LitanyOfFire
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2017
- Messages
- 20
I wanted to write a post on some of my thoughts on the rebalancing and start a discussion that isn't focused on what players don't like/want to change, and focuses more on why we are seeing the changes that are being implemented. This post will contain NO suggestions for future rebalancing, praise for the rebalance, or negativity about it. I simply wish to discuss it on even terms.
Reason for Rebalance- One thing I want to start off talking about is my perceived reasons for the rebalance. I would like to approach this strictly from a perspective of design.
Before the rebalance started, there were two things that were pretty evident. One is that offence is much, much easier to improve than defense. Getting a max offence is orders of magnitude easier than a max defense, both in terms of resources and time. Maxing out the defense of an age takes an extremely long time, but improving offence is not nearly as difficult. However, defense was not very good for those who had put the time into it. Even top-tier bases with everything maxed out could still be easily run over by attackers, particularly those with strong troops cards. Taking time to upgrade defenses is therefore fairly wasteful. The result of this is sandbagging in World Wars, rushed bases (defense hardly matters, better to find easy matchups) and rich players having the capability to "buy a win" just by having the money to spend on good troop tactics, or may not even need to use them if they are not attacking the very hardest of hard bases.
The alternative is to improve defense so that it takes great skill and effort to achieve victory. This means that for a maximum defense, a maximum offense is required. Generals, troops tactics, mercenaries, etc. To me, that makes sense- if a player puts in the vast amount of time and effort necessary to improve defenses to the maximum, they should be rewarded by becoming difficult to destroy. This, essentially, creates a different kind of endgame. Max bases become very strong, and require full attacks. They are no longer a guaranteed 5 star because a player spent money. The downside of this is that it means a great deal of resources must be expended to attack such a base, most notably in troop cards.
The important point I am trying to hammer home is this- there can only be two states for an endgame base in regards to full attacks and troop cards. You can either have a scenario in which players can buy a win by spending money or you can create a system where maximum defense requires maximum offence leveraged to win. Make no mistake, there are no other real options unless overall army composition options are completely redone (not gonna happen). I believe the goal of the rebalance is to shift the state of the game from the first scenario into the second, and prevent players from "buying" victories, instead rewarding strong defenses and requiring greater skill from players to achieve victory. And again, please note that these two scenarios apply only to end-game bases and attackers.
So, let's look at how the rebalance is actually shifting the way the game is played, and not just try to figure it out based on patch notes.
Hard Counters
Note that virtually every unit in this game works on a "hard counter" system. This means that units fit very defined roles, and are extremely effective against certain units while being totally ineffective against others. (A "soft counter" game means that most units do not have niche uses, just different stats, and that every unit can decently fight any other at least OK.)
For example, an artillery piece deals very high damage to buildings and has great range, but is unable to attack defending troops at all. A rifleman is its natural counterpart, who deals little damage to structures but kills enemy troops quickly. As each attacks their effective target, they advance quickly, but are quickly defeated when out of their element.
Another example is tank units. A tank cares very little about what is attacking it, unless it is an anti-tank gun or heavy tank (essentially a mobile anti-tank gun). These units will destroy even multiple tanks very quickly, and so must be taken into consideration as they advance.
Some players struggle with this system and with keeping their army advancing correctly. In this case many units die quickly. It is also a natural inclination to find the "do-all" unit that has no weaknesses and can win in any fight, and then compose an army of entirely that unit. The closest unit to that at this time is the Heavy Tank, and HT armies are very popular for exactly this reason- they are far easier to manage in a variety of difficult situations than a mixed force. However, even this unit when spammed can be insufficient if the attacker blunders and walks into hard counters.
Because the game works on hard counters, the patch notes are also deceiving. It also means that small balance changes to attacking troops has a large impact, as attacking troops are typically in better positions to utilize their bonuses.
Attacker Advantage
Many people assume defenders innately have the advantage in war. This is incorrect. Yes, some fortified positions are definitely advantageous. But in Dominations, we have a great deal of control when we attack.
The attacker can start from any direction. They can predict the kind of resistance they will be facing, and tune their army to an optimal composition. They can call in off-map resources in the form of tactics and airplanes to create strong, precise interventions. The defender, on the other hand, must anticipate attacks from any direction, defend everywhere at once, and cannot actively react to attacking troops. The attacker has a great advantage, and skilled attackers use this asymmetry to ensure that all of their units are supporting each other and are in optimal use. This is particularly true of defenders- It is virtually never a matter of the defending army vs attacking army, but a handful of defenders at a time facing the entire might of the attacking army.
In reality, the attacker has a great many advantages. The defender must defend against every plan, the attacker chooses one and attacks with great force.
Numbers versus in-game effect
One of the biggest criticisms the rebalance has received has been the percentage increase of many units' HP values, often by up to 250%. Many are shocked when they look at the raw numbers that are being adjusted. However, these numbers and their relative increase actually mean very little for the attacker on the field.
Many of the numbers in Dominations are obscured, and troop damage output is most difficult to determine. There are many percentage upgrades that can be researched, and the DPS stat that is displayed on the unit remains mysterious and difficult to decipher. A 250% damage increase appears very large, but it's actual effect may not be nearly as impactful. An example:
Let us say in our hypothetical that a shooter unit (attacker) deals 10 damage per shot. Let us also heavy infantryman (defense) has 12 health.
-Before a rebalance, the shooter kills the heavy infantryman in 2 shots.
-The game is patched, the infantryman gains a +250% health boost. He now has 30 health.
-After the patch, the shooter kills the heavy infantryman in 3 shots, 1 more shot than previously.
Although the boost appeared to be 250%, the actual in-game benefit was 50% more survivability (3 shots versus 2). Yes, the heavy infantryman is harder to kill, but he is still going to evaporate pretty quickly.
This applies to buildings as well. Artillery may have to fire at defensive structures more often, but typically will not have to spend 2.5x as long destroying structures. Typically, it will be a difference of a single shot or two.
The buffs to defensive troops and structures undoubtedly makes bases harder to attack. But it does not make them 250% harder, as some have claimed, because of the way damage and attacking interacts. And because many hard counter units are used by attackers and the attacker has an innate positioning advantage, they are in good position to match up their army against the enemy.
Phase change analysis
Now for the meat of it. How each phase changes the game, and how units are actually different.
Phase 1
Phase one consisted of many library and university changes. Little changed in effect. Traps became notably stronger, but ambush traps (even after phase 3) are still relatively unimpressive. Land Mines did become stronger, but still fail to one-shot many tanks and are not really much scarier due to attacker healing. Phase 1 was primarily a preparation for the next phases.
Phase 2
Phase 2 consisted of changes to many units, defensive buildings, and changed the Decoy tactic significantly.
Most aircraft had theri damage doubled, as did defensive buildings. The net result of this is that fighters are generally slightly less damaging to structures than they used to be, while bombers are roughly the same. Troop health was raised in Phase 3, but fighters still wipe out troops quickly even after that change. Transports received a major buff, but few players use them so it is unclear how good they have become. For the most part, aircraft appear to be slightly more fragile due to better SAM batteries and tower/AA damage, but are largely unchanged.
Notably, wall miners, mortars and artillery pieces received a damage buff. Wall miners do seem more effective now. The buff to mortar and artillery damage was not as great as the defensive structure health buff, so they will take longer to destroy military defensive structures. However, non-military buildings in bases did not receive a health boost, so these units destroy those structures faster than they did before. The town center also notably did not receive a health increase, meaning it is easier to destroy. Overall, it means that these structure-destroyers will kill civilian buildings faster but military buildings a bit slower than before. The downside of this is that they will spend longer in combat with enemy defenses, but their quicker destruction of civilian buildings means they will make more efficient time out of combat.
The improvements to attack helicopters, MRL units, and mortars do not seem to have increased the amount those units are used by much, but it is still pretty recent from the patch. Perhaps there are compositions that could make use of them now.
Defensive mortars also received a damage reduction, which decreased their killing ability by a great deal. It is much easier for troops, particularly riflemen, to survive being attacked by them. As the premier unit that clears massed enemies, this damage reduction is quite significant. Killing troops in 3 shots instead of 2, and especially 2 shots instead of 1 makes a world of difference. It allows attackers greater time to reform their army, wait for rally to cool down, and to use tactics to rescue troops.
Redoubts/machine gun towers gained a damage increase, but are still not horribly threatening. As they were typically just shy of joke status before, they are finally a decent defensive structure.
Tower damage did increase, which makes them scarier for heavy infantry and ranged infantry, but they are still not threatening to tanks.
Interestingly, anti-tank guns did not gain increased damage, only increased health. The net effect is that it is harder for massed tanks to fight them, and they are slightly harder to take out with aircraft.
The Decoy tactic underwent significant changes. It has much reduced HP and time. The effect of this is that it is no longer effective to use Decoy as one would use sabotage, to effectively disable enemy defensive buildings. It simply does not have enough HP now. Players will have to use sabotage instead to disable clusters of defenses. Decoy remains very effective at drawing enemy troops away, however. It is still strong at making enemy defenders ignore attackers and group up in a place of the attackers choice, which can be exploited. (Especially with aircraft.)
Finally, it should be noted how these increases scale. Low level structures did not gain nearly as much from high level structures. Same with buffs to troops. The overall effect of that is that it is now easier than ever for a high-level offence to destroy low level defenses and rushed bases.
Phase 3
Phase 3 consists of a large increase to defender health, a small boost to defender damage, and notable changes to two offensive units: the bazooka and the machine gun.
The boost to defender health is most noticeable for units that are not built to fight defenders. In essence, defenders are now an even harder counter to the units that they were already good against. Units built to clear defenders, on the other hand, remain largely unchanged. Riflemen still evaporate enemy foot soldiers with ease, and although tanks die a bit slower, are still eliminated quickly. It should be noted, as well, the effect that phase 2 and 3 together has had on rifleman units- they are still effective against defending soldiers, but they do not kill buildings nearly as quickly, and large groups of defenders will require additional intervention of tactics or aircraft to eliminate. Most notably, the initial strong wave of defenders can overwhelm large amounts of riflemen unless handled well. However, with decreased mortar damage and a slightly slower rate of advance (more attacker positioning control) they are a bit easier to keep alive, so more of them can survive longer. As enemy spawn buildings are destroyed, they should be increasingly effective as the battle continues.
Heavy tanks are considerably harder, and now riflemen seem to be largely ineffective as a counter. Bazookas and aircraft still eliminate them quickly, but Heavy Tanks are now to be considered very dangerous defenders. Much has been made of attacking heavy tanks being weaker than defending heavy tanks, but it should be noted that attackers can much more easily set up situations where the defending heavy tank is outnumbered.
Bazookas received a very large buff in the form of added area damage to their attacks. Bazookas now eliminate the groups of tanks spawned from the forest and from bunkers with much greater efficiency than before. In fact, even though defending tanks have received more health, bazooka units are quicker and more effective than ever at destroying enemy tanks. In addition, this damage also often splashes other units, softening them up for any kind of follow up attack. Bazookas alone should be a consideration for players wondering about taking the leap from industrial to global age.
Machine guns also received considerable changes. Their troops space has been reduced from 4 to 3, a large difference that allows them to be more easily integrated into armies and to come in greater numbers. They can now shoot over walls, the effect of which is that they tend to stay with ranged units better and don't path into suicidal situations nearly as often. With a damage buff and area damage, they are still very good at eliminating groups of defender infantry before they can be reached, and their suppression is strong on tanks as other units attack them. They are particularly strong against the initial wave of defense and their suppression and large area of damage make a very big difference, even if only 1 or 2 are in the army composition.
Overall impression of changes at this time
My overall impression is that battles tend to move slower, as troops take more time to deal with defenders and tougher buildings. This is difficult because troops are forced to be under fire for longer, but it is also good as it gives me more opportunity to control my army and keep my angle of attack consistent. Although the pitched battle moves slower, it is much quicker to defeat civilian structures, so battle time has not been an issue.
It is much easier for advanced troops to defeat basic defenses. It is harder for advanced troops to defeat advanced defenses. For players with good compositions and attack habits, the game is harder but not terribly so. Players with poor strategy or poor army compositions, the game is going to be considerably more difficult.
In the end I believe the designers are achieving their goal of creating a system where those who take the time to upgrade powerful defenses are rewarded, and where skill in strategy and tactics are rewarded. The result of this will be that players who do not upgrade defenses will be crushed, players who do not take the time to hone attack strategy will be crushed, and players who are attacking end-game bases will be required to go all-out in order to achieve victory. Army composition is also increasingly important, as specific unit counters have become stronger. Players would be wise to examine units and find places for more niche units in their roster to achieve victory, instead of relying on compositions of 2 or 3.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I welcome thoughts on the changing strategic requirements of the game.
Reason for Rebalance- One thing I want to start off talking about is my perceived reasons for the rebalance. I would like to approach this strictly from a perspective of design.
Before the rebalance started, there were two things that were pretty evident. One is that offence is much, much easier to improve than defense. Getting a max offence is orders of magnitude easier than a max defense, both in terms of resources and time. Maxing out the defense of an age takes an extremely long time, but improving offence is not nearly as difficult. However, defense was not very good for those who had put the time into it. Even top-tier bases with everything maxed out could still be easily run over by attackers, particularly those with strong troops cards. Taking time to upgrade defenses is therefore fairly wasteful. The result of this is sandbagging in World Wars, rushed bases (defense hardly matters, better to find easy matchups) and rich players having the capability to "buy a win" just by having the money to spend on good troop tactics, or may not even need to use them if they are not attacking the very hardest of hard bases.
The alternative is to improve defense so that it takes great skill and effort to achieve victory. This means that for a maximum defense, a maximum offense is required. Generals, troops tactics, mercenaries, etc. To me, that makes sense- if a player puts in the vast amount of time and effort necessary to improve defenses to the maximum, they should be rewarded by becoming difficult to destroy. This, essentially, creates a different kind of endgame. Max bases become very strong, and require full attacks. They are no longer a guaranteed 5 star because a player spent money. The downside of this is that it means a great deal of resources must be expended to attack such a base, most notably in troop cards.
The important point I am trying to hammer home is this- there can only be two states for an endgame base in regards to full attacks and troop cards. You can either have a scenario in which players can buy a win by spending money or you can create a system where maximum defense requires maximum offence leveraged to win. Make no mistake, there are no other real options unless overall army composition options are completely redone (not gonna happen). I believe the goal of the rebalance is to shift the state of the game from the first scenario into the second, and prevent players from "buying" victories, instead rewarding strong defenses and requiring greater skill from players to achieve victory. And again, please note that these two scenarios apply only to end-game bases and attackers.
So, let's look at how the rebalance is actually shifting the way the game is played, and not just try to figure it out based on patch notes.
Hard Counters
Note that virtually every unit in this game works on a "hard counter" system. This means that units fit very defined roles, and are extremely effective against certain units while being totally ineffective against others. (A "soft counter" game means that most units do not have niche uses, just different stats, and that every unit can decently fight any other at least OK.)
For example, an artillery piece deals very high damage to buildings and has great range, but is unable to attack defending troops at all. A rifleman is its natural counterpart, who deals little damage to structures but kills enemy troops quickly. As each attacks their effective target, they advance quickly, but are quickly defeated when out of their element.
Another example is tank units. A tank cares very little about what is attacking it, unless it is an anti-tank gun or heavy tank (essentially a mobile anti-tank gun). These units will destroy even multiple tanks very quickly, and so must be taken into consideration as they advance.
Some players struggle with this system and with keeping their army advancing correctly. In this case many units die quickly. It is also a natural inclination to find the "do-all" unit that has no weaknesses and can win in any fight, and then compose an army of entirely that unit. The closest unit to that at this time is the Heavy Tank, and HT armies are very popular for exactly this reason- they are far easier to manage in a variety of difficult situations than a mixed force. However, even this unit when spammed can be insufficient if the attacker blunders and walks into hard counters.
Because the game works on hard counters, the patch notes are also deceiving. It also means that small balance changes to attacking troops has a large impact, as attacking troops are typically in better positions to utilize their bonuses.
Attacker Advantage
Many people assume defenders innately have the advantage in war. This is incorrect. Yes, some fortified positions are definitely advantageous. But in Dominations, we have a great deal of control when we attack.
The attacker can start from any direction. They can predict the kind of resistance they will be facing, and tune their army to an optimal composition. They can call in off-map resources in the form of tactics and airplanes to create strong, precise interventions. The defender, on the other hand, must anticipate attacks from any direction, defend everywhere at once, and cannot actively react to attacking troops. The attacker has a great advantage, and skilled attackers use this asymmetry to ensure that all of their units are supporting each other and are in optimal use. This is particularly true of defenders- It is virtually never a matter of the defending army vs attacking army, but a handful of defenders at a time facing the entire might of the attacking army.
In reality, the attacker has a great many advantages. The defender must defend against every plan, the attacker chooses one and attacks with great force.
Numbers versus in-game effect
One of the biggest criticisms the rebalance has received has been the percentage increase of many units' HP values, often by up to 250%. Many are shocked when they look at the raw numbers that are being adjusted. However, these numbers and their relative increase actually mean very little for the attacker on the field.
Many of the numbers in Dominations are obscured, and troop damage output is most difficult to determine. There are many percentage upgrades that can be researched, and the DPS stat that is displayed on the unit remains mysterious and difficult to decipher. A 250% damage increase appears very large, but it's actual effect may not be nearly as impactful. An example:
Let us say in our hypothetical that a shooter unit (attacker) deals 10 damage per shot. Let us also heavy infantryman (defense) has 12 health.
-Before a rebalance, the shooter kills the heavy infantryman in 2 shots.
-The game is patched, the infantryman gains a +250% health boost. He now has 30 health.
-After the patch, the shooter kills the heavy infantryman in 3 shots, 1 more shot than previously.
Although the boost appeared to be 250%, the actual in-game benefit was 50% more survivability (3 shots versus 2). Yes, the heavy infantryman is harder to kill, but he is still going to evaporate pretty quickly.
This applies to buildings as well. Artillery may have to fire at defensive structures more often, but typically will not have to spend 2.5x as long destroying structures. Typically, it will be a difference of a single shot or two.
The buffs to defensive troops and structures undoubtedly makes bases harder to attack. But it does not make them 250% harder, as some have claimed, because of the way damage and attacking interacts. And because many hard counter units are used by attackers and the attacker has an innate positioning advantage, they are in good position to match up their army against the enemy.
Phase change analysis
Now for the meat of it. How each phase changes the game, and how units are actually different.
Phase 1
Phase one consisted of many library and university changes. Little changed in effect. Traps became notably stronger, but ambush traps (even after phase 3) are still relatively unimpressive. Land Mines did become stronger, but still fail to one-shot many tanks and are not really much scarier due to attacker healing. Phase 1 was primarily a preparation for the next phases.
Phase 2
Phase 2 consisted of changes to many units, defensive buildings, and changed the Decoy tactic significantly.
Most aircraft had theri damage doubled, as did defensive buildings. The net result of this is that fighters are generally slightly less damaging to structures than they used to be, while bombers are roughly the same. Troop health was raised in Phase 3, but fighters still wipe out troops quickly even after that change. Transports received a major buff, but few players use them so it is unclear how good they have become. For the most part, aircraft appear to be slightly more fragile due to better SAM batteries and tower/AA damage, but are largely unchanged.
Notably, wall miners, mortars and artillery pieces received a damage buff. Wall miners do seem more effective now. The buff to mortar and artillery damage was not as great as the defensive structure health buff, so they will take longer to destroy military defensive structures. However, non-military buildings in bases did not receive a health boost, so these units destroy those structures faster than they did before. The town center also notably did not receive a health increase, meaning it is easier to destroy. Overall, it means that these structure-destroyers will kill civilian buildings faster but military buildings a bit slower than before. The downside of this is that they will spend longer in combat with enemy defenses, but their quicker destruction of civilian buildings means they will make more efficient time out of combat.
The improvements to attack helicopters, MRL units, and mortars do not seem to have increased the amount those units are used by much, but it is still pretty recent from the patch. Perhaps there are compositions that could make use of them now.
Defensive mortars also received a damage reduction, which decreased their killing ability by a great deal. It is much easier for troops, particularly riflemen, to survive being attacked by them. As the premier unit that clears massed enemies, this damage reduction is quite significant. Killing troops in 3 shots instead of 2, and especially 2 shots instead of 1 makes a world of difference. It allows attackers greater time to reform their army, wait for rally to cool down, and to use tactics to rescue troops.
Redoubts/machine gun towers gained a damage increase, but are still not horribly threatening. As they were typically just shy of joke status before, they are finally a decent defensive structure.
Tower damage did increase, which makes them scarier for heavy infantry and ranged infantry, but they are still not threatening to tanks.
Interestingly, anti-tank guns did not gain increased damage, only increased health. The net effect is that it is harder for massed tanks to fight them, and they are slightly harder to take out with aircraft.
The Decoy tactic underwent significant changes. It has much reduced HP and time. The effect of this is that it is no longer effective to use Decoy as one would use sabotage, to effectively disable enemy defensive buildings. It simply does not have enough HP now. Players will have to use sabotage instead to disable clusters of defenses. Decoy remains very effective at drawing enemy troops away, however. It is still strong at making enemy defenders ignore attackers and group up in a place of the attackers choice, which can be exploited. (Especially with aircraft.)
Finally, it should be noted how these increases scale. Low level structures did not gain nearly as much from high level structures. Same with buffs to troops. The overall effect of that is that it is now easier than ever for a high-level offence to destroy low level defenses and rushed bases.
Phase 3
Phase 3 consists of a large increase to defender health, a small boost to defender damage, and notable changes to two offensive units: the bazooka and the machine gun.
The boost to defender health is most noticeable for units that are not built to fight defenders. In essence, defenders are now an even harder counter to the units that they were already good against. Units built to clear defenders, on the other hand, remain largely unchanged. Riflemen still evaporate enemy foot soldiers with ease, and although tanks die a bit slower, are still eliminated quickly. It should be noted, as well, the effect that phase 2 and 3 together has had on rifleman units- they are still effective against defending soldiers, but they do not kill buildings nearly as quickly, and large groups of defenders will require additional intervention of tactics or aircraft to eliminate. Most notably, the initial strong wave of defenders can overwhelm large amounts of riflemen unless handled well. However, with decreased mortar damage and a slightly slower rate of advance (more attacker positioning control) they are a bit easier to keep alive, so more of them can survive longer. As enemy spawn buildings are destroyed, they should be increasingly effective as the battle continues.
Heavy tanks are considerably harder, and now riflemen seem to be largely ineffective as a counter. Bazookas and aircraft still eliminate them quickly, but Heavy Tanks are now to be considered very dangerous defenders. Much has been made of attacking heavy tanks being weaker than defending heavy tanks, but it should be noted that attackers can much more easily set up situations where the defending heavy tank is outnumbered.
Bazookas received a very large buff in the form of added area damage to their attacks. Bazookas now eliminate the groups of tanks spawned from the forest and from bunkers with much greater efficiency than before. In fact, even though defending tanks have received more health, bazooka units are quicker and more effective than ever at destroying enemy tanks. In addition, this damage also often splashes other units, softening them up for any kind of follow up attack. Bazookas alone should be a consideration for players wondering about taking the leap from industrial to global age.
Machine guns also received considerable changes. Their troops space has been reduced from 4 to 3, a large difference that allows them to be more easily integrated into armies and to come in greater numbers. They can now shoot over walls, the effect of which is that they tend to stay with ranged units better and don't path into suicidal situations nearly as often. With a damage buff and area damage, they are still very good at eliminating groups of defender infantry before they can be reached, and their suppression is strong on tanks as other units attack them. They are particularly strong against the initial wave of defense and their suppression and large area of damage make a very big difference, even if only 1 or 2 are in the army composition.
Overall impression of changes at this time
My overall impression is that battles tend to move slower, as troops take more time to deal with defenders and tougher buildings. This is difficult because troops are forced to be under fire for longer, but it is also good as it gives me more opportunity to control my army and keep my angle of attack consistent. Although the pitched battle moves slower, it is much quicker to defeat civilian structures, so battle time has not been an issue.
It is much easier for advanced troops to defeat basic defenses. It is harder for advanced troops to defeat advanced defenses. For players with good compositions and attack habits, the game is harder but not terribly so. Players with poor strategy or poor army compositions, the game is going to be considerably more difficult.
In the end I believe the designers are achieving their goal of creating a system where those who take the time to upgrade powerful defenses are rewarded, and where skill in strategy and tactics are rewarded. The result of this will be that players who do not upgrade defenses will be crushed, players who do not take the time to hone attack strategy will be crushed, and players who are attacking end-game bases will be required to go all-out in order to achieve victory. Army composition is also increasingly important, as specific unit counters have become stronger. Players would be wise to examine units and find places for more niche units in their roster to achieve victory, instead of relying on compositions of 2 or 3.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I welcome thoughts on the changing strategic requirements of the game.
Last edited:
