rebellions and culture assimilation system

Naokaukodem · Oct 24, 2009

1. you have plenty civs at the start. Goody huts, barbarians, and vierge land become civs.

2. each civ its culture and/or ethnicity.

3. conquered civs/cities still have their culture/ethnicity.

4. at a point in the game time, if culture/ethnicity are not sufficiently assimilated, those cities become instable and suffer from sporadic anarchy.

5. if many cities are instable within an empire, they can make a pact, alliance or whatever to overthrow the empire.

Assimilation: it would be automatic and happen with time towards the majority culture/ethnicity. Can be enhanced towards a minority (or majority) by building anything (buildings, units, wonders).

What do you think of this system? What are its flaws? Enlight me.

Emperor Giulio · Oct 28, 2009

Conquered cities should still have the same building style of their original origin, but over time should look more and more like the occupying nation's architectural style, but never completely. If possible, maybe even a fusion of the two cultural building styles. Buildings that do not assimilate should stay locked in the time period the city was conquered in but look somewhat aged.

rysmiel · Oct 28, 2009

I don't see any drastic flaws, but I am alos not seeing what you see as benefits. It appears to add an additional obstacle to the progress of the game, unless you want to set up a situation where ethnic cleansing becomes a preferred strategy, which would not be to my taste. (If a city with three or four people of another ethnicity in it is going to be troublesome past a certain point, why would the player not choose to raze/exterminate it and build a new one from scratch in the same location rather than conquer it ?)

Emperor Giulio · Oct 28, 2009

For my suggestion, it’s just for visual flavor. It could run concurrent with the cultural percentage meter in the city screen.

Trias · Oct 29, 2009

rysmiel said:
I don't see any drastic flaws, but I am alos not seeing what you see as benefits. It appears to add an additional obstacle to the progress of the game, unless you want to set up a situation where ethnic cleansing becomes a preferred strategy, which would not be to my taste. (If a city with three or four people of another ethnicity in it is going to be troublesome past a certain point, why would the player not choose to raze/exterminate it and build a new one from scratch in the same location rather than conquer it ?)

I've actual been thinking about this. One thing that came to mind is that the game should keep track of the attitude between ethnicities much like the game currently keeps track of relations with AI players (and possibly replacing that entirely, but that is another point.) Ethnic groups that have a positive attitude towards your main ethnicity are more prepared to work for you, while ethinicites that dislike you are more likely to riot/revolt/etc. This poses different strategies for conquest. You could go a repressive route (maybe even involving some form of ethnic cleansing), but this will make the involved ethnicities (and maybe even uninvolved one depending on your ruthlessness) dislike you even more, meaning that you would have to invest even more in repression.

Or you could adopt the attitude that honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and try to get the other ethnicities to like you, making conquest easier for you and maybe even increasing the chances of cities defecting on their own. Propaganda would become a powerful tool in modern wars.

The general setup would be that managing your relations with different ethnic groups becomes an important part of the game. Different civics/etc would affect whether you pursue assimilation of form people in your own, or that you try to achieve a "multicultural" society.

This naturally ties in with a migration mechanic which would cause influx of other ethnicities into your empire. (If you allow it)

Similarly, it would suggest a overhaul of the now very static culture mechanics. The current game elements that effect culture should instead influence the assimilation of other ethnicities in your own and the reputation of your own ethnic group.

In all, I think that this could provide the basis for a set of fresh new game mechanics that could become the 1/3 "new" for the next civ game.

Naokaukodem · Oct 29, 2009

rysmiel said:
I don't see any drastic flaws, but I am alos not seeing what you see as benefits.

Benefits would be rebellions. This system is a system among others. I largerly prefer it over the unhappiness based rebellion system. It is sensed in my view as it would harm big empires like the Roman Empire.

It appears to add an additional obstacle to the progress of the game, unless you want to set up a situation where ethnic cleansing becomes a preferred strategy, which would not be to my taste. (If a city with three or four people of another ethnicity in it is going to be troublesome past a certain point, why would the player not choose to raze/exterminate it and build a new one from scratch in the same location rather than conquer it ?)

