1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Cold War: Playtest Thread

Discussion in 'Civ2 - Scenario League' started by JPetroski, Sep 4, 2020.

  1. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Yes, you could do that as well. There's no trigger for "on end of turn" but you could basically pick the start of any turn that is not the sub's owner and delete. I guess my question though is would this really be worth the trouble? Both from coding and micromanagement perspective? Certainly, deleting the sub is easier for me to code than teleporting it because I don't need to worry about whether the new location has an enemy unit on it if I'm just deleting it, but I don't know if it's really worth it. Perhaps your idea of just letting the better subs be the ones to explore the deep sea would solve the issue anyway and make them that much more worth it?

    To be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea :lol: I never played the base midgard scenario or other scenarios with native transport enough to observe AI behavior to see if they'd actually use it or not. You'd hope that they will use it, given it is a base game mechanic, but...

    One event that could probably stand to be added would be one where, in the event of a nuclear war (call it, war while both tribes have the appropriate techs), the enemy SSBN's have an SLBM unit spawn on them at their location. I didn't think to do that before I sent the playtest out, but without that the SSBN's are pretty pointless for the AI as they're essentially ranged-attack units.

    Be aware that as you are playing as the Russians, if you attack the West you're going to have one of your cities experience a nuclear strike (if all goes to plan anyway). The AI will randomly choose between a few of your better targets. But, now that I think of it, I'd better make sure that happens on the AI's turn and not yours so you don't have a chance to "shoot down" the bomb.
     
  2. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    I can't judge if it's worth the effort. But I do think that the difference between conventional and nuclear powered subs is more than just incremental rises in combat and movement factors. NS are able to operate over far larger distances, stay at sea much longer, and are able to avoid detection more effectively than D-E subs. I like the idea of only allowing NSs to operate on the deep sea map. It's a simple and elegant solution. D-E boats could still have the sub flag.
     
  3. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    I did come across a submerged European sub of the French coast. I haven't found one on the surface yet, though. It would be interesting to see if an AI SSBN would move to the surface in order to launch a nuclear missile.

    The AI is often unable to take advantage of the new features of ToTPP and lua, which can tend to unbalance SP games. I was originally going to create gunboats that could operate on rivers in Burma Campaign, but deleted them when it was clear that the Japanese gunboats were completely immobile.
     
  4. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    I'd need to somehow code in ability for the AI to know to launch a nuclear strike. I haven't done that yet, so their SSBN's are kind of pointless. They still have ICBMs and MRBMs that they can use. I can check and see if a state of war exists between two nuclear powers and then have the subs "launch" a missile by having one appear on their location, but that's about as good as it can get.

    Well, I'm convinced we can get more functionality out of the AI via lua than we ever could from the base game, but looking at how the true pros handle it, it can be difficult to put into play. My point of making this scenario "single player" however wasn't really to make it a perfect single player game, but a fun and passable one where 90-95% of the features work both ways (which I've taken a lot of pains to do via probability mechanisms) with the goal that people could pick it up, learn it, try some different strategies and have a decent time. Then, hopefully, spark some fun MP games out of it.

    To the extent you find things that are just stupid/not working or really are breaking the immersion let me know - right now I'd say that the subs need work (at least the SSBNs) and I would eventually like to bring in Garfield's suggestion of having the AI actually make purchases rather than rely on events.
     
  5. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,897
    Location:
    Ontario
    I think that the AI can launch missiles from any 'platform' (city for sure, I think subs and carriers also), regardless of where the missile actually is.

    When I was trying to get the AI to make ranged attacks, I noticed that removing the missile designation from the ammo actually made the AI attack with it, while it wouldn't do so if the unit was a missile. You might try removing the missile designation from nukes to get the AI to use them near where you would like them to be used, especially since with munitions the missiles don't have to be carried by the subs.

    If you want to give diesel electric subs the ability to go to the low map, but make them to return to the surface, you could damage them while under water. That way, a player mistake doesn't cost the entire submarine, but the sub won't stay under water very long.
     
  6. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    In my experience, this is correct.

    But does the AI "transfer" a non-missile unit to a launch platform like a sub or an aircraft carrier prior to launching it?

    Doesn't quite do it, IMHO. Come up for air, or die. The hard rule of diesel-electric subs. :trouble:
     
  7. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Actually now that I think of it I believe the reason there is an undersea map is so that the subs have somewhere to go, because I (did or intended to if I forgot) took away their sub trait so they WOULDNT carry missiles. Instead,they are payload "k" units that generate 1 or 2 missiles on key press. The SLBM cant actually be built, and the idea was that the MRBM and ICBM cant load up on ships.
     
