Strike craft.... need to be refactored completely. Some ideas here, please propose more!

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
17. Strike craft move and fire speed greatly increased. (other numbers reduced to compensate) - in fact I'd support the change for movement speed in the current build, as is! at least x5.
18. Superiority bonuses could be something done like combat phases, same as EU4 or plans in HOI if you achieve it, the rest of the capitals gain offensive and defensive % until next phase/day/week. Some randomness is needed for this to not keep snowballing and be one sided.
19. Defensive bonuses include cover with damage reduction, and even gaining extra shield and/or armor/hull points.
  • Even with the improvements made to SC movement, they're still limited by a system that was built almost exclusively for warship movement. SC would need to have their weapons be turret-based to have any chance of increased fire rate.
  • See #3 in the above post,
  • Wuh? Why would they get these bonuses?
 
  1. I've wanted the Devs to do something like this for GW for a while, and I could easily see a similar thing for SC. However, Kinetics are pretty well gimped on choice, too. There maybe needs to be a reckoning among the weapon types to shift the options around, maybe in making Energy weapons and Kinetic weapons into "Beam" and "Ballistic". That would have some of the particle weapons from Energy move to "Ballistic", in that they have a slower movement speed (still near instantaneous on the map/calendar scale) than light speed weapons, and that leads to different Tracking and Accuracy considerations. After that there might be a little better balance of choice between the two, and then you can have some variety for GW and SC as well.
True, but i'm open to any exact semantics and future balancing/playing with this.
  1. Different sizes for SC is something I've talked about before, but currently there is only a single size for Hangars, so the flights would end up with effectively the same hit points and capability going out. Roles is another issue and can be used to create bombers (only interested in Corvettes on up offensively), interceptors (chase bombers on up), and patrols (stick close to their carriers and focus on nearby bombers and incoming GW).
The proposal would have multiple hangar sizes that offer alternatives bonuses/maluses and cost benefits.
  1. SC Superiority would be very hard to pull off - there isn't any specific class-based bonus/penalty applied to fleets for, say, not/having Destroyers or Cruisers, so I'd have difficulty accepting a similar penalty that is currently based just on weapon-type.
Yes it needs some big combat rework - But I'd like to have fleet classes ratios as well.
  1. Sorry, can't support this - depending on how big you classify SC relative to Cruisers or Battleships, a Hangar actually would have multiple squadrons of SC per, and the replacements would come from that stock. The slow refresh speed is a necessary weasel to allow replacements throughout the fight, same as GW not flushing the tubes at the beginning of a battle and then being useless.
As long as BBs can wipe the system quickly there's no point. Yes, the hangard should have multiple backup squadrons that are sent out if a group is defeated. That's one benefit of having large hangars. Imagine hangars with options for either a large wing with limited waves, or a smaller wing with many waves.
  1. My name is Cordane and I endorse this message.
  2. The balance for GW and PD/SC/Flak is still out of whack - without more details, I can only give a "tell me more" recommendation.
Open to design/proposals myself. haven't thought more on it.
  1. I could see Hangars going as low as Destroyers (it's just another L-slot equivalent).
Same, easier on the new players as well to get started, and by mid game you should sit and design what you want.
  1. The modifiers, both affecting their carriers and SC themselves, need to exist and they need to affect entire SC squadrons equally.
Yes
  1. See #3 above before trying for this.
  2. While SC are considered part of a carrier's weapon slots, they should still have a level continued existence based on their carrier's.
No easy solution for this. Perhaps thay should dissapear and go into some global reserve, for re-deployment or in sme queue.
  1. What size are you thinking would be for Carriers as a class? Twice that of a Battleship? In the 6x Corvette gap between Cruisers and Battleships? As long as there are options to go full-hog Hangars on Cruisers and Battleships (or at least Hangars/P-slots), along with proper functioning carrier computers, I don't think you necessarily have to have a dedicated hull-size/type.
No bigger than BBs, and it could be smaller as well.
  1. Fleet engagement is troublesome with regard to SC, on top of the calendar/map scale completely screwing up ranges in general. Whether the engagement range for carriers is a bit too small can be discussed, but I wouldn't be in favor of a carrier group immediately battle-locking the entire system on hyperlane arrival.
If SC are x5-x7 times faster as they should it doesn't matter. i believe the idea/system of not enagaging the entire system to be a flaw of the game.
  1. SC/Hangars as weapon slots should not require re-arming/replacing costs - same for GW. If you want to talk about SC as legitimate separately-tracked mini-warships, that would be a wholly different conversation (and one I'd be interested in).
No, of you have SC as having excess in storage on the hangars it woudn't be tedious and could be managed with auto settings. On the same spirit I would favor the introduction of cost/supplies for all classes and repairs. Right now fleet logistics and repairs are nooby and trivial.
  1. See #12 above - I am in agreement that it shouldn't be happening, but the calendar/map scale is the first issue to be addressed.
  2. While SC/Hangars are weapon slots, this doesn't make sense. See the end of #13 above. (Actually, the only thing I would offer is available Admirals being generated based on fleet actions with SC, Admirals that are carrier-focused.
There should be only 1 -2 extra spaces after the admiral for slotting aces for the entire fleet. Perk/tech/tradition modifiable. They don't sit on any particular group, imagine them like an XO.
  1. See #13 and #14 above. Right now, SC are glorified projectiles. If you end up completely changing what SC are, then you can look at making them survivable long-term.
Yes, and Aces can go to the leader pool if they survive combat/destruction for re-assignment.
 