Ethnic cleansing could be an option. Or not. Diplomatic penalties could be applied for razing cities, not only with the conquered civ. And/or make city conquests more valuable, like a free tech if conquered and 0 if razed (poor, immediate example). And/or, shape the personnality of your leader and his reputation, like if you conquer cities you are seen as a hero (you "free" cities or "unite" civilizations), but if you raze them you are seen like a barbarian (which could be beneficial in diplomacy in some ways by the fear you inspire to your enemies) Anyway, if ethnic cleansing becomes a strategy, it should have its drawback like any strategy, in order to not make it prevalent. Of course, if you kill all the people of a different ethnicity of a given conquered city, you will suffer from it diplomatically, and maybe also militarily. (stronger opponents) Then this strategy would be efficient only if you are as or more powerfull than all your enemies united. (if you apply it systematically, wich is not given) Additionnally, it is not given than foreign ethnicity will rebel at a given point, provided you can fight for a faster assimilation of them.
If all those things are not sufficient, maybe forbid the razing of cities. Indeed, I would want a game where the internal pressure is as important, if not more, than the external pressure. I would want a game when rebellions, treachery and chaos become the standard.

rysmiel · Oct 29, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
Benefits would be rebellions.

Ah, OK; this is a case of you seeing something as a benefit that I see as not.

It is sensed in my view as it would harm big empires like the Roman Empire.

I see that it would do that; I see this as a bad thing. Unhappiness-based rebellions seem a bteer model to me because there is a straightforward way to work to reduce the likelihood of them happening within mechancics that laready exist in the game.

Ethnic cleansing could be an option. Or not. Diplomatic penalties could be applied for razing cities, not only with the conquered civ. And/or make city conquests more valuable, like a free tech if conquered and 0 if razed (poor, immediate example). And/or, shape the personnality of your leader and his reputation, like if you conquer cities you are seen as a hero (you "free" cities or "unite" civilizations), but if you raze them you are seen like a barbarian (which could be beneficial in diplomacy in some ways by the fear you inspire to your enemies) Anyway, if ethnic cleansing becomes a strategy, it should have its drawback like any strategy, in order to not make it prevalent. Of course, if you kill all the people of a different ethnicity of a given conquered city, you will suffer from it diplomatically, and maybe also militarily. (stronger opponents) Then this strategy would be efficient only if you are as or more powerfull than all your enemies united. (if you apply it systematically, wich is not given) Additionnally, it is not given than foreign ethnicity will rebel at a given point, provided you can fight for a faster assimilation of them.

None of this deals with the potential PR issues for Firaxis of making a game enabling ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, I would want a game where the internal pressure is as important, if not more, than the external pressure. I would want a game when rebellions, treachery and chaos become the standard.

How much do you think a player should be able to do to control that, then ?

Trias · Oct 30, 2009

rysmiel said:
None of this deals with the potential PR issues for Firaxis of making a game enabling ethnic cleansing.

Civ4 already allows a form of ethnic cleansing in rasing cities/whipping in conquered cities to get rid of "motherland" issues. This did not cause any problems. Of course, adding a button "ethnic clean" to the interface would cause a PR nightmare.

Naokaukodem · Oct 30, 2009

rysmiel said:
Ah, OK; this is a case of you seeing something as a benefit that I see as not.

Rebellions are demanded by a lot of players.

I see that it would do that; I see this as a bad thing. Unhappiness-based rebellions seem a bteer model to me because there is a straightforward way to work to reduce the likelihood of them happening within mechancics that laready exist in the game.

But what is the point of rebellions if you can easilly and totally control them? they would not be a part of gameplay as they would be contained. The better is to find a system when they become more or less unavoidable.

None of this deals with the potential PR issues for Firaxis of making a game enabling ethnic cleansing.

I don't know what you mean, what means "PR"?

EDIT: I only talked about the ethnic cleansing there is already in Civ4, like you just did with your razing city example, and how we could make it a non-prevalent strategy. I talked about razing cities being a non-brainer, because other way it would be problematic. (instability/rebellions) Then I talked about benefits to keep a city unrazed (1 free tech, hero reputation), anyway, the drawbacks of such a strategy (like being seen as a barbarian or not having a free tech). I could have talked about a feature like an "ethnic cleansing" button, but it would obey to the exact same as those examples. (drawbacks needed)

How much do you think a player should be able to do to control that, then ?

