address everything that I think needs fixing in the game. The second part will address Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, and the third part will address Game Mechanics and upcoming content

THAT'S ALL, FOLKS

:SerB:

 

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,546
[O7]
Members
1,493 posts
10,811 battles

why not just make every ship in the game really really strong? game balance requires weaknesses.

1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

 Slight improvements to the armor scheme, such as a hidden citadel

please no, seeing cruisers sit broadside without any way to punish poor play is the worst game design ive seen (excluding cv XD) you want to play high dpm ships they need weaknesses and in this game the weakness is they are glass cannons.

 

1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Give the USN heavy cruisers an upper belt and deck armor profile similar to that of Puerto Rico, or increase the bow and stern thickness to 32mm

this makes all bb but yammy and yashima dead content, have you played a 380mm battleship and had a des moines just sit in front of you murdering your hp bar and can only do minimal damage back? this is just encouraging a stale sit nose in take no damage meta.

 

1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

German Cruiser AP can either receive a higher Krupp value, in order to increase overall penetration at all ranges

high risk high reward, you can get very high damage ap salvos but at the same time risk not penning and missing out on dpm, there is no need to buff german ap.

 

1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Increase the central hull plating to 24mm.

there is nothing wrong with american destroyers, they are not designed for 1v1 gun fights vs other dd you are just trying to play an ok gunboat verse a genuine gunboat which comes down to not playing the ship the most effective way.

Also by buffing its armour you are just making it more susceptible to ap penetrations in turn making this more of a nerf.

 

1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Just give Yueyang a better reload.

wargamings excellent balancing team showing how good they are by absolutely butchering this ship, i do agree yueyang is pretty dead content now especially since its niche was radar and now that the new EU dd have radar and nearly better in everyway.

could use some love.

Edited by ITZ_ACE_BABY
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,252
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,098 posts
4,081 battles
27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

So then. After making that Friedrich der Grosse review, I decided to take a look at some of the problems that I noticed across the game, ranging from the usual CV hate and complaints about useless AA, to more minor but significant examples that make themselves known to me whenever I take that particular ship out for a spin on the PTS or on my main account. This is a rather long list, and I really cant just make a TL;DR about it because then people just don't get the damn point about what I'm trying to say. So then, let's get started.

TOPIC 1: CRUISERS

ISSUE 1: Japanese Cruiser Armor

Why it's an issue: Japanese cruisers, with the exception of the Zao, are notoriously squishy. Anything with big enough guns ( 220mm or larger )  that has the good sense to fire Armor Piercing the moment one of these things shows full broadside will, with some good RNG, send the poor bastard back to port with one very bad taste in their mouth. The Zao is an exception, because of the fact that it has a pretty trollish turtleback armor scheme that often foils what would otherwise have been a ritualistic paddling. Even the Azuma and Yoshino suffer this quite a lot ( though this is due to the stupid Yamato armor profile that the B-65 cruiser project adopted ). I know for a fact that almost anyone who reads this has been sent one-shotted back to port in a Japanese cruiser at some point in their life or another, myself included.

How to Fix it: Slight improvements to the armor scheme, such as a hidden citadel like the one found on American cruisers, would do the trick. Either that, or giving them a repair party to compensate for that squishiness could work. I'm not saying it should be as powerful as the Royal Navy's portable dry-dock, but that at least gives them something useful to work with when facing off against mondo-caliber guns. ( Remember, even Moskva can land consistent citadels at fairly long ranges )

IJN CAs get blapped the moment they show broadside? You don't say? Kind of like EVERY OTHER CRUISER LINE IN THE GAME? And BTW, it's not just 220s, 203mm clobbers them, and even 152mm does the job. Why on earth should they not get deleted if they show broadside? USN and RU cruiser get deleted for showing broadside, and while MN and KMS cruisers are slightly better, showing broadside is still asking for a paddling. There's a reason don't show broadside is rule number one of WOWS. I don't know where you got the idea that IJN CAs are more susceptible to this than other CAs, because they're not alone by any stretch of the imagination. The solution is simple, don't give broadside.

27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 2: USN Heavy Cruiser Bow Armor Plating

Why it's an issue: This is not the fault of the cruisers themselves, but the fault of the influx of large caliber guns into the game. With an ever increasing number of Battleships with 457mm guns, which have the ability to rip a new [edited] through the bows of USN Heavy cruisers, the cruiser line is just suffering more and more. Adding to this problem is the fact that even the deck and upper belt armor of high tier USN Heavy Cruisers ( Baltimore, Buffalo, Des Moines, Salem ) is just 30mm thick, which means they can get overmatched by those same large caliber guns, often times with catastrophic results.

