Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [AAR] Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

    I'd like to ask those who PL or wish to PL what they define strategy as and how to implement it. If anyone wants to approach it as an SL that is fine but I think the Squad Level operation is more weighted to precise tactical needs rather than a temporal strategic vision.

    To start the discussion I'll write a little assessment of last night's Alert I participated in:

    Yesterday serves as a good example of what I think is strategy on a continent scale. The situation, as I arrived in-game on Amerish, is that a Global Amp Station alert has just begun and our TG Platoon (1x Air Squadron; 1x Infantry) is in the midst of a fight against the Vanu Sovereignty occupied Sungrey Amp Station. As I log on the TR are not fighting on this continent (Amerish) and the NC hold a significant population advantage over the VS. The NC held Kwahtee and Wokuk Amp Stations and within the first five minutes of the alert hold a majority of the Global Amp Stations.

    Within the first ten minutes of the alert, while the majority of the NC force on Amerish is engaged at Sungrey, a significant TR force moves to Amerish and begins to operate around the Kwhatee Amp Station. The TR would then push from their north-west Warp Gate to take Kwhatee and southbound territories heading off towards Wokuk Amp. They successfully take Kwhatee to absolutely no defense with an attacking force between 25-48 players.

    The case actually turns so quickly that the TR actually outnumber the NC within fifteen or twenty minutes on Amerish. I consider this fact to show that the population on Amerish was not terribly large. At largest we are talking about three platoons of NC troops, four platoons of TR, and two and a half or so of VS; most players were probably not in a squad either. I feel that the values were actually slightly smaller than this.

    Eventually within forty minutes of the alert the TR would gain both Kwhatee and Wokuk on Amerish completely taking away the NC's advantage. Simultaneously our efforts on Esamir faltered as Freyr Amp was lost to a Vanu push. Reducing the NC to just two Amp Stations. Sadly there was absolutely no significant change in the tenor of the battle at Vanu held Sungrey and despite a few offensive bursts the station was eventually successfully defended. Within one hour of the Alert the NC on Amerish had lost their 70% advantage of territorial control and two Amp stations while gaining nothing during one hour worth of concentrated fighting in one localized territory.

    I feel the TR's grasp on strategy is keen in this specific situation.

    #1 TR organized a competitively sized force to move to Amerish with the Objective goal to take the NC held Amp Stations.
    #2 TR objectively focused on lightly defended territory to gain an advantage with the current Strategic Goal (the Alert)
    #3 TR ignored completely Sungrey Amp Station which served as a sink to occupy the largest forces of both the VS and NC.

    Conversely the NC as a whole on Amerish were too narrowly focused on a small strategic picture (taking Sungrey) that they ignored the larger picture at their total detriment.

    #1 At NO POINT did any sizeable NC force move to defend what territory they had.
    #2 At NO POINT did the NC try to decisively and timely wrap up the battle at Sungrey. Rather they got pulled into a largely 1:1 affair against an entrenched defender.
    #3 At NO POINT did the NC try and goad the TR and VS into a conflict which would have served to disperse the TR offensive.

    What I personally think is important, and I'm opening this discussion up to hear other perspectives, is understanding the flow of a campaign. Being able to read the map, see the players and their positions, and being able to accurately anticipate the opponent's maneuvers in order to thwart them. When a large force is stretched along a large region it is thin and ineffectual. The NC on Amerish held a huge advantage in the beginning yet when caught in a quagmire they would not dare abandon allowed too much of the map to be lost. Too late did the NC realize their mistake and for the remaining hour they fought to retake what they had originally held.

    =

    What purpose is to take land if you'll not secure it against the enemy? I feel that the NC, and we were certainly a part of this that night, held poor strategic command over the situation.

    I define strategic command as:

    #1 Objective Focus
    #2 Understanding
    #3 Efficeint Use of Troops

    The TR held, indisputably, the