This is a very old question that devs do not want to try solving for a very long time. But it seems they may be reading now.

The main problem with the strike crafts and rockets is the balance issue: BS doomstack with X and L slots with alpha-strike kills half of H-slotted ships before the fighters even reach their enemy. The game mechanics does not allow strike crafts to fly without a carrier so the fighters are also destroyed by this alpha-strike.
So to solve this we should not allow this alpha-strike to happen.

How to do so?
As for me, the best option is to significally reduce direct fire weapons range for all sizes, but increase engagement range.

Ok, let's imagine we did so.
The new problem is dps. Strike crafts have high dps on paper, but they fly in rounds and practically can attack only when they are close enough to their target, so they cannot deal stable dps.
There're two possible solutions:
1. Increase strike crafts weapons range
2. Change fighters flight pathes so they don't do big circles, instead they fly around enemy ships like flies.
I'd prefer the 2nd option. Doesn't seem to be too difficult to change the circle radius.

So what's left?
The problem of strike crafts dying at the moment their carrier dies still not solved. Changing this game mechanics seems to be too hard, so we should make carriers to stay on the longest range possible.
This also leads to another problem: carrier's weapons will not reach enemy too. So we need more H slots with just some S for PD instead of mix of H slots with M or L. This is easily done even via simple modding.

So what we will get after we do all these changes?
At first seems that this will lead to mixed fleets of carrier BS with some melee ships (corvettes mostly due to their 90% max evasion).
But to oppose such fleet enemy needs some anti-corvette ships and PD to counter strike-crafts.
So to oppose enemy fleet with some anti-corvette ships (they are usually bigger ships with S and M slots) you will also need to make some mixed melee ships to tank the damage.
Also there's an old problem of targeting. The code that picks targets for different ships in the fleet should be reviewed to allow these changes to actually work.

But this is not the end!
The other unused weapon type is rocketry.
Rockets should be the ultimate weapon to deal a huge damage if enemy haven't got enough PD to counter them.
So their damage should be the highest among weapon types, range in between strike-crafts and direct fire weapons, low attack speed.
This also leads to some changes in direct fire weapons: their damage can be lowered to prevent alpha-strikes completely and to make fights a bit longer in endgame, also they can be even more specialised against shields and armor.

It will bring the combat to a new level if done right.
This is what I dream of in Stellaris for some years.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • Even with the improvements made to SC movement, they're still limited by a system that was built almost exclusively for warship movement. SC would need to have their weapons be turret-based to have any chance of increased fire rate.
Yes. but they would be treated and a single grouped unit. No point in simulating individual fighters and their weapons one by one.
  • See #3 in the above post,
  • Wuh? Why would they get these bonuses?
To simulate the effects of a combat story/manuever where a fighter would block or confuse a capital weapon firing, shooting at the weapon mount on a mothership and all the rest of the dozens of scenarios that could happen in battle. Some of the most advanced cases could pe perks/traditions etc. The key here is abstraction.
 
This is a very old question that devs do not want to try solving for a very long time. But it seems they may be reading now.

The main problem with the strike crafts and rockets is the balance issue: BS doomstack with X and L slots with alpha-strike kills half of H-slotted ships before the fighters even reach their enemy. The game mechanics does not allow strike crafts to fly without a carrier so the fighters are also destroyed by this alpha-strike.
So to solve this we should not allow this alpha-strike to happen.

How to do so?
As for me, the best option is to significally reduce direct fire weapons range for all sizes, but increase engagement range.

Ok, let's imagine we did so.
The new problem is dps. Strike crafts have high dps on paper, but they fly in rounds and practically can attack only when they are close enough to their target, so they cannot deal stable dps.
There're two possible solutions:
1. Increase strike crafts weapons range
2. Change fighters flight pathes so they don't do big circles, instead they fly around enemy ships like flies.
I'd prefer the 2nd option. Doesn't seem to be too difficult to change the circle radius.

So what's left?
The problem of strike crafts dying at the moment their carrier dies still not solved. Changing this game mechanics seems to be too hard, so we should make carriers to stay on the longest range possible.
This also leads to another problem: carrier's weapons will not reach enemy too. So we need more H slots with just some S for PD instead of mix of H slots with M or L. This is easily done even via simple modding.

So what we will get after we do all these changes?
At first seems that this will lead to mixed fleets of carrier BS with some melee ships (corvettes mostly due to their 90% max evasion).
But to oppose such fleet enemy needs some anti-corvette ships and PD to conter strike-crafts.
So to oppose enemy fleet with some anti-corvette ships (they are usually bigger ships with S and M slots) you will also need to make some mixed melee ships to tank the damage.
Also there's an old problem of targeting. The code that picks targets for different ships in the fleet should be reviewed to allow these changes to actually work.

But this is not the end!
The other unused weapon type is rocketry.
Rockets should be the ultimate weapon to deal a huge damage if enemy haven't got enough PD to counter them.
So their damage should be the highest among weapon types, range in between strike-crafts and direct fire weapons, low attack speed.
This also leads to some changes in direct fire weapons: their damage can be lowered to prevent alpha-strikes completely and to make fights a bit longer in endgame, also they can be even more specialised against shields and armor.

It will bring the combat to a new level if done right.
This is what I dream of in Stellaris for some years.
You need damage of direct fire weapons to have a significant falloff curve with distance to target, and to make distance a factor in target accuracy. With those 2, SC, missiles, rockets and torpedoes become relevant to the game. Without those 2 factors, they are just cosmetics.

Yest it would need quite a lot of work to make this possible 100%, but some can be done to improve the situation with little effort.

At least lets put our thoughts out, and the devs can pick and choose.
 
Carriers aren't going to beat artillery battleships directly, because carriers are large and artillery battleships are specifically designed to hit large enemy ships with overwhelming firepower. Nerfing artillery battleships so they can't do their job is not a solution.

Corvettes ought to be the counter to pure artillery battleship alpha strike fleets, since each shot can only kill one corvette and shots can miss. Numbers obviously need to be adjusted to make this a reality. In particular, we need to do away with the way ships move in super slow motion in combat (meaning long-range weapons have an unfair advantage of firing again and again at a ship as it closes the distance), and the tracking/evasion calculation needs to be rebalanced by someone who knows about Path of Exile or something, because the current formulae make it far too easy to hit things, which removes the niche for weapon types with higher accuracy/tracking (e.g. S weapons).

Carriers should be able to have more hangar slots, instead of largely useless small weapons and PD. They can then have a niche of protecting the artillery battleships against corvettes, since you have a large number of strike craft per ship, and the strike craft have high accuracy and tracking.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You need damage of direct fire weapons to have a significant falloff curve with distance to target, and to make distance a factor in target accuracy. With those 2, SC, missiles, rockets and torpedoes become relevant to the game. Without those 2 factors, they are just cosmetics.

Yest it would need quite a lot of work to make this possible 100%, but some can be done to improve the situation with little effort.

At least lets put our thoughts out, and the devs can pick and choose.

Personally I'd like the devs to pick and fix the 4+ year old point defense targeting bug before changing anything about strike craft or missiles. Because about a year ago they did a whole strike craft overhaul with the carrier computer that basically made the combo of long range carriers and long range missile ships super OP since strike craft always get targeted first even if they are out of range and missiles get ignored. Until that's fixed, strike craft will be, and always have been, underperforming more than intended.
 
Carriers aren't going to beat artillery battleships directly, because carriers are large and artillery battleships are specifically designed to hit large enemy ships with overwhelming firepower. Nerfing artillery battleships so they can't do their job is not a solution.

Corvettes ought to be the counter to pure artillery battleship alpha strike fleets, since each shot can only kill one corvette and shots can miss. Numbers obviously need to be adjusted to make this a reality. In particular, we need to do away with the way ships move in super slow motion in combat (meaning long-range weapons have an unfair advantage of firing again and again at a ship as it closes the distance), and the tracking/evasion calculation needs to be rebalanced by someone who knows about Path of Exile or something, because the current formulae make it far too easy to hit things, which removes the niche for weapon types with higher accuracy/tracking (e.g. S weapons).

Carriers should be able to have more hangar slots, instead of largely useless small weapons and PD. They can then have a niche of protecting the artillery battleships against corvettes, since you have a large number of strike craft per ship, and the strike craft have high accuracy and tracking.
There's a difference between nerfing artilery BBs and allowing them to vaporize everything on the other side of the system in 1-2 salvos.
 
There's a difference between nerfing artilery BBs and allowing them to vaporize everything on the other side of the system in 1-2 salvos.

Well yes, the balance between late-game DPS and hitpoints probably needs adjusting too, with more options on the defensive side (e.g. shield/armor/hull options that are good at absorbing a few big hits, versus other options that are good at absorbing many small hits). In particular, I don't think endless repeatable attack speed tech is a good idea.
 
Frankly, I believe that the current combat system is too simplistic in its results (!) to give strike crafts a good niche on their own. Two fleets meet and duke it out until one has taken too much damage and bails, no? To me, it seems all reduced to an equation on how to reach the most damage output.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well yes, the balance between late-game DPS and hitpoints probably needs adjusting too, with more options on the defensive side (e.g. shield/armor/hull options that are good at absorbing a few big hits, versus other options that are good at absorbing many small hits). In particular, I don't think endless repeatable attack speed tech is a good idea.
if you just buff general defenses like that, you end up making all other weapons except alrilery even more useless. Idealy long range fire needs it's own damage type, to counter it.
 
if you just buff general defenses like that, you end up making all other weapons except alrilery even more useless. Idealy long range fire needs it's own damage type, to counter it.

It's not just the long range but the straight damage in the first volley (as opposed to DPS, which could be higher on rapid-fire weapons), which is why I think there should be a distinction in damage mitigation between big hits and small hits. That doesn't just mean buff defences, it can mean more options than evasion+hitpoints.

For example, you could make it so certain defences reduce the damage taken by a flat amount per shot (making them very good against small weapons but nearly useless against heavy weapons), whereas others nullify a huge amount of damage from a single shot, but then get broken and don't work again for a little while (making them very good against the alpha strike but nearly useless against rapid-fire weapons). You then equip your larger ships with a mixture of these defences depending on what your enemy is using.

Also, changing the tracking/evasion formula to make it harder to hit small ships than it is now would definitely not make S and M weapons "even more useless" compared to L/X weapons. The L/X weapons would actually miss so much that it would become a bad idea to fight corvettes/destroyers with pure artillery.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
For example, you could make it so certain defences reduce the damage taken by a flat amount per shot (making them very good against small weapons but nearly useless against heavy weapons), whereas others nullify a huge amount of damage from a single shot, but then get broken and don't work again for a little while (making them very good against the alpha strike but nearly useless against rapid-fire weapons). You then equip your larger ships with a mixture of these defences depending on what your enemy is using.

Also, changing the tracking/evasion formula to make it harder to hit small ships than it is now would definitely not make S and M weapons "even more useless" compared to L/X weapons. The L/X weapons would actually miss so much that it would become a bad idea to fight corvettes/destroyers with pure artillery.
Probably my most common post is in complaint of the PD system as a way to defeat GW, and I've tried a number of different solutions, with my most developed focusing on countermeasures. Basically, I wanted a defensive system that wasn't going to be only useful against GW, but (like Armor or Shields) would be very useful against its preferred attack types, and still at least somewhat useful against all others. With my Countermeasures system, it's a combination of jammers and decoys that keep some attacks from hitting the defended ship (random chance to be affected), with the lesser sensor systems on GW and SC being more vulnerable to their effects. It does act like another health bar (I know...), but because the attacks are only actually hitting decoys, higher damage attacks count less than their raw damage and lower damage attacks count more. Faster low-damage attacks are actually the best at taking down countermeasures, while the long cooldown alpha strike weapons have the toughest time (but are still chipping away with how much raw damage they're doing in the first place).
 
The main problem with the strike crafts and rockets is the balance issue: BS doomstack with X and L slots with alpha-strike kills half of H-slotted ships before the fighters even reach their enemy. The game mechanics does not allow strike crafts to fly without a carrier so the fighters are also destroyed by this alpha-strike.
So to solve this we should not allow this alpha-strike to happen.
I was watching a couple different versions of a video explanation of the warship class types at the beginning of World War II (101 version and deep version. I recommend both), and what I discovered about Stellaris in watching those is that they seem to have based their warship classes in large part on the dynamic in place not at the beginning of or during WWII, but shortly after World War I. Carriers were support ships, with the range of their primitive planes within the range of the opposing battleships' main guns. Those primitive aircraft were woefully undergunned to have any chance against opposing battleships or even cruisers, so they were relegated entirely to a scouting role. As carrier aircraft improved over the next 20 years or so, they improved their speed, range, and lethality against heavily armored warships, until battleships lost their ability to come close to hitting the opposing fleets and ended up being glorified anti-aircraft emplacements.

While this isn't necessarily a bad beginning for Stellaris, the issue I have is that the development paths for all of the systems are totally in parallel. While RW battleships were overtaken by the range and lethality of carrier air wings by at least early WWII, Stellaris battleships stay totally in the dominant position all the way through as SC continue to be largely toothless against anything bigger than a Corvette. Even if Stellaris SC don't get a 10:1 advantage in Hangar versus L/X-slot range, they should still easily outrange any direct-fire weapon and be able to get their alpha strike in first.

Separately, Stellaris fleets are incredibly lethal toward each other in terms of ship destruction, while RW ship-to-ship battles of WWI and WWII were rarely no-holds-barred slugfests. For example, the Battle of Jutland in WWI, between 151 British and 99 German combat ships, resulted in only 14 British and 11 German ships sunk. The great majority of ship-to-ship battle losses in the Atlantic in WWII were between U-boats and convoy escorts, with only 14 Allied and 13 Axis warships of at least cruiser size (including 1 battleship, battlecruisers, carriers, and escort carriers) sunk. Even something like the Battle of Midway only really resulted in the fleet carriers getting wiped (1 of 3 American; all four Japanese) while the remaining portions of the fleet (23 surface, 16 subsurface American; 17 surface, 13 subsurface Japanese) suffered only 2 losses and one seriously damaged. An emphasis in Stellaris on ships getting knocked out (through either hull or system damage) and then time/resource-consuming repairs would make more sense to me than outright destruction. (Although, outright ship destruction is more easily managed by Stellaris, as damaged ships aren't lost and so have to be handled differently at a fleet level for replacements - perhaps too difficult for Stellaris to figure out.)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I was watching a couple different versions of a video explanation of the warship class types at the beginning of World War II (101 version and deep version. I recommend both), and what I discovered about Stellaris in watching those is that they seem to have based their warship classes in large part on the dynamic in place not at the beginning of or during WWII, but shortly after World War I. Carriers were support ships, with the range of their primitive planes within the range of the opposing battleships' main guns. Those primitive aircraft were woefully undergunned to have any chance against opposing battleships or even cruisers, so they were relegated entirely to a scouting role. As carrier aircraft improved over the next 20 years or so, they improved their speed, range, and lethality against heavily armored warships, until battleships lost their ability to come close to hitting the opposing fleets and ended up being glorified anti-aircraft emplacements.

While this isn't necessarily a bad beginning for Stellaris, the issue I have is that the development paths for all of the systems are totally in parallel. While RW battleships were overtaken by the range and lethality of carrier air wings by at least early WWII, Stellaris battleships stay totally in the dominant position all the way through as SC continue to be largely toothless against anything bigger than a Corvette. Even if Stellaris SC don't get a 10:1 advantage in Hangar versus L/X-slot range, they should still easily outrange any direct-fire weapon and be able to get their alpha strike in first.

Separately, Stellaris fleets are incredibly lethal toward each other in terms of ship destruction, while RW ship-to-ship battles of WWI and WWII were rarely no-holds-barred slugfests. For example, the Battle of Jutland in WWI, between 151 British and 99 German combat ships, resulted in only 14 British and 11 German ships sunk. The great majority of ship-to-ship battle losses in the Atlantic in WWII were between U-boats and convoy escorts, with only 14 Allied and 13 Axis warships of at least cruiser size (including 1 battleship, battlecruisers, carriers, and escort carriers) sunk. Even something like the Battle of Midway only really resulted in the fleet carriers getting wiped (1 of 3 American; all four Japanese) while the remaining portions of the fleet (23 surface, 16 subsurface American; 17 surface, 13 subsurface Japanese) suffered only 2 losses and one seriously damaged. An emphasis in Stellaris on ships getting knocked out (through either hull or system damage) and then time/resource-consuming repairs would make more sense to me than outright destruction. (Although, outright ship destruction is more easily managed by Stellaris, as damaged ships aren't lost and so have to be handled differently at a fleet level for replacements - perhaps too difficult for Stellaris to figure out.)
Space is not, and should not be, the ocean. Space combat is not, and should not, be the same as naval combat.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't use it then. Carrier does not have any advantage in space battle. What kind of strike craft is faster and has longer range than a Tachyon lance?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Since we are in the realm of speculative-ficiton, we can justify anything, be it the dominance of battleships, carriers, corvettes or Mumm-Ra. We, well, paradox, literally decide on the rules that apply.

So I suggest let's figure out an engaging combat mechanic, where every ship class and loadout has its time, and its place and justify after the fact.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
For example, you could make it so certain defences reduce the damage taken by a flat amount per shot (making them very good against small weapons but nearly useless against heavy weapons), whereas others nullify a huge amount of damage from a single shot, but then get broken and don't work again for a little while (making them very good against the alpha strike but nearly useless against rapid-fire weapons). You then equip your larger ships with a mixture of these defences depending on what your enemy is using.
I don't know if the flat damage reduction is still in the game but you can simulate the second one. Just lower the shield capacity a lot but up the recharge rate so that they will recharge faster than artillery cannons reload. Thing is it won't change much because there are not 1-10 battleships in a fight but dozens or even hundreds of them. To make it work you'll need to redo all the military techs, and probably the whole tech tree too. And maybe also all the buildings to make sure your resource balancing is right. And so on, and so on.

Stellaris combat is such a mess you need a total overhaul to tackle it.
 
Space is not, and should not be, the ocean. Space combat is not, and should not, be the same as naval combat.
<sarcasm> The vessels used in space combat are not, and should not, be named the same as the vessels in naval combat. No more battleships, cruisers, destroyers, or corvettes. Come up with new names. They shouldn't even be referred to as war-ships. </sarcasm>

Just because space is not the same medium as the ocean does not mean that it does not share many of the same characteristics with regard to empires and strategic use. Continents and islands separated by ocean aren't much different in general to planets and other orbiting bodies separated by the vacuum of space, in terms of relative technological difficulty in getting around and travelling significant distances. Yes, space doesn't have the restrictions of air friction and gravity to limit the pure movement of projectiles, but just because a rail cannon's bullet can still strike with the same force that it had when it left its barrel doesn't mean that it has any reasonable chance of hitting anything mobile and aware beyond even a light-second. Lightspeed weapons are better in this regard, but even they have limits to the range at which they'll still be capable of real damage. Strike craft, on the other hand, only need time to travel to their target and then they're just as effective at 10M or 100M km range as at 100 km. And a situation where a guns-only war vessel is massively out-ranged by a an enemy vessel launching waves of small attack craft, well that sounds a lot like RW battleships against carriers.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: