@crockett36
This seems interesting. I’ll try it out.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
@Baron:
For now, what seems the challenge is to find the simpler way to increase action between Japan vs USA, to make PTO an interesting Theatre.
On background, I would like that all zero IPCs TTy get +1, but it is secondary compared to increase valuable goals for Japan.
Increasing all South PTO TTy make it and, since 1942.2 ICs are capped by TTy value it was the same mechanic.
However, it can be first play-test without adding more values and just placing ICs on Set-up with +2 prods.
If 1942.2 ANZAC ICs need too much UK’s money to be valuable or defendable , then TTys value can be rised.We’ll just have to take into account what effect adding IPCs to starting incomes will have, if any. For example, Japan would be +5, USA +6, UK +4 and ANZAC +3.
That’s just on the Pacific board. UK would be plus an additional 7 IPCs in Europe. That is getting to be a lot. I just don’t know what effect that will have on purchasing. It certainly gives more of a buffer that the UK has against losing territory to Germany/Italy. Italy would also be up +3, which is more significant to them than to larger powers.
USSR would be upToo much of a swing?+3Edit: +4 also, not counting the supposed +2 for the currently zero pro-Allies neutrals they could also take. That makes for Allies +13 vs Axis +3 on Europe side.Edit: missed another… add in one more pro-Allies neutral. For a total of +14 IPCs Allies vs +3 IPCs Axis. Breaks down to USSR +6 and UK +8.
@Baron:
IC in itself can become an interesting strategical unit in 1942.2 if 1 IPC TTy can produce 3 units as you suggest Argothair.
I just feel that 15 IPCs is too high in medium economy to buy such.
However, assuming there us only room left on low TTy values, this kind of Infantry base could cost less, maybe 10 ?I was thinking this too. The balance is that it is expensive, but you can put it anywhere, regardless of territory value or being an island. However, it is still 15 IPCs only to produce 3 Infantry. I think the initial cost might be too much.
-
So if people like the abilities for the Military Base, and only the relative cost is in question that seems an easy fix to me. Maybe just drop it to 12 ipcs?
I do worry that anything too low might be overpowered. The whole game comes down to pushing hitpoints. So allowing players to introduce 3 more hitpoints anywhere on the map is pretty significant. It’s 3 per turn once purchased, so that can add up pretty quickly, in some regions. Especially if, as with all the other bases, they can be stacked onto a territory with a Minor IC. We also don’t want it to totally undercut the transport in value/significance.
My suggestion of 15 ipcs was just for parity with the other OOB bases. And to prevent an all out spam (esp. by Japan/Germany). Though I admit 15 seems high for all bases, I would have preferred 12 as the baseline cost.
:-DBut if you want you could have an add tech option “cheap bases” that reduces the cost of all bases by some set amount, like 3 ipcs cheaper to build. (This would drop the cost of the AB/NB from 15 to 12, and drop the MB from 12 to 9.)
Or an add tech option “auto-destroy bases” that removes them on conquest. To help prevent a spam.
Or maybe come up with a secondary ability that somehow makes the 15 ipc price tag for the Military Base easier to swallow? The other two base types each have 2 abilities. Though I’m struggling right now to think of what else a Military Base might do. We’d need an ability that basically already exists, since new abilities are pretty hard to introduce into tripleA. Though honestly 3 hitpoints is pretty powerful all by itself, I don’t know that it really needs a second ability to be compelling.
I’m not hardline though. I suppose I’d rather have it too cheap, than too expensive, since I’m interested in how it might be used to rebalance certain regions of the map for staging.
Just imagining how the Med and North Africa might look, or the Mid East, or the PTO islands, or the Soviet Far East etc. Even the theaters that are currently the most active, might become more interesting. There are a lot more TTs on the Eastern Front at a value of 0/1 than 2. A territory like Normandy or Southern France might be more interesting as Allies if you had the option to add 3 more hitpoints (each turn) beyond what the Minor can produce, with an MB purchase to support it.
Clearly Japan would be dangerous on the mainland, but the Allies would have alternative ways to support the India IC with hitpoints, since there are more viable territories for MBs in the area than there are for Minor Factories (and the MB buy could reinforce a Minor Factory purchase too, bringing a territory like Persia up from 3 to 6 hitpoints per turn.) I see a lot of options there. I think the US has the most to gain from this idea though, since they have the longest distances to cross, the fewest number of viable locations for Minor factories, and the greatest logisitcal challenge in drawing up reinforcements. So I think they would be able to really utilize an MB, which also seems somehow fitting.