  8. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,897
    Location:
    Ontario
    I think it just 'appears' next to the target. But all this is a bit hazy from remembering things I read years ago. The information is probably on the forums somewhere. I was testing with OTR, trying to get the AI to fly a plane to an enemy plane and attack with a munition. I was able to get that to happen sometimes if the 'munition' wasn't a 'missile' unit. I didn't try placing a plane outside a city to see if the ammo I generated would get fired at my plane. I don't think it really matters if a nuke is a munition or not, since it will be killed in the blast anyway. Perhaps the AI will misuse it if it isn't a munition...

    :lol:
    In my experience with Over the Reich, the rule to delete airplanes that landed in cities ended up feeling a bit harsh. Moving lots of units around sometimes results in movement errors, and losing a unit outright for no reason will make people like the game less.

    I don't think this would be all that difficult, especially since I'm writing some code for the general library to get the tiles near a square in a table. It is then a matter of simply finding a nearby square that is ocean and not occupied. If you don't surface the sub yourself, then the game will put you somewhere you might not want to be. I suppose there could be a problem with a sub being teleported to a lake or something...
     
  9. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    I've got two games going, one single player as China, and one multi-player as the Soviet Union and the Pro-East. Neither are very far along (Aug 1950 for the Soviet, Dec 1954 for the PRC), but I thought I'd share a few initial impressions.

    First off, congratulations to you and the professor for a ground-breaking new scenario! The diplomatic features are remarkable, and permit a type of contest that was previously impossible. The scenario itself is very well made and packs an incredible amount of history into one game. I suspect that the lua features you've incorporated will lay the groundwork for numerous future innovations.

    I'm afraid that neither of my games will be much help to test the features properly though. I'm just not doing it right, somehow. I keep getting into wars with the US. :cringe: In the Soviet multiplayer game, I did something to piss of the Europeans, so they declared war, so I attacked them, so the US declared war. So I invaded Germany and captured all of its cities, including Ramstein AFB. But that's as far as I got, and now things have bogged down in a bloody war of attrition, with me frantically bringing up reinforcements trying to hold what I've captured.

    In the China SP game, things are going quite a bit better. I dispatched the Nationalist on the mainland in good time, and was so pleased with all the good US weapons I captured that I invaded Taiwan as soon as I could build a couple of freighters. Well, who knew the Americans were so sensitive? :dunno: So this fleet shows up and a bunch of marines attack Taipei and get killed. So I counter-attack and sink a few ships, leaving 3 stacks of US infantry treading water uselessly. (I'd bought several Il-2s and had those nice ships we got from the Nationalists). Anyway, that big American fleet remained stuck in the Yellow Sea, so I thought I'd try my luck in Japan. So I captured Kagoshima and there go those touchy yanks again! Jeeze, something about the whole Pacific Fleet coming to get me. Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound I always say. By now I can buy MiGs from my buddies in Moscow, plus those Sabres I got in Taipei, so I have air superiority. Now its just a matter of gradually wearing down the remaining US fleet. My tactic is to put stacks of cheap Chinese infantry in the ports, and let the US ships bombard them. When the individual ships get worn down, I selectively attack them with aircraft and my remaining ships. It will take a while, but it seems to be working. And I am no longer in danger of invasion, for the time being at least. Very fun. .../more

    (edit) I should mention that US has not used nuclear weapons in either game so far.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
  10. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    1. Yes and yes.

    2. In my MP game, they still only have 8 cities, including Beijing and Sian, as of Aug 1950. It should be called Peking in this time, btw. The spelling was changed in China in 1979, and became commonly used in the west during the 1980s. When I ran the PRC, it took about 10 turns.

    3. I haven't played enough turns to give an informed opinion. In my SP game, by the end of 1954, the Pro-East has captured 4 cities in central Africa, 2 in Malaysia, including Singapore and Abu Dabi. The Non-Aligned have picked up the 4 Pakistani cities, including Dacca. I've had far less luck running the P-E myself in the MP game.

    4. As the Soviets, I researched 'Align European Country', and nothing seemed to happen.

    5. Not yet.

    6. Generally yes. I wonder if some of the historical notes will become irrelevant or incorrect as we chart our own history though.

    7. In the MP game, I found the constant announcements about Nationalist Chinese units being killed somewhat annoying.

    General observations to follow.
     
  11. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    Quibbles:

    1. Hanoi is where Hue should be. Hanoi is farther north, around 84,94 or thereabouts.

    2. Road movement is far too slow (X2). It takes over a year for an artillery or infantry unit to travel from parts of Siberia to eastern Europe. Rail movement would take a week at most.

    3. By removing the sub flag from submarines, they can bombard land targets. Playing as China, several times I heard the telltale 'swoosh' of a Soviet torpedo blowing up ground units in Quebec City.

    4. Freight units are too slow. Far faster than tanks while travelling on roads, they move at the speed of infantry in the game. Trade is tedious.

    5. Waterways are too open. Manageable in a well-populated MP game, there can be very unrealistic outcomes in SP games, eg. Soviet SSBNs sailing, on the deep sea map, all the way to Chicago undetected.

    6. The cargo plane operations needs a better explanation. Why are units deposited on the other map? How does the thing actually work?

    7. Add moveunit events to keep ships out of dead ends. Right now in my SP game there are several European ships stuck in the Ganges river north of Dacca.

    General comments and suggestions:

    Overall, it's challenging and lots of fun. A first rate scenario. Well done! Here are a few ideas to consider:

    1. Modify the Deep Sea map. Not all seas are deep. Some of the lakes and canals (some of which have locks) definitely are not.

    2. Add a hot key to bring up a diplomatic briefing, outlining (among other things), the likely consequences of particular actions, eg. invading Taiwan. Could be as simple or complex as you want.

    3. Options to end wars. eg. between US and USSR, or Europe and China. Is there a way now?

    4. Is there some way to allow China to make mischief? It certainly did (and does). It doesn't have a proxy civ of course, but maybe it could foment uprisings in Africa and SE Asia, generating a special type of guerrilla units that actually belong to the Non-aligned or Neutrals. If that type of unit captures a city, some sort of economic or diplomatic benefit results for China. Or messing with the USSR's uprisings - they were pretty good at that. This is just blue sky stuff, but it occurred to me while playing China in my SP game.

    5. Motorization of infantry, etc. is missing. US and European armies were fully motorized almost from the start, and the Soviet Union motorized their infantry during the 1950s. Strategically, the infantry was as mobile as the armoured forces.

    These are just ideas, and I certainly don't expect you implement all (or any) of them. The one I think would add a lot is the diplomatic briefing key. It would make getting into the scenario a lot easier. Thanks for this, it's great.
     
  12. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Thanks for this incredibly detailed feedback! Any of your games are a useful test! This is an open-ended scenario where players can do what they want, so anything you come across and try is helpful to me.

    It's from years of being based in 20 Off Topic threads :D In seriousness though, the AI is never going to mount some sort of credible defense to any of these areas, but the thought of America not defending Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, or Taiwan (the 5 areas that will solicit a response), at least in the timeframe of this scenario, is pretty unthinkable, so in the SP they do so (usually assuming DC is still American so we don't get a weird situation where the US is defending Australia even though "the US" is only "Alaska.")

    I'm wondering if something is going on with your events. I've played several games as the Soviets and I can tell you the Align European Country mechanism definitely works as it is my opening move. The Nuclear one I'm not as certain about. I took a look at it and I think the issue is I had the else in the wrong place. I noticed this error in some of the align mechanisms and changed them but don't seem to have changed them for this. This is making me wonder if perhaps you missed one of the updated events patches I posted? I know I posted many in a flurry so it would be easy to miss. I've attached the current ones here. You'll need to run the batch file to get going.

    Yes me too. I think I'll add a "China isHuman" tag to that one to try and cut those down. I think they're probably useful for the Chinese player so they know they hit the lottery on that particular kill.

    I'll have to look at the map and see but I can explore changing this. I hear Lua makes it pretty easy but I've never tried it.

    I'm not sure if I can increase it because it's tied to how far planes move. I might be able to make it higher. Another option though might simply be to have "railyards" that let units move between them via "gifting."

    Oh yes I forgot about this. I can negate the combat outcome if a sub tries to attack a land unit for one thing, and "give" the sub flag to sub units if they're AI controlled (I guess I don't really care if the AI has ICBMs on their subs but I don't want the player to). Then again, maybe I'm wasting too many unit slots on a nuclear missile that only has range as the differential? I have 4 different types of nukes (bomb, MRBM, ICBM, SLBM). Maybe I just need "bomb" and "missile" and abandon the "sub is a payload unit" mechanism?

    I don't have any issue upping this and agree with what you're saying. Especially since some civs (like the Soviets) probably will get much of their trade via land routes. I might up their MP to something like 6, or even 8.

    Yes - while technically "deep sea" doesn't mean "deep" and does mean "under water," I agree with what you're saying (especially about the locks) and should close up some of the seas in the rivers, etc.

    This is a gimmick in this scenario, basically, that I'm exploring for much more substantive use in another scenario. Anyway, originally I thought the special forces were going to need to be air lifted around the globe to deal with terrorists, but since I've gotten rid of those, now the Special Forces just grant a leader bonus, and generally have all the perks like marine, airborne, etc. Anyway, the way @SorFox 's lua transporter works is it teleports the cargo unit somewhere and puts it to sleep, where it can later be "retrieved" by teleporting it back to the new location.

    Will do - let me know if you notice other dead areas please.

    Not currently - no. But you're right that it is needed. I could do some pretty interesting things. I could count the # of units dead from each "side." Then, I could have the human player press a key probably, or maybe research a tech, to bring up a dialogue box. Call it a "Propose a Treaty" box. Perhaps if the war is a stalemate, there's a % chance the AI simply accepts. If you're winning the war decisively, there is a higher % chance the AI accepts. If you are losing the war decisively, perhaps a lesser chance.

    Then, perhaps if you're really getting creamed by the AI, this same counter triggers a chance that they offer you a peace treaty, where they take some of your land. Imagine a situation where if you're losing badly, the AI demands that you free Ukraine to the Pro-West. This would be tougher for me because I need to consider a wide variety of conditions (e.g., is Ukraine even available to give???) but would be very cool.

    I could do that, but I could also use the onActivate function so that the first time human player China activates a freighter, they get a series of text boxes that warns them of the consequences of using said freighters to take over Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc. I could then add this messaging to the text archive (which I'm not sure I even have activated currently, but certainly can), so that a player who forgets can refer to it.

    The Neutrals could be their proxy civ. This won't allow them to directly mess with the U.S., Europe, or USSR but would allow them to inject problems for the Pro-East, Pro-West, and Non-Aligned. Maybe, since China is such a huge exporter (at least now) Neutral cities that have a docks improvement give China cash once China has a city with an international port? It woud

    Since learning a little bit about SorFox's transporter with the other scenario I'm making, I've figured out how to add different types of transporters in. So, I could certainly have the APCs carry infantry. I could add some sort of generic truck for earlier times as well.

    Thanks again for all your feedback. I'm glad you're having fun!
     

    Attached Files:

  13. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    Yes I am!

    Some feedback to your feedback on my feedback:

    1. Movement. I've also run into the movement equation when I use long aircraft ranges and high movement multipliers. There's a simple solution: triple the movement of all your ground units (only), then triple the movement cost of all land terrain types. This effectively triples your road movement bonus.

    Why use carrier units to move your infantry? Just increase the MFs. This would require additional slots for motorized Soviet and Chinese infantry, which I understand are available. Loading and unloading foot infantry, particularly in a large and complex land battle, could be a real pain. It seems pretty tactical to me.

    2. Is there a way to allow China pseudo-proxy attacks on European cities? Colonial possessions in Africa and Asia were the primary target of Chinese subversion efforts and the main theatre for their competition with the Soviet Union.

    3. Can Lua be used to change the names of cities? I can think of several name changes during this period, just of the top of my head: Peking-Beijing, Salisbury-Harare, Saigon-Ho Chi Minh City. I'm sure there's more.

    4. Can Lua eliminate ground units whose ship has been sunk? This has been a problem even before the 'nostackkills' feature of ToTPP, when we used forts or airbases for the purpose. There are now 7 stacks of stranded US infantry off the coasts of Japan and Taiwan. It's getting embarrassing. :o

    5. Amphibious counter-attacks are notoriously easy to defeat. In my SP game, I've now captured all of Japan and more or less defeated the 2nd US counter-attack. The AI can't handle protecting either carriers or transports, so why not consolidate the ship type units into Task Forces? Say a Carrier TF and an Ampibious TF, each with a strong defense factor. Give the Carrier TF a good attack factor as well, so it's at least somewhat useful in the hands of the AI.

    That's it for now.
     
  14. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    I'd have to check, but I *think* you can add movement points to units just as you can change their attack and defense. Like attack and defense, I assume it is something that changes the rating for the entire unit type, but that's not really an issue here. So, rather than coming up with new units, I could just pick some trigger (be it a technology, or even a turn) and then bump up the Soviet and Chinese infantry MP.

    It is interesting that you mention you feel this would be a pain though because I'm going to try and put people through such pain in another scenario I'm plotting, but I think the payoff there will be worth it. You're probably right it doesn't make much sense in this scenario however.

    Well, choices will need to be made. The reason Europe can't currently attack the neutrals is so they don't immediately occupy Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Norway, etc. It is possible to make it so Europe can't attack neutral units sitting on these cities, or sitting on cities in general, and only attack units in the field. This would allow for combat between the Europeans and the neutrals.

    Yes, and actually I do that already in the game as Stalingrad becomes Volgograd, and Leningrad becomes St. Petersburg. It's not a tough fix I just need to know the list of cities that do this. It looks like wikipedia has a reference here. It's kind of busy work stuff though so I don't know that it'll be in the next release. I might find time to do at least a few.

    I think I can run a check each turn to see if a domain 0 unit is on terrain 10 and delete it if it is not also sharing a square with a domain 2 unit. The trick is "and not also sharing a square" as I don't know how to write this off the top of my head and will need to explore it more, but it's definitely possible.

    Well, I already have a batch file system going on so adding rules and unit changes to it wouldn't be anything hard. But, if the goal is just to make it easier for the AI, I might simply bump up the stats of the carriers and transports if the owner is not human.

    Right now, I'm working on another project with a deadline, so it'll probably be about 2 weeks before I can make these major changes, but please feel free to keep reporting. I will find time to fix gamebreaking bugs should you encounter them!
     
  15. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,897
    Location:
    Ontario
    A ship's cargo is supposed to go down with the ship in TOTPP stackable, and it does. However, the trouble is that a newly created unit doesn't have the 'carriedBy' field set automatically, and unfortunately, TNO didn't give us the ability to set that field, only to get it. It shouldn't be too difficult to write a unitKilled event that kills stacked ground units that have a nil value for carriedBy when a cargo ship sinks.

    Another option would be to generate the forces on the AI's turn, so when the ship moves out of the square, the units are assigned the carriedBy status. This would also give the AI the initiative. It occurs to me that this would be greatly facilitated by a 'doNextOpportunity' functionality, similar to 'text.displayNextOpportunity', so I'll work on that. Even if JPetroski doesn't want/need it, I think it would be quite useful, and I have an idea of how to do it.

    Maybe split the nuke into 'delivery system' and 'warhead'. So a missile might have 2 independently targeted warheads. For the human player, the delivery system is a keypress munition, for the AI, the delivery system has the sub designation in the hope that if you place the delivery system in a good spot, and the AI has some warheads, the AI will use them. Or, you could just make a 'nuke city' event that achieves all aspects of a nuking without the nuke exploding. FYI, units killed in a nuke blast don't trigger unit killed events. I think sub as payload does make sense. You can stop subs from carrying nukes by not giving them the missile designation (and it might make the AI use them in a way that is more easily influenced by your events).

    In my Soaring Spirit conversion, I allow units to regenerate their movement points via key press, which should work for air as well as sea units (but not land units). This should let you extend the movement of missiles and planes. It would also allow you to have a shorter range for missiles generated by submarines.
     
  16. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,897
    Location:
    Ontario
    This is in the General Library:

    --gen.unitTypeOnTile(tile,unitTypeOrTableOfUnitType)-->bool
    --returns true if tile has any of the unit types listed in the table,
    --false otherwise

    It might be more efficient to write a custom check for what you need, but I wouldn't worry about it unless there is a noticeable slowdown. (I doubt there would be in this context.) In fact, if you're only checking tiles when ground units at sea don't have a carriedBy value, you'll be checking so few units that it shouldn't matter.
     
  17. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    Sounds like some good possibilities there. Here's another problem that has plagued scenario designers since the days of Fantastic Worlds: The AI and aircraft carriers. It just can't handle them. At all. You can spawn a carrier in a port, with planes, but they won't stay on the carrier, they just fly off regardless of targets, and they never return to the carrier. They sometimes will land at a city in range, and will then operate normally. In Operation Sea Lion, I made my Swordfish missile units because they actually stayed on the carriers and attacked enemy ships once they were in range. There was still the problem of them re-basing to friendly cities though.

    Could the AI carrier problem be solved with Lua?
     
  18. Prof. Garfield

    Prof. Garfield Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,897
    Location:
    Ontario
    It's hard to say at the moment. We've done very little AI compensation with lua, and getting the AI to use carriers would probably not only require programming strategic movement for the AI, but also overcoming its natural tendencies. In the limited tests of this nature that I've conducted, I couldn't even force the AI to attack an enemy, and I could only force it to retreat by actually teleporting the unit away from the enemy. I'm inclined to think that this is the sort of thing that I'd want to work on the next time TNO is around, so that extra features could be requested when I run into walls.
     
  19. techumseh

    techumseh Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    in the frozen north
    I protest! The Beatles were not a "Boy Band"! Please don't try to equate them to "Backstreet Boys" etc.
     
  20. JPetroski

    JPetroski Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    You're no different than a millennial! Muwahahahahaha
     

Share This Page