Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: Larger ship sizes not at all worth it - a detailed analysis
In considering what size of ship is best, the most important thing to consider is efficiency. In BM, construction costs scale on a 1 for 1 basis with ship mass. (Each kt of mass costs 1 Minerals [or whatever your race's primary resource is] and 1/5 of each of the other two resources to construct) Maintenance is always a set % of construction cost. So in terms of pure construction cost and maintenance, it absolutely does not matter what size you build - you pay a set rate for each kt of hull and this is the same at any size.
Therefore, the only relevant question efficiency-wise is how well space within the different hulls is utilized. Consider the following example:
A size 1 Frigate has 250kt of space. It requires 1 bridge, and support for 100 crew, which takes up 30kt total. That leaves 220kt left as "usable" space. Usable space = 88% of total.
Compare this to a size 1 Dreadnought:
1000kt of space, bridge and support for 500 crew take up 110kt. 890kt left of usable space, Usable space = 89% of total.
So Dreadnoughts are more efficient...by a whopping 1%. But what happens when we factor engines in? A fair comparison is to see how much space is taken up with engines to move a given speed. Assuming speed of 10, level 1 ion engines:
Frigate - 4 engines needed, which take up 80kt. Subtract this from previously calculated usable space leave 140kt leftover for weapons, armor, etc - 56% of total.
Dreadnought - 18 engines needed (not even legal), which would take up 360kt. That leaves 530kt leftover for fun stuff - 53% of total.
So with engines taken into account, the larger ships are actually LESS efficient. But what about the benefits of additional levels of construction tech? Since there are 6 levels in huge ship construction, and only 3 in light ship construction, the fully upgraded DN would be more efficient, right? Consider this:
Upgrading from a 250kt L1 Frigate to a 300kt L3 Frigate is an increase of 120%.
Upgrading from a 1000kt L1 DN to a 1250 L6 DN is an increase of 125%.
So the DN advantage here is really very small. Level per level, Frigates upgrades have a bigger impact.
Aside from the numbers, there are other advantages and disadvantages of Smaller vs. Larger ships. While many of these have been discussed elsewhere, I will list them here.
Advantages of larger ships:
*Can use mounts (though these have to be researched, and have tradeoffs themselves)
*Systems with ship-wide effects have more of an impact (Religious totems, targeting computers, etc)
*Use of computer cores instead of crew can swing space efficiency in favor of larger ships
*Ships can be less specialized
Advantages of smaller ships:
*Harder to hit (this is a big one)
*Faster build rate
*Higher maximum speeds
*Higher maneuverability in combat (turn rate, acceleration)
*Causes enemies to overkill
*Flexibility in fleets and formations
So with all the above considered, larger ship sizes seem to be at best approximately on par with smaller ships. Arguably larger ships are worse off, but clearly not significantly better. But there is one last feature to consider:
Research Cost.
RESEARCH COST!
RESEARCH COST!!!!!!!
If larger ships aren't CLEARLY better than smaller ships, why bother spending research points on them at all?
Any semblance of balance between ship sizes disappears completely when you consider the research costs involved. Researching up to level 3 Frigates costs a total of 100,000 research points. Researching up to level 3 DNs costs 995,000. (to get to level 6 would cost an additional 750,000) To get the benefits of DNs, you need massive mounts - an additional 290,000 rps to even get to level 1. So with this in mind; a player who went with an "all frigate" strategy would have an over ONE MILLION research point advantage over the player who bothered to research up to dreadnoughts. To put that number in perspective, that's more research points than it would take to completely max out armor in the game (level 20). How could those dreadnoughts possibly go toe to toe with frigates sporting a million research point advantage in weapons and armor?
How are larger ships possibly worth the cost in research, if they are even worth any cost at all??
Edit: I did a bunch of calculations in Excel for every ship size. I can upload it if people suspect I'm using fuzzy math.
Last edited by Acleveralias on Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:01 am; edited 2 times in total Back to top
1. Provide for economies of scale. Construction/maintenance costs or usable ship tonnage should scale up such that larger ships are more efficient. This can be accomplished in a number of ways - by scaling crew needs, altering hull sizes, scaling construction costs differently, etc.
