Jump to content

Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future


Recommended Posts

To be honest, being a big Combined arms player and very frequently getting in PVP against my squad (131st, 40 hardcore simmers), you should never underestimate a simple tank.  There is a huge difference between shooting at stupid blind AI and playing against someone, and the first operations we conducted brought the same result : Helicopters and A-10C got wrecked while my vehicle group (usually 10*2 VBL recon vehicles, 6*3 Leclerc, 4*3 AMX-10RCR, Logistic, 2*2 AAA and 3*Mistral PAMELA launchers) remained mainly intact while blasting 4 times larger AI ground assaults (groups up to 25 M1A2 with ATGM). Simply because of use of cover, tricking the ennemy, getting him into traps, shocking him by fast and deadly maneuvers while never letting him the time to react and organize efficiently. Ambushing is the key. 

 

The legend of the "tank target of planes" is a legend. Iraq and flat wide deserts are not representative. In French Army, officers get taught the average life span of pilots, tankists etc in case of "real war". Helo is about 15 min, fighter about 40 (mud between both), tankist 6 hours, simple soldier 2-3 days. 

 

It's only in DCS that you have the feeling that you're the tankist nightmare. IRL, they have shitload of tactics at groudn level to hide, trap you and kill you. ^^

 

Nicolas


Edited by dimitriov
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Everyone, My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions. I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope

A couple of points I'd like to make.     More is better and CA has been sorely neglected over recent years, so I am all in favour of a 3rd party taking ownership of this aspect of DCS, flesh

I fully support and agree with everything Battlefield Productions has suggested bringing to DCS.  Being former military and current DOD contractor, I get really tired of people referring to ARMA as re

I'm very glad to see a developer interested in ground vehicles, I'm a huge CA user as I go for JTAC 75% of the time in DCS. From what I understand, you want to populate the sim with more units and that's awesome for our scenarios, now this obviously has to be priced accordingly and you know that, otherwise people will stick to vanilla content.

 

As for doing a proper detailed tank sim, I wouldn't buy it, I think it would not be correlated enough with what the pilots need, let me explain; 

 

I think there's an unhealthy amount of DCS pilots (especially in A10) doing Air to Ground missions without ever talking to a proper JTAC integrating them into a ground maneuver and instead they go for a killboxes, destroying every single unit they get to see. I've even seen unannounced pilots teamkilling an infantry platoon I was controlling without feeling any contrition.

 

When the server allows (usually hardcore squadrons) I hop into a vehicle and control 3 to 4 platoons, simulating what @dimitriovexplained above and make a dynamic/realistic battlefield for the guys flying and they freaking love it! The problem being the opfor which would require someone like me or a smart AI doing the same thing for me to find it fun but I've yet to experience that.

 

CA players are a rare breed right now because the module is almost completely sidelined and not attractive by any means (lacking features), I'm in few different communities and you get a handful of ATC/JTAC but hundreds of pilots.

IMO, the most interesting thing to do on the ground is CAS (I'm obviously biased) and not just tank driving, you have to be AT LEAST a platoon leader or company commander with the option of being in a vehicle. Then there are GCI/ATC/JTAC which are highly complex positions to run properly, however they'd be ways to help players get into it with hints or even proper training missions, it's as hard as flying aircrafts but CA doesn't tell you that.

 

 

TLDR: I want more flexible ground units and a proper JTAC module 😛 

  • Like 5

JFSU Air to Ground Center of Excellence Discord

Intel Core i5 4690k @4,6Ghz, Gigabyte GTX 970 OC, Gigabyte Z97-X, 16GB G Skill Sniper @2400, Samsung 860/850 EVO , Win 10 64 bits, Dual monitors 27"@144"Opentrack + TM Warthog + Saitek pro flight combat 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 2:34 AM, Worg said:

Sorry for the huge writing (I am using a translator).
Sorry to Bignewy and Nineline, but I'm going to be rude.