How to Fix it: Give the USN heavy cruisers an upper belt and deck armor profile similar to that of Puerto Rico, or increase the bow and stern thickness to 32mm. While that last one might not come to muster, it makes sense, given that the USN Cruisers are designed to basically be jack of all trades cruisers that can deal with anything that gets thrown at them. However, what's the point of calling them "jack of all trades", when the only jack they're pulling is the one-way ticket back to port the moment a Kremlin shows up?

So did you just complain about how US CAs are too tanky compared to IJN CAs, and then in the very next post suggest buffing US CA armor? At least be internally consistent with the bad logic.

Either way, did you just suggest giving USN CAs the same protection as BBs (32mm of bow and stern armor)? You know CAs aren't supposed to be able to take BB caliber hits right? The bow and stern plating is supposed to be 27mm, enough to bounce anything up to 16". The issue is the 30mm deck plating, which allows 18" guns to pen, but not 16". The effect is twofold, 16" are no longer good enough at T10 and CAs take slightly more damage now (remember they can still be overmatched through the bow). The issue is that increasing deck armor to 32mm has implications for the HE damage against them. The solution is more to cut back on the number of 18" guns. Remember, cruisers balance massive DPM with low survivability. Increase the survivability to much and you end up with Smolensk. Giving CAs BB level plating would be ridiculous, imagine if Des Moines could easily bounce everything but Yamato shells...

27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 3: German Cruiser Armor Piercing

Why it's an issue: German cruiser AP sucks. Not because of the damage, oh no. Those guns hurt like absolute hell the moment you land a good broadside. No, it's because of the fact that the penetration absolutely sucks. the Hindenburg has some of the worst penetration of all the Tier 10 Heavy Cruisers, with just over 400mm of penetration at what are supposed to be point-blank ranges, and, following the artillery graph provided by that super-helpful website, the penetration drops off like a brick falling off a building. I'm not saying that German Heavy cruisers are supposed to be [edited]-slapping the hell out of anything that shows broadside, but it would be nice to be able to do consistent damage at longer ranges without having to switch to that godawful HE ( as nice as that 1/4 HE pen is )

How to Fix it: One of four things can pass to muster here. One, German Cruiser AP can either receive a higher Krupp value, in order to increase overall penetration at all ranges. Two, German cruisers can receive improved autobounce angles, like the ones found on USN Heavy cruisers from Tier VIII and above, which would allow them to have a greater chance of penetrating something even at longer ranges for some damage. Three, German Cruisers can receive an even greater DPM boost over the one that they recently received, in order to throw out a massive amount of shells in a short amount of time. Finally, German Cruisers can receive improved HE shells to at least compensate for the loss in penetration power at longer ranges.

Hindenberg is fine, she's one of the strongest T10 CAs right now. Good ROF, and nasty AP alpha. Yes the pen is meh, but citadels on cruisers out to medium range is still fully possible. And autopen on that high alpha would be really strong. And the DPM, while not top tier, is still pretty good for CAs, and remember, German cruisers have very good survivability for cruisers, which has to be balanced, in this case by a slight loss in DPM compared to other cruisers. So yes, the damage might be down a bit, but there's a reason.

27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

TOPIC 2: DESTROYERS

ISSUE 1: American Destroyer Hull Plating

Why it's an issue: Ever since the IFHE rework went through, American Destroyers have lost a LOT of their ability to stand up to other destroyers in gun duels, and there is a fairly good reason for this: the hull plating. The USN Destroyers have a fairly atypical 21mm armored midsection that should allow them to stand up to other destroyers in an HE firing contest, but with almost all enemy destroyer guns packing 21mm of penetration ( save the 113mm armed Daring, which has 19mm of penetration ) post rework, they now suffer as badly as other destroyers when it comes to an HE shell firefight.

How to Fix it: Increase the central hull plating to 24mm. While this would not sound like much of a difference, it would mean that most of the advantages that the equal-or-higher caliber destroyers had over the USN Destroyers would be almost completely negated, while the Gearing, which severely lacks in gunpower compared to some of the other destroyers at her tier, would at least be able to outlast them in a duel. At the same time, this would also make the USN destroyers more vulnerable to AP shells from other DDs, thus providing a measure of counterbalance that wouldn't be gamebreaking.

