Jump to content
Chris

Xenonauts-2 Air Combat Prototype & Effects on Strategy Layer

Recommended Posts

Ever since Xenonauts-2 was announced I've said my intention for the air combat was to make something tactically interesting, but also something that was over quite quickly. However I also want to have a model for air combat that fits better with the strategic skills required for the rest of the game; the air combat in X1 rewarded certain "twitch" skills in terms of issuing orders and dodging missiles that weren't used anywhere else.

I've finished designing the foundations of the X2 air combat system that we will hopefully have arriving at some point during the closed beta (in the meantime, the autoresolve function works much like it does in X1 so you can still play the game without it). This is a rough concept for how the battles may look:

aircombat.jpg

Air Combat Rules:

A few key things to note before I start explaining the rules:

  • Interceptions are now turn-based
  • Combat supports up to three interceptors versus a single UFO and up to two escorts
  • The battlefield consists of three ranges (Long Range, Medium Range, Close Range) and each of these contains three movement bands
  • Weapons do different amounts of damage depending on their Range, with most weapons doing significantly more damage at close range
    • Note that weapons do the same damage from all bands within each Range; their damage only changes when you move to a new Range!
  • Damage is currently randomised within a range (e.g. 20-50) rather than a hit %

So the purpose of the interception is pretty clear - you have to deal enough damage to shoot down the UFO before it escapes or destroys your interceptors. The rules are simple:

  • The player usually goes first
  • Interceptors must move before they attack, and can move a number of bands equal to their Speed stat (e.g. 3 bands)
  • Once an interceptor has moved, it may fire any number of its weapons
    • Weapons have very limited ammo - missiles have 1 shot per battle, cannons have 3 shots per battle (can only be fired once per turn)
  • Once all interceptors have acted, the alien turn begins
  • The UFO always stays at the top of the screen, and "moves" by moving your interceptors forwards or backwards (e.g. a UFO with 2 Speed moves all your interceptors 2 bands forwards/backwards)
  • The UFO then fires its weapons and passes the turn back to the player

The UFO also gains one Charge per turn, and when it reaches a certain level (varying per UFO) that will UFO jump away from your aircraft and the combat ends in failure. This means you only have a certain number of turns to win each combat.

I've playtested this quite a bit using dice and cardboard and it's pretty fun. It's pretty fast to play but doesn't rely on "twitch" skills at all, and I like the way it's actually somewhat reminiscent of the 1994 X-Com interceptions. But it's much more complex than that was; it's similar to Xenonauts 1 in that respect. Different UFOs will have different strengths and weaknesses and behave differently in combat - Fighters might close aggressively with you and be extremely strong at short range, Scouts might try and outrun you for long enough to escape, Corvettes might be extremely slow and vulnerable up close but very powerful at medium / long range, etc.

You can also imagine all sorts of unique equipment that might change up a UFO encounter - perhaps the UFO would have a shield at the edge of medium range / close range, so you can either knock it down from long range or fly inside it to bypass it. Or maybe certain UFOs have recharging shields that absorb a certain amount of damage per turn. Maybe fighters take reduced damage from missiles because they are particularly agile; maybe armoured UFOs reduce all damage by -X so you're encouraged to use weapons that do high damage per shot. I think there's a lot of potential to play with that might keep each UFO feeling different and distinct from the others.

 

Geoscape / Strategic Balancing:

UFOs will still come in "waves", where a number of UFOs spawn all across the world at the same time. A few general balance points from the playtesting that made this much more interesting:

  • Interceptors need to repair at a slower rate, so if a plane takes a beating during one UFO wave it will still be carrying some damage into the next wave
  • Upgrades for interceptors should be specific to that interceptor, rather than global across all interceptors (i.e. interceptor equipment is likely to be individually manufactured)
  • It's easy to beat even powerful UFOs by swarming them with multiple interceptors, so we somehow need to limit the total number of planes the player can launch each wave (e.g. pilots)

It's important to limit the number of interceptors the player can have airborne at any one time, because otherwise the combat becomes all about weight of numbers rather than tactics. If a UFO is a challenging but beatable encounter for a single interceptor, by definition two interceptors will shoot it down rather easily and sustain little damage doing so. In X1 we balanced the problem by giving interceptors really high upkeep costs ... but many players didn't realise that they had built too many planes, and ended up building so many planes that the air combat was stupidly easy but then having to grind crash sites to pay for the upkeep costs. Not a fun place to be.

So this time around I want something more explicit. You can build lots of planes if you want, but you will only be able to use a certain number against each UFO wave. Having extra planes *is* still useful, because it means you can choose the interceptors best suited to the targets and damaged planes can be left in reserve to repair ... but they're not as overpowered as in X1 where there was never any reason NOT to use an interceptor in every wave once you'd built it.

The coolest way to do this would definitely be to add pilots to the game. An interceptor can only be launched if there's an available pilot, and pilots need to rest for as long as they were flying for after each mission. They would be recruited in the same way as scientists / engineers would be; certain VIPs appear on the Geoscape and if you send units to convert them before they disappear then you can choose a reward. The player could recruit lots of pilots from these events if they want, but then they'd have far less scientists and engineers etc than they would otherwise.

Two problems with pilots, though - one, they're not really a global resource. Being able to launch a plane in China or a plane in America with the same pilot doesn't really make sense. Secondly, having your aircraft blown up around you tends to be fatal for a pilot ... which is problematic when the player has to choose between recruiting a pilot or a scientist (who has 0% chance of death). I think the solution there is probably to make all your interceptors remotely-piloted drones; that means both those problems go away and we can treat pilots as main base staff like everyone else. Or we can just fudge it for now and tweak the mechanics until we have something that works, then figure out the "logic" explanation later.

Anyway, lots for you guys to digest there. Happy to listen to thoughts and answer questions!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bumping this, because the post has been half-finished and hidden for over a week so it's now sitting towards the bottom of the forum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's something new and nice mix of classic and x1 game play. I did not like that air game needs some player reaction skills rather then tactical.

- Pilots are great idea. You did not mention it but i hope that they got their own personality with all leveling and skills. Some can use faster planes betters, some are good at hitting, some are cool like topgun.. Even some chatting at game with the wing commander would be fun to see.. Just 4-5 stats would be enough. So you would care and manage them carefully!

- Just having all the planes as drones is not so well.. it's not easy to control a fighting jet like a drone and you would not feel anything because your pilots are NOT in danger. You would throw tons of planes again without any risk. I think you should put pilots to every base like soldiers. This would make the side bases more alive and interesting. If a plane destroyed, you could give it a chance to make the pilot survive and a rescue operation/recovery will take much more time then a resting pilot. You don't need to make a special mission per dropped pilots, because aliens won't care to hunt down every pilot on the ground.. you can make it a special encounter too time to time but as an option. So managing which pilot will be at which base would be a very important management for strategy layer. You can't just spam fleet bases when you got tons of money, you need to get pilots for them.. 

-  "Upgrades for interceptors should be specific to that interceptor, rather than global across all interceptors (i.e. interceptor equipment is likely to be individually manufactured)" YES!!! make them special! so we can give our love to our planes like to our soldiers!.. A team of soldier would be 12-16 and probably same numbers for planes you got.. Planes will be important as soldiers and with pilots you could add a great layer of gameplay addition to tactical battles..

- What about UFO escorts? will we able to fight against swarms (drones) or will be there possible different weapon types? I would like to feel that i am fighting a real carrier there.. any solution or plan for this kind of encounters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was fairly sure the first discussions would go this way :)

At first, the pilots are going to be implemented in a very basic and stripped-down form - they'll be a global limit on the aircraft rather than assigned to specific bases, and they won't gain experience nor provide bonuses. A few reasons for this:

  • This new air combat system is going to need a LOT of balancing, and it's much easier to balance something if there's fewer variables. Having to worry about pilot bonuses at the same time as balancing all the UFOs and planes and weapons seems a bad idea.
  • Having to choose a pilot for every plane every time you launch it (which you will need to do if pilots are not all the same) will slow the game down, so it'd be good to test the new air combat both with and without that.
  • Assigning pilots to bases doesn't necessarily *require* the more complex X1-style secondary bases, but it makes more sense if the base can have other personnel assigned to it like soldiers and scientists etc. At the start of the closed beta we'll porbably still be using the "main base / airbase" system and we'll have to see how the game plays before we make any final decision on the way bases work.

There's quite an obvious block of changes that come together if you want to make pilots more interesting - pilots can die in combat, pilots level up through combat and provide bonuses, pilots are assigned to specific bases. We'll look at those later in development and see how feasible that is, but until the new air combat is more settled they'll be a more basic implementation.

You've also correctly identified the biggest problem I'm currently having with the air combat - how to handle escorts. The simplest way to handle them is just to put them up at the top next to the UFO, and that works fine - but it's not very exciting because it removes the possibility of maneuvering around them.

I prefer the idea that the smaller escort ships can move around on the board (or sit in a fixed position a certain number of bands ahead of the UFO), but that starts to cause problems because all the ranges (Long Range, Medium Range, Close Range) are marked in relation to the UFO. So if the escorts are a few bands closer to your fighter, it's perfectly possible that the UFO might be at Medium Range but the escorts be at Short Range. We can update the background to display the appropriate Ranges when you mouse hover over any UFO / escort, but it has the potential to be quite confusing for the player if the range bands seem to be moving. But we'll have to give it a test to see how it all works I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you were still going on the concept that fighters are not truly destroyed, just 'extremely in need of repair' like in the first game, then it would stand to reason that pilots could 'eject' as their craft were going down.  I think the idea of pilots COULD be interesting, and if you gave them stat skills like other soldier types .... then not only could the planes reflect special bonuses, but some of the pilots could as well ... This could lead to other interesting dilemmas, such as finding you're suddenly low on traditional soldiers (injuries, recovering from stress) but you do have a few extra pilots you could send on that ground combat mission ... !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I was also wondering, are you going to implement the idea of Afterburners like you did in the first game?  Or is this Speed thing the total speed for the aircraft (factoring in ABs as well).  I ask b/c I think having the AB option (even if it only increases the overall speed by 1 or 2 bands) gives you 1) a better chance of closing quickly / catching an escaping UFO if you DO use them or 2) more opportunity to fire from Long / Mid Range if you opt NOT to use the A.B.s, factoring that this is a battle where the UFO WANTS to close with you more quickly.  It might be trickier to employ a 3) Use the Afterburners to Keep Away / Limit the closing speed capability of engaging UFOs in this type of environment, but you might already have ideas for that in the works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this approach a lot. Air combat is my least favourite part of X1. I would constantly lose interceptors to bigger UFOs, and wasn't happy about needing to maintain more planes than people who are better at the air game. When I slowed down and tried harder with the airgame, I got better results, but that was also very boring. Taking on a Landing Ship requires always the same sequence of moves, it's just not much fun.

The turn-based system sounds much more fun, my main concern again would be with it getting too old. If I find that the correct sequence for Corvettes is 1move-torpedo-2move-missile-cannon, doing that over and over again will just get tiresome. Hopefully some randomisation and UFO equipment can address this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ufos got different weapon and item layout, I think it will help. 

For escorts, I don't know what to say. It's really hard to add more enemies at this type of air game. 

Pilots could have some traits, not so much.. Just it would be nice to personalize pilots too. You can make them fully recoverable like planes. Just makes you lose time. Adding a random rescue mission would be nice detail time to time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One possible way to consider escorts might be to consider them as an environmental hazard, rather than a ufo in heir own right. So an escort can't be attacked directly, like the UFO and when an escort occupies a band, all fighters in that  band suffer some kind of malus. Perhaps a fighter that shares the same band as an escort may be declared as "dogfighting", so they either shoot at the escort, wasting their turn, or they shoot at the UFO, but get damaged? If escorts were environmental hazards, then it would be easier to disrupt the kind of perfect turn setup that Solver describes as you'd have to watch the movement of escorts between bands as well. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This concept remind me of a card game. And that’s very good because card games are very popular these days. And very fun to play. Also, very accessible for many people who played them before.

You could actually expand on the idea and make air combat like a simple card game. It’s true there are many possible types of equipment. I imagine planes gaining more “abilities” with time. Some could affect UFOs and others could affect planes, all units or even the battlefield (e.g. space warping or time affecting devices). The simplest being afterburners and dodging, using which could affect next turn. Like dodging could make the plane not being able to change its position. And there could be a phase when you could respond to opponent’s action. It would depend on what they do. A laser could be “instant” and plasma beam would allow the opponent to respond either by doing some action or by taking hit instead.

If you haven’t played any, I’d recommend the most popular ones because they earn most money/sell great. That is Magic The Gathering and Hearthstone. I’d also have a look at BattleTech card game and Hex: Shards of Fate.

Unlike ordinary missiles, many weapons and equipment you get later in the game will need energy to work. Thus, there is a place for energy build-up system. You could start with one energy point and get one more with every turn allowing you to use equipment with higher energy demand. Like ECMs or advanced warheads. Although I wouldn’t make more than, say, three power levels because players can’t wait for many turns until they would be able to use their best equipment. For the same reason I wouldn’t make energy points expandable. Otherwise it would also encourage players to wait doing nothing.

Also, in card games, a player chooses cards before the game begins. Here, there could be a possibility to choose equipment based on the information about spotted UFO. It would add some depth and make the player feel he had more control over the situation.

Of course air combat needs to be less complex than abovementioned games, because definitely it’s not the core of the gameplay in Xenonauts and developing it would use resources at the expense of other in-game mechanics. The letter goes also for pilots’ management system, in my opinion. I’m really looking forward to other, more important, game features.

I’d also like to point out the game mechanics shouldn’t be too complex.  Programmers are usually very intelligent people with a good memory. But for an average player it may be hard to consider a few complex systems simultaneously. A brain needs to have breaks so it won’t get tired too much. It can handle something complex but it needs something simple for a while before it can do a complex analysis again. Or use different parts of the brain (like calculating then drawing) for it not to get too tired. Otherwise the game would start to feel tedious soon.

Personally I can’t remember and think about a few things at the same time. Actually, not many others can. And a computer game cannot become a pan & paper game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to echo Solver's sentiment. The challenge shouldn't be a repetative one, that's just a chore; nor should the tactic to win battles be a repatitive one, that's equally dull. If each battle could present something new that would be best, e.g. there being enough UFO equipment/weapon loadouts for no two battles to be tackled the same way in one playthrough. 

I think that the ideal in my mind would be for the aliens to equip weapons or develop tactics in response to the player's previous tactics. e.g. if the player keeps rushing in with missiles, the UFOs start using close range defensive measures - this would then force the player to do some research. 

A cool thing about UFOs all using different and varied equipment, would be the potential to target and loot gear that you haven't already researched. Imagine facing a wave of scouts, one uses a shiny new shield generator. That is the UFO crash site to which you send your ground troops, because you want to steal the shield technology for yourself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ninothree said:

A cool thing about UFOs all using different and varied equipment, would be the potential to target and loot gear that you haven't already researched. Imagine facing a wave of scouts, one uses a shiny new shield generator. That is the UFO crash site to which you send your ground troops, because you want to steal the shield technology for yourself.

That's actually an excellent point, and something I'd not previously considered.

Regarding the general point people make about combat getting repetitive - yup, but I'm not sure how easy that is to fix no matter how much variation you put in the game. Potentially it'll be more interesting than before because all your planes aren't always identical (e.g. if Falcon-1 has the laser minigun and Falcon-2 still has the ballistic minigun) and the damage variance, but we'll have to see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having pilots potentially die is kinda antithetical to this kind of game. It's always about risk and the tension that creates. While I understand not wanting players to feel bad about their own decisions, that's not really what I look for when I play Xenonauts and XCOM. Verisimilitude is the word of the day again! In real life, these days anyways, the pilots are considered more expensive than the super high tech jet fighters and so we have a pretty good ejection systems. Since I still really like the idea of losing planes and the granularity of success and failure that implies, I'd probably go with an overkill system. If a plane takes enough damage to be downed, the pilot survives because they can just leave the plane. If a plane takes an enormous amount of damage (as in, you send in a low health plane against a target it can't handle, or sending in an early game plane against a battleship that can blow it out of the sky in one shot) then the whole thing just explodes and you lose the pilot.

Also, if you can have remote pilots for flying drones, you should be able to have remote pilots for the MARS weapons platform. I always kinda assumed that the reason we don't use remote piloting against the UFOs until after Alien Electronics is because we don't know how to harden communications against even their most passive intrusion methods. This leads to a lot of ideas, however: Piloted MARS platformes being able to gain skill over time as the pilots get better and not having them die when the platform fails; AI cores to limit the number of MARS platforms since they have to be self-sufficient; early game pilots risk their lives whereas late game pilots are nice and safe; "why not just fly drones in like in real life?"

Always hard to balance the fun and challenge against the realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chris said:

Regarding the general point people make about combat getting repetitive - yup, but I'm not sure how easy that is to fix no matter how much variation you put in the game. Potentially it'll be more interesting than before because all your planes aren't always identical (e.g. if Falcon-1 has the laser minigun and Falcon-2 still has the ballistic minigun) and the damage variance, but we'll have to see.

In the really long run anything is repetitive, but variation in interceptors and UFOs should help a lot. In X1, all your planes are at the same tech level always, the feature of changing plane equipment didn't matter, and each UFO always acted the same. Plus most of the game would be spent with Foxtrots and Alenium torpedoes. Now if in X2 each UFO can come in some 4 combat variants (basic, extra shield, extra speed, extra weapons), and your planes have more equipment variety, that's already a system that will take much longer than in X1 to become boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sad to see the real-time interception go, but this actually looks really good!

As far as people complaining about it being repetitive - at least it isn't as lazy as X-COM and TFTD were!

Posting this in a hurry so I haven't read the whole thing, but do we still have the option to auto-complete the fights like we did in X1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I get into my idea for handling escorts I'll give general feedback to the proposed interception minigame. Plainly I like it. It sounds like a solid base that isn't too complicated but you could add depth too. To add such depth, I'd add a dodge chance and weapon tracking stat. Dodge chance is simply a percent chance to avoid damage that is rolled everytime a aircraft would take damage. It would be a base state on the craft just like speed, or weapon hardpoints. Weapon tracking would be a value primarily on the weapon, though maybe the maneuverable craft like condors and corsairs could get a base tracking stat, that would reduced dodge by a linear amount. For example, a small scout could have say a 30% dodge chance, and a sidewinder missle could have 20 weapon tracking meaning if you shoot a small scout with a side winder it's dodge chance is only 10%. You could even make the tracking affected by range system to add in for the fact that shooting at long range would give the UFO more time to take evasive maneuvers. Avalanche, being the heavier missile, would have 0 weapon tracking making it a primarily a large target weapon but still capable of hitting a small scout if the dice gods are with you. You could even add modular upgrades to the interceptors such as laser tracking system, giving all weapons on the craft 10 tracking, or maneuvering thrusters, giving the craft and extra 10% dodge. To limit it each craft would have a limited number of upgrade slots. May starting condors would only have 1 slot but a more advanced corsair could have 2. 

Now here's my take on how to deal with escorts. Divide the 'board' into columns and put 1 escort in each side column. Likewise when you launch interceptors, the order you select them would assign them to centre, then left, then right column. If there is only 1 escort it is always in the left column and likewise if you select only 2 interceptors the second one is always in the left column. Aircraft, both alien and xenonaut, are locked to their column. The long, medium and close range bands can stay in reference to the main UFO, however have small tooltips for showing the damage the active interceptor would deal to the escorts which would be calculated in the same way (1-3 close, 4-6 med, 7-9 long). When the main UFO moves, both escorts and xenonaut craft move as their location is in reference to the main UFO.

aircombat.jpg.0c680e750758b5cf961b7e67b20e6163edited.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an other idea for the escort problem.

Keep the game field, but remove the range labelling on the left side. Instead, add colors indicating the current range when hovering over an interceptor / ufo with your mouse. (green = long range, yellow = medium range, red = short range) For example:

 

__________________

UFO

###

###

Escort

### (shortrange)

Interceptor

 

I know it looks crude in text form, but I think thats an idea which could work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In The Elder Scrolls Legends the board is divided into two columns. I havn't played it myself but if anyone is interested you can see how it works.

Edited by Ravn7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, vanFeathers said:

I got an other idea for the escort problem.

Keep the game field, but remove the range labelling on the left side. Instead, add colors indicating the current range when hovering over an interceptor / ufo with your mouse. (green = long range, yellow = medium range, red = short range)could work out.

This part of my original idea but when I was editing the picture I forgot to do this and then forgot to add it in to the text of the post. The whole point of dividing it into columns was to have the color background of each column update to show firing range. In essences the centre column would always stay the same as it's refers to the main UFO which is the fixed reference point and the side columns colors for range would update with the selected xenonaut craft to show it's firing options as well as the tooltip showing the current damage.

 

20 minutes ago, Ravn7 said:

In Elder Scrolls Legends the board divided into two columns.

That's a bit of what I was going for though unlike eldar scrolls you'd be able to attack across columns. I'd probably add some sort of malice to craft that shoot across columns when they have an opponent matched in their column. Additionally to keep the closing escorts relevant I'd add a freestrike by an escort the moment you enter the same band as it, or a massive damage bonus when an escort shoots at a xenonaut craft that's between it and the main UFO.

Edited by Warfrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: what was bad about the Xenonauts 1 Air-Combat(-Game)? This is simpler and offers much less options and strategy depth for the player and is a turn back on the old X-Com games. Don't get me wrong, I like the olds (as you may gues) but your Xeneonauts 1 Air-Combat was very inovative and an enrichment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. But personally I think it was too simplistic and arcade-ish. And I don't know if you have read the thread but this is going to be much more complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShadowAdmiral said:

One question: what was bad about the Xenonauts 1 Air-Combat(-Game)? This is simpler and offers much less options and strategy depth for the player and is a turn back on the old X-Com games. Don't get me wrong, I like the olds (as you may gues) but your Xeneonauts 1 Air-Combat was very inovative and an enrichment.

I liked the original X1 combat quite a bit as well, but admittedly, at higher levels it could get a bit tedious, and some of those huge craft kinda belied gravity (with anti-gravity !) by being able to turn on a dime so fast.  Of course, there were some great tutorials and 'Let's Play' out there, along with good Discussion on the Forums to help people get used to that combat approach, but for some it was still rather daunting, or annoying, or boring, or made some want to rage quit ... lol 

 

The Dev here's never been one to ignore constructive public feedback.  There was a fairly large vocal contingent that wanted to know right up front whether the air combat system was going to be changed or not from Real Time to Turn Based or not, with a majority of those speaking out in favor of a turn-based system.  Personally, I wouldn't have minded seeing a revamped Real Time system with some extra tips and tricks like some of the unique additions that are being suggested for the turn-based system (skilled pilots, unique aircraft traits, a larger variety of mixed ordnance, etc.) but it looks like the Turn-Based system's going to get some heavy testing and likely turn out to be something just as interesting as the RT combat was, or maybe even more so, hopefully ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning limiting putting planes up in the air verses waves of UFOs. Have you considered tying airbourne Xenonaut assets to Threat? You might allow players to put as many planes as they like up into the air, but after a certain point, Threat increases automatically. Then players have to trade off their airbourne assets verses the risk of increasing Threat. After all, the more aircraft put into the air to chase down Ufos, the more threatening the Xenonaut organisation is to the aliens' goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. It wouldn't feel like an artificially imposed limitation but actually something that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×