-
Hello all,
Let me know what you think of this writeup for the 1942.2 reboot! If this looks even close to right, then I’ll post it in a Word and PDF format tonight or tomorrow. I’ve tried to focus on the narrowest set of changes that would balance the game between Axis & Allies, distribute the action more evenly across the map, make Russia fun to play in the endgame, make America fun to play in the opening, and balance the respective strength of fleets, tactical air forces, and strategic bombing. Did I succeed? You decide. Constructive criticism is extremely welcome, but please try to explain (a) what specific changes you would make to the document, and (b) why your changes will help us get an adequate 1942.2 reboot for playtesting purposes.
Cheers,
Argo
Setup Changes:
+1 Russian Bomber in Moscow
+1 Russian Infantry Base in Yakut S.S.R.
+1 German Destroyer in Baltic Sea
+1 German Infantry Base in Finland
+1 British Infantry Base in Eastern Canada
+1 British Infantry Base in South Africa
+1 British Infantry Base in Eastern Australia
+1 Japanese Infantry Base in French Indochina Thailand
+1 American Infantry Base in SzechuanA0 Non-Combat Turn
Before the game begins, the American player gets to spend exactly 20 IPCs on purchasing units, followed by an American non-combat move, followed by American unit placement. National objectives, victory cities, and lend-lease are not triggered on the A0 turn.
New Unit Roster:
| $3 | Infantry | A1* D2 M1 | |
| $4 | Artillery | A2 D2 M1 | (boosts one infantry’s attack by 1) |
| $5 | AAA Gun | A0* D0* M1 | (up to two preemptive shots vs. planes @ 1; can move in combat |
| $5 | Strategic Bomber | A0* D0 M6 | (can inflict 1d6 points of industrial damage, last casualty) |
| $5 | Submarine | A2 D1 M2 | (can submerge, sneak attack, inflicts 1 point of industrial damage at end of owner’s turn on an adjacent factory or base) |
| $6 | Tank | A3* D3 M2 | |
| $6 | Transport | A0 D0 M2* | (can carry 1 infantry + 1 land unit, move 3 on non-combat, last casualty) |
| $7 | Destroyer | A2 D3 M2 | (blocks submerge/sneak attack for up to two subs) |
| $8 | Fighter | A2 D3 M4 | (can intercept Strategic Bombers @ 2 or escort Strategic Bombers @ 1) |
| $8 | Infantry Base | [building] | (can buy up to 2 infantry here each turn; destroyed if captured; accepts a maximum of 4 industrial damage) |
| $10 | Tactical Bomber | A3 D2 M5 | (boosts one tank’s attack by 1, can intercept @ 1) |
| $10 | Cruiser | A3 D3 M3 | |
| $12 | Carrier | A1 D2 M2 | (carries 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, or 1 strategic bomber) |
| $15 | Factory | [building] | (can buy units here equal to territory’s IPC value; destroyed if captured) |
| $16 | Battleship | A4 D4* M2 | (2 hits to kill, one preemptive shot vs. planes @ 1) |Map Changes:
- North Sea <-> Baltic Sea is now a canal; must control either Norway or Northwest Europe in order to pass through this canal.
- Eastern Atlantic <-> Western Med is now a canal; must control either Gibraltar or Morocco in order to pass through this canal.
- The western border of China is now impassible during combat moves; no player can make a combat move between Szechuan and Kazakh, Szechuan and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Kazakh, Sinkiang and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Evenki, or vice versa. This restriction applies even if the destination territory is undefended. Non-combat moves across China’s western border are still allowed.
Lend-Lease / Endgame Bonus:
At the end of each American turn, each team collects IPCs equal to the number of Victory Cities it controls. If your team controls at least 8 Victory Cities, then the IPC bonus is doubled. If your team controls at least 10 Victory Cities, then the IPC bonus is quadrupled instead. You may distribute the cash received from your victory cities among any or all of the players on your team however you see fit.National Objectives:
In addition to the lend-lease bonus created by victory cities, each nation can collect extra cash during its Collect Income phase if that nation controls certain territories. The National Objective cash is specific to the nation that achieves it, and cannot be transferred.
+5 IPCs for Russia if Allies control at least 3 of Archangel, Vologda, Novosibirsk, and Evenki at end of Russian turn
+5 IPCs for Germany if Axis control at least 3 of Norway, Finland, Morocco, and Algeria at end of German turn
+5 IPCs for Britain if Allies control at least 3 of S. Africa, Madagascar, W. Australia, and E. Australia at end of British turn
+5 IPCs for Japan if Axis control at least 3 of Caroline Islands, Wake Island, Midway, and Hawaii at end of Japanese turn
+5 IPCs for America if Allies control at least 3 of Eastern Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and Solomon Islands at end of American turn (does not trigger on A0 turn)Co-Location Restrictions:
US/UK land units may not make a non-combat move that ends with the US/UK land unit in a Russian-controlled land territory. No more than 3 US/UK airplanes (combined, all types) may end their non-combat moves in Russian-controlled land territories. As each non-combat turn ends, if the Anglos have more than 3 airplanes in Russian-controlled land territories, the Anglos must choose and destroy airplanes until this is no longer the case.
German units may not end their non-combat movement on a Japanese-controlled land territory.
Japanese units may not end their non-combat movement on a German-controlled land territory. -
Looking at what is MB, actually I would be cautious to not introduce this in 1942.2. Bases are G40 units, I think ICs and a few tweaks on IPCs income and production can be enough. I prefer to test with less and grow progressively. G40 is different, hard core players are used to NOs and complex rules and bases and DOW. I tend to say take the best of G40 and place it into 1942.2, but too much will compromise the scale of this game.
In G40 economy, I would be fine with 15 IPCs.
In 1942.2, I would merge all production capabilities into IC somehow. -
Lots of cool ideas in there for the smaller board Arg.
I’d say for your unit revisions, some similar values are likely to be included in the house rules package for v5. Not all of the stuff mentioned above is in the works, but some are pretty close to what you are describing.
Things like specific territory objectives for 1942.2 would likely require a new gamefile, unless barney can be persuaded to include some via tech. Right now I think we’re leaning more towards general objectives for v5 as tech activated. Like all zero ipc islands, or all VCs = such and such. But it’s certainly doable to have more specific stuff for those who want a more AA50 flavor in 1942.2.
-
Thanks, Black Elk. I strongly agree with your policy that face-to-face rules and tripleA rules should match up as much as possible, so that we can draw on both pools of playtesters, but I’m in a bit of a tough spot here – altering many territory IPC values is hard to do on a face-to-face board (but easy on TripleA), and adding national objectives to 1942.2 is easy to do on a face-to-face board (but hard on tripleA).
I am happy to help Barney write the game files, if that would be of any use. I know some of the tripleA markup language.
Otherwise, I think I’ll produce two Word versions of the house rules for 1942.2, one optimized for easy use in TripleA, and one optimized for easy use in face-to-face play. I’ll try to keep the two rulesets overlapping as much as possible.
Also, I’m going to use a single sheet of legal-size (8.5" x 14") paper, rather than A4 paper (8.25" x 11.5"). I assumed A4 would be at least somewhat oversized, but to me it looks basically the same as letter-size paper! What are you, European or something? :-)
In the meantime, if you have any specific corrections to the unit roster, I’m happy to fix them! I’m not wedded to the exact values.
-
OK, as promised, here are the Microsoft Word write-ups of the two versions of the 1942.2 reboot, on one side of one sheet of legal-size paper. I am calling it “1942 Redesign Alpha” per Baron Munchhausen’s suggestion. Once we run some playtests and agree on a more or less final format, I’m tempted to rename it “1942 Third Edition!”
If I get any specific constructive criticism on these writeups (including on their graphic design!), then I’m happy to revise the documents accordingly. If anyone wants to playtest either version of these with me, just let me know!
PDF versions to follow in the next comment.
1942 Redesign Alpha - Face to Face.doc
1942 Redesign Alpha - TripleA.doc -
PDF versions here.
1942 Redesign Alpha - Face to Face.pdf
1942 Redesign Alpha - TripleA.pdf -
I suggest that 1942.2 Redesign should be main title.
If a game file is loaded from a third source, he may think it is actually a third official version.
Also, a secondary should be added to see which step of achievement it is actually. To easy recognize older and newer draft.
Something as simple as 1942.2 Redesign draft 1, or 1942.2 Redesign.d1, etc.Larry develop up to three alpha before second edition mint.
The play-test and discussion will take time and some idea might reveal less interesting for complexity added, etc.I prefer baby steps, to let the bird fly off the nest.
-
Fair enough! 1942 Redesign Alpha it is. I will label the two variants “TripleA” and “Face to Face,” and we can use version numbers as needed as each variant evolves.
-
@SS:
Maybe give a 5 icp NO to any country controlling up to so many sea zones next to kami token or symbol ? Or they attack or blow up the symbol and get some kind of bonus.
Treat it like an island or a Kami base. You can damage it. Can’t launch any Kami’s in those sea zones until repaired.
Still hoping to find a rule like this that might work.
I’d say a straight bonus for control of the sz or associated island will be easiest to implement. I like the idea of a token that can be damaged somehow, but not sure how to make such a thing work in tripleA. I’d settle for a simple enticement for the Allies to move into these otherwise pretty dangerous places.Also, for liberation rules, I’d also like something simple that can work for G40. For example…
Liberation Rules
When a Nation’s capital is captured by the enemy, any territory still under their control may be occupied by a teammate for the purposes of income/production. The first friendly power to enter the territory with a ground unit will place a control marker for their Nation on the territory, to indicate the new ownership.
Any units from the vanquished nation still in the territory are treated as pro-side neutrals, and can be claimed by the new owner.*
When a Capital is liberated, any original territory currently under the direct control of a teammate (e.g. any territory with another teammate’s control marker on it) can only be returned to its original owner once a ground unit from the restored Nation claims the territory.
*seems to me that you could go either way here, with units either claimed by the new owner, or just remaining in place as friendly. The latter option would make restoration automatic, in the case of liberation. Does anyone have a preference?
These rules will allow, for example, the purchase of Allied bases in French territory in Africa/Middle East, even if those territories have not yet been occupied the Axis. It would also remove any weird and gamey incentive for Germany, not to take Normandy, simply to prevent it from being controlled by the Allies.
I think the same rule could work in 1942.2. There we don’t have the concept of pro-side neutrals built in, but the explanation is basically the same. For example, if Moscow falls, and Russia has 2 infantry in Karelia, then the Americans may take direct control of the territory by moving ground units into it. An American control marker is then placed on Karelia and the 2 Russian infantry are switched out for 2 American infantry.
In this situation, if Moscow is Liberated, Karelia will remain under US control, until a Soviet ground unit moves into the territory to reclaim it. At which point the US control marker is removed, and the territory is restored to the Russians for income/production.
Any objections? I can’t see any real downsides to this approach, and think it will solve some of the weirder issues we see cropping up with liberation in A&A.
-
I mostly like these new liberation rules, and I agree that they’ll eliminate lots of gaminess vis-a-vis the French without any real downsides.
However, I’m confused about how Russia is supposed to generate new ground units with which to re-take its capital, and why it’s necessary for Russian units to become pro-Allied neutral after Moscow falls. Is the idea that in order to get the Russian army up and moving again, the Allies have to move American/British units into Moscow, then wait a full turn for Russian income to reboot, then place a couple of Russian infantry in Moscow, then march those Russian infantry back into core Russian territories like Karelia and Kazakh? That seems unnecessarily slow.
What if the territory becomes effectively pro-Allied neutral upon the fall of Moscow (or Paris), but the Russian (or French) armies carry on fighting and moving as normal? If the rump Russian armies capture a German territory, that territory also becomes pro-Allied neutral, which represents partisans denying the area’s resources to Berlin without being organized enough to industrially exploit those resources themselves.
-
I have never played triple A but have been following the posts as far as adjusting triple A. I know I saw some where in these posts where you are putting SBR from a sub next to a factory. There any way you can put the Kami symbol inside a convoy box or put a convoy box next to the Kami symbol so you can damage it somehow ?
That way you have some way of damaging the Kami base symbol. Don’t know if it can be done in Triple A so this idea may be way out there.
-
Typically when Moscow is taken, most of the Russian units are destroyed in the process. So when it is liberated this is usually done by a teammate (or in the problem case, not done by a teammate, simply because they want to avoid the restoration dynamic haha.) Under these rules, the Russians could basically withdraw from the capital. Allow their remaining territories to be occupied/controlled by a teammate and then continue to fight on. Which might be pretty cool.
I’m not sure the pro-side claiming of units is really necessary, just tossed it out there for consideration.
Also, will look over the docs you posted and get back to you soon.
:-D -
ps. the more I think on it, the more doing anything with the units seems unnecessarily complex. Easier to just keep the rules focused on just the territories.
Liberation Rules
When a Nation’s capital is captured by the enemy, any territory still under their control may be occupied by a teammate for the purposes of income/production. The first friendly power to enter the territory with a ground unit will place a control marker for their Nation on the territory to indicate the new ownership.
When a Capital is liberated, any original territory currently under the direct control of a teammate (e.g. any territory with another teammate’s control marker on it) can only be returned to its original owner once a ground unit from the restored Nation claims the territory.
This way the wording is the same for both games. The purpose of that later part of the rule, is to actually encourage the liberation of capitals in the endgame, so the potential liberator isn’t stuck trying to weigh a loss to their own production (gained since the capital fell), against the desire to restore a teammate and the turn order advantage. Here the restoration of individual territories is more deliberate and controlled, instead of an all or nothing type situation.
So you can imagine, for example, that Russia loses Moscow to Germany. The US starts landing units in Karelia (increasing their own income and production in the process). When the US gets to a point where the Liberation of Moscow is possible, they don’t have to face a situation where restoring the Russian capital immediately denies control of the smaller factory they’ve since taken over. Instead, the Russians would have to move units into Karelia to claim it again. Basically it gives the liberating side more flexibility to fight an effective game under such conditions, instead of being penalized for doing what we’d expect them to do, namely liberate the fallen capital for their team.
For the Kamikazi stuff in G40, going to take a look at what might be possible as far as creating some kind of unit to represent the Kamikazi ability, that might be possible to damage or destroy, once the sea zone is taken over.
-
Pps. Just for the record, the easiest way to avoid some of these problems around capital restoration would be to move the Collect Income phase from the end of the turn to the begining.
But that is a huge change to the gameplay, and sadly the economic balance of the OOB board just collapses under such conditions.
The way A&A works, many Nations are reliant on territory trading to maintain income parity, which means that a given territory can introduce much more money into play over a given round than its printed ipc value would suggest. Take France in 1942.2 as a prime example.
Were I designing a new game from scratch, with an entirely new economic balance, I would have income collection occur at the beginning of the turn. Since I think that produces a more realistic play style regarding territory defense.
Unfortunately I’ve tried this with the OOB games, and it doesn’t work particularly well. The turn order screws some nations way more than others, and you wind up with a fairly massive income gap. This is why I’m trying to find a solution for liberation that works with the Collect Income at the end of the turn OOB structure.
-
Fair enough! 1942 Alpha v1-A and v1-B it is.
What is Alpha V1-B?
I like all these 3 Maps changes. It needs to be tested with Player Enforced agreement in Triple A.
Map Changes:
- North Sea <-> Baltic Sea is now a canal; must control either Norway or Northwest Europe in order to pass through this canal.
- Eastern Atlantic <-> Western Med is now a canal; must control either Gibraltar or Morocco in order to pass through this canal.
- The western border of China is now impassible during combat moves; no player can make a combat move between Szechuan and Kazakh, Szechuan and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Kazakh, Sinkiang and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Evenki, or vice versa. This restriction applies even if the destination territory is undefended. Non-combat moves across China’s western border are still allowed.
-
Yes looking over Args pdf, most things listed in the bold sections can be player enforced or easily edited.
The unit roster is its own special beast, so there can start with the tech options available in the HR file. Some of these are slightly different than the values listed in the doc, but it’s a good jumping off point.
For the section that deals with adjusted territory values directly, if you want to display them on the map, it means editing the xml. This is doable, but not something that I would suggest for the basic HR package, which is mainly concerned with rules changes rather than map tweaks. This can be done later if desired, for a more complete full overhaul. Same deal for additional VCs, likewise requires Xml edits.
It may be possible to do this via a tech add, like “18 VCs,” but I’m not sure there. In any case though, it would be easy enough to alter in a separate file, for a mod.
I’d say most things listed in the pdf are achievable. But will be easier to create once the basic HR toggles are in place for some of the more generic one off features.
First we gotta cinch up G40 though hehe. Would be nice to drop both files at the same time, so the people can get familiar with the tech add approach, and explore save game settings. Should be fun!
:-D -
Glad most of it looks doable. Like I said before, if you send me a copy of the HR file you’re working with, I’ll be happy to adjust the PDFs accordingly.
Part of why I prepared the PDFs is that I thought you wanted to use the 1942.2 redesign as a bridge and testing ground that would pave the way for a G40 redesign. I’m surprised to hear you say now that the 1942.2 redesign playtesting should wait until the G40 redesign is finished.
Also, I would strongly caution everyone against releasing a redesign that lacks any mechanism for boosting the importance of the southern and Pacific territories, e.g. Australia. Personally, I think it’s very easy to edit the IPC value of territories in an xml file on TripleA – I’ve done it many times for my own amusement; you just have to edit a couple of clearly organized lines of text by typing in the new IPC values that you want. I will cheerfully make the edits myself if you want to send me the base .xml file. Even if it were really hard, though, it would still be worth doing, because players are understandably low on patience for this entire series. If we release yet another edition (even an unofficial one) that encourages players to ignore South Africa and Australia and Hawaii, then I think we will see some good players give up on the franchise altogether.
-
Map Changes:
- North Sea <-> Baltic Sea is now a canal; must control either Norway or Northwest Europe in order to pass through this canal.
- Eastern Atlantic <-> Western Med is now a canal; must control either Gibraltar or Morocco in order to pass through this canal.
- The western border of China is now impassible during combat moves; no player can make a combat move between Szechuan and Kazakh, Szechuan and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Kazakh, Sinkiang and Novosibirsk, Sinkiang and Evenki, or vice versa. This restriction applies even if the destination territory is undefended. Non-combat moves across China’s western border are still allowed.
For the first two, the proper term to describe it would be “straits” rather than canals.
Norway/Denmark would be the Strait of Kattegat/or the Strait of Skagerrak.
Gibraltar/Morocco would be the Strait of Gibraltar.For geographical and historical accuracy, I think you might consider getting rid of the either/or and making control of these based on a single territory or control of two territories (rather than one out of two territories).
Properly the Strait of Kattegat is between Denmark and Sweden, (Skagerrak between Denmark and Norway), but the entrance to the Baltic itself should really be defined by who controls Denmark/Sweden. In this case Sweden is neutral, so it really comes down to Denmark. The sea lanes between these Danish islands are very narrow, so its hard to imagine how anyone passes through to the Baltic with ease in this period, without controlling first Denmark.
The Strait of Gibraltar, likewise would seem to require control of both Morocco and Gibraltar, or at least control of Gibraltar itself.
While on the subject, I think if you’re going to introduce new movement restrictions on the water, it would be worth making the Suez Canal entirely controlled by Egypt alone, as Panama is. In reality the Sinai is part of Egypt, so its kind of bizarre to have Trans-Jordan involved in control of Suez the way it is OOB.
Yet another Strait that might have been interesting to include would be Singapore, (which would have given Britain a reason to care more about Malaya), though unfortunately the map design with the sea zone layouts in this region don’t really encourage the idea visually. 1942.2 for example, has 3 sea zones all meeting up in this region 36, 37, and 47. There I suppose you could make free movement through sz 36 dependent on control of Malaya. In Global you could do the same for sz 37. If you wanted to make Singapore more relevant to the gameplay, and somewhat more accurate in terms of its strategic value historically. That’s the only other Strait I can think of that would be relevant to the gameplay. Aden doesn’t exist on either board. The Strait of Messina isn’t really relevant to the way the Sicily and Med sea zones are set up. Same deal with the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian gulf, just not relevant to the design of the sea zones. Unfortunately the sea zones just weren’t drawn in a way that would allow those straits to come into play, without seeming weird. The sea zone drafting in A&A always struck me as a little bit arbitrary, but I guess you kind of have to work with what you’re given in these games.
Suggested Topics