A player should be able to control that with a limit. At a certain point, rebellions could become unavoidable, for example if he has a too large empire. Then he would have to treat with internal wars and stuff, that he could win (or lose). I would want a game where countries fall and rise, and possibly for the player to control another civ than the one he choosed at the start, for example to control Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you read some History about the former civilizations, you catch a headache because of all the important events, invasions, recovers, coup d'état, overthrows, migrations, wars, wars and more wars. I would want this to be reflected in a game like Civ. Now it's only way too static to my taste. You just expand, and 2000 years after you start a war for the supremacy of 1/4 of the continent. It's way too predictable and dull. What would be fun IMO would be to try to back off the better possible of a load of events that are not particularly under your full control.

Hail · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
I don't know what you mean, what means "PR"?

PR = Public Relations

Naokaukodem said:
I would want a game where countries fall and rise, and possibly for the player to control another civ than the one he choose at start, [...] I would want this to be reflected in a game like Civ. Now it's only way too static to my taste. You just expand, and 2000 years after you start a war for the supremacy of 1/4 of the continent. It's way too predictable and dull. What would be fun IMO would be to try to back off the better possible of a load of events that are not particularly under your full control.

uncontrollable rebellions are not fun. it would be frustrating for the player to suddenly loose half of his empire.

i favor happiness based rebellions. the main argument for such mechanism is the player must be in control axiom. sure, you can set the "happiness slider" high and forget about rebellions, but that would drastically lower your science and tax income.

i also favor adding units that have a special city attack "happiness hit" or something like that. in CtP it was the "Cleric" unit type and later the "Televangelist". so instead of sending armies to your neighbor, you can send "happiness hiters" to encourage a rebellion.

Naokaukodem · Oct 30, 2009

Hail said:
PR = Public Relations

Thanks.

uncontrollable rebellions are not fun. it would be frustrating for the player to suddenly loose half of his empire.

It may be confusing the couple first games for the Civ fan, but as states and civilizations would be ephemere for ALL the players or AIs, it would just fit to the shape of the game.

i favor happiness based rebellions. the main argument for such mechanism is the player must be in control axiom. sure, you can set the "happiness slider" high and forget about rebellions, but that would drastically lower your science and tax income.

Doh!

What would you prefer: loose half of your empire or being hit by a research handicap? Depends on (beside the degree of the handicap) how easily you can recover your empire I guess, and on what the AIs or other players prefer. But this may as well result in nobody having rebellions, because they would be too much controllable.

By the way, I don't understand you when you say that you prefer happiness based rebellions, if it is to NOT have rebellions at all, I don't really see the point of a rebellion system.

i also favor adding units that have a special city attack "happiness hit" or something like that. in CtP it was the "Cleric" unit type and later the "Televangelist". so instead of sending armies to your neighbor, you can send "happiness hiters" to encourage a rebellion.

In other words you want other possibilties to cripple the AIs or other players, fair enough, but keep in mind that the AIs or players could use them against you, which I think, according to what you said, would not please you at all.

I think that it is better to have a system where all the civs are equally affected by rebellions, so that it does not become as much annoying as if rebellions would occur only on the player's side. It's a kind of coup to take, being accustomed to lose parts of your empire and fight to recover it, if you can.

Your empire, would not be eternal. The good strategies would be then to profit from an advantageous but momentaneus position, and the positions would change over the game. It would not be like "it's hard to conquer because the AI is too strong in higher difficulty levels", but rather "I perceive that I have a dominant position for now, let's act in some way just now without any delay and profit from this situation to hit points that will deternmine the winner in the end game".

rysmiel · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
But this may as well result in nobody having rebellions, because they would be too much controllable.

I don't think they should be trivially controllable; controlling them should be a decision to make, that you can choose to avoid to put production and money in other directions if you'd sooner take the risk.

I am objecting to the notion that they should be uncontrollable.

In other words you want other possibilties to cripple the AIs or other players, fair enough, but keep in mind that the AIs or players could use them against you, which I think, according to what you said, would not please you at all.

It would totally please me, if you had defence options against this too. Another scale of struggle.

