Please include in patch!!!

AresMars · Post by **AresMars** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:32 am

dauphan129,
 
I am afraid that you are correct in your understanding of my post.  (but I do respect your point...I just disgree!)
 
_Political Glory_ to the all the Winners of a battle, but the political effects of _lost is proporotional_ to your participation. (Eh, you lost against <Major Power> - Nice Try!)
 
I would also hazard a guess that "most" EIA players agree with the method I proposed.  (I could be wrong and if you disagree, speak out)
 
Now, I double checked the most current version of the EiH rules that I could find (v5.2) and found the following: 
 
[font="times new roman"]7.5.2.10.1.3     Political Points for Winning/Losing Field Combats[/font]
 
The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the Political Status Display on the Status Card. Half a political point is gained or lost for each Corps of the defeated[/i] side (rounding fractions up) used during any[/i] round of that combat (this includes Corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing Corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of “+/-3” political points. For this purpose a single Corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more[/i] than 20 factors in it is treated as two Corps for this purpose,  A city garrison which participates in the battle counts as one Corps for this purpose. Political points are only awarded/lost if there are more [/i]than two strength points on each[/i] side, unless in areas with a capital (red) city. If forces of more than one Major Power are present, the commander of the victorious side gains any and all political points, while each Major Power on the losing side loses political points based on the number of its Corps present, rounded up.[1]

[1] For example: a [/i]four Corps Ottoman force defeats a force containing, [/i]two Russian Corps, [/i]one Austrian Corps, a Prussian city garrison and [/i]three Spanish Corps commanded by a Spanish leader. The Ottomans would gain “[/i]+3” political points ([/i]six Corps on the losing side), while Russia would lose “[/i]-1” political point, Austria would lose “[/i]-1” political point, Prussia would lose “-1” political point and Spain would lose “[/i]-2” political points. If the Ottoman force was defeated, Spain would gain “[/i]+2” political points, while the Ottoman would lose “-2” political points.[/i][/align][/align]
 
Slighty different with only the LEADER of the Winning Side getting the political points, but the CORE CONCEPT remains the same as my understanding....
 
[NOTE: I only referenced EiH v5.2 as an example of the core concept and as the EiH rules have been worked on for years by avid, experienced FANS of the orginal EIA and as being part of the source upon which EIANW is based...]

IMHO, this concept is important for many reasons to the success of any 1805 Grand Campaign EIA game.
 
a) Keeps France a little more isolated from having too many Allies for too long.
(Hey face it, in the 1805 Grand Campaign, the French don't need much help....Good Leaders, Big army, lots of Minors with CORPS in easy reach)
(and France would not allow anyone to ride their Coattails for too long, as the PP/VP effect would be quickly felt by the Ally.....)
 
b) Allows a Coalition to form several Armies (ie. one under Charles 446, one under Blucher 345 and one under Kurasov 344, even Welligton 553) and force the French to fight on several fronts
(thus avoid allowing Nappy to always be leading every French battle and possibly gaining the extra +1 PP each time! and to avoid the French Super Stack effect)
 
c) Allows Major powers who are struggling vis a vis PP or VP, to hook their cart to an Ally for a boost or to help keep the Balance of Power in a game where the French are having a rough time.
[ie.  Spain could join France versus England, Turkey could join France (vs Gb and Sp), Turkey and Austria (vs Sp or Rs), Turkey and Prussia (vs Rs), England and Spain (vs France) and others possibilities....]
 
D) Makes for better gaming as Allies have to 'trust' their troops to an Ally and hope the CHIT CHOICE is a GOOD one....<wink>
(Note: Nothing encouraged diplomacy and player interaction then "joint planning on where to attack and 5 minute "Strategy Diplomacy" you mentioned in your post.  Gawd I loved those!)

zaquex · Post by **zaquex** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:38 am

Its not that easy to arrange those massive coalition armies. It usually takes time to get into position. Supply is another issue and the fact that french armies usually move fast makes it even harder. Then you have Diplomatic issues to further complicate things. Diplomacy doesnt always work out. Conflicts over Sweden, Poland and Naples and other important areas can often kill the creation of serious coalitions. Turkey can also be a pain and ensure that either Russia or Austria cant fully contribute and with a smart French player taking victory conditions to ensure that not all of the potential enemies can declare war at the same time the possibilities of a big anti-French coalition becomes even smaller.
 
