Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Command Nexus => Topic started by: Yabcok on April 28, 2013, 02:53:18 PM

Title: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on April 28, 2013, 02:53:18 PM
So, is anyone interested in starting new PBEM (SMACX, 3-4 Humans)?
Y.

Update: still one more player needed! :)

Latest game settings agreed by all the players - please see the attachment.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on April 29, 2013, 05:15:40 PM
I would love a game. I just found my way here, so it will be my first multiplayer. Any preferences on factions involved/rules? I prefer  ;zak;- ;deidre;- ;aki; in that order.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 29, 2013, 07:13:59 PM
I'm in. No tech stag and no blind research and I'm fine with any other settings.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on April 29, 2013, 07:45:34 PM
Hi,

It’s nice to see you want to join! :)

About exact rules and settings, my proposal is as follow – I’m attaching some kind of the template with a list of preferred settings, including the information which are preferred but optional, and which are “as a must”, at least for me.

If you could update the document using your own preferences (change preferred ones if you like and fix your own “as a must” if you have any) it should be the easiest way to find the final settings. What do you think about such a plan? If you like it we can start from Wiglaf to not to do it in parallel...

Yabcok
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on April 29, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
My rules, only notable change is that i prefer blind research because it makes things interesting (less predictable etc.)
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 30, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
And some minor comments from me.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on April 30, 2013, 05:02:24 PM
So it seems we have a really nice picture of preferred settings... :)

The list of things we have to take closer look at are:

1)   Blind research, tech stag and additional units (colony pods) on game start.

It seems we have slightly different views regarding accelerated start and (in general) tech-taking speed, but fortunately no one stated any settings “as a must”, so we should find some compromise. What do you think about such a compromise:

•   direct research (in other case it will be really unlikely to find any builders who want to join);
•   tech stag turned on (to not to rip through tech–tree with lightening speed);
•   one more Colony Pod and one more Scout Patrol on game start.
   
Please for opinion or any different proposals – I’ll follow your decision.

2)   AI & map size.

For me it’s fine to play with or without AI on any map. What do you think about such a plan:

•   wait for one more human to join;
•   play with AI (but no Morgan, Pirates or Uni as AI);
•   with 7 players onboard (4HP + 3AI) choose Large map.

?

3)   Copters (limiting attack factor to 4).

For me it’s OK. I personally would vote for something a bit greater ( 6 or 8 ), but I’ll follow your opinion.

PS. Modifying Alphax.txt file seems not to be a convenient solution, especially if someone plays several games at the time, but there is one thing I used to do in such circumstances – instead of copying appropriate file before every turn (indeed really annoying), I just kept several instances of the game on my hard drive with appropriate Alphax.txt for every instance (named like a game, to always choose the one which is needed), what made me happy and not scared about modified file for every game. Now I’m happy with everything without any additional solutions because my game capacity is equal to 1...  :)   

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but regarding everything else it seems we are compatible... :)

Few other things:

4)   Patches.

My awareness finishes on official v2. Any suggestion about unofficial ones it will be rational to use?

5)   Factions.

I’m for Cultists.

6)   Game rules.

What about attached ones?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on April 30, 2013, 05:10:09 PM
Your changes look fine to me. I am not partial to blind research, i'm just not experienced enough to use directed to its full potential yet (ironically, i actually play a builder game on blind, so i am looking forward to seeing what i was missing). It is the progenitors who always kill me on transcend, so if we have other AI it should be fine. Also, out of interest, why would you ban the Empath Guild? It seems pretty benign to me, commlinks, vote bonus and infiltrators are nice, but don't seem to impact my games horribly much. And a kind of newb question, but copters can attack multiple times per turn? I had no idea.  ;zak; is my favorite faction if that is all right, but since you don't even want him as an AI i am also willing to play  ;deidre;.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on April 30, 2013, 05:30:19 PM
Your changes look fine to me. I am not partial to blind research, i'm just not experienced enough to use directed to its full potential yet (ironically, i actually play a builder game on blind, so i am looking forward to seeing what i was missing).

Playing against humans you will have to learn how to use full potential of your research- the sooner, the better... :)

It is the progenitors who always kill me on transcend, so if we have other AI it should be fine.

We will surely won’t choose progenitors – they are a bit too powerful even in AI’s hands, making the game unbalanced.

Also, out of interest, why would you ban the Empath Guild? It seems pretty benign to me, commlinks, vote bonus and infiltrators are nice, but don't seem to impact my games horribly much.