First, only Gearing has the 21mm plating section. The rest of the line has the standard 19mm. So much for that issue, get your facts right. Gearing might not be the king of DD firepower anymore, but she's still very dangerous. Kleber with reload booster, Khaba at long range, and Harugumo are the only ones Gearing struggles with in terms of gun power, and she outspots and out torps all of those. 

Now USN DDs do have a bit of an issue right now, and that's vision control. USN DDs are meant to be cap contesters, playing around islands, ambushes, bullying other DDs off the caps. But with so many DDs with either hydro or radar, the USN often loses the vision battle now, which makes them ineffective. They may need some compensation, but armor isn't it.

27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 2: The Yueyang

Why it's an issue: Poor Yueyang. Ever since the day that Wargaming decided to butcher this ship because the Holy Spreadsheet told them to do it, Yueyang has been the butt of everyones' joke, even mine. I mean, isn't Yueyang is supposed to be an Allen M. Sumner class destroyer, which is basically a smaller Gearing? It should absolutely rock!  The whole reason why it suffers is because almost every single gun-based destroyer can overpower it in a fair fight, which is largely down to two things. One, it's gun reload got absolutely butchered, and two, it has DWTs, which cannot hit DDs at all.

How to Fix it: Just give Yueyang a better reload. Maybe not her old reload, but something along the lines of around 3.5 seconds or something. Giving her the option to use Chung Mu's torpedos wouldn't be a bad idea either, as it would allow her to use the more powerful, but shorter ranged torpedo option that Fletcher and Gearing captains can use

Yeah, no disagreement here. Then again, you're not exactly saying anything new, everyone been saying she needed a reload buff ever since WG nerfed her.

27 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

 

That's all for today. This will become a three part series where I address everything that I think needs fixing in the game. The second part will address Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, and the third part will address Game Mechanics and upcoming content

THAT'S ALL, FOLKS

:SerB:

 

So three points that were flat out wrong, one where you ID'd weak class but completely missed the real problem, and then the YY, which is such a joke even the WG staff use it. What I see here is someone with zero experience in really any of the ships mentioned making things up as he goes along. You mentioned IJN CAs, USN CAs, KMS CAs, USN DDs, and the YY. Looking at you've played, you've reached the Furutaka on the IJN line, with a few games in the Atago. You've never played a USN CA. KMS CA experience is Prinz Eugen, with a few games in Nurnberg (a CL). USN DD experience is up to 4 games in Farragut, with premiums Monaghan and Kidd. You haven't come close to Yueyang. Yet you can give balancing advice on all these ship lines? I'm detecting a player who bought premiums well above their line progression, got clobbered because they didn't know how to play them, listened to a couple of Flamu's streams, and turned them into a post on why the ships are the responsible for the poor results.

I'm going to strongly suggest you actually get some experience in the ships you recommend for major rebalancing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,546
[O7]
Members
1,493 posts
10,811 battles
4 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

I'm going to strongly suggest you actually get some experience in the ships you recommend for major rebalancing.

welcome to 99% of forum users. good comments +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts

everything seems to be about balancing tier 10's to face tier 10's ... fair enough... and when a tier 8 gets uptiered to face these monsters...  it's time perhaps to reconsider +2/-2  (or give the lower tiers gold ammo!! /s)

or put a cap on how many tier 10's will be in the match ... no more than 1/3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[R-F2]
Members
727 posts
9,869 battles
1 hour ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Give the USN heavy cruisers an upper belt and deck armor profile similar to that of Puerto Rico, or increase the bow and stern thickness to 32mm.

Yes buff the US heavy cruiser armor so much that a Baltimore can straight up 1v1 a Kremlin in the open and kill it 100-0 taking 15k damage unless the Kremlin switches to HE, that sounds like a great idea

It's not like 4/5 of the US heavy cruisers are already overpowered no sir not a chance

Edited by WernerHerzdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,046 posts
4,367 battles

To be entirely fair, most of my experience comes from the PTS. I'm just making these suggestions based upon what I see there. 

