Thread Tools
Old December 25, 2001, 18:07   #1
sas
Civilization II PBEM
Prince
 
sas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bergen
Posts: 456
I have just killed aprox 9.5 million people in 3 hours!!
This game can certainly make you feel like a monster , making razing cities so easy and preferable to keeping.

Btw, i only keep citys with wonders in it. What do you guys do ?
__________________
If you want to discuss topics on History, with an emphasis on the military aspect.
Visit: http://www.historic-battles.com/

Last edited by sas; December 26, 2001 at 05:19.
sas is offline  
Old December 25, 2001, 18:51   #2
Alex
Emperor
 
Alex's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brasil
Posts: 3,958
Depends on the situation. If the city is on a nice spot, and if I feel that I have a chance to keep it (without running the risk of cultural defection), then I try to keep it. Otherwise, it's just blood and tears among the defeated, until nothing more lasts...


(EDIT: some corrections)

Last edited by Alex; December 25, 2001 at 18:58.
Alex is offline  
Old December 25, 2001, 19:40   #3
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Personally I just avoid thinking of it as real, in an attempt to keep whatever sanity (or "humanity" if you've played White Wolf games) I have left.

It's sort of weird. I can play violent games, but somehow I think of those enemies as "targets" or "npc's", never as people. And given half a choice, I'll prefer a peaceful game like Tropico or (don't laugh) Creatures 3 or The Sims.

Sometimes it's not easy to ignore it, though. I tend to take city building or empire building games more seriously, for some reason. I try to make my people happy. I try to avoid wars. I get pissed off when the AI forces me into a war. And I'll want to hurt it when it razes one of my cities.

There was only one Civ 3 game where I've actually started a war myself, more to see what it's like. I've wiped out the mighty Iroquois, just because they and the Aztecs had all the Silk squares. Then I stopped and thought about it. And I felt like a mutant rat. I mean, for f-word's sake, some million people died... for SILKS? Not even oil or uranium. Silks. I'm a monster.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 25, 2001, 22:10   #4
Dis
ACDG3 SpartansC4DG Vox
Deity
 
Dis's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 17,354
hey silks are important! I like hot women in silk panties and such. hmm? oh yeah, back to the thread

the sims a peaceful game? not the way I play it


I avoid atrocities. I now build settlers/workers to get a captured city down in size. No more Stalin like starvation for them. And I have never razed. I do use forced labour though. I can't help it if the weak workers die in factories. they should be wearing safety gear.
__________________
Focus, discipline
Barack Obama- the antichrist
Dis is offline  
Old December 25, 2001, 22:14   #5
Vlad Antlerkov
Civilization III Democracy Game
King
 
Vlad Antlerkov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Toasty!
Posts: 2,230
Remember- history is always written by the victors. It's why we don't call the Punic Wars the Roman-Phoenician Wars.

Myself? Only if it has a wonder or lots of good resources nearby. If it's wonderless, and it has resources in its old territory but would take a while to reach (remember-- conquest resets a city's culture rating), I don't hesitate to raze it-- unless it's a large, very-well-established city.

Then there's the factor of how many enemy forces nearby. If it's at the end of the turn or close to it when I capture a city, I might consider razing it (since it's harder to follow up). If I capture it right off, then it'll most likely stay, since it'll probably be completely secure at the turn's end (unless the enemy launches the mother of all counteroffensives in their turn).

And of course, capitals always get leveled. Symbolic value.
Vlad Antlerkov is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 01:48   #6
Calorman
Chieftain
 
Calorman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 49
I think the razing of cities is terrible. Even a small town has a population of more than 10 000. Totally wiping out the city should rank as an atrocity on par with nuclear attacks.
Unfortunately as people have pointed out this probably wouldn't work very well with the city revolt mess being the way it is. Until Firaxis 'fix' it so that large cities can be captured and held without the sudden loss of an army, razing cities is a necessary option.
Calorman is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 02:13   #7
oriel94
Chieftain
 
oriel94's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 60
Is there some way of editing the game with the game editor so that razing makes the other civs mad at you?
oriel94 is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 03:05   #8
sas
Civilization II PBEM
Prince
 
sas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bergen
Posts: 456
Its allso amazing to watch your population cheering you on in the "razing game".