Britain obviously has an advantage if he can land his armies by sea and can ususally get in position faster than most others. On the other hand, it usually takes a while for Britain to create an army that actually seriously can contribute military to a coalition army. They start with a rather small army, no leaders and a very limited manpower supply. At the time when Wellington comes in to play Britains situation is usually different, with a good leader, superior morale  and a year of building up, they definately can make a difference.
 
At this time though as mentioned, victory conditions can seriously couse problems for a potential coalition.
 
There will probably come times where a coalition is possible, the most obvious and possibly the most dangerous for France (as there is very limited possibilities for France to stop it with anything but political/diplomatic means) is a Russian-Prussian-Austrian coalition at the start of the game. But as previously mentioned, political agendas and logistic problems, winter movement and a shortage of money still makes this hard to achieve for a potential coalition.
 
From all EiA board games we have started, only a handful that i can remember have started with a successfull Russian-Prussian-Austrian coalition and almost always in response to a game that was abandoned and the French player declared winner early (not becouse it would have been impossible to stop him but becouse the majority of the players prefered to start over after being thoroughly and repeatedly crushed in just a few years). 
 
My point is, coalitions armies with more than two major powers is from my experience even in the board game rather rare and with the current rules of PP gains they will be even rarer. I believe the original rules are there too, for a good reason, promote cooperation and take the opportunity if it arises. As long as the French player is a good and experienced player, coalition armies are almost a prerequisite to stop Napoleon, unless his opponent is unreasonably lucky with chits and dice's.

Soapy Frog · Post by **Soapy Frog** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:41 am

ORIGINAL: dauphan129
OK I am fine with it being in the game but it works as I explained in the game. People read a supposed "their" into the "each" part of the rule. Their is not there.

It is arguable, since the rule speaks of "each corps of the defeated side", but when the defeated side is made up of several powers, it's not just one side, i.e. there are 7 "sides" in this game. I admit in all my years of playing this game with different groups (including a few lawyers) no one ever questioned the intent of the rule.

However, like I said, even if it is to be interpreted as you say (and I can see where you are coming from, obviously), it would be better than the current state of affairs.

dauphan129 · Post by **dauphan129** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:47 am

AresMars

Did you copy the example or make it yourself.  Because the rule still reads:

Half a political point is gained or lost for each Corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes Corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing Corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of “+/-3” political points.

This means the corps add together.  You share equally and the total not just your percentage.

Soapy Frog · Post by **Soapy Frog** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:49 am

The example comes from EiH 5.2 rules. There is no example in the original rulebook as we well know

AresMars · Post by **AresMars** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:52 am

Zaquex,

I agree that coalitions are hard (sometimes impossible) to form, but the diplomatic efforts are fun to take part in. <GRIN>

New players of EiA need to learn that this is a game about PP and VP (and REALLY, REALLY FUN!).....land battles are the easiest way for PP's to be gained, and there is a reason why France is big and bad in the 1805 Grand Campaign and needs 400+ VP.

And all your points are also absolutely correct (Ally conflicts, the Turkey 'fly' effect on Rs and As, French Victory Conditions, and others), I just was illustrating examples.

Your last paragraph sums it up very well.....No _one_ country can defeat any reasonable French player ALONE.....

dauphan129:

I quoted the source of the RULE I presented as an example, and you can get a copy of the EiH rules yourself to verify.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AGCFR8fx_t ... %205.2.doc

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ is the source group for EiH for anyone who is interested.

Please, why would I make up things to prove a point?

dauphan129 · Post by **dauphan129** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:53 am

Very well then, I stand corrected. Just want to make sure the game stays true to form as much as we can.

Is there a link to those?

zaquex · Post by **zaquex** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:58 am

Diplomacy in this game is not always easy, but its awsome fun. Politics and the simple but awsome combat system is what makes this game so great.

Murat · Post by **Murat** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:15 am

What I was saying was that I like the EIANW rule more than the old Eia rule (witht he example I listed) and the EiH rule (kindly listed by Ares) because in the EiA and EiH rules there is not a "zero sum" for the battle. EiA has a + push on the PPs, EiH has a - one. I like the commanding nation getting all or losing all. I disagree about there being no incentive to loan corps. You can form multiple stacks and mix the strengths of each nation together, Prussians getting to up their numbers by stacking with an ally and the ally being able to take more cav (Prussian) into battle across their corps.

AresMars · Post by **AresMars** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:35 am

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
It was not in the loaned corps design to give pp to the loaner as well. This wasn't missed by the testers but not part of the original loaned corps function design. I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?
BTW:ALL of the testers are experienced EiA board gamers and AGAIN, this was NOT their miss.