2. Create "large" or "heavy" versions of more components that have some advantage over their smaller counterparts. For example, a heavy shield generator that takes up twice the space of a normal generator but generates three times the shield points. Limit larger components to ships of a certain minimum size.
3. Dramatically beef up mounts. Also, don't make the player research halfway up the tree to get the mount that goes with the ship size they already researched. Level 2 heavy mounts should be at the same tech level as level 2 massive mounts - the bigger mounts aren't more advanced, just...bigger.
4. Provide some mechanism for larger ships to be "tougher". Stackable "damper field" components (damage reduction to each hit) would achieve this, or some kind of passive bonus for larger sizes (for example, Battleships take 10% less damage per hit, DN 20%, Baseship 40%)
5. If all else fails, give all the ship size construction techs as starting technologies, so the all-frigate strategy doesn't dominate every game. Back to top
I've been after Kwok to do this for a little while now. I feel the current mount setup gives little or no advantages compared to the costs you cite.
To me, the single biggest thing missing from mounts and large ships is range. Using my typical naval analogy, a battleship's 16-inch guns can reach more than 20 miles, but a typical frigate's 5-inch gun can hardly reach 5 miles. The BB's shells are also many orders of magnitude more destructive.
Yet our current mount setup gives very mild range increases and only moderate damage increases. Ideally, a Massive Mount weapon ought to have 4x or 8x the range of a non-mounted weapon. The non-mounted weapons need their ranges nerfed a bit so the larger mounts don't have ranges all the way across the battlespace. The progression should be something like this:
Non-mounted weapon range = X
Large mount range = 2X
Heavy mount range = 4X
Massive mount range = 8X
What's needed is a good reason to use the larger mounts. That will in turn necessitate using the larger hulls. We've got to fix the former, but the latter will take care of itself if we do. At the same time, FFG's will be forced to fight at closer ranges than they do now. All of this would be a Good Thing(tm) because I also detest the FFG-is-the-ultimate-warship concept that is quite obviously in place right now. Back to top
While I think Kwok has kicked it... It's at the point now that ships which are bigger generally take more tonnage of ships that aren't as big to defeat. That's their advantage.
I'm finding that high defense ships can outrun, but not out-gun larger combat ships.
...But I'd love to see larger ships be deadly, as well.
I could see longer ranges, but I don't know if that extreme is worth it. I could see a x1 range increase step at the most; otherwise, the small-fleet strategy might become completely worthless.
How do shield rechargers fit into the picture? I could see them as a form of "damper". There is a fine line between Genius and Insanity. I am firmly on one side of that line! Back to top
I could see longer ranges, but I don't know if that extreme is worth it. I could see a x1 range increase step at the most; otherwise, the small-fleet strategy might become completely worthless.
To a certain extent, the small-ship strategy should be completely worthless, or at least require significant investment of research points into ECM, stealth, etc in order to be at all viable. The reason for this is, again, research costs. You should be at a disadvantage against a fleet with larger ships, since those larger ship sizes come with a hefty research point cost. You wouldn't want DUCs "balanced" against wave motion guns either, since one weapon is free while the other is not. Back to top
How do shield rechargers fit into the picture? I could see them as a form of "damper".
Eh, only sort of. You can stack rechargers, but they are equally effective at recharging hits taken from large weapons as from small. The effect I have in mind is for is for larger ships to be able to shrug off hits from small weapons completely. In the same way that you can't destroy a tank by shooting 100 handguns at it, you should require some heavier firepower to really dent the huge ships.
You might even see Kamikaze tactics come into play as a desperate measure for races that fall really behind in the ship size race, which would be pretty cool. Back to top
How do shield rechargers fit into the picture? I could see them as a form of "damper".
Eh, only sort of. You can stack rechargers, but they are equally effective at recharging hits taken from large weapons as from small. The effect I have in mind is for is for larger ships to be able to shrug off hits from small weapons completely. In the same way that you can't destroy a tank by shooting 100 handguns at it, you should require some heavier firepower to really dent the huge ships.
You might even see Kamikaze tactics come into play as a desperate measure for races that fall really behind in the ship size race, which would be pretty cool.
Heh, in one of my games I constantly had the AI trying to ram my ships that outclassed theirs. They'd also ram planets (and this is with ships other then Probes (wasn't many of them in my game)). Back to top
The Dreadnought is not exactly the best comparison point since it was undersized. I did boost it from 1100-1350 for v1.15 with no other changes to its requirements.
Note in v1.14, Frigates have a maximum engine limit of 5 and Dreadnoughts have a maximum engine limit of 16. You may be confusing the limits with the 40 and 180 movement point values to move 1 space for each hull respectively.
---
Not sure for the complaints about mounts. L-H-M ship mounts in order provide up to 25%, 33%, and 50% more damage per kT for only 10-15% extra cost. Any slight loss to damage rates due to bonus range are compensated by their increased effectiveness against damage reducing components like Emissive Armor.
---
Larger ships typically have up to 10% more usable space after Bridge/LS/CQ/Engine requirements. For example, Frigates range from 48% to 57% free space, and 60% at max tech. A Battleship ranges from 47% to 67% free space, and 71% at max tech.
The extra space can be used to enhance combat or defensive capabilities. Items like multiple Emissive Armors, Scattering or Stealth armor, Shield Regenerators are all items that can enhance larger ships survivability versus smaller ships.
Costs are similar per kT for complete designs. Smaller ships can be relatively costly because they use more engines for their size, which are the most expensive components. However, larger ships are using mounted weapons or some specialty components which probably negates most of their cost savings.
Compare a Frigate versus a Battleship at about 100 range at close to max tech and only direct fire weapons. The Frigate will hit about 50% more than the Battleship at that range. Both ships have Emissive Armor (-10 dmg per hit average) and the Battleship might have 1 Shield Regenerator (Avg -5 dmg per sec average) and perhaps a Stealth or Scattering Armor.
Frigate, 300kT, 2xAPB
Damage per second: 2 x (75 – 10) dmg / 2 sec * 90% To Hit = 58 dmg/sec – 5 = 53 dmg/sec
Battleship, 1000kT, 6x Large APB
Damage per second: 6 x (150 dmg – 10) / 2 sec * 60% To Hit = 252 dmg/sec
The Battleship is delivering 4.8x actual damage even though it's only 3.3x larger. And it still should have more defenses per kT. With decent targeting parameters, the Battleship should be able to take out 3 Frigates and have most of its components intact. Using 3 APBs on the Frigate helps to close the gap, but that means sacrificing its PD or defense components.
There's probably a host of other outcomes depending on strategies, weapon types, etc. But I think many of them will give larger ships a worthwhile edge per kT. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
I have yet to play this mod so please excuse my ignorance, but I base my comments on the posts in this thread. I would prefer if the larger ships were clearly more superior to the smaller ships. I would like the weapon mounts to be beefed up a little (more than Kaptain Kwok but not as much as Acleveralias). Are there mounts for the shields and armor as well? I think that larger ships should have more powerful shields and armor.
As a casual player (non-modder), this is something that I have never been really sure about. If a ship has 3 emissive armors that each have a damage reduction of 10, is there a total damage reduction of 30 for the ship? or does the ship still have a reduction of 10 with 2 backup armors? Back to top
I have yet to play this mod so please excuse my ignorance, but I base my comments on the posts in this thread. I would prefer if the larger ships were clearly more superior to the smaller ships. I would like the weapon mounts to be beefed up a little (more than Kaptain Kwok but not as much as Acleveralias). Are there mounts for the shields and armor as well? I think that larger ships should have more powerful shields and armor.
As a casual player (non-modder), this is something that I have never been really sure about. If a ship has 3 emissive armors that each have a damage reduction of 10, is there a total damage reduction of 30 for the ship? or does the ship still have a reduction of 10 with 2 backup armors?
No mounts for shields/armor/engines. Now with that said... the point of BalanceMod is to maintain the feel of a Stock SEV game while improving the AI and Playability of the game. Hopefully I didn't step on anyones toes there. Back to top
I do want a mass of Frigates to be able to take out a larger ship.
How many is required and how much strategy is what should be debated.
-Crissa
john_stamos64 wrote:
As a casual player (non-modder), this is something that I have never been really sure about. If a ship has 3 emissive armors that each have a damage reduction of 10, is there a total damage reduction of 30 for the ship? or does the ship still have a reduction of 10 with 2 backup armors?