It's a kind of coup to take, being accustomed to lose parts of your empire and fight to recover it, if you can.
[Your empire, would not be eternal. The good strategies would be then to profit from an advantageous but momentaneus position, and the positions would change over the game. It would not be like "it's hard to conquer because the AI is too strong in higher difficulty levels", but rather "I perceive that I have a dominant position for now, let's act in some way just now without any delay and profit from this situation to hit points that will deternmine the winner in the end game".

That's a rather drastic change in the large-scale objectives of the game, isn't it ? Going from "build towards a victory" to "do the best you can at the time and hope it works out OK because every time you build something meaningful it will be taken away" ?

I just don't see any possible way that would be fun for me.

rysmiel · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
But what is the point of rebellions if you can easilly and totally control them?

What is the point of anything in the game you can't, eventually, totally control ?

I'm not saying easily. I am saying with effort, thought, and being good at the game.

EDIT: I only talked about the ethnic cleansing there is already in Civ4, like you just did with your razing city example, and how we could make it a non-prevalent strategy.

The difference is, talking about it in terms of ethnicity invites hysteria. In the same way that making the religions in Civ 4 work differently one form the other would invite negative PR.

A player should be able to control that with a limit. At a certain point, rebellions could become unavoidable, for example if he has a too large empire.

So no matter how good a player gets empires can't grow past a certain size and stay stable ? Arbitrary cut-offs that take no account of the player's skill level are an unfairly balancing the game against people bothering to learn to be good at it.

I would want a game where countries fall and rise, and possibly for the player to control another civ than the one he choosed at the start, for example to control Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you read some History about the former civilizations, you catch a headache because of all the important events, invasions, recovers, coup d'état, overthrows, migrations, wars, wars and more wars. I would want this to be reflected in a game like Civ.

I am coming from the basic position that if it makes the game less fun who cares about history.

Naokaukodem · Oct 30, 2009

rysmiel said:
I don't think they should be trivially controllable; controlling them should be a decision to make, that you can choose to avoid to put production and money in other directions if you'd sooner take the risk.

I am objecting to the notion that they should be uncontrollable.

By "take the risk" you are introducing a notion of randomness that i'm sure you don't like. What if during the turn when the rebellion is decided the rebellion accurs? I think that most of players will reload the game.

If the probability of a rebellion adds from turns to turns, it would become unavoidable at a certain time, or few turns after the reload. It would result in wasted games that some people over there mix up with "replayability". This kind of things is what made Civ4 a pain. The game would be then to guess & try how much you can neglect happiness.

By the way, I didn't say this would be totally uncontrollable: as the first post mention, you could fight for a better assimilation by building things, and also we can guess specific civics/governments.

You may also be able to raze cities. (with drawbacks)

It would totally please me, if you had defence options against this too. Another scale of struggle.

Heheh. Defense options so you do not get affected by them, only the other players and AIs? But wait, if players and other AIs have those defenses, there would not be rebellions anymore. :crazyeye:

That's a rather drastic change in the large-scale objectives of the game, isn't it ?

Yes.

Going from "build towards a victory" to "do the best you can at the time and hope it works out OK because every time you build something meaningful it will be taken away" ?

In the Civ games you don't know more if you are going to win or lose, or the game would not worth the play.

By the way, your wonders and buildings would not be taken away every time. You could keep some of them in the cities that do not rebel, and recover them in the cities that rebelled. On a same idea, wonders could give you advantages that remain until the end of the game, weather you keep them or not (for example you build Pyramids and even if you lose the city it's in you still can choose every form of government -yes you couldn't anymore capture them but we do not make omelettes without breaking some eggs), your civ changes of name, etc...

I just don't see any possible way that would be fun for me.

I think it would be, a contrario, a lot of fun to me to not know until the end game if I will win or not.

rysmiel · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
By "take the risk" you are introducing a notion of randomness that i'm sure you don't like. What if during the turn when the rebellion is decided the rebellion accurs? I think that most of players will reload the game.

No, I'm not suggesting introducing randomness.

Unhappiness being measurable means you can keep an eye on it. You can choose whether you'd rather focus on happiness, or focus on, say, building more defences for a couple of turns.

If you have both an unhappy region of your empire and a restive Montezuma on your borders, you choose which one gets your primary focus of attention. You pick montezuma, you risk not being able to keep your happiness under control.