A third who take care of the ground units, I say yes 300%. Improved infantry, vehicles, JTAC, labor there is.

But read that some want COD or Battlefield in DCS then no, no and no.

I like dcs and ED for their combat simulations the difficulty and the desire to learn a module difficult to learn and master.

COD and Battlefield are stupid and completely stupid. I don't want that in this simulator.
If it's to see beasts running and jumping around without thinking, no. I am a former soldier, and in terms of infantry games there is nothing bad.

I sincerely hope that others will agree with me. Improvement of ground troops ED way yes, otherwise out of the question. Because over time this particular simulator will not become better than the others.

 

It is really irritating to see the consistent comparison to COD or Battlefield.  No one here including myself are asking for this type of "gameplay" with combined arms.  As a matter of fact, I/we are asking for something completely different that would probably not be suitable for players who enjoy that type of entertainment. 

 

What I have suggested is a realistic combat "simulator" for ground forces to include accurate ballistics, detailed and accurate gear and equipment per time period, the use of real world tactics to include operations with armor and air assets, realistic damage models to armored units and wounds to soldiers, and level of detail that no other sim has ever been able to produce. 

 

Comments like the ones above are not relevant because this is not what DCS players are asking for in an FPS and not what I would expect any developer working for them to produce.  There is a place for a ground combat sim in DCS and what is ground combat without the troops?  If you are remotely suggesting that COD, Battlefield, or any other such joke is remotely close to combat, I take that as an insult.  Every combat vet I know would like to see an accurate representation of their job in the military just like our fly boys.  The same goes for our armored guys.  They to deserve the high fidelity realism our pilots are getting.  DCS is a combat simulator at its core, that is why the military has approached them about armored units and naval units already. 

 

RioJano,  I forgot to mention WW2 online and I have played it.  Dated and nothing near the quality DCS could put out.  It was good for its time, but imagine something similar in scope but on a DCS level with the aircraft we have now and the WW2 maps we have/coming.  I cannot stress enough that the ground war aspect to DCS is a large untapped gold mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robert.clark251 said:

It is really irritating to see the consistent comparison to COD or Battlefield.  No one here including myself are asking for this type of "gameplay" with combined arms.

I think you missed one:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/257887-battlefield-productions-third-party-content-provider-a-vision-for-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=4535007

Quote

if we can play COD's type game in DCS, it would be perfect

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, 27" LCD FullHD   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS, customTiR, Rift S   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🌍 NTTR, PG   🚢 Supercarrier

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having actual ground personal (crew chiefs and B-man) would be freaking awesome to just add to the immersion of realism. It shouldnt really be tooooo hard to add a crew chief to each spot if needed. I hope at least. I would pay for it though. 

  • Like 2

My setups: Alienware 17 R5 / GTX 1080 OC / i9 8950HK 5GHz / 32GB RAM / SAMSUNG 250GB M.2 / SAMSUNG 500GB M.2 / 1TB HDD / 1440p 120Hz G-Sync Display

 

Pre-Built PC from CyberPower: GPU-Zotac RTX 2070 / CPU- AMD RYZEN 2700X @ 3.7GHz / 16 GB RAM (Adata XPG) / 240 GB SSD / 2 TB HDD / 500 M.2 / Monitors: 32" 4K Samsung and 27" LG 4k HDR / TM Warthog HOTAS / TM Cougar MFD's / TM TFRP Rudder Pedals / TrackIR

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Battlefield Productions said:

We have not ruled out Naval Assets to be clear  🙂

If you guys ever consider doing Naval units, I have one of only 3 escort destroyers left in the world on my door step.  I would love to assist in making a Destroyer module with Photogrammetry.  You can tour the entire thing.  Pretty awesome.  We also have the USS Cavalla, SS-244, a Gato-class sub which is AWESOME to tour.  They did a phenomenal job on the inside.  This is another Naval unit I would be interested in helping with.  And the best for last....my grandfather served on her, the Battleship Texas.  She is in dry dock right now for repairs but will return when done.  I have toured her more times than I can count and would love to see a high fidelity Dreadnaught come to DCS.  You can see the two short video below how well maintained they are.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, robert.clark251 said:

 

It is really irritating to see the consistent comparison to COD or Battlefield.  No one here including myself are asking for this type of "gameplay" with combined arms.  As a matter of fact, I/we are asking for something completely different that would probably not be suitable for players who enjoy that type of entertainment. 