Also, it seems that the Jingles effect has taken a hold of me, because I cannot seem to get some of my facts right:cap_book:

:SerB:

Edit: I've just been binge watching Jingles ever since the quarantine started. I'm starting to regret it now :Smile_trollface:

 

Edited by Shrayes_Bhagavatula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,941
[TBW]
Members
10,278 posts
17,459 battles

Title should have been "Small Quibble, Long Text".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,133
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,628 posts
4,994 battles
2 hours ago, SKurj said:

everything seems to be about balancing tier 10's to face tier 10's ... fair enough... and when a tier 8 gets uptiered to face these monsters...  it's time perhaps to reconsider +2/-2  (or give the lower tiers gold ammo!! /s)

or put a cap on how many tier 10's will be in the match ... no more than 1/3

Tier VIII is better off against Tier X than Tier VII is against Tier VIII.  I am really sick of hearing complaints from people who play the most overpowered tier of ships for its matchmaking spread.  The constant whining from Tier VIII players is absurd.  The matchmaker has already been adjusted in a way that helps Tier VIII while effing Tier VII completely.  Tier VIII now will only face Tier X in 8 out of 20 battles.  Tier VII can face Tier VIII in 20 out of 20 battles and the fact that Tier VIIIs can only face Tier Xs 8 out of 20 battles means there are a lot of Tier VIII ships that need matches.

BB and cruiser plating increases and the concealment module mean that Tier VIII ships stomp all over Tier VII ships in a way Tier X ships could only dream about doing to Tier VIIIs.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
6 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Tier VIII is better off against Tier X than Tier VII is against Tier VIII.  I am really sick of hearing complaints from people who play the most overpowered tier of ships for its matchmaking spread.  The constant whining from Tier VIII players is absurd.  The matchmaker has already been adjusted in a way that helps Tier VIII while effing Tier VII completely.  Tier VIII now will only face Tier X in 8 out of 20 battles.  Tier VII can face Tier VIII in 20 out of 20 battles and the fact that Tier VIIIs can only face Tier Xs 8 out of 20 battles means there are a lot of Tier VIII ships that need matches.

BB and cruiser plating increases and the concealment module mean that Tier VIII ships stomp all over Tier VII ships in a way Tier X ships could only dream about doing to Tier VIIIs.

 

sorry but if i play more tier 8 than tier 7 I would have more experience with the the +2 at that tier so I will be b#tching about that and not T7... and i don't care regardless, +2 in this game is much worse than in WoT, due to all the gimmicks, extended ranges, speeds,  and tech changes such as radar etc..  and this thread started out only about T10.

Even at tier 5, when sailing my Pyotr... uptier cruisers have longer range and more speed than I...   how is that balanced?  they don't even need an island to hide behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,962
[ARGSY]
Members
20,033 posts
14,288 battles
9 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

So then.

I may not agree with you, but dear God almighty you laid it out well and you laid out plausible solutions. I wish everyone who criticises WG could do it the way you did here.

9 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Japanese Cruiser Armor

How far can you go with an armour distribution fix before you become completely ahistorical in those ships that were actually built, or at least drafted to blueprint level?

9 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 2: USN Heavy Cruiser Bow Armor Plating

They just got a buff, albeit not to the degree you're asking for. Let's give it a patch or two to see how this changes things.

9 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 3: German Cruiser Armor Piercing

I'm not seeing an issue here; we're in agree-to-differ territory.

9 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

ISSUE 1: American Destroyer Hull Plating

If they suffer as badly as other destroyers, is this not the definition of actual balance?

8 hours ago, AJTP89 said:

ISSUE 2: The Yueyang

I only ground up the PA line because at the time it came out, Gadjah Mada was the only mid-tier tech-tree DD of British origin (broadly speaking) in the game. I unlocked and bought the Hsienyang for her steel snowflake and that's it. Above T7, the deepwater nature of this line's torpedoes and their similarities to US destroyers at the same tier make the line completely unattractive for me. I don't understand why anyone plays them at all (their radar option does not compensate IMHO), but YMMV.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[GGWP]
Members
354 posts
10,065 battles

I'll tell you what if you give my DM a 32mm bow you can give it a 2mm stern I don't care, haha. Literally insane proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,046 posts
4,367 battles
On 4/23/2020 at 10:39 AM, tenfingerstentoes said:

I'll tell you what if you give my DM a 32mm bow you can give it a 2mm stern I don't care, haha. Literally insane proposal.

Wait.....

 

hades gifs Page 7 | WiffleGif

ME AND MY FAT-REAR-END FINGERS!!!! I MEANT 30MM, NOT 32!!!! HOW DID I POTATO THAT!!?!?!?!?1!?

Sigh, some things never change.....

:SerB:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×