Home » FULL CONTROL GAMES » #JAFDEV Tactical Layer » Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320700] Sat, 25 May 2013 00:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JayM

 
Messages:83
Registered:May 2013
DepressivesBrot
No, of course not. We want tactical entries from the neighboring tile and throwing grenades around corner ... why are you even asking :secret:


it was a rhetorical question^^ tactical entries and throwing grenades around the corner are much needed Smile

DepressivesBrot

Don't oversimplify things because everyone else does. Massive Object = Better Cover and Stronger Caliber = F*ck Cover are simple enough guidelines even if you don't want to dive into the intricacies of how much Adamantium you need to stop a .75 Kraken bolt.


I think you and SamHotte misunderstood me a bit - I agree that as long as the player isn't bothered by calculations it's fine. But knowing that (and how) you can influence these calculations can be a bit tricky.

Not wanting to oversimply things - as I said, there has to be balance - and obviously bigger object = better cover etc. and that's fine. but when I have to (exaggerating here:) have to take into account what kind of wood the enemy is hiding behind, that doesn't sound like fun.

Smile


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320703] Sat, 25 May 2013 00:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grim

 
Messages:303
Registered:July 2006
Location: France
Quote:
but when I have to (exaggerating here:) have to take into account what kind of wood the enemy is hiding behind, that doesn't sound like fun.

Well, that would be a lot of fun for me. Damn, am i such a weirdo?

If THAT is exagerated to you, i'd better not know what isn't, hehe!

Actually, testing material resistance and such was a great part of the fun i had playing the JA2 demo when it got released.

What was Flugente's signature again? Oh, got it:
Quote:
Fact: One measures wall thickness by trying to shoot through them with a virtual Glock 17.
Wink
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320705] Sat, 25 May 2013 00:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JayM

 
Messages:83
Registered:May 2013
Grim

Well, that would be a lot of fun for me. Damn, am i such a weirdo?

If THAT is exagerated to you, i'd better not know what isn't, hehe!

Actually, testing material resistance and such was a great part of the fun i had playing the JA2 demo when it got released.

What was Flugente's signature again? Oh, got it:
Quote:
Fact: One measures wall thickness by trying to shoot through them with a virtual Glock 17.
Wink


lol

well yes, testing to see if you can shoot through wood or through light metal, fair enough. but I don't fancy looking up on wikipedia the density of teak wood compared to bamboo^^

how about a mod set in japan - them paper walls would be interesting Very Happy


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320707] Sat, 25 May 2013 01:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3550
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
I agree that we're not in biology class or material resistance. I couldn't care less what trees grow in San Cristobal. And the game will not tell me. What I will know is this:

"That obstacle LOOKS made of thick wood. Could be penetrated but only by high caliber".
"The other obstacle LOOKS like a clay wall or a thin piece of wood. Any decent weapon could penetrate it and a full burst would rip it apart.
"The third obstacle LOOKS like it's made out of concrete. Or hard steel. No bullets will go through. Might get mad ricochets if i fire a burst but that's all".

I am over-simplifying a lot here, but it's very important when all info you have about an obstacle is its looks then the obstacle should perform as expected under fire. If I see a clay wall that takes an RPG round and a full clip of HMG I am closer and closer to uninstalling the more I play.

I am not a military expert and despite the fact that I love guns like the other JA player, this game was never a military simulator. Ok, 9mm is weak and handgun fire won't go through a wall. That much I dig. But reading 10 pages of documentation just to take a shot is not up my alley. I hate to bring up World of Tanks into this, but they kept a decent handle on penetration and armor thickness until they got greedy and started to shower "premium ammo" all over the place. I knew that AP will go through X cm of steel and can bounce. I knew that HE explodes on impact. And that machine guns do shit against thick steel. I did my math on angles of impact and weak spots and shit. And I could even stomach the dispersion of the shot or the curved trajectory of the shell over distance.

All of those didn't bother me. But what drove me up the wall was when a tank shell that would penetrate 290mm of cold steel stopped when hitting a line of underwear hanging in the sun. Or a stupid clay wall. Or a hut that would crumble under my tank. I guess I would've stopped playing even earlier if my shells would've started to be deflected by trees cause dear God... there were lots of trees.

So the point is: if it looks that my bullets would fuck up that wall, that wall would better crumble. The fact that it's made of dirt mixed with straws and built by a gay mason who wears pink underwear is irrelevant.

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 03:00] by Moderator



Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320708] Sat, 25 May 2013 01:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3793
Registered:July 2009
It depends on the clay wall actually. Many sources mention that even 20mm autocannon fire has serious problems with those compounds over in Afghanistan which leads to the current IFV projects mounting 30, 35 or even 40mm cannons.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320709] Sat, 25 May 2013 01:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3550
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
DepressivesBrot
It depends on the clay wall actually. Many sources mention that even 20mm autocannon fire has serious problems with those compounds over in Afghanistan which leads to the current IFV projects mounting 30, 35 or even 40mm cannons.


LOL. We can agree all clay walls in San Cristobal are weak shit then. But you should know what to expect, maybe after you fired a couple of shots. And after the first battles you should be quite sure that you need X gun to bring down that wall.
No "magic" walls. In reality a house could have a 50cm thick wall. Another just a spray of cow dung dried in the sun. In a game that doesn't translate so well because probably they will look similar. It's not worth the confusion.

To bring WoT up again, someone might've said in their studio - "you know a clay wall will fuck up a tank shell, how cool would be if we would have that in our game, no?". But then if you are a dev and love your realism so much how the fuck can a shell travel through 500m of thick forest without being deflected?

Back to JA:F I wonder where they plan to stop with destructible environment. Bullets are bullets, but how about an RPG round?

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 01:39] by Moderator



Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320712] Sat, 25 May 2013 02:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jimmious

 
Messages:10
Registered:March 2007
Location: Greece
Hey wow first of all I must say I'm impressed by the debate I caused Smile

Now on topic, what I guessed (which is also what made me think about the whole issue) is that in JA:F we'll be apparently able to shoot straight forward behind a wall, if there's an open space next to it.
To make it completely clear, imagine having your squad in Drassen's church and 2 mercs standing to the the 2 tiles next to the door opening looking straight forward. Instead of not being able to see or shoot anything a la JA2(unless you turn them to look "diagonally" but still not be able to shoot or see anything in front of them) they'll "pop their heads out" and be able to shoot behind cover.

Now I guess in-game this will be represented somewhat like this:
http://www.gsldefensetraining.com/images/barricadeshooting.jpg
(bored to google too much Razz)

So there's the question on how percentages and to-hit ratios will be calculated with this in mind.
Yeah, you can blind-shoot around the area you guess the legs will be at or the torso and they could be represented with "ghost silhouettes"(would be sweet if we can see the actual head and arms and the ghost thing on the rest of the body eh?) but I would like to know if FC is going for something like that or something far more simplistic a la XCOM. Because I'm pretty sure that XCOM has brought a kind of cover love to current TBS gaming Razz

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:15] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320715] Sat, 25 May 2013 02:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JayM

 
Messages:83
Registered:May 2013
well I think too that peeking around the corner to shoot bit as a much needed function. not sure if we then still need to be able shoot around the corner without looking - it's not real time where you might want to keep the enemy away with gunfire as he is charging towards you. but it surely doesn't hurt if we could do that too.

oh and I agree with what shanga said as well

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320717] Sat, 25 May 2013 03:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
Cyborg
@gdalf

any cover system needs to also consider that cover is concealment but concealment is not cover. So objects and terrain need to have different LOS and CTH values

Yes I agree. The %coverage I suggested is something like what percentage of the 2D plane of the tile that the object fills up - it is both the chance the bullet would hit it on its way through, and the difficulty of seeing past it. Agree about modelling ricochet too, if they can, but it's not a game breaker if they don't.

@Shanga: I agree that ultimately it must work intuitively and you don't need to read a physics textbook to know how it works. But having a predictable calculation based model underneath would be nice, rather than XCOM or BF style 'magic' walls that are either indestructible or not and either up or down, and everything either hits or misses. If you get the mechanic right then everything behaves as you'd "expect" in real life - trees fall over, a tin shack actually is a death trap, a concrete bunker is safe but not forever, etc. I don't need to know all the calculations my tablet makes so I can play angry birds, but I know the flight trajectories and destruction calculations are always predictable and allows me to plan my shot.

Edit: yes I just compared JA:F to Angry Birds and yes I just accused XCOM and BF of having worse physics engines than angry Birds xD

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 03:05] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320718] Sat, 25 May 2013 03:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3550
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
+1

Definitely one improvement over JA2 easy to make would be sideways peek-and-shoot move.

gdalf
I don't need to know all the calculations my tablet makes so I can play angry birds, but I know the flight trajectories and destruction calculations are always predictable and allows me to plan my shot.


Love it when we agree to agree Very Happy

Totally offtopic, this inspired me to add a few new greamlins:
:dongetit: :swordfight: :cheerleader: :yaysupplz:

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 03:25] by Moderator



Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320719] Sat, 25 May 2013 03:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
JayM
Not wanting to oversimply things - as I said, there has to be balance - and obviously bigger object = better cover etc. and that's fine. but when I have to (exaggerating here:) have to take into account what kind of wood the enemy is hiding behind, that doesn't sound like fun.

Even if the game would take several different kinds of wood into account etc. - player still would not need to bother. You would realize something like "Ok, can't get past even the thinnest looking bamboo-whatever-wood with my 9mm pea pistol - so lets take out the BFGs ..." Razz

Not caring for the details would not hinder gameplay, IMHO.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320721] Sat, 25 May 2013 03:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
The kind of wood would hardly matter as bullets eat through all wood pretty much the same. The thickness of the wood however would matter and the car-sized tree trunks of a redwood would be pretty impenetrable for bullets. But there is a huge difference between wood, steel, concrete, foliage, etc in what they do to bullets and this should be modelled

Edit: by giving materials properties, then you can also give bullets meaningful properties in penetration and damage otherwise every bullet behaves the same way but some do X damage and some do Y damage a la XCOM (though damage was tied to the gun shooting it). Original XCOM could get away with it in the 90s, but it felt very out of place in a fully 3D environment where there was so much detail in other things

Edit2: also the simpler possibility of say a concrete wall having 1,000 hit points and is impenetrable until it hits 0 is less satisfying to me than having a concrete wall with certain resistance and thickness that degrades with every hit meaning more and more bullets get through even before the wall is destroyed, if you keep firing at it

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 03:33] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320725] Sat, 25 May 2013 04:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
Shanga
+1

Definitely one improvement over JA2 easy to make would be sideways peek-and-shoot move.


However this can be a problem in a pure turn based game. By definition peek-shoot means you covered when not shooting, however you are only shooting in your own phase, potentially this leads to an endless firefight.

Not necessarily "wrong" and arguably quite realistic but something to consider.

Of course this is where grenades would have their coming out.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320736] Sat, 25 May 2013 09:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dansken

 
Messages:85
Registered:March 2007
Location: Norway
Cyborg
By definition peek-shoot means you covered when not shooting, however you are only shooting in your own phase, potentially this leads to an endless firefight.


Easily solved by allowing the opposition an interrupt opportunity any time you peek from cover.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320737] Sat, 25 May 2013 09:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany, Darmstadt
Well, you don't need the ability for a peekshot, you need the ability to lean, or lookup (over a wall, when crouched)

Lean left/right 10 (or whatever) APs, with possibility for the enemy to interrupt.
And leaning should reduce the accuracy. So that you have a difference between doing a sidestep and shoot.

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:51] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320749] Sat, 25 May 2013 12:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2088
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Peek shot is easy to sort out. Plus if there is overwatch capabilities that peek shot may cost your life, but considering it's quite easy to raycast a shown percentage of a target in 3D (especially for TB) it would make hit percentages very easy to balance/create.

3D gives a whole raft of possibilities not possible in 2D. Most of them are also very light on CPU usage too Wink


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320788] Sat, 25 May 2013 16:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly.

What I mean is the potential for an impasse.

By definition, both are in full cover. In their own active phase, they can't shoot because the enemy is in full cover. In their passive phase they are invulnerable (except to grenades) because they are in full cover.

How does one resolve such a situation?

In JA2 you could safely toss a grenade (no LOS means no interrupt chance) or smoke, or you could run towards him along the wall, with a merc behind ready to interrupt the enemy if he steps forward to shoot.

With peek-shoot (especially combined with something like overwatch), both options are suicide for whoever takes the initiative and moves first, since the passive side can benefit from full cover while also being able to fire from cover when needed.

The only way out I see (aside from tossing first smoke to break LOS and then grenades if close enough) is suppression effects that works when untargeted fire hits neighbouring tiles.

My point is just that Peek-shoot implies gameplay heavily influenced by suppression and grenade use (realistic as heck Very Happy but something to keep in mind).

[Updated on: Sat, 25 May 2013 16:47] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320879] Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JMich

 
Messages:580
Registered:January 2011
Location: Greece
Cyborg
What I mean is the potential for an impasse.

By definition, both are in full cover. In their own active phase, they can't shoot because the enemy is in full cover. In their passive phase they are invulnerable (except to grenades) because they are in full cover.

How does one resolve such a situation?

How about the way XCOM:EU handled it? By default, when you are in cover, you are peeking out, thus you are not fully protected. If you do wish to be fully protected, you use the "hunker down", which means you are no longer peeking, but you are now fully behind cover. If you don't peek, you can't interrupt, but you are (much) better protected.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320901] Sun, 26 May 2013 17:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JayM

 
Messages:83
Registered:May 2013
fair point to consider that gdalf has raised - maybe something like JMich suggested might work.


Voyevoda

And leaning should reduce the accuracy. So that you have a difference between doing a sidestep and shoot.


quite to the contrary actually - when you peek round the corner you can press your body against the wall, which will give you more stability and allows you to handle the recoil better. same when you are hiding behind a low wall and shooting over it. that way it is easier to hit a targer than standing upright and shooting without anywhere to lean on to.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #321071] Tue, 28 May 2013 13:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vesperon
Messages:1
Registered:May 2013
A Run and cover mechanics like new X-COM is way to simple, please make it complex like JA2 and Silent Storm. Silent Storm had the best Turn-Based tactical strategy feature as far as i know it, every weapon had different ballistic performance, so the bullet that you're fired from certain type of weapon able to penetrate materials, ricochets and leaving bullet decal when it hit. also, a different type of bullet had different damage Smile
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #321192] Thu, 30 May 2013 12:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hyrax

 
Messages:17
Registered:May 2013
Location: Harjumaa
gdalf
....
Is that too complicated or not realistic enough?


@Gdalf, I would go for something like you described. It seems complex enough and gives cool options. But I would also like the option to burst or shoot at some square areas. For example, target a door or for a thin walled house, target certain part of the wall.

Cyborg
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly.

What I mean is the potential for an impasse.

By definition, both are in full cover. In their own active phase, they can't shoot because the enemy is in full cover. In their passive phase they are invulnerable (except to grenades) because they are in full cover.

How does one resolve such a situation?

In JA2 you could safely toss a grenade (no LOS means no interrupt chance) or smoke, or you could run towards him along the wall, with a merc behind ready to interrupt the enemy if he steps forward to shoot.

With peek-shoot (especially combined with something like overwatch), both options are suicide for whoever takes the initiative and moves first, since the passive side can benefit from full cover while also being able to fire from cover when needed.

The only way out I see (aside from tossing first smoke to break LOS and then grenades if close enough) is suppression effects that works when untargeted fire hits neighbouring tiles.

My point is just that Peek-shoot implies gameplay heavily influenced by suppression and grenade use (realistic as heck Very Happy but something to keep in mind).



I see easy to resolve. One of the guys decides on peeking and overwatch. When the enemy peeks, he gets shot (depends on exp on so on of course). So it wouldn't be suicidal to keep your merc peeking out while the enemy is in cover. Also you can always send another merc from a different angle and take him out Smile

[Updated on: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:23] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #321207] Thu, 30 May 2013 18:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
I would completely agree with allowing the detaching of the targeting reticle from an enemy (which was possible in JA2 with throwing and launchers) for all shots, especially if they model suppression fire in
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #321957] Tue, 25 June 2013 00:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
Some terms may make this conversation a bit easier.

Cover = Stops the bullet.

Concealment = bullet goes through, but bad guy cannot see exactly where you are.

Of course a material that is cover vs one chambering may only be concealment for another. Additionally, two other factors come into play. Passing through a material changes the trajectory of the bullet. Passing through material sucks some of the bullet's energy.

But here is one suggestion for how it could be done 'behind the scenes'. Each bit of terrain is given a 'cover' value of 0-5. Totally unobstructed would be 0 i.e. your normal shot. Each gun/caliber/whatever would have a rating of how much cover it could punch through. More cover rating than gun rating = no effect. Equal values = damage is greatly reduced. Gun is 1 point over cover value = damage is slightly reduced. 2 points over = blasts through with no damage reduction.

(value system may actually work best as being 0-5 and then 8-10-99, and have some very solid cover value 8 that can be breached by weak explosives (grenade) value 10 stands up to strong explosives and value 99 is impenetrable.


Now, concealment. Here you don't know exactly where your target is (or may not know he's there at all if you haven't detected him yet) You may hope to hit feet or head, but that is such an unlikely event that I don't think it warrants inclusion. Wherever you think your target's 'body part x' is is extremely likely to be anywhere else.

Cover reduces the damage a hit will cause, concealment reduces the chance you hit.

A guy hiding behind a shower curtain would have cover rating of 0 but be fully concealed. Each tile would be given a 'conceal' rating again on some sort of scale (0-5?) where higher levels give the shooter a penalty to hit.

Guy in the open = 0/0
Guy behind shower curtain = 0/5
Guy behind a tall reinforced concrete wall = 5/5
Guy behind a medium height concrete wall = 5/3
Guy behind a short concrete wall = 5/2
Guy behind a flimsy door = 2/5

You could set up something where different stances add to the concealment. +1 for crouch, +3 for prone.

Guy standing behind a short concrete wall = 5/2
Guy crouches = 5/3
guy goes prone = 5/5

There may need to be modifiers for the shooters position as well. You'll have a harder time seeing the target's head poking up over a waist high wall if you are in prone position than if you are standing.

Include some rule that aiming at head is only allowable if the 'modified' concealment score is 3 or less.

If you score well enough to hit regardless of the concealment, you do normal damage. If you score well enough to hit...but 'miss' because there is concealment in the way, then your shots have two things happen.

#1 there is a flat 50% chance your shot (or each bullet if you are firing a burst) will miss. This is blasting into the shower curtain but not in the right spot.

#2 if a hit happens then the potency is reduced by the the relationship to the power of the round being fired and the cover score. This is your 9mm Beretta punching through the car door and successfully hitting the badguy crouched behind it, but not hitting with as much authority had it not passed through that barrier.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #327337] Wed, 30 October 2013 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser

 
Messages:797
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
Concerning game mechanics and particularly ballistics and terminal ballistics, this video pretty much sums up what i would love to see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cix07R1vlhI

I really, really want different calibers and ammo types to matter when dealing with cover and obstacles. And i really, really want to be able to riddle enemies with holes through walls.

☆★GL★☆
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #327343] Wed, 30 October 2013 20:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Maalstroom

 
Messages:343
Registered:December 2008
Location: en route to San Hermanos
I would really like to see that too!
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #333160] Mon, 26 May 2014 23:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cribbie

 
Messages:179
Registered:March 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Please. Please. Please. No blades of grass, leaves, or small tree limbs made out of 16" of class "B" armor plate. Or at least give me a reason, a reasonable reason, why my .50 API can't go through a 1/4" wooden door.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #337380] Thu, 30 October 2014 15:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3550
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Set a weapon in JA:F @ 100 Muzzle Velocity and watch it go through all kinds of stuff. Put it down at 1 and it won't.

With a hacked BMG sniper rifle I was able to shoot all across the map in South Marino last night, through all the fences, stalls and everything.

The real problem here is having out of combat shooting turned off. So with aiming being forced only on enemy characters, if the enemy is behind a door and out of LoS, you won't be able to target him.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #337391] Thu, 30 October 2014 20:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grim

 
Messages:303
Registered:July 2006
Location: France
That's interesting, Shanga. I didn't know material penetration was handled by the game, and that muzzle velocity handled it. Very nice.
We really need to have a free aim to play with it *malicious laugh*.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #337392] Thu, 30 October 2014 20:25 Go to previous message
Shanga

 
Messages:3550
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Each asset has its own HP, armor and LoS setting. So why shouldn't be material penetration in the game?


Previous Topic: Let's start talking about game mechanics: Artificial Intelligence
Next Topic: JAF CtH formula
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Feb 26 05:01:33 EET 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01191 seconds