Its got the feeling of a "nazi like" system (no matter what government) , only the people knows what is happening.
__________________
If you want to discuss topics on History, with an emphasis on the military aspect.
Visit: http://www.historic-battles.com/
sas is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 03:29   #9
Badtz Maru
Prince
 
Badtz Maru's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally posted by oriel94
Is there some way of editing the game with the game editor so that razing makes the other civs mad at you?
I read in the manual somewhere that razing a city does have a negative effect on how other civs see you, but it's not as pronounced as nuking a city.

I don't see razing a city as killing everyone in it, I believe it's just destroying the infrastructure of the city and driving the population into the wilderness. There would of course be lots of people dying when this happened, but it's not the same as genocide.

I'd like to see some further consequences for razing in future Civ games. For instance, I'd like some way of seeing the population of the squares that don't have a city built on them but are settled by that civilization. Enemy troops moving through would displace these people, possibly leading to overcrowding in neighboring squares. Razing a city would cause the population to rise drastically in the neighboring squares and spread further as the turns go by, as the wave of refugees spreads out. This could lead to the population in neighboring cities going up, which could be a good or bad thing (bad if the city can't afford it or the refugees are fleeing to a city of another civilization, raising it's foreign population).

Showing non-city population would make the early game more realistic, too. You could expand culturally before encountering any neighboring civs, as the populated squares near your cultural border would have a chance of building cities of their own and joining your civilization.
Badtz Maru is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 13:54   #10
nato
Prince
 
nato's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Unite
Posts: 532
Razing was a great addition to civ, and a good idea.

However, since I don't enjoy pretending I'm Gengis or Attila or Hitler or someone, I never ever raze cities. Thats just not fun to me ... for entertainment I like to pretend I'm the good guys. Even when I'm conquering a lot, I want to be a nice conqueror (ha ha).

I tried pretending razing wasn't so bad, but who was I kidding. If you "get into" the game at all, razing is just what it is, killing millions of civilians.

What I don't like is that Civ3 really encourages you to raze. Even with a large cultural lead, rush building temples, and all that (which yes I do), it is much more efficient to raze. But I just can't enjoy pretending I'm this invading holocaust.

Thats why I really like my idea of having units in defecting cities removed to your territory instead of deleted. Razing wouldn't be such an almost necesity then.

I do agree that it should be harder not to be a razing monster, and to try to be "civil". I just think it would be funner if not razing was a little more feasible.
nato is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 14:54   #11
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Actually, IMHO razing should be LESS of an option.

Let's take WW2. While the nazis did plan to exterminate the Polish race, the plan was to do it until 1975. Yes, over a whole 35 years. NOT to just raze cities as they come to them.

Why? Because when you push people TOO hard, you get... Warsaw.

What do you think you get when you try exterminating a 1 million people city, with a 20,000 men division. Now think of what happens if you try to do it with some 1000 archers. Right. They will NOT just line up for the slaughter. They'll fight back.

People may accept "hey, they took another neighbour to the death camps, but maybe it won't be me next." Out of sheer fear for their lives. MAYBE if I obey, I'll survive. But when it's sure I WILL be next, for sure, then that fear works the other way around. I have to fight or I'm dead. I'll fight.

IMHO in both cases, both when you try to raze a city AND when they want to culturally deffect, there should be a revolt. A fight between armed civilians and your troops. They'll count as conscripts, but they WILL fight your troops. In a city. You might still win, or you may lose some (or all) of your troops in the fight.

That way, razing in the middle of a war would be less of an attractive option. When you might lose some units if you try to raze, then you might save them for the fight instead. And conversely, knowing you may get to keep the city even when it tries to deffect, you might as well try to keep it.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 15:19   #12
CharlotteCivver
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 19
I think what is really missing is a size limit for razing.

I can see Ghengis Khan razing a city of size 3. But think of how much easier Hitler's job would have been if he could have just razed Paris. The problem is, Paris is a bloody big place. You cannot just make it not exist anymore.

My suggestion would be that razing should be impossible for a city above size 6.
CharlotteCivver is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 16:22   #13
Argos65987
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
Argos65987's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 141
I don't necessarily agree that razing a city should be limited by its size (tell that to the citizens of Carthage).

However, it shouldn't have to be such an encouraged and necessary thing. Maybe if the number of military units in a city could discourage revolt to join another civ, that might make it better. Station a large garrison, the city shouldn't revolt as easily.

The thing that bothers me is losing your garrison in a revolt. There is no way your army should join a rival civ because the city is revolting.

I try not to raze cities, usually only out of revenge , or if it is an overseas war. I usually try to bombard the city until it is size 3 or under. Then I have a better chance of completing some improvements and keeping the captured city.
Argos65987 is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 22:07   #14
star mouse
Civilization III Democracy Game
Prince
 
star mouse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of the Barbarians
Posts: 600
Rome's checklist when they sacked Carthage:

1. Kill all the men.
2. Sell the women and children as slaves.
3. Loot and pillage.
4. Burn the city to the ground.
5. Plow the fields and sow them with salt so nothing will ever grow there again.
__________________
None, Sedentary, Roving, Restless, Raging ... damn, is that all? Where's the "massive waves of barbarians that can wipe out your civilisation" setting?
star mouse is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 23:22   #15
ChrisShaffer
Prince
 
ChrisShaffer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Posts: 359
Quote:
Of a city population that may have exceeded a quarter of a million, only 50,000 remained at the final surrender. The survivors were sold into slavery; the city was razed, and the territory was made a Roman province under the name of Africa.
http://phoenicia.org/punicwar.html
ChrisShaffer is offline  
Old December 26, 2001, 23:43   #16
Dr. Nick
Spanish CiversApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Dr. Nick's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mola mazo!
Posts: 13,118
All I know is that I want a real fascist patch this time... secret police, reign of terror, propaganda, the whole shabang...
Dr. Nick is offline  
Old December 27, 2001, 06:35   #17
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Well, yes, but the point is that:

A) At the time of surrender, the population was pretty low, compared to the might of the Roman army. Not quite the equivalent of 1 impi unit razing a size 12 city.

B) They didn't slaughter the population, they took them as slaves. In game terms, that's the equivalent of turning them into workers.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 28, 2001, 06:22   #18
Thomas Paine
Chieftain
 
Thomas Paine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 37
I've never had a major problem with controlling occupied cities. Until now.

Currently I'm in the middle of a game where I have fallen behind in culture points. The game placed my Germans in an isolated, barren, and somewhat dinky little island, which made for a rough start. I decided to stick it out, just for the hell of it.

Fast forward five millennia. 1000 A.D., and the nasty Egyptians have made it more than clear that the Teutonic barbarians (me) will not be tolerated on their Pharaoh's soil. Naturally my knights plow effortlessly through their cities; but will the citizenry capitulate? Never! Every Egyptian city I capture reverts back almost immediately, rush-built temples not withstanding.

Why? It's all in my advisor's report. "The Egyptians are not impressed with our culture."

It is now 2010 A.D. There are still thriving cities in Egypt, cities with names like Nuremburg and Bonn, where once stood proud Thebes and Memphis. And the proud culture of Pharaoh, with his Colossus and Sistine Chapel? Ravaged! Erased! Viciously torn forever from the pages of history! The price for unholy pride.

Later the Greeks paid the same price. Purged. Eradicated. Not one column standing.

At the game's onset, I hadn't anticipated becoming the scourge of the Civilized World. It was a mantle thrust upon me by circumstance. Much like Attila and the Khan, my people's native soil was poor. No iron, no horses, no saltpeter. It was kill or be killed. In this game, things got brutal. I didn't care for it, but razing cities became a German thing. By the Industrial Age, I had become quite used to slaughtering millions; genocide became businesslike, precise, disciplined. Germanic. And necessary.

The moral of the story: If you loathe to raze others, raise a culture that others will love.
Thomas Paine is offline  
Old December 30, 2001, 02:14   #19
sas
Civilization II PBEM
Prince
 
sas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bergen
Posts: 456
Quote:
The moral of the story: If you loathe to raze others, raise a culture that others will love.

Good point Thomas
My main problem with the current system though can be summarized in 2 points:

1: The number of troops stationed in the city should affect the chance of converting back. I think its ridiculous for a size 6 city with 15 of my troops in it to revert back.

2: Based on my experience, the cultural effect is too powerfull. I understand and like the new consept of culture, but i think it needs further tweaking before it works satisfactory.
__________________
If you want to discuss topics on History, with an emphasis on the military aspect.
Visit: http://www.historic-battles.com/
sas is offline  
Old January 4, 2002, 13:23   #20
frankdog
Warlord
 
frankdog's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada (PST)
Posts: 161
As history (via movies) tells us, the Romans had trouble in occupied cities....
Quote:
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: F*** off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: ****ers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f***ing Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
__________________
"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill"
frankdog is offline  
Old January 4, 2002, 14:03   #21
Marquis de Sodaq
King
 
Marquis de Sodaq's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ... no, a Marquis.
Posts: 2,179
To those of you who wish to be kinder, gentler oppressors : City razing results in the creation of workers, each worth a population point. You raze a size 6 city, you get 2 workers. What happens to the other 4? Some die, others flee. That's what refugees are. So no, you didn't just kill the entire population, only a third of it.

In game terms, what happens to the culture points of the city? I imagine the previous ruling civ keeps all the points it collected since settlement. Do the current points just start adding to your own civ's total?

I only raze a city if...
1. I cannot defend it from counterattack, or
2. the AI settled in such a lame spot that it isn't worth keeping.

I jog in a pile of workers to make the majority of the citizens of my nationality. I've yet to lose one. [crosses fingers...] Altho I haven't invaded a fully settled foreign continent yet, either.
__________________
The first President of the first Apolyton Democracy Game (CivII, that is)

The gift of speech is given to many,
intelligence to few.
Marquis de Sodaq is offline  
Old January 4, 2002, 15:21   #22
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq

I only raze a city if...
1. I cannot defend it from counterattack, or
2. the AI settled in such a lame spot that it isn't worth keeping.
I adhere to the same policy. Most cities are worth more standing than they are as smoldering piles of ash, unless they're completely poorly located. I've razed cities on three kinds of occassions:

1. I'm attacking an opponent who has a ton of reinforcements nearby. Losing the city may have negative tactical implications, and always has negative financial ones. I hate how a percentage of your treasury is distributed across all cities - including the newly conquered ones. I mean, as if the first thing I'm going to do is cart a truckload of cash into a war zone.

2. The AI has put its cities too close together, especially if my objective is conquest of an entire region. If all I'm doing is establishing a tactical base of operations in a foreign country, or flexing a little muscle, I usually don't mind being crowded, but if I'm trying to capture a continent, I think long-term, and if the cities are too packed together, I'm going to thin them out a bit.

3. The AI missed an obviously superior nearby location for the city. This happened just once. Where there's a narrow land bridge between continents, putting the city on the "bridge" square makes it a convenient canal, and can make naval travel much more efficient. Last time I conquered Germany, they had missed the "canal" square by one, so I razed the city, and re-settled where it suited my needs better.

As for the moral implications of razing a city, well, I personally can't wait until I can play a game long enough to get ICBM's and start nuking them. But, hey... that's just me. ;-)
FNBrown is offline  
Old January 4, 2002, 15:38   #23
dainbramaged13
Trade Wars / BlackNova Traders
King
 
Local Time: 14:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dumbass
Posts: 1,096
ive never razed a city

i always win by domination, military, and sometimes culture. I do the 'surgical strike' type of attacks and take out many cities quickly, in a couple of turns, usually with many fast units. I also always keep a high culture rating at home, so i dont usually have to worry about cultural defection. Therfore i never raze a city and i find it much easier to do that than to rze and rebuild with settlers... after all they cost 2 pops a pop! ( :-D )

i build a big base through early conquering, then stay to myself for 300-700 years, depending on how long it took me to conquer, and then kill the remaining civs one at a time
__________________
And God said "let there be light." And there was dark. And God said "Damn, I hate it when that happens." - Admiral
dainbramaged13 is offline  
Old January 4, 2002, 15:47   #24
FNBrown
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEM
Prince
 
FNBrown's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Posts: 527
On another note, I'd like to add that I dig the title of this thread. ;-)

FNBrown is offline  
Old January 5, 2002, 18:37   #25
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
I love razing cities, but I hate the enemy doing it.

For instance I was playing against a friend and he nuked and razed ROME in the year 1980AD, as an obvious result, my Civ fell apart, mainly due to the loss of about 10 wonders.
Methinks a solution to this problem would be NEGATIVE culture. eg if I raze Delhi which has a cultural value to the Indians of 2562, I should lose say 1281 culture points, and this will definately prevent razing. Personally I only raze cities in stupid places, like glaciers. Another point, it should be possible to raze cities at any time. I would find it useful to be able to raze my own cities if under attack and 99% likely to be taken over.
Another useful thing would be an ETHNIC CLEANSING order for military units. OK, I am not the new hitler. But it would be nice.
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.

Last edited by Grrr; January 5, 2002 at 20:46.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 5, 2002, 18:53   #26
Excelsior
Warlord
 
Excelsior's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sas
1: The number of troops stationed in the city should affect the chance of converting back. I think its ridiculous for a size 6 city with 15 of my troops in it to revert back.
It does, actually. Stationing a number of troops equal to the city's population should usually do the trick. Doing this, I rarely lose a city to reversion. Of course, it's pretty crippling when you do.
Excelsior is offline  
Old January 5, 2002, 22:50   #27
zorbop
Civilization III Democracy Game
Warlord
 
zorbop's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:54
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: st louis
Posts: 281
i really like razing. in ctpII i had so many problems because i had to many cities and it made the citizens mad. most of the AI cities are just corrupted, production wasting money gobblers after you capture them. then there always revolting because "i'm to aggresive to there mothercountry" then with 0 culture and no cultural buildings in the any of the captured cities exept wonders... and then i have to defend them and they take forever cause they waste there shields... razing is one of the best attributions to the game.
zorbop is offline  
Old January 8, 2002, 22:00   #28
GeneralTacticus
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameAlpha Centauri PBEMPtWDG RoleplayNationStatesInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildACDG3 Spartans
Emperor
 
GeneralTacticus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:54
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,851
I like the idea of having the citizens of a city fight back when you try to raze it. I think that it should be something like this:

Every two citizens is counts as the most recently obsolete draft unit for the defending civ (even if they don't have drafting), so when they've got musket it's pikemen, rifles it's muskets, etc. When you try to raze the city, you fight them. Every two of those units you kill, the city loses a pop point. Once you've killed all the defenders, you raze whatever's left. And I think that the same mechanism should apply when the city tries to defect, only you don't burn everything afterwards, and at some point they should give in.
I think also if you attack a city, there should a somewhat randomised system, with one of each of these 'armed citizens' joining the fight per three or four pop points. That would mean that it would be even tougher just to take big cities, not only to hold them.
GeneralTacticus is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:54.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team