“Knowing your enemy is the quickest path to victory”.

Do not underestimate infiltration - in many games it’s a key to victory, so EG is considered to be too powerful by many players, including me. 


And a kind of newb question, but copters can attack multiple times per turn? I had no idea.”

Yes they can.

;zak; is my favorite faction if that is all right, but since you don't even want him as an AI i am also willing to play  ;deidre;.

Zak is a very good choice (but be aware that he is also one of the most difficult factions to play). We don’t want him in AI’s hands because AI is cheating, so he dig through tech tree with a really lightening speed and then spread knowledge among all other players.   
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 30, 2013, 05:43:12 PM
Yabcok, thanks for that file, it's good to have the rules in one place, although to be honest, most of the boil down to "don't exploit the bugs", which is one general rule I'd like all of us to follow.

Hence, I'm rather against upgrading crawlers and then cashing them for instabuild - I'm quite sure it's not the way they are designed. Similarly, I shun retro-engineering - building exactly the same kind of unit is fine in my book, but using specific modules for other designs doesn't sit well with me - as the probe-to-rover bug shows, it was probably a hole in design.

Also, I'm quite sure the part about +4 PROBE is irrelevant, as the bug is fixed in patch v.2. Or am I wrong? I'm not sure, but something about Data Angels definitely got fixed.

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of tech stagnation as I'd like to finally bring one game to a conclusion, and tech stag is the last thing to help with that.

Question - why no Morgan, Pirates or Uni as AI?

Patch - the latest patch by scient is the minimum, we can also (and I'd appreciate that) try out the new patch by kyrub, which enhances AI behaviour.

As to game copies - I did that for kyrub's patch, but GOG version works funny when copied just like that, I don't want to have an unstable version for MP. As far as I know, alphax.txt doesn't need any changes if we don't play with more serious modification (increased price of CBA, chopper movement cut in half, etc.).

Wiglaf: Empath Guild is banned quite common and I'm also in favour of that. It's all about infiltration, really - you'd better do your best to prevent others from infiltrating you (protective probe teams, sensor networks, scouts and the like) and EG gives free intel you don't have a single chance to avert. CBA is also OP.

My factions - I still don't know, let us wait for a fourth one first.

Copters - another idea to bring them wee down is to ban attacking base tiles with choppers. Let me know which one you prefer.

Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 30, 2013, 05:47:27 PM
One more thing:

This rule:

1.4. Attempts on catching native life forms using multiple units with Confirm Odds option turned on are allowed (decision to join or to not to is generated only once per turn but it’s generated separately for every new unit trying to catch NLF).

What is it about? I've never heard about any capture bug/issue and I thought I knew all of them. Wasn't it something fixed with patches?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 30, 2013, 06:01:42 PM
Yep, I just checked my copy (GOG, all official patches, scient's on the top of that) - +4 PROBE is no longer treated as zero, i.e. Data Angels with Covert Ops are properly immune to MC.

EDIT: typo.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on April 30, 2013, 06:34:18 PM
Yabcok, thanks for that file, it's good to have the rules in one place, although to be honest, most of the boil down to "don't exploit the bugs", which is one general rule I'd like all of us to follow.

Hence, I'm rather against upgrading crawlers and then cashing them for instabuild - I'm quite sure it's not the way they are designed. Similarly, I shun retro-engineering - building exactly the same kind of unit is fine in my book, but using specific modules for other designs doesn't sit well with me - as the probe-to-rover bug shows, it was probably a hole in design.

Also, I'm quite sure the part about +4 PROBE is irrelevant, as the bug is fixed in patch v.2. Or am I wrong? I'm not sure, but something about Data Angels definitely got fixed.

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of tech stagnation as I'd like to finally bring one game to a conclusion, and tech stag is the last thing to help with that.

Question - why no Morgan, Pirates or Uni as AI?

Patch - the latest patch by scient is the minimum, we can also (and I'd appreciate that) try out the new patch by kyrub, which enhances AI behaviour.

As to game copies - I did that for kyrub's patch, but GOG version works funny when copied just like that, I don't want to have an unstable version for MP. As far as I know, alphax.txt doesn't need any changes if we don't play with more serious modification (increased price of CBA, chopper movement cut in half, etc.).

Wiglaf: Empath Guild is banned quite common and I'm also in favour of that. It's all about infiltration, really - you'd better do your best to prevent others from infiltrating you (protective probe teams, sensor networks, scouts and the like) and EG gives free intel you don't have a single chance to avert. CBA is also OP.