No random elements, just the risk of (deterministic) bad consequences if you make the wrong choice.

If the probability of a rebellion adds from turns to turns, it would become unavoidable at a certain time, or few turns after the reload.

It will become unavoidable if you don't bother making any effort to manage happiness, yes.

The game would be then to guess & try how much you can neglect happiness.

No guessing involved if you can figure out the numbers every turn.

Heheh. Defense options so you do not get affected by them, only the other players and AIs? But wait, if players and other AIs have those defenses, there would not be rebellions anymore.

Not necessarily. It adds another choice.

Here is your new city just founded with one spearman in it. You have a strong and scary neighbour. Do you build more spearmen, do you buildy city walls - or do you build a defensive cleric to protect it against the enemy trying to incite rebellion rather than invade ?

Decisions can be right or wrong. Rebellions don't become impossible just because you are capable of stopping them, because there are any number of other priorities also clamouring for your attention.

In the Civ games you don't know more if you are going to win or lose, or the game would not worth the play.
(..)
I think it would be, a contrario, a lot of fun to me to not know until the end game if I will win or not.

Do you abandon any game once you're confident you have won, then ?

Hail · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
But this may as well result in nobody having rebellions, because they would be too much controllable.

no. you can only guess and anticipate other civ's strategies.

Naokaukodem said:
By the way, I don't understand you when you say that you prefer happiness based rebellions, if it is to NOT have rebellions at all, I don't really see the point of a rebellion system.

simply put: the main point of happiness based rebellion mechanism is that it hinders expansion. this will be so, because the farther the city is from the capital, the less happy it will be.

Naokaukodem said:
In other words you want other possibilties to cripple the AIs or other players, fair enough, but keep in mind that the AIs or players could use them against you, which I think, according to what you said, would not please you at all.

largely depends on the implementation. the devs can make it a very frustrating experience.

Naokaukodem said:
I think that it is better to have a system where all the civs are equally affected by rebellions, [...]

i think so too. everyone in a game should be on the same playing field.

Naokaukodem said:
If the probability of a rebellion adds from turns to turns, it would become unavoidable at a certain time, or few turns after the reload. It would result in wasted games that some people over there mix up with "replayability". This kind of things is what made Civ4 a pain. The game would be then to guess & try how much you can neglect happiness.

there are no probabilities. there will be a set of deterministic rules that describe, how the rebellion system works.

Naokaukodem said:
Heheh. Defense options so you do not get affected by them, only the other players and AIs? But wait, if players and other AIs have those defenses, there would not be rebellions anymore.

really?

do you mean something like checking a checkbox "Rebellion immunity" in the options' menu?

rysmiel said:
Decisions can be right or wrong.

decisions can be optimal, suboptimal, and not optimal.

during a game, a player makes decisions based only on what he knows about the world. such decisions can be called "relatively optimal". a "relatively optimal" decision may become "not optimal" globally, if data, not known, to the player negate the optimality of the decision.

rysmiel said:
Do you abandon any game once you're confident you have won, then?

yes, i do

Naokaukodem · Oct 30, 2009

rysmiel said:
What is the point of anything in the game you can't, eventually, totally control ?

I'm not saying easily. I am saying with effort, thought, and being good at the game.

Being good is relative. I will say that you are good only when you beat Civ4 Deity all the time. that's not my case, and I suspect it not to be your case also.

By the way, being good at Civ4 is not the kind of goodness i would encourage, because it is not smartness which is involved but affinity with the game mechanics, them being hidden or not. You may say it is smartness to guess the game mechanics, but that's not the kind of smartness I like.

I would encourage much more smartness based on oppotunities and strategies in order to fight against an unavoidable evil.

The difference is, talking about it in terms of ethnicity invites hysteria. In the same way that making the religions in Civ 4 work differently one form the other would invite negative PR.

I'm not sure a sole "purge" button would invite hysteria, as well as the nowadays Civ mechanics do (raze cities).

So no matter how good a player gets empires can't grow past a certain size and stay stable ? Arbitrary cut-offs that take no account of the player's skill level are an unfairly balancing the game against people bothering to learn to be good at it.

How much skill do you think the Roman emperor should have shown in order to keep their empire? How much skill do you think America's Presidents should show in order to keep their nation the first super-power of the world?

