Warlords TBS Series
Spin-off Projects
Home Forum
Welcome,
Guest
|
TOPIC: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction
Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #173
I have decided to write or rather partly rewrite my original plans for how Heroes V should be. We will start though with an analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of Heroes III and Heroes IV the competing influences for the development of Heroes V.
Heroes III Strengths 1. It's immense customizability due to the lack of fixed sides and races at all. Everything can be combined freely with everything else. 2. A system of diplomacy that is flexible and is not penalized (because allies can jointly win a game without being penalized) Weaknesses 1. Overly flexible strategic play which overly favors fast elite groups led by heroes at the expense of all else. Partly this is due to poor AI but partly game mechanics. 2. Lack of a need to protect and establish large base-areas as long as you have a large amount of money and 1 city: this reflects the lack of political depth of the game in that it is possible to occupy foreign cities and buy troop production as long as you have money instantly anywhere. 3. Lack of political depth in the sense that most of the map is controlled initially by neutral cities which much be conquered regardless of whether they are 'your' people or not. 4. Lack of political depth in the sense that the entire population of cities is represented by 4 units which can quite easily be pillaged away or the cities razed without political consequences for your side or consequences at all. 5. Serious interface problems related to units, such as the inability to tranfer items directly between heroes and the tendency of heroes to accidentally 'drown' over water. 6. It isn't possible to see all the units present in a city your control, only 4 of the one's you can recruit. Heroes IV Strengths 1. Political depth through the implementation of race relationships separate from the relationships of the side's to each-other. 2. Sane strategic play with meaningful 'front-lines' created by the standardization of all units movement and more powerful town defenses. 3. Towns belong to specific races and you can acquire control of those towns by diplomacy rather than merely force if they are of your race. 4. Tactical combat allowing to decide fight order flexibly in each battle. Weaknesses 1. Lack of customizability leads to an extremely bland game indeed especially given the limited selection of races. 2. Insanely powerful warlords inside impregnable capitals tend to lead to ridiculous losses just to finish off defeated sides. This is made necessary however by the implementation of immovable Warlords in the first place. 3. 'Moral Racism' rather similar to that in Age of Wonders. Morality is assigned to units rather than to sides, this doesn't matter due to lack of customization but it would matter if greater customization were introduced. 4. Lack of political depth in that the race relationships are unalterable and your atrocities towards other races are ignored. 5. No diplomacy. 6. No ships. 7. Tedious movement due to lack of vectoring. 8. Basically it's an inferior version of Age of Wonders (enough said). Feel free to comment on other weaknesses in the game design (not including AI problems). Now onto Heroes V. Warlords V as written here. Warlords V design diary Has a fairly major problem with it. While Heroes IV is not perfect, Heroes III is not flawless either. As written it takes a number of Heroes III's weaknesses and combines them with Heroes IV weaknesses. These weaknesses are. 1. From Heroes III: A lack of distinction between side and race; this was fixed in Heroes IV with the race/race-wheel system but has been essentially re-introduced. This seriously hampers the development of any serious and realistic model of race relations that is based upon actual in-game behavior of the sides/race's in question rather than to be mentioned moral racism. If an invading foreign army has just burned down your home and killed your family do you really care if they are motivated by 'good' or 'evil', depravity or virtue? 2. From Heroes IV: Moral Racism is taken to insane levels by the introduction of the attribute system to the sides/race. Instead of the different races/sides possessing attributes it is as if the attributes have now managed to possess races! For instance under constructing a side. * Determines what your cities look like (e.g. a “Depraved” side gets the city made of skulls) The problem with this is that while specializing in torture and depravity may with the likes of Lord Bane make sense it does not fit for instance with the undead of the Garden who are good, or at least not evil in Heroes III. While Knights are certainly not defined by being virtuous, for instance the treacherous Gildines. That they are treacherous however should not make them dark elves nor should their cities look like such! I should not be forced to make my Gildines virtuous so that they can look like Knights. |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Slayer of Cliffracers.
|
Re: Heroes V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #174
I thought this was a Warlords forum.
|
|
"Negate does not negate Negate."
--- KGB "Moreover, I advise that Daemons and Dark Elves must switch places on the Race Wheel." --- Marcus Porcius Cato |
Re: Heroes V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #175
Ooops, I have mistaken Warlords V for Heroes V.
KGB please edit it accordingly. |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Slayer of Cliffracers.
|
Re: Heroes V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #176
You should actually be able to edit your post yourself.
I think the moral racism is interesting and I really like the race wheel of W4, but like you mentioned diplomacy etc should also weigh in. Tactical combat needs to be mentioned here, and needs to be in the game, as it opened up a whole new dimension to the game. But as they say in the development diary it needs improvements. I would like to see that the surviving unit can be switched before the next enemy unit comes into battle. Another of W4's strengths was the magic system with the magic spheres, it really makes the gameplay more interesting. However, researching the same spell over and over is a bit tedious. Instead it would be cool to be able to have one or two spells from the start, then you pick what spells to research and learn them as your warlord gains XP. Maybe one should take a luck at the technology tree from the Civilization franchise and kind of shape the evolution of magic & spells in a somewhat similar way. Oh, and the map should be hexagonal. |
|
"Negate does not negate Negate."
--- KGB "Moreover, I advise that Daemons and Dark Elves must switch places on the Race Wheel." --- Marcus Porcius Cato |
Re: Warlords V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #180
Overly flexible strategic play which overly favors fast elite groups led by heroes at the expense of all else. I found that I only used "fast elite groups" for zone defense, and not always led by heroes as heroes were a much more rare and precious commodity in W3 than in W4. For attacking towns I tended to use mixed stacks with every relevant bonus I could get, and they tended to be slow stacks due to one or more slow units mixed in (e.g., seige). Sane strategic play with meaningful 'front-lines' created by the standardization of all units movement and more powerful town defenses. I found W4 to be absolutely meaningless strategically relative to W3. For me the ability to churn out endless numbers of 0 upkeep heroes to defend behind-the-lines towns completely eliminates any need to make upkeep vs defensive strength decisions. Insanely powerful warlords inside impregnable capitals tend to lead to ridiculous losses just to finish off defeated sides. This is made necessary however by the implementation of immovable Warlords in the first place. When I first heard they would be stuck in a town the thought that immediately came to mind was "LAME!" My opinion has not changed. Might as well rename the game "Home War Towns" instead of "Warlords". Or maybe "Cowards". Tedious movement due to lack of vectoring. How about the whole game being tedious. With W3 there was a sense of tension as you played. Critical situations requiring strategy and involving risk seemed to happen constantly. W4 just feels boring. Once the first few towns are taken and your empire starts its unstoppable expansion, the rest of the game is just mechanical. (I am sure this is different when playing against humans, but I only play against AI so that is my experience.) Tactical combat needs to be mentioned here, and needs to be in the game, as it opened up a whole new dimension to the game. There should be two modes:
However, researching the same spell over and over is a bit tedious. Worse yet, at least against the AI, by the time you learn any decent spells the fate of the game has already been set. So they end up being gratuitous at best. |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Turtle.
|
Re: Warlords V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #181
Turtle wrote:
For me the ability to churn out endless numbers of 0 upkeep heroes to defend behind-the-lines towns completely eliminates any need to make upkeep vs defensive strength decisions. Allowing heroes to be produced as normal units in cities is definitely one of the biggest mistakes with W4. On the other hand I almost never do that simply because it takes too long. Insanely powerful warlords inside impregnable capitals tend to lead to ridiculous losses just to finish off defeated sides. This is made necessary however by the implementation of immovable Warlords in the first place. I honestly don't recognise myself in this. When you bring down a capital you start by sieging it to destroy it's defences. This'll cost you max 8 units. Then you attack for real, and the number of units you lose then will only depend on the number, strengths, and skills, of the units present. Usually you won't suffer ridiculous losses unless the opponent has some very specific skills. Warlord units with Bloodlust or Bless are the worst. Or if there's a unit with high level Heal in the capital. Turtle wrote: When I first heard they would be stuck in a town the thought that immediately came to mind was "LAME!" My opinion has not changed. I guess I've gotten used to it. It would be far better with a moving Warlord though. But I still think there should be a capital that you need to conquer in order to win. Perhaps if you could in some way move what city your capital is in... In Civilization you build a Palace in another city to move your capital, so maybe the Warlord could have some kind of build function when he's in a city (you set him to build and then you need to keep him in the city for a number of turns). Or if you could build a Palace (or something similar) as an alternative to build a unit, and then it costs a number of gold. In order to win you must both occupy the enemy's capital and kill his Warlord unit. Losing either will lead to some kind of penalty (different penalties for either) but you won't immediately lose. Turtle wrote: Tedious movement due to lack of vectoring. How about the whole game being tedious.What's with the agitation? There's only one thing that really makes the game tedious and it's the auto-move and vectoring going outside of cities. And yes, there is vectoring. Turtle wrote: Once the first few towns are taken and your empire starts its unstoppable expansion, the rest of the game is just mechanical. (I am sure this is different when playing against humans, but I only play against AI so that is my experience.) Just wondering, have you played 1.05 with Emperor + Uber Retinue? Turtle wrote: Worse yet, at least against the AI, by the time you learn any decent spells the fate of the game has already been set. So they end up being gratuitous at best. I disagree. It depends on the level of the Warlord. On low levels you don't go for Arcane spells but on the other hand they won't really be so neccessary. There are also some very useful Common spells. On high levels Arcane spells don't take so long to research so they come into play much faster. |
|
"Negate does not negate Negate."
--- KGB "Moreover, I advise that Daemons and Dark Elves must switch places on the Race Wheel." --- Marcus Porcius Cato
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Seppuccu.
|
Re: Warlords V design proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #182
[quote=turtle]
I found that I only used "fast elite groups" for zone defense, and not always led by heroes as heroes were a much more rare and precious commodity in W3 than in W4. That's why once you have killed off all the enemies high-level heroes the game is in the bag. Indeed the whole of Warlords III can be almost summarized as- a) keep your starting hero alive. b) get your starting hero to a high level. c) kill off all high level enemy heroes of the enemy with said hero+elite group. d) fortify border cities and fill them with stacks. e) win game. turtle wrote: There should be two modes: 1. auto (e.g., for email games and those who only want to focus on strategy or want a quicker game) Have as many features as you like for parameterizing these (e.g., fight order from W3, withdraw unit on X% damage, etc.). 2. "non-abstract" tactical combat something like Age of Wonders or Heros of Might and Magic The tactical combat in W4 was lame. (Tactical combat in Disciples was also lame, but not as lame as W4.) No there shouldn't. Warlords III is not Age of Wonders or Heroes of Might and magic. Creating two modes takes up development time that could be spent more efficiently elsewhere. Warlords combat is always symbolic and abstract, that is the entire gist of the game. seppuccu wrote: Allowing heroes to be produced as normal units in cities is definitely one of the biggest mistakes with W4. On the other hand I almost never do that simply because it takes too long. I'm not sure it adds that much to the game but it is certainly a fix to the Warlords exploit of assassination where you kill off all the enemies heroes early on and then win the game. seppuccu wrote: I honestly don't recognise myself in this. When you bring down a capital you start by sieging it to destroy it's defences. This'll cost you max 8 units. Then you attack for real, and the number of units you lose then will only depend on the number, strengths, and skills, of the units present. Usually you won't suffer ridiculous losses unless the opponent has some very specific skills. Warlord units with Bloodlust or Bless are the worst. Or if there's a unit with high level Heal in the capital. It's 8 units too many. Put simply, I do not enjoy throwing my units away after decisively outmaneuvering the enemy. Kamikaze attacks against strong and powerful foes I can stomach, but obligatory blood sacrifices for the weak really ruin the game for me. And those special skills are not exactly uncommon, I've before had to sacrifice about 5 stacks before, taking down many of my best heroes- all to destroy an enemy I had defeated already by any reckoning. sephuccu wrote: I guess I've gotten used to it. It would be far better with a moving Warlord though. But I still think there should be a capital that you need to conquer in order to win. Perhaps if you could in some way move what city your capital is in... In Civilization you build a Palace in another city to move your capital, so maybe the Warlord could have some kind of build function when he's in a city (you set him to build and then you need to keep him in the city for a number of turns). Or if you could build a Palace (or something similar) as an alternative to build a unit, and then it costs a number of gold. In order to win you must both occupy the enemy's capital and kill his Warlord unit. Losing either will lead to some kind of penalty (different penalties for either) but you won't immediately lose. No, the fall of your capital should not be the end of the game at all, nor for that matter should be the death of your warlord. Not to give too much away, without your capital you cannot promote a hero to a warlord, without a warlord you cannot hire new heroes. You can continue to play as long as you have loyalty flags in at least one city. A warlord can turn any city with a loyalty flag into a capital. If you have no warlords, no heroes and no loyalty flags you are eliminated and all cities defect to whatever side they have a loyalty flag of. You will generally have to protect your core territory because conquered territory is generally far less productive than core territory. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #185
On the other hand I almost never do that simply because it takes too long. It's probably a personality thing. For me it's "slow and steady wins the race" -- see my handle. But I still think there should be a capital that you need to conquer in order to win. A variety of victory conditions is a good thing -- take the capital, kill the warlord, first to X gold, drop below N cities = lose, survive N turns, etc. That obviously requires a bit more AI programming, but I think it's worth it for the replay value it adds. There's only one thing that really makes the game tedious and it's the auto-move and vectoring going outside of cities. And yes, there is vectoring. In W4 the vectoring only works for new units, yes? (I haven't found a way to vector existing units as could be done in W3. For existing units you're stuck with auto-move.) The unit movement is not the only thing making it tedious -- the frequent crashes (even with 1.05) are also really tedious. And my previous take on the whole game being tedious (well, maybe 80+%) wasn't from a number of design elements point of view (as there are only a few design elements contributing to it, mainly just one) but in terms of the % of play time I spend dealing with them. Just wondering, have you played 1.05 with Emperor + Uber Retinue? Good point. Normally when I buy a new game I play through a number of scenarios on normal difficulty to get a feel for things before I go cranking up the difficulty. Unfortunately with W4 the tedious play and constant crashing conspired so that I have only played about a half dozen scenarios, and none of those all of the way to the end. (I have had multiple scenarios "end" with a save game that crashes as soon as I reload and hit "end turn", though my latest 1.05 game hasn't gotten stuck in that trap yet.) So I gave up on the game (I have no shortage of less frustrating activitities available) and never got to the point of cranking up the difficulty. Cranking up the difficulty should make the play less mechanical and more fun, but maybe not enough to overcome unit movement and crashing issues. (If I get bored some time I'll give it a shot.) kill off all high level enemy heroes of the enemy with said hero+elite group Actually I would kill enemy hero stacks (or at least soften them up) with more disposable units so I wasn't putting my own hero at too much risk. That aside, your list is basically much of what I liked about W3. Though I don't recall heroes being *that* key to the game. They were more important for quests than for battle, at least the way I played. I also tended to use them in defensive stacks on the front lines. (Now with Age of Wonders it isn't uncommon to have a single "super hero" spreading carnage all over the map. But, um, that just made the game even more fun -- especially when that hero was an enemy hero and you had to throw an organized pile of armies at them to take them down. Maybe the same can happen in W3 but I don't remember seeing it.) Creating two modes takes up development time that could be spent more efficiently elsewhere. Actually, that's not true. Just like Age of Wonders does, you can simply have the "auto" version be exactly the same as the "full tactical" version, with the only differences being that in "auto" AI plays both sides and the battle is (by default) not shown. Warlords combat is always symbolic and abstract, that is the entire gist of the game. I think the point of the game is to be fun. I'm just telling you what I would find to be fun in a future Warlords game. (There may be other variations of tactical combat that would be fun as well, but W4 tactical combat was not one of them.) I'm not sure it adds that much to the game but it is certainly a fix to the Warlords exploit of assassination where you kill off all the enemies heroes early on and then win the game. IMO, you are trying to "fix" the game by removing all of the fun. Hunting down enemy heros (that the enemy can not easily replace) is fun. Keeping your heros alive (because they can't be easily replaced) adds tension to the game, requiring you to balance making the most use of your heroes against not getting them dead. Watering down heroes so they are little more than regular army units makes them sound kind of pointless. (Now if there are balance problems that make rushing an issue -- I haven't seen that but that doesn't mean much -- then maybe those should be addressed. Otherwise your argument kind of sounds like "but children might die and that would be really bad because they're so important to us, so I think we should only have puppies".) It's 8 units too many. Put simply, I do not enjoy throwing my units away after decisively outmaneuvering the enemy. Yeah! They should just see your greatness, give up, and bow down before you! How dare they put up a fight! If you are attacking the enemy stronghold, it only makes sense that you should expect a much stronger fight than when you were attacking "random enemy city #17". And in such fights units die. It's called "war". (Maybe this is what you get when the president doesn't allow the returning caskets to be shown on the news...) Even for non-capital cities I would generally attack with a disposable stack: 1 seige + 7 infantry/fodder, or 1 siege + 1 newbie hero with leadership + 6 infantry/fodder Sometimes they manage to take the city all by themselves, sometimes they get killed and I have to put the "real" attack stack into battle. Sometimes I'll use more than one "softener" stack on a city before the "real" attack. In war, you do what you have to do. I've before had to sacrifice about 5 stacks before, taking down many of my best heroes- all to destroy an enemy I had defeated already by any reckoning. Why are you throwing your "best heroes" into battles that they are unlikely to survive? That does not seem like very sound strategy. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #199
turtle wrote:
Actually I would kill enemy hero stacks (or at least soften them up) with more disposable units so I wasn't putting my own hero at too much risk. That aside, your list is basically much of what I liked about W3. Though I don't recall heroes being *that* key to the game. They were more important for quests than for battle, at least the way I played. I also tended to use them in defensive stacks on the front lines. (Now with Age of Wonders it isn't uncommon to have a single "super hero" spreading carnage all over the map. But, um, that just made the game even more fun -- especially when that hero was an enemy hero and you had to throw an organized pile of armies at them to take them down. Maybe the same can happen in W3 but I don't remember seeing it.) I have completed the entire campaign so I have plenty of experiance of playing Warlords III. Yes there is an element of risk, your own heroes might die, but it's a calculated risk, like everything in Warlords III. The key thing is the enemy also takes risk and if you don't kill the enemy hero stack then you WILL lose the game. What is crucial to Warlords V is bonuses. You want to have a stack that has +5 bonuses and -3 penalties for the enemies. Heroes can carry multiple bonuses both positive and negative. This is why not being able to recruit heroes in cities is key weakness in Heroes III, without heroes you are essentially wasting your victories because you aren't building up the kind of unit you need to decisively go on offensive. turtle wrote: Actually, that's not true. Just like Age of Wonders does, you can simply have the "auto" version be exactly the same as the "full tactical" version, with the only differences being that in "auto" AI plays both sides and the battle is (by default) not shown. This feuture already exists in Warlords IV I think and definately in Warlords III. What you were suggesting is that they create two systems of combat, I am against that. turtle wrote: I think the point of the game is to be fun. I'm just telling you what I would find to be fun in a future Warlords game. (There may be other variations of tactical combat that would be fun as well, but W4 tactical combat was not one of them.) Warlords 4 tactical combat is pretty much similar to Warlords 3 combat, except you have more tactical flexibility to decide what order units fight in rather than the sucky system of Warlords III having to decide strategically what units fight in what order. Warlords has always operated on the basis of having 8 unit 'cards' which are deployed one at a time in a certain order. If one were to replace that system with another system, the game wouldn't be Warlords anymore. turtle wrote: IMO, you are trying to "fix" the game by removing all of the fun. Hunting down enemy heros (that the enemy can not easily replace) is fun. Keeping your heros alive (because they can't be easily replaced) adds tension to the game, requiring you to balance making the most use of your heroes against not getting them dead. Watering down heroes so they are little more than regular army units makes them sound kind of pointless. (Now if there are balance problems that make rushing an issue -- I haven't seen that but that doesn't mean much -- then maybe those should be addressed. Otherwise your argument kind of sounds like "but children might die and that would be really bad because they're so important to us, so I think we should only have puppies".) Low level heros are no game-breaking threat turtle. I'm not talking about killing off powerful heroes, I'm talking about the situation where a player is left without heroes so it cannot build up a powerful hero however well it plays it is essentially wasting it's victories. turtle wrote: Yeah! They should just see your greatness, give up, and bow down before you! How dare they put up a fight! If you are attacking the enemy stronghold, it only makes sense that you should expect a much stronger fight than when you were attacking "random enemy city #17". And in such fights units die. It's called "war". (Maybe this is what you get when the president doesn't allow the returning caskets to be shown on the news...) Even for non-capital cities I would generally attack with a disposable stack: 1 seige + 7 infantry/fodder, or 1 siege + 1 newbie hero with leadership + 6 infantry/fodder Sometimes they manage to take the city all by themselves, sometimes they get killed and I have to put the "real" attack stack into battle. Sometimes I'll use more than one "softener" stack on a city before the "real" attack. In war, you do what you have to do. War is not blood sacrifice Turtle. It's not, you have got 1000 of your own men killed, now here is your reward 10,000 enemy casualties, it's you have killed 10,000 enemies but unfortunately 1000 of your own men died. I managed to win the whole of Warlords III campaign without ever having to throw any unit stacks away at all in that manner. I have nothing against using Kamikazee tactics against a powerful foe but to be forced to use such tactics against a essentially defeated foe is really irritating. turtle wrote: Why are you throwing your "best heroes" into battles that they are unlikely to survive? That does not seem like very sound strategy. Because those heroes stacks utterly overran every other damned city on the map that's why! They destroyed armies far larger than the poxy band that hides in their capital. And now having won the game already I am forced to march a collection of cannon-fodder across the map in order to perform the obligatory blood sacrifice neccesery to destroy the stupidly powerful towers defending the capital. |
|
|
Re: Warlords V Design Proposal- Introduction 13 years ago #201
Slayer of Cliffracers wrote:
Warlords has always operated on the basis of having 8 unit 'cards' which are deployed one at a time in a certain order. If one were to replace that system with another system, the game wouldn't be Warlords anymore. Yes! With the tactical combat in W4 you just added another dimension to this system, but it could be further refined, say, by switching the surviving unit after the enemy unit has died. Slayer of Cliffracers wrote: War is not blood sacrifice Turtle. It's not, you have got 1000 of your own men killed, now here is your reward 10,000 enemy casualties, it's you have killed 10,000 enemies but unfortunately 1000 of your own men died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory I'm sorry but you're simply not quite right here. Sometimes war will cost you a lot, and sometimes it'll cost too much, as in the case of king Pyrrhus. Slayer of Cliffracers wrote: I managed to win the whole of Warlords III campaign without ever having to throw any unit stacks away at all in that manner. It honestly doesn't sound very fun. Where's the tension in that? Slayer of Cliffracers wrote: I have nothing against using Kamikazee tactics against a powerful foe but to be forced to use such tactics against a essentially defeated foe is really irritating. And USA surely found it really irritating to suffer such heavy losses when they invaded Iwo Jima. The Japanese were already more or less defeated but USA had to take Iwo Jima because of its strategical importance. More than 21,000 Japanese, and 7,000 American soldiers died. USA would have suffered even heavier losses when attacking the mainland, which is why they decided to use nukes... But there is no such option in Warlords. This kind of strayed but the main point was, like I already mentioned: It's fully possible to suffer heavy losses when attacking an essentially defeated enemy in their last stronghold, especially if they're fortified. You need to take the right tactical decisions and if you don't, especially if you hurry, then you should be punished for it. I could elaborate further on another parallel with the Normands in England - but I won't... Slayer of Cliffracers wrote: Because those heroes stacks utterly overran every other damned city on the map that's why! They destroyed armies far larger than the poxy band that hides in their capital. And now having won the game already I am forced to march a collection of cannon-fodder across the map in order to perform the obligatory blood sacrifice neccesery to destroy the stupidly powerful towers defending the capital. Sounds like you got careless. You produce the siege units in the newly captured cities close to the enemy capital while incoming troops defend them. If you have occupied enough cities nearby you have sufficient siege units in two turns. No need to hurry. Simple as that. |
|
"Negate does not negate Negate."
--- KGB "Moreover, I advise that Daemons and Dark Elves must switch places on the Race Wheel." --- Marcus Porcius Cato
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Seppuccu.
|
Time to create page: 2.21 seconds