 

What I have suggested is a realistic combat "simulator" for ground forces to include accurate ballistics, detailed and accurate gear and equipment per time period, the use of real world tactics to include operations with armor and air assets, realistic damage models to armored units and wounds to soldiers, and level of detail that no other sim has ever been able to produce. 

 

Comments like the ones above are not relevant because this is not what DCS players are asking for in an FPS and not what I would expect any developer working for them to produce.  There is a place for a ground combat sim in DCS and what is ground combat without the troops?  If you are remotely suggesting that COD, Battlefield, or any other such joke is remotely close to combat, I take that as an insult.  Every combat vet I know would like to see an accurate representation of their job in the military just like our fly boys.  The same goes for our armored guys.  They to deserve the high fidelity realism our pilots are getting.  DCS is a combat simulator at its core, that is why the military has approached them about armored units and naval units already. 

 

RioJano,  I forgot to mention WW2 online and I have played it.  Dated and nothing near the quality DCS could put out.  It was good for its time, but imagine something similar in scope but on a DCS level with the aircraft we have now and the WW2 maps we have/coming.  I cannot stress enough that the ground war aspect to DCS is a large untapped gold mine.

 

 

Think............... CHESS.................... not draughts................  if that makes sense!

 

Especially once the release of a DCS Dynamic Campaign Engine comes out....... it will be WOW time!

 

  • Like 1

 

DCS FORUM SIG.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't want DCS turn into COD or even remotely close to that blasphemy, first sign of loot boxes or such stuff in DCS and I'm out, if you want COD type of DCS go play Ace Combat, have fun and farewell ;D

 

I'm only interested in planes but I think that having good ground troops sim would be even more immersive for the plane pilots as well, and it would attract more people to DCS, so I'm all in for the ground units and airfield assets. Just please don't make COD out of DCS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing that it's not possible to make a "COD" out of DCS then ^^ You're all getting a bit far here, a "battlefield" or "COD" FPS would be nor interesting nor doable in the current sim status. The grand maximum would be a clickable tank. Plus I think the idea here is to make additionnal assets packs first and then perhaps some more evolved vehicles modules. And I tend to say : why not ? This is the actual finality of a Digital Combat Simulator no ? Expanding the sphere of simulation, and as ground details is more and more evolved (Syria ground clutter is near from ArmA 1 graphics), it would make sense. 


Edited by dimitriov
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Furiz said:

I really don't want DCS turn into COD or even remotely close to that blasphemy, first sign of loot boxes or such stuff in DCS and I'm out, if you want COD type of DCS go play Ace Combat, have fun and farewell ;D

 

I'm only interested in planes but I think that having good ground troops sim would be even more immersive for the plane pilots as well, and it would attract more people to DCS, so I'm all in for the ground units and airfield assets. Just please don't make COD out of DCS.

Oh God, NO ONE wants COD.  That's why the Ground Pounders like me are here in DCS.  I don't even like ARMA.  They have FPS and tanks, but it's so unrealistic, it's like playing with Barbie dolls.  The ground cover however, is decent.

 

I think I can speak for the Ground / FPS people in that we want Armor Modules ( just like the planes ).  Completely modeled down to every last function.  Realistic damage models.  Think Steel Beasts.  I don't know why you let them steal the armor simulation from you, when you have so much better of a World.  Yes, your World will have to become more detailed, but look at it this way.  You don't have to redo ALL of your maps.  Just small sections of them.  Say, 8 to 10 km patches, that would be suitably detailed for FPS and vehicle operations.  The rest of the map can be flyover country.

Getting a realistic FPS is probably going to be the hardest part, and is going to need a lot of discussion.

FPS wise, the first thing I would like to see is very realistic Crew Served Weapons like Artillery.  There was a very good mod in ARMA for it by the ACE2 team.  It had sight sticks and everything.

 

Sorry about mentioning other games for comparison.  I know you mods don't like that, but at this point in expansion away from "air only", there really is no avoiding it.  We have to acknowledge and compare to what else has already been out there for years.


Edited by 3WA
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it disturbing that so many people tell you to go play COD for a first person simulator.  Can one of you clowns against FPS in DCS give me one good reason why I should remotely believe COD or Battlefield is realistic in anyway and two explain why the hell I would  want to play those kids game over DCS.  It is very simple, if you do not want to be part of a ground unit, do not buy it. 

 

If done to level of realism and detail put into the aircraft, the crowds who play COD would not enjoy the tactics and training required to master a DCS level FPS.  There would be a learning curve using the equipment, working in coordination with air assets, being on target at a certain time to execute an objective, planning and prep work for the mission ect.  A lot more should should be included in an FPS module for DCS.  Pre operation planning should be a must.  Coordinating your objectives and how you will take them.  What assets do you think you may need.  What intel was provided on where the operation is taking place.  So much potential for ground units and armor modules.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to dream but, please, manage your expectations. Scope creep monster is real and it kills projects.

Implementing proper First Person Shooter(Sim) into DCS is just not realisticaly feasible. FPS would need different scale - a small but much more detailed map. It's like expecting simulation of bug's life in FPS game. Even tank sim is a far away future talk. What we already have is very simple walk for MANPAD guy or ground units driving in CA. How it looks and feel isn't gonna change much in near future. We don't have infinite resources for creating it nor we have resources for making it run on a home PC. Get real people.

I don't care if there already are any realistic boot simulators or not - it is not a place to discuss that.

This thread is about devs that want to sell some unit models and animations - that's great but there's nothing more to it for now.

Sincerely

Clown


Edited by draconus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, 27" LCD FullHD   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS, customTiR, Rift S   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🌍 NTTR, PG   🚢 Supercarrier

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would bring life into DCS I would be in and love it. Everything is very dead except of the civil traffic without using moose or something similar. So if the Airfield becomes alive without spending hours at the Editor this would be great as the immersion would be very much improved.

As I´m a virtual pilot I´m not interested in controllable vehicles. High quality Asset Packages would be great to have, even though ED themselves mentioned this in a newsletter to be adressed by them, at least for some of the planes. But the more the better.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Intel Core i7 4790K, Asus Z-97 Pro Gamer, 32 GB G.Skill Trident X DDR3-2400, Asus GTX 1080Ti ROG Strix OC, Windows 10 64bit Home Premium, TrackIR 5 with TrackClip: Pro!, Hotas Warthog + 7cm extension + Delta Sim´s Slew Mod + Sahaj´s Green Spring, Cougar MFDs with 8" displays, Saitek Rudder Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, xoxen said:

If you would bring life into DCS I would be in and love it. Everything is very dead except of the civil traffic without using moose or something similar. So if the Airfield becomes alive without spending hours at the Editor this would be great as the immersion would be very much improved.

As I´m a virtual pilot I´m not interested in controllable vehicles. High quality Asset Packages would be great to have, even though ED themselves mentioned this in a newsletter to be adressed by them, at least for some of the planes. But the more the better.

 

 

AGREED!  >   WAR AIR COMBAT SIM = LIFE!

 

LIFE + IMMERSION + REALISM + DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN + GLOBAL MAPS = AIR COMBAT SIMULATION

 

The way I see it is "Network Interoperability or Asset Integration" with Air Combat Simulation = ALIVENESS

 

Now "Situational Awareness" is really critical to how you play the game/sim and Win the WAR!

 

Where via menus I can instruct or guide or support ground infantry / forces etc........... and win the WAR - think again the soon "DCS DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN ENGINE"!

 

Now Single Player with improved A.i becomes not just a combat sim but Tactical and Strategic WAR AIR COMBAT SIMULATION.

 

Honestly to encourage it further its like the ultimate CHESS game well at least for me, I do get the sentiments of concerns, but ED will not allow it to become a Battlefield or COD game, don't fuss on that but I see a dream here going back from this thread  - https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/53393-dynamic-campaign-discussion-thread/

 

As to how it all would get sorted that's for ED from a developer point of view its a nightmare but from a simmer views - MIND BLOWING!

 

I don't know if I do justice to the vision but thought best to keep it concise in the hopes others can see and be encouraged to support it!

 

There is a comment in that thread that development on a ED Dynamic Campaign Engine is in development from a few years back and its going to be better than what we have seen in past, so any contribution to CA and Aliveness/Immersion/Realism personally should be welcomed or supported but in the view that it will add to Air "WAR" Combat Simulation.

 

Then you could add Life to like more civil aviation type experience as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by WRAITH

 

DCS FORUM SIG.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 5:26 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

Thanks once again for the continued feedback and ideas etc.

Today we had discussions with representatives from ED.

From here we will submit some work and a project design document, this in turn will go up the pipeline and hopefully lead to Battlefield Productions being acknowledged as an official content supplier.

Once we have completed that process I will return with the final decision.



@Pikey - I like this idea a lot, the best suggestion I have seen so far, I like it so much I will speak to the guys and see if we can agree internally that this is a good direction to go, I think that probably ticks the box perfectly.

 

 


There's bound to be a few ways like this, there are other options, maybe without collision models? I see that ED did the Super Carrier and there were a couple of ways they incentivised the purchase, I think the deck crew weren't visible - the static objects also weren't available to use, not sure how they managed the arrestor cables not working. You just have to have a guiding star that answers a few questions; Imagine you are new to DCS, you are clueless to how things work, you want to join a server and it tells you that you need XYZ DLC. It's the biggest passion killer I can imagine, the existing hurdles are large enough for players as technically the barriers are tough enough...


1) Can Joe Bloggs stumble on the server without having to jump through extra hoops?
2) Once on the server, does the absence of owning the DLC affect his ability to fly online, break his existing DLC? Does it break a mission functionally?
3) Is it confusing at all (for the most oblivious of customers) for example when looking at the same object with someone that owns the DLC and someone that does not.

 

The rest is up to you guys and how you handle the security and the impact. Obviously protecting your IP has an impact on delivery, luckily I dont have to worry about that myself 🙂 If you can overcome the hurdle so that people have nothing to moan about, then there's a lot of people who would buy DLC (and a lot that steadfastly wouldn't because <insert reason here>). We miss so many units that you could fill a lifetimes of model making. Entire flavours of decades. Its the one thing people moan about often that DCS had no real central theme that worked, everything is misplaced. This would so help out.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, draconus said:

Even tank sim is a far away future talk.

 

 

THAT does not inspire confidence in me as a customer of yours.  THAT is "We really don't plan to do much more with this sim" talk.  First, you cancel BS3.  Now, you say something like that.  What exactly would keep you from making armor modules?  Have you even read some of the suggestions I and others have given up above?  I have already said you would not need to change the maps, only very small portions of them.

 

If you can't even see vehicle modules, then you need rename yourself "DCS: SKY".


Edited by 3WA
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@3WA Just an FYI, those of us in the DCS ground crew are not employed by Eagle Dynamics. We are simply volunteer greeters or a helpful hand if someone comes across issues. We do our best to help when possible but, we are still customers of DCS and volunteer our opinions from time to time. 🙂 

 

I would love to see more variety in ground assets within the sim. Armor modules would be great to experience, especially now that 4 player multi crew is available. But, what would the demand be for such a module? Is it worth it to spend the time to code such a module? Do the physics of the engine allow for a detailed module to be built and handle correctly on the ground? How long would it take to realistically model the huge number of assets that people would demand? How would scaling work? Is the terrain modeling high enough in fidelity to create an immersive experience? These are things that could take years to create depending on what the community wants and you only have to spend a little time on the forums to figure out how people feel about fidelity, realism (as far as it can be taken anyways), and immersion.

 

If this new team is dead set on moving forward then I would gladly pay $20.00 or $25.00 for an asset pack if there was enough meat to it. I think a detailed ground war is fairly far away if you want to go as far as infantry though, at least, as far as a first person experience goes. 


Edited by Repth
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In an October 2019 Interview Mats said

 

Quote

 

Are there any plans to expand Combined Arms? This hidden gem of a module can really alter the multiplayer landscape with a cunning user at the helm but hasn’t gained a large following.

Certainly, but before we can do so, there are other items that first need to be addressed:

  • Detailed damage model system for ground units
  • Improved ground unit AI decision making
  • New and improved ground unit effects
  • A much more detailed ground environment

 

 

So the question is how much of that was done in 2020 and what is on the roadmap for 2021?

I would say, that it's the last point, that seems to be quite in future. Surely also due to a shortage and fluctuation of personal.

 

The rest I see is being worked on and those improvements will in my opinion first be seen in planes and then descent to the ground. So, yeah, I guess it's going to be a while.

 

Also AI would be very important, since strictly speaking you can't operate one tank alone and wouldn't have single tank missions. I would also assume that simple drive arounds are harder to implement, since every single movement depends on terrain information, unlike planes being in air with no "obstacles". Take into consideration that until recently cars would drive straight through trees.

 

But one can hope and dream.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I rant about this huge missing piece for years. CAS simply feels dead due to the lack of units, camps, AI-capabilities etc.

 

Whatever you can bring on the ground/water - I'll throw my money at you. As well as everybody else.

At least once those who don't yet see how much this is missing. At least for everybody flying A-G Missions and Helicopters.

 

I'd love to contribute but I have about nill useful skills...


Edited by Laud
  • Like 4

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Asus ROG STRIX Z390-F Gaming, Intel Core i7 9700k , 32gb Corsair DDR4-3200

Asus RTX 2070 super, Samsung 970 EVO Plus M2, Win10 64bit, Acer XZ321QU (WQHD)

TM HOTAS Warthog, SAITEK Rudder Pedals, TIR 5

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Laud said:

At least once those who don't yet see how much this is missing. At least for everybody flying A-G Missions and Helicopters.

 

That is actually good news! With Hind and Apache coming maybe there'll be a push in priorities.

 

I believe those two will sell like water in a desert.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  If you could make playable infantry, I would love a recon soldier with a laser pointer for JTAC.  An anti-tank soldier with Javelin/RPG.  Improved anti-air soldiers.  Of course assault Inf with various guns/rifle.  A demolition expert with fun explosive charges/satchels(when you just have to take out a bunker/enemy position), And a sniper/spotter.   Full immersive/clickable tanks/vehicles  would be amazing too!  Hope something comes out of this Battlefield Productions, I really do.


Edited by StormBat

Asus Z170 Pro Gaming Board, Intel i7-6700K CPU, 2 x 16GB DDR4 RAM, Zotac Amp Extreme Edition 1080 TI, Oculus Rift S, Windows 10 smilewink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in for payable asset pack (statics, airfield equipment, personnel etc.). ED won't deliver it anytime soon, so there are basicaly 2 choices. Having it for some reasonable money (quality and amount of assets must be high enough) or having assets list unchanged since LoMAC .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...