I am coming from the basic position that if it makes the game less fun who cares about history.

You still do not understand that being more like History would make the game more fun, because History is a human domain that calls for complexity and elites. Not everybody can be president, and that's the role of Civ to make it possible.

Naokaukodem · Oct 30, 2009

rysmiel said:
No, I'm not suggesting introducing randomness.

Unhappiness being measurable means you can keep an eye on it. You can choose whether you'd rather focus on happiness, or focus on, say, building more defences for a couple of turns.

If you have both an unhappy region of your empire and a restive Montezuma on your borders, you choose which one gets your primary focus of attention. You pick montezuma, you risk not being able to keep your happiness under control.

No random elements, just the risk of (deterministic) bad consequences if you make the wrong choice.

And be pretty clever the one who made the right choice. Or pretty lucky. Because the outcomes of such choices are not guessable unless you did a whole lot bunch of games before.

It will become unavoidable if you don't bother making any effort to manage happiness, yes.

Unavoidable, that people want to avoid. That's to say, unless you are unexperienced, you have to manage happiness and rebellions to disappear.

No guessing involved if you can figure out the numbers every turn.

Then it would be a matter of always prefering happiness over other things, to avoid rebellions. And if a rebellion declares itself because you focused on the enemy, it is a wasted game. Next game you will adopt your enemy's religion or whatelse. If that don't work, you will have to go on forums to learn about trick to do in diplmacy in order to keep your enemy quiet. Great.

Not necessarily. It adds another choice.

Bahhhh!

Enough choices!

Here is your new city just founded with one spearman in it. You have a strong and scary neighbour. Do you build more spearmen, do you buildy city walls - or do you build a defensive cleric to protect it against the enemy trying to incite rebellion rather than invade ?

Good question! :rolleyes:

Decisions can be right or wrong. Rebellions don't become impossible just because you are capable of stopping them, because there are any number of other priorities also clamouring for your attention.

What makes the game dull.

Do you abandon any game once you're confident you have won, then ?

Absolutely. But that's not the case of any game, as I don't know I have won until I completed it, except Civ maybe.

rysmiel · Oct 30, 2009

Hail said:
during a game, a player makes decisions based only on what he knows about the world. such decisions can be called "relatively optimal". a "relatively optimal" decision may become "not optimal" globally, if data, not known, to the player negate the optimality of the decision.

Entirely agreed; I meant, the right decision given the available data at the time should come with opportunity cost whichever decision it is.

yes, i do

That is alien to me; both because I will never feel sure I have won until I have demonstrated it, and because building up an empire and making it better and stronger than I have managed before is as much if not more interesting a challenge to me than defeating the other civs in terms of whatever the formal victory condition is. It's certainly more interesting than fighting them.

rysmiel · Oct 30, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
Being good is relative. I will say that you are good only when you beat Civ4 Deity all the time. that's not my case, and I suspect it not to be your case also.

Kind of a loaded question given that I've said repeatedly I am primarily a Civ 3 player.

By the way, being good at Civ4 is not the kind of goodness i would encourage, because it is not smartness which is involved but affinity with the game mechanics, them being hidden or not. You may say it is smartness to guess the game mechanics, but that's not the kind of smartness I like.

You and I have had this argument before; can we not have it again ?

I would encourage much more smartness based on oppotunities and strategies in order to fight against an unavoidable evil.

I would almost agree with that; all but the "unavoidable", because avoiding it should be the reward for good enough strategy.

How much skill do you think the Roman emperor should have shown in order to keep their empire?

Trajan. Hadrian. Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius. Best prolonged run of good government in human history.

How much skill do you think America's Presidents should show in order to keep their nation the first super-power of the world?

I suspect any honest answer I could give to that would be unduly inflammatory for a polite forum.

You still do not understand that being more like History would make the game more fun

It's not that I don't understand it,, it's that I don't accept it. Because your notion of fun is not the same as mine.

rebellions and culture assimilation system

Millenary King

King

Emperor

King

Donkey with three behinds

Millenary King

Emperor

Donkey with three behinds

Millenary King

Satan's minion

Millenary King

Emperor

Emperor

Millenary King

Emperor

Satan's minion

Millenary King

Millenary King

Emperor

Emperor

Similar threads