ORIGINAL: AresMars
Did none of the testers mention this important point from the EiA game? Did they not feel that it was critical or important?
I am sure that the bulk of your testers are much more experienced and capable then I , however, having played the game often this will always remain true and required IMHO....the comments of others (seem to me) to concur...
I mean no disrespect to you or your playtesters, but I am very surprised

You’re preaching to the choir pal.

What part of “NOT” did you not understand, the N the O or the T?

See if you can understand this any better. It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it, we were left with two choices; quit or move on to the next problem on a very long list of problems.

This project would still be back in the dark ages if we had not compromised on many issues at the time and never was it written in stone that once a decision was made on an issue we could not later return to it.

Recommendation: if you feel something is missing that is imperative to game, give commentary without pointing fingers.
[/quote]

Richard,

Your comment above is uncalled for as I did indicate that I was aware of the tone of my message. I am _not trying to_ or _intend to_ get personal with you, Marshall or anyone else

IMHO, the Choir did not sing loud enough on the point I have been trying to make is all. I still respect the game and its makers - I bought EIANW and and have no regrets.

I am not a programmer, so I cannot pretend to know what I am suggesting/requesting/begging involves - I know it means WORK for Marshall and his team and LOTS of it....

Marshall stated the following in his reponse; QUOTE "I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous"....

This comment indicates that SOMETHING is possible - yes or no?

How could I know that; QUOTE "It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it..."

Well, I am the SECOND CHOIR, I spent my $60 (as did others) and I am SINGING LOUDLY for myself and any others that feel strongly about it.

If I sing alone, then I'll never comment further on this issue again.

I am not demanding anything, I cannot - Marshall is the Programmer and HE decides what gets done, when and how.

IMHO, I am pointing out a key point that is CORE to the game. I don't use the word CORE lightly.

You have the advantage of involvement with the development -- I only have reality of the results!

I had never set out to "pointed the finger" at the playtesters and I am not afraid of extending my sincerest appologies to them if they felt insulted, slighted or unloved! <hugs><wink>

I hope they, Marshall and you will appreciate the humor and understand that I have a deep passion for this game.

AresMars

pzgndr · Post by **pzgndr** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:40 am

I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?

It seems the matter reduces to either the active player gets all the PP or the PP are distributed according to the numbers of corps involved. Is it so difficult to distribute PP? This looks like a straightforward code change. FWIW, I would support this change. It makes sense that players risking a loaned corps should share in the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat in battle.

Soapy Frog · Post by **Soapy Frog** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:00 am

Murat, a small push effect on battles is fine (and is built into the game in case you didn't notice). You cannot look at battles by themselves and try to make them 0-sum. That's not the point. The point is to inject political risk and gain into military conflict.
 
Why not just have battles have no political efect at all? I think you would agree that would hurt the game... but it is also "0-sum".
 
It's a question of game-design and balance.

zaquex · Post by **zaquex** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:22 am

ORIGINAL: Murat

What I was saying was that I like the EIANW rule more than the old Eia rule (witht he example I listed) and the EiH rule (kindly listed by Ares) because in the EiA and EiH rules there is not a "zero sum" for the battle. EiA has a + push on the PPs, EiH has a - one. I like the commanding nation getting all or losing all. I disagree about there being no incentive to loan corps. You can form multiple stacks and mix the strengths of each nation together, Prussians getting to up their numbers by stacking with an ally and the ally being able to take more cav (Prussian) into battle across their corps.

What you say is true, there are still some tactical advantages to combine armies and so utilizing the different powers strenghts. But there is no real incentive to help fight Napoleon in a combined army controlled by another power when there is only risks (loss of PP, loss of army steps etc). I guess it would be acceptable to me that the commander got all PP in a victory if he also took all losses in PP and at least the majority of the army factors where possible.

In the example above the winning commander got all PP gains but a PP loss was split. This is to me just wrong and gives France a big advantage that is not good for game balance, at least not in the 1805 game.

I still much prefer the original rule with split rewards and penalty, I do beleive the incentive for cooperation is important. I dont think a null-sum system is a necessity, the nature of the VP/PP table makes a successfull coalition lose more PP to make up for it even though I agree that rewarding all participants with 3 pp might be excessive.

A more reasonable dividend in my oppinion would be ("points rewarded"/x)y, where x is number of corps in the battle on the winning side and y the number of corps from one power, rounded up. For example: 3 Austrian 2 Prussian and 1 Russian corp winning a battle against 5 French corps would give Austria (0.5x3 rounded to 2) two PP while Prussia (0.5x2) and Russia (0.5 rounded to 1) would recieve one PP each.

Whats your thoughts?

dodod · Post by **dodod** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:35 am

marshall
 
I think enough people feel strongly about this.  Anyway you can add this on with zaquex's formula or whatever you think is fair...but many PBEM games will be affected by this...at least 2 of mine!!  and I feel that the comraderie is strengthened in this type of environment as there would be much much less incentive to loan a corp.

Monadman · Post by **Monadman** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:12 am

ORIGINAL: AresMars

How could I know that; QUOTE "It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it..."

Exactly - you couldn’t know what we did or didn’t recommend or what programming restrictions were at the time – it was pure speculation on your part to assume what had transpired. Apparently you still don’t get it (“IMHO, the Choir did not sing loud enough on the point I have been trying to make is all”). Next time, stick to the heartfelt recommendations and skip the ignorant speculations.

As for the issue: it’s on the list.

Thanks

Richard

Frank McNally · Post by **Frank McNally** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:40 am

Is it underconsideration to make a variant with a more close to the board game combined move and get around this loaned corp thing altogther?  Could powers who combine move sequentially in the position of the later moving power and battles for the first moving power be delayed until the second power moves (or perhaps the first power can fight or skip battles, ones he fights go normally immediatey, ones he skips happen after the second player moves but have the chit and battle handled by the second power even if not combined...the expectation is the first power would handle all the battles he does not intend to combine).

Murat · Post by **Murat** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:53 am

OK we are basically looking at 3 ways of handling this so far. Let's take an example of France ATTACKING with 5 corps -v- Austria DEFENDING leading a stack with 3 Austrian Corps, 1 Prussian Corp, 1 British Corp and 1 Russian Corp.

Option 1 (current EIANW way):

Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -3pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).
Defender wins: Austria +3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).

Option 2 (EiH way):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria, as leader, +3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3).

Option 3 (we will call it zaq's way since I think this may be what he was going for):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria +2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia +1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1);
France -3 pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3)

Option 4 (EiA original way):
Attacker wins: France +3 pp (6 defending corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); Austria -2pp (3 corps in defense/2 = 1.5 rounded up to 2); Britain, Prussia, Russia -1pp each (1 corps in defense/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1).
Defender wins: Austria, Britain, Prussia, Russia +3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3); France -3pp (5 attacking corps/2 = 2.5 rounded up to 3)

Option 1 in this example is a zero sum result (risk/reward balanced) and is what I think is the best option because it is already done.
Option 2 is a -2pp/even result depending on who wins and is the 2d best in my mind because of the exploitation involved with option 4 and this is higher risk -v- reward.
Option 3 is a +2pp/-2pp result depending on who wins and is acceptable especially over 4 since the risk and reward is balanced
Option 4 is a +9pp! result which is a lot on a 40 point row. This is substantial reward compared to risk. I recall an errata eliminating this but I cannot find it. EiH had a good solution, EIANW's is better.

PPs are part of the game, to state all battles should be worth 0 is moronic (and the rest of your statement is wrong too Soapy, this game is based on EiH so option 2 would be the 'should have been' rule). To say that the net should be 0 is reasonable, far more reasonable than adding 9 PPs to the chart just because some allies decided to abuse a rule.

zaquex · Post by **zaquex** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:20 am

Thanks for clarifying things and giving the examples, Murat.
 
I do agree with option 1 being better than option 2, I would however prefere to keep the incentive for cooperation and therefore think the at least moderate option 3 I suggested is a good compromise. I do however not suggest it is the ultimate solution, only that it would work without violating either the PP table or the incentive for cooperation. 
 
 

AresMars · Post by **AresMars** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:38 am

Murat,
 
Very Interesting comparison.
 
FYI, your defending stack has 6 Corps listed but we could easily assume that at least ONE French Corp is the Guard or one of the 20I/3C French Corps.....Also, the French tend to attack with 6 Corps!  (Arty, Guard, I - IV Corp) <wink>
 
Note that this is an extreme example; as this type of Coalition is near impossible to set up and get together (as zaquex also pointed out so well....)
 
Also, rememeber that any Corps of 20 or more factors is 1 PP and not .5 (in the orginal EiA and EiH - I am not sure for EIANW)
Boy, the French have a lot of 20+ Corps lying around the board....
 
Now include the other elements of Land battles because these things don't happen in a vacuum  - Leaders, Supply, Terrain, Casualties, Economics and VP
 
Napoleon (if present) would affect the PP totals by +1/-1 each time.....ONLY France can influence PPs that way (GB with Nelson but that is Naval), as well as choosing when to attack (through moving last/first) and getting to hit on the same stack twice before they could react. (Same with Gb) This is a big advantage for gaining PP.
 
We would also have to consider the normal political status position at the time of the majors involved to see what kind of VP effect would be involved.
(ie. is it an Economic month? 1 or 2 months away?)
Where are the countries on the PSA -- the PSA tends to move EVERYONE to the middle (ie 7 VP) except the French and British use can use Economic Manipulation MORE then most other countries)
 
Did the Allies set-up in Mountains or Forest to reduce CAS?  If they are beaten once and forced out, do they get to retreat into forest/montains again?  Do they attack the French back in Forest or Mountains! Unlikely....
 
Supplying that Coalition Army is going to COST the Allies (read GB [;)]) each month, the French, well you can forage or pay depending on your feelings and circumstances .....
 
Next, we would need to consider the CAS effect that the 6 French Corp (lets say largest) would cause over 3 rounds of combat versus 6 Coalition Corps (lets say largest or do we use best moral option?) over 3 rounds (assuming proportional loses to the Allied force)
 
Do we assume one battle and the loser(s) surrenders?  two?  three?  Up to six battles could happen in one quarter between these two forces....
 
The Austrians are taking the lions share of the CAS and we can assume a loss means Surrender soon.... 
 
Do we assume that the Allies all remain? For all battles? for the next?  Often in a losing Coalition battle, certain countries run for the hills having 'satisfied' their Allied duty and paid their Political (PP)and Blood (CAS - $/MP) price (ie. Russians, British)
 
Finally, I think your PP calculations for option 4 are in error because NO party can gain more then +3 or lose more then -3 PP (except if Nappy is present) and the Victory or Loss will have a different effect on each country present both PSA and possible VP-wise.  It is very unlikely that Austria, Prussia, Russia and England are all at the same place at the same time....
 
Doing a NET Comparison is not an accurate representation of the REAL PP effect in the game, so this is why I think +9 PP is not accurate.
 
 

zaquex · Post by **zaquex** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:56 am

I kinda reread the post again and want to add something about the conclutions.
 

Option 1 in this example is a zero sum result (risk/reward balanced) and is what I think is the best option because it is already done.

The risk reward is imo not completly balanced there is more to it regarding risk than political points - the none commanding participants in a coalition battle is risking its army factors for no gain while in your example Austria risks a balanced political point gain/loss but to less cost in army factors than without a coalition.
 

Option 2 is a -2pp/even result depending on who wins and is the 2d best in my mind because of the exploitation involved with option 4 and this is higher risk -v- reward.

Here its even worse, the supporting coalition stands to gain nothing but risks both its armies and PP.
 

Option 3 is a +2pp/-2pp result depending on who wins and is acceptable especially over 4 since the risk and reward is balanced

In this example there is at least a nominal chance for a PP gain in exchange for the risks.
 
The economical and political risks of taking part in the coalition hasnt been taken in to account in your analysis and one important maybe more important issue here than PP is the distribution of casulties.
 
If the commander, in this example I will assume its Charles (or in practical terms the Austrian player), is free to distribute the combat losses as he pleases this problem becomes even more accentuated (hmm I dont like Prussia, really... when the war with France is resolved im going to attack him (as an example), lets make Prussia take all the losses...  ) and another reason to avoid coalitions and in the end making the game much easier for France. In the original EiA game I think there was some rules about relative distribution of losses, but to my knowledge no such rules are in the game at this point ( I can be wrong, havent yet had the opportunity to test battles involving more than two major powers).
 
There is also some other minor issues and this might be one reason for the EiH implementation, regarding exploits with say contributing 3 corps with one milita each as there is very little possibility to check the contribution of the other coalition members unless your the phasing power... but its a bit outside the scope of this discussion.
 
 A third issue regarding this hopefully soon obsolete implementation of combined movement is how loaned corps are treated in the case of a peace agreement. If im say Spain and loan my corps to Austria for combined movement and he at the same time makes peace with France will my corps then be repatriated as Austrian forces to Austria while im still at war with France and now totally open for a French counter attack or now 5 turns of movement away from the last turn so thretened Paris or from my homeland??? I know its a very constructed example and that there is rules about separate peace, but I hope it helps illustrate our fear about possible complication with repatriation while corps are on loan. Would be very happy if someone could tell me how the corp loaning process work in practical terms and if peace can have this type of side effects.
 
 
 
 
 

Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!

RE: Please include in patch!!!