No. Emissive armor absorbs n damage that hits only that piece of armor. So each emissive armor is effectively that much bigger in kilotons - but it might instead take two hits to destroy it, or three, or maybe your weapon doesn't do enough damage at all to destroy it. Back to top
I actually liked it back when multiple emissive armors did stack. The mounts were obviously important to scratch the heaviest ships, or missiles could be used. There were trade offs for light ships in more light weapons vs armor to dampen the enemies fire, bombers needed BOMBS to hurt capital ships and fighters had to screen to protect the heavy ships (that had to carry a few heavy weapons which were unsuitable for protecting against mass bombers). That and the drone/kamikaze tactic was really useful in overcoming heavies if pressed. Back to top
That's easily solved, Dark: Make emissive bonuses larger, period. Make small DF and fighter-targeting weapons just too plain small to beat the bonus - for instance Bomblet Missiles do 25 damage at peak, unmounted Beam weapons could do the same, just enough not to do more than scratch a top level emissive.
I think a lot of these elements are in play already. Most small direct fire weapons can be negated by Emissive Armor, rendering fighters without a heavy weapon (Small IB, Small AMTs, Small RPs etc) generally ineffective versus ships. On occasion I've had to resort to that very tactic of converting my regular fighters into kamikazes because they weren't capable of hurting my enemy any other way.
Emissive Armor does make a difference with regular weapons, albeit to a lesser degree than small weapons. The weapons are not nullified, but they do lose a chunk of effectiveness - usually 20-25%. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
I base a large degree of importance on emissive armor, and crystal too can negate a large percentage of damage. The difference is that crystal scales, where as emissive does not.
The current situation doesn't lend itself to a frigate from having to decide if it wants to shrug off 30 more damage per hit or load another gun. Extra armor is just HPs, the weapon is usually better since damage scales faster than armor.
A frigates armor and a Battleships armor are both fundamentally the same currently, despite one devoting an order of magnitude more tonnage towards armor. To beat Prisoner to his navel ship parallels, a long standing design intent for ships was to withstand the cannons that the ship itself mounted. Thus it should worry about ships mounting larger guns, but smaller cannons would need extenuating circumstances in order to do damage.
This is really just one way to bring back large ship superiority, but it also has the side effect of ships not blowing up so damn fast =P Back to top
One element of larger ships is that they can generally mount multiple Emissive Armors on their ships, which means they can sustain the emissive effect for a longer period.
If the Get_Vehicle_Tonnage function is ever reactivated for components.txt, I could at least make the emissive effect somewhat scaled to the hull size.
In the Nova Mod I have Light and Heavy Emissive Armor. Essentially the light version has less emissive ability but it's more likely to have its emissive effect triggered multiple times by a single weapons hit (ie each panel has less structure than a weapon's damage). The heavy version provides more emissive effect up front, but being larger it often takes several hits to destroy. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
Making it possible to create virtually indestructible ships _under any conditions_ is a terrible, terrible thing to do for gameplay. Crystalline Armor in SE4 was really bad with this; repeating the impervious nature of defense in BM is not a good idea. SE5 CA at least has small SGFD ability values, compared to the 30+ of SE4. Ramping up the static value nature of the EA ability levels just because a ship is larger is arbitrary and dangerous. The proper way to do such damage negation would be as percentage values in the DamageTypes.txt file, so you can never create invincible ships, just tougher ones (at least, assuming you don't do something silly like 95% damage reduction ).
eg: for 20% damage reduction:
Armor Type 1 Name := Normal Armor
Armor Type 1 Penetration Percent := 100
Armor Type 1 Damage Percent := 80
Quote:
This is really just one way to bring back large ship superiority, but it also has the side effect of ships not blowing up so damn fast =P
Really doing that requires significantly ramping up hit points and ramping down damage rates.. preferably with leaky armor defense levels. Smarter than your average Texrak. Back to top
The Dreadnought is not exactly the best comparison point since it was undersized. I did boost it from 1100-1350 for v1.15 with no other changes to its requirements.
Did you boost the kT for stations as well? They've always felt rather undersized to me. A large battlestation ought to be at least 2x-3x the size of a battleship if you ask me.