My factions - I still don't know, let us wait for a fourth one first.

Copters - another idea to bring them wee down is to ban attacking base tiles with choppers. Let me know which one you prefer.


1)   Upgrading crawlers and retro-engineering.

We can ban them both if you wish – for me it’s doesn’t matter – I only want to be sure that we all play using the same guidelines.

2)   "Don't exploit the bugs" approach.

It’s really rational, but from my own experience not always enough – see upgrading crawlers and retro-engineering for example... :)

3)   Tech stag.

I believe we will bring this game into conclusion, no matter the settings... :)

But if you strongly prefer tech stag to be turned off, we can do it that way – I see tech stag as something that supports a good balance between builders and momentum-orientated factions chances to win, but I’m ready and willing to play without it. 

4)   Why no Morgan, Pirates or Uni as AI?

Because of previous experiences - it’s really common that they spread cash+Industrial Automation (Morgan), commlinks (Pirates) and techs (Uni) what in many cases makes the game more dependent on random events (it can really kick one ahead to meet them on early game, get pacted and cut all the others from precious resources).   

5)   Patches.

So let we try that Kyrub’s one... :)

6)   Data Angels bug.

The rules are from 2005 – I guess most of the bugs have been indeed addressed since that time. 

7)   Multiple attempts on catching NLF.

That’s something like upgrading crawlers – if you think every unit should have its chance to capture NLF it’s ok, if not, you should turn “confirm odds” option off (if odds are displayed it means that NLF won’t join so you can decide not to attack and try using another unit – decision is generated by-turn-by-every-unit-separately not by-turn-no-matter-the-unit). I don’t think it’s a bug so I doubt if it has been “fixed”.

Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on April 30, 2013, 07:03:08 PM

1)   Upgrading crawlers and retro-engineering.

We can ban them both if you wish – for me it’s doesn’t matter – I only want to be sure that we all play using the same guidelines.


If you're so kind, yes please - I'd like to banned them both, although building the same design of probed units is fine for me.

Quote
2)   "Don't exploit the bugs" approach.

It’s really rational, but from my own experience not always enough – see upgrading crawlers and retro-engineering for example... :)

I only mention it because that list isn't complete - for example, it doesn't mention trading bases with AI or same-turn SE choice exploit. It goes without saying that such behaviour should be unacceptable as well.

Tech stag - ok, let's try it out. I see you prefer early confrontation anyway. :)


AI - fine.

Patches - remember to add XP fix on your v2., then scient's, then kyrub's (we can go either with the earlier one or the later, beta one; I prefer the latter).

NLF - ok, understood. Yeah, it's not a big deal and I always confirm the odds anyway.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on April 30, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
My game has no patches save for the official ones i think, so i need to know where to get /how to install needed patches. I am running the sold out software version of SMACX on windows 7 if that is at all relevant. Not familiar with retro engineering, but i can guess. how does it work specifically? That way i can avoid doing it if i do already. Otherwise, everything sounds fine.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 01, 2013, 12:13:30 PM
OK, so now we have to wait for one more player. I've updated the information on the top of the topic (info that one more player is needed and latest game conditions).
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on May 01, 2013, 04:54:18 PM
Did we ever get around to deciding between a large or standard map?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 02, 2013, 10:03:03 AM
Did we ever get around to deciding between a large or standard map?

We get around it here:

Quote

2)   AI & map size.

For me it’s fine to play with or without AI on any map. What do you think about such a plan:

•   wait for one more human to join;
•   play with AI (but no Morgan, Pirates or Uni as AI);
•   with 7 players onboard (4HP + 3AI) choose Large map.

?


...but it's only a proposal, not a permanent choice. If you prefer standard map, we can discuss it further - for me both options are OK, but if I have to decide, it's a Standard map which is a bit too small for 7 players, not the Large one which is a bit too big... :) Therefore my vote is for Large, but it's just a vote, not any kind of decision.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 02, 2013, 03:00:01 PM
...but it's only a proposal, not a permanent choice. If you prefer standard map, we can discuss it further - for me both options are OK, but if I have to decide, it's a Standard map which is a bit too small for 7 players, not the Large one which is a bit too big... :) Therefore my vote is for Large, but it's just a vote, not any kind of decision.

For me it's either way, tho I prefer standard to large just a bit (earlier contact and interaction). But I don't really understand you here, Yabcok - if standard's too small and large too big, do you want to make it custom size?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 02, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
For me it's either way, tho I prefer standard to large just a bit (earlier contact and interaction). But I don't really understand you here, Yabcok - if standard's too small and large too big, do you want to make it custom size?

It’s because of my poor English – I tried to say that I prefer Large, because in my opinion it’s only slightly too big, where Standard one is significantly too small for 7 players. But both are really fine places to play on, so we can play on Standard one if you like... :)

Maybe we will wait for 4-th player and then we will decide about all the details that need final decision?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 02, 2013, 04:10:33 PM
Maybe we will wait for 4-th player and then we will decide about all the details that need final decision?

Agreed, let's wait for another one.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 02, 2013, 10:02:59 PM
And for your convenience:

To apply the scient's patch, follow the instructions here:

http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=27 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=27)

(if you don't have the XP update, apply it as well).

And then the kyrub's patch:

http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=108 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=108)

Unfortunately, we can't test the latest kyrub's beta patch, as it's for SMAC only.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Bodissey on May 03, 2013, 11:27:27 PM
My own games are stalling right now. I could be interested in joining.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 04, 2013, 09:02:53 AM
My own games are stalling right now. I could be interested in joining.

Welcome onboard! :)

What do you think about latest game conditions and rules (attached below, changed rules are on red)?

What we are discussing at the moment is a map size. Simply there are 3 options:

1)   Standard map, 3 AI onboard
2)   Standard map, no AI onboard
3)   Large map, 3 AI onboard

My vote is for 2 or 3, but as I understand Wiglaf and Kirov’s votes are for 1?

We are waiting for your opinion and proposals regarding rules, settings, map size and anything else what possibly make the game interesting for you as well!

Best regards,
Y.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Armageddon on May 04, 2013, 12:46:09 PM
My games are nearly all stalled as well.  :'(
If Bodisseywill not enter, I would be a stand-in.
Greetz,
Arma
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 04, 2013, 01:53:28 PM
Hi Arma!

It’s nice to see you are still an active player!

@All:

It seems we have one more option to think about – we can start with 5 HP and without the AI:

Advantages I see:

•   Probably extremely interesting game;
•   If someone retire during the game and we won’t find the replacement, the game should be still very interesting even if we turn one of the players into AI.

Disadvantages:

•   Game speed will surely suffer.

What do you think about?

Y.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Armageddon on May 04, 2013, 04:31:17 PM
I would be glad to join this. You guys know I play reliable 1 turn/day, and if for some reason I cannot I'll give notice and will agree the turn to be pushed.
But if you would prefer to play with 4 players, I won't bother.
Arma
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 04, 2013, 05:24:58 PM
Yep, I can confirm both Bodissey and Arma are reliable and they are not the reason why several of my games ground to a halt, Idontwanttocallnamesbutitcanbeannoyingsometimes...

Let us arrange the order according to our time zones and let's try to keep it under 24 h, unless you're like super busy or have to travel.

5 players is cool, now I don't think we need AI, it will only add randomness.

So now we only need a CMN. Is there anyone out there who is willing to help?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Wiglaf on May 04, 2013, 05:55:12 PM
Five players is great. My time zone is pacific standard. I should be able to do one turn per day at around 5-7P.M. my time.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Armageddon on May 04, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
My time zone ist CET and I will be able to play may turn during 7-12pm
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 04, 2013, 07:43:38 PM
So 5 HP, no AI. Sounds great! :)

And what about the map? Do you vote for Standard or Large one?

My game window is 7-11 pm CET, but I'm at home (and therefore I’m able to make my turns) approximately 4 or 5 days a week – I hope it’s not a problem.

Y.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 04, 2013, 08:07:00 PM
With 5 players, I think a large one will be good.

I believe Bodissey hails from France, at least from before we left the Earth. Is that true? What's your preferred time of the day, buddy?

In that case Wiglaf goes first and the other four live in the same time zone. Arma would probably go last (7-12 pm), before him Yabcok and me (I also work at home and can usually play 3pm-3am).

You guys can pick your factions, I honestly have no idea what to do yet. Yabcok scared me with his Cultists  ;troll, so maybe I'll break my own rules and go for either Yang or Domai. :)
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Bodissey on May 05, 2013, 12:34:07 AM
Yes my time zone is GMT+1. 

I can play during the evenings if I'm not out. But I need to wait until the kids are pretending to sleep.  :-\

My turn rate can vary between one every two days to several turns if everything runs smoothly.:whip:

I would prefer a large world and I enjoy playing either the Gaians or the Drones but I'm not too serious about that. Any faction will do.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 05, 2013, 11:52:03 AM
So please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems we have all the settings and rules already negotiated! :)

What we need now is someone who will be so kind to do all that work with preparing the game for us... Any ideas who to ask? T_ras seems to be very busy with all the games he has already hosted or is taking a part in, I haven’t noticed Darsnan anywhere around, so I guess he has finally retired... But maybe he hasn’t? To tell the truth, nearly all the people I still have in my mind (not only as CMN’s, but first of all, as active players), retired long time ago...  :( 

Y.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 05, 2013, 11:01:06 PM
I'm afraid that's the worst part. t_ras is RLing these days, Darsnan and others are retired like you say... I hate to break it to you, but we may be on our own.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 05, 2013, 11:19:03 PM
Begging PMs and emails are in order...
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 06, 2013, 07:08:11 PM
It doesn’t sound too optimistic... I guess there is no point asking CMN’s, who have already retired, so the only rational way is to ask T_ras to add us into his queue and then patiently wait...
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 06, 2013, 08:08:17 PM
Try everyone anyway, I say.  What's to lose?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 07, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
I've just PMed Darsnan, Mart and t_ras about it. I told them specifically that we don't expect any fancy stuff with cool landing points, so that they can generate a large map, find five more or less comparable starting points and call it a day. And that the passwords may be forwarded to BUncle so that they won't be hassled any more over replacements. I hope one of them will find half an hour needed for this task.

If no, I'd rather play the world map or even a random map than wait god knows how long... I can lose due to bad start or something, just let me play my turn already.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Mart on May 07, 2013, 03:45:19 PM
Hi, I can prepare the game.
I should have something to check in a day, maybe sooner if I have everything this evening.

Meanwhile, one of the players can gather all settings that you have agreed on.
If someone has a preferred password, then please write in a pm.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 07, 2013, 09:38:24 PM
I think every setting you need is in the attachment but we still need to choose our factions.

As far as I understand, Yabcok is playing the Cult so this is what I entered.

I'm taking Peacekeepers.

Guys, please both state your pick and update this file, then we can send it to Mart in one package.

Thanks, Mart! :)
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Buster's Uncle on May 07, 2013, 10:56:56 PM
We love you Mart!  :danc:
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Mart on May 08, 2013, 09:52:17 AM
Hi, so we need 3 more factions to decide. However, Bodissey wrote Gaians or Drones, and any is ok. Wiglaf, Uni, Gaia or Cycon.
I haven't seen any choice of Armageddon.. ?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 08, 2013, 05:02:37 PM
Mart, thanks a lot for giving us a hand! :)

I confirm I would like to play as The Cult of Planet, so my record (in the document) is correct.

@ ALL
Please be informed that I'm out of the town at the moment and will be off-line till tomorrow evening.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Armageddon on May 09, 2013, 10:38:20 AM
I agree with all game conditions and I vote for:
1. Blind research
2. No tech stag
My choices: 1. Choice: Svensgaard; 2. Choice: Morgan
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 09, 2013, 06:09:19 PM
Wiglaf, Bodissey - your selection and we're good to go.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Bodissey on May 09, 2013, 07:17:08 PM
Here you are.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: t_ras on May 10, 2013, 03:32:34 PM
So, you have all required players?
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Kirov on May 10, 2013, 04:01:19 PM
Yep, just Wiglaf picks his faction and we're ready.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 11, 2013, 08:53:02 AM
I agree with all game conditions and I vote for:
1. Blind research
2. No tech stag
My choices: 1. Choice: Svensgaard; 2. Choice: Morgan

It was one of the options (blind research + no tech stag) but it had been finaly decided to choose direct research + tech stag instead. Personally I like both possibilities (blind and direct research), but with so many players onboard, it’s always some kind of compromise - please choose you faction accordingly (if those settings are crucial for your choice).

BTW, I’ve never seen Pirates in human hands, so I’m really interested to watch them in MP game, of course if you decide to stay with your choice.
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Armageddon on May 11, 2013, 09:03:43 AM
I'll give it a try with Pirates, though never played before and I am sure there is some reason why nobody plays it. But I am here to learn mostly, so I'LL GIVE IT A TRY!
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Yabcok on May 11, 2013, 04:48:05 PM
Great! So we only have to wait for Wiglaf to pick his faction and we are ready! :)
Title: Re: New PBEM
Post by: Mart on May 12, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
Game launched:
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=3412.0 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=3412.0)

There is also an additional pm to Kirov, please read both.
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 31 - 840KB. (show)
Queries used: 14.

[Show Queries]