Quote:
Not sure for the complaints about mounts. L-H-M ship mounts in order provide up to 25%, 33%, and 50% more damage per kT for only 10-15% extra cost. Any slight loss to damage rates due to bonus range are compensated by their increased effectiveness against damage reducing components like Emissive Armor.
It's not the damage I'm that concerned about; that's pretty much where I'd expect it to be even if I think it errs slightly on the low side. It's the range that I have an issue with.
Again, I'm going to use contemporary weapons and naval strategy to illustrate the current disparity. Very large battleships have very large ship-mounted guns with effective ranges several times that of the smaller guns on frigates and destroyers.
Let's compare the statistics:
Code:
Iowa-class BB OHP-class FFG
============= =============
Shell size 406 mm 76 mm
Shell weight 1,224 kg 12 kg
Effective Range 39 km 8 km
Rate of Fire 2 per minute 85 per minute
Gun Weight 108,000 kg 7,500 kg
Ship displacement 52,000 tons 4,200 tons
Let's see what we find. The BB's shells are a little more than five times the size (diameter, that is) of the FFG's, and they weigh one hundred times as much. The destructive capacity of the BB's shells is difficult to quantify, but you should reasonably expect it to be anywhere from 50-100 times as damaging. Does a Massive Mount do 50-100 times the damage of an unmounted weapon of the same type and tech level? I don't know, I've never looked, but my gut says no. I'm betting the Massive Mount doesn't even do 10x the damage of an unmounted one.
Now let's look at range. The BB's guns outrange the FFG by a factor of five. Do Massive Mounts have ranges 5x that of unmounted ones? Again, I've never sat down and built a table of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near this. Mounts don't add range in multiples, they add it in 10-20km chunks if I remember right. I'm betting that a Massive Mount doesn't even have twice the range of an unmounted weapon. Also, the larger guns should have a minimum range, inside which they radically lose the ability to hit a target. Think of the BB's guns trying to hit a guy on a jet ski when he's 100 feet from the ship. One hit would turn him into fish food, but there's no way the guns could ever hope to track him. He could run circles around the ship all day and not get a scratch. Of course, that's what the Gatling guns are for, but I digress...
Now we get to the oft-overlooked statistic of Rate Of Fire. The BB's guns fire one shell every 30 seconds. In that same period the FFG can snap off about 42 shots. Put in perspective, in one minute the BB can hurl 2,400kg of ordnance per gun (it has nine of them) and the FFG can hurl 1,020kg of ordnance (it has one of them). Total broadside per minute is 21,600kg for the BB and 1,020kg for the FFG. To really put this in perspective, if the BB were to fire 176 full broadsides, it would fire more than the entire hull of the FFG weighs. I know for a fact there isn't a 40x disparity in rate-of-fire between a Massive Mount and an unmounted gun. I don't even think it's 2x-3x.
But what about the size/weight of the gun? SE5 doesn't care about size (although it should), it only cares about weight (or more precisely, mass) in kT. The BB gun weighs in at 14x the weight of the FFG gun. Does a Massive Mount have a 14x weight penalty? I don't think it's anything near that. There should be a much greater difference in weights than there currently is.
Ah! But if we made these massive guns that huge, you'd only be able to put one or two on a BB or DN, right? Not if the BB's/DN's were actually sized appropriately. As you can see above, the BB is a little over 12x the size (in displacement) when compared with the FFG. Do our BB's have 12x the space of the FFG? Not even close.
Now, I've heard others gripe that such analogies aren't applicable, that gunpowder-based weapons firing ballistic projectiles through an atmosphere can't be compared to something like a magnetically-accelerated hypervelocity depleted-uranium slug firing with no gravity in the vacuum of space. Poppycock! All of weapon history and even current R&D shows larger weapons of the same types do more damage, have longer ranges, cost more, weigh more, take up more room, and typically fire less rapidly than smaller ones. I challenge anyone to find any significant deviation from this concept with any past, current, or envisioned weapon system regardless of whether it's a directed-energy weapon or projectile-based.
So what can we conclude? Our weapons and mounts don't differ enough to make the larger ones much more effective than the smaller ones, yet larger ones require much more effort (research, cost, etc.) to produce. Furthermore, our larger ships are hampered by being too darn small to hold enough of the weapons if they were scaled appropriately.
What should be done? Unfortunately, what should be done is well outside the scope of BMod: the whole hull size, weapon size, mount size, damage table, and range table array should be radically rescaled. However, since that's impossible for BMod, we should try to do what we can to improve the situation. Mounted weapons need much more range, maybe a bit more damage, and slower rates of fire. I'd love to see them made much larger but that means hull sizes have to be radically changed. That causes too much of a ripple effect throughout the entire game for BMod to address. Back to top
Making it possible to create virtually indestructible ships _under any conditions_ is a terrible, terrible thing to do for gameplay.
For this reason, I favor damage reduction components reducing a set number of points instead of a % of damage taken. This way, a large ship stacking several of these would be impervious to damage being dealt from small and/or low tech weapons. However, the effect on larger, higher tech weapons would be minimal. This forces the use of big guns against big ships (or bombers, or suicide ships, or seekers, etc)
Fyron wrote:
Ramping up the static value nature of the EA ability levels just because a ship is larger is arbitrary and dangerous.
Not arbitrary at all. In geometry terms: larger enclosed spaces of a given shape require less relative surface area. Example:
A 1mx1mx1m cube encloses 1 cubic meter of space. It has 6 sides, each of which is 1 square meter. Therefore 6 square meters of armor would be needed to cover it. Ratio of enclosed space to surface area = 1:6.
A 2mx2mx2m cube encloses 8 cubic meters of space. It has 6 sides, each of which is 4 square meters. Therefore 24 square meters of armor would be needed to cover it. Ratio of enclosed space to surface area = 1:3.
If we were to armor these two cubes with an amount of armor relative to their volume (mass, if they are made of the same material) the larger cube would have armor twice as thick.
That's why, in fiction and in real life, armor is generally thicker on larger ships. And that's why it is not arbitrary that larger ships be tougher. Back to top
For this reason, I favor damage reduction components reducing a set number of points instead of a % of damage taken. This way, a large ship stacking several of these would be impervious to damage being dealt from small and/or low tech weapons. However, the effect on larger, higher tech weapons would be minimal. This forces the use of big guns against big ships (or bombers, or suicide ships, or seekers, etc)
This is exactly what I am talking about; it is the opposite approach from good, balanced game design. Invincibility should be avoided in every conceivable situation, without exception. Harder to damage is fine; impossible to damage is just terrible game design.
The problem with high EA values is that it is not realistic at all; even shooting a heavily armored battleship with small cannons will eventually break through the armor. The EA ability is not deplete-able, however, and those smaller cannons will never be able to penetrate. This is why flat damage reductions like EA need to be kept small, or avoided in favor of percentage-based effects. Smarter than your average Texrak. Back to top
You see invincible things on TV/Movie sci fi all the time.
The only way to break through that armor/shield is ... Plot Device A!
In a strategy game there is no plot, and thus no plot devices. Invulnerability makes for UnFun.
In CB#9 on PBW, I've techhed up enough to design a sweet dreadnought with fancypants defenses; enough leaky armor and leaky shielding, that it can shrug off 105 point hits without damage, 90% of the time.
The other 10% of the time, it will lose one internal component. Its got auxcon, six computers, and a backup drive reactor, but enough hounds will eventually wear down the bear and kill it.
---
If you're going to go with a rock-paper-scissors system, you should make it explicit.
Set the damage types such that weapons dealing "small calibre" damage will do 0% damage to heavy armor. (And similar for the rest)
No emissive effects needed, and you won't screw up the target choices.
Let the game prevent ships from wasting their shots on targets they can't hurt, and everybody wins. Back to top
I've thought about using a damage type for the effect instead, but one limitation is that you can use a formula in damage amount field, so the damage reduction amount is static. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
I believe my main point still stands: larger ship sizes are not worth their cost in research points.
Does anyone here believe one level 6 battleship can beat three level 3 frigates with 1,035,000 extra research points to spend on weapons, armor, shields, etc? (that's how much more it costs, and that doesn't include mounts) Back to top
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download, and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2007 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: - Syndicate forums:
Page Generation: 0.35 Seconds
Files & Links
SEnet Content
User Content
SE.net Info
).
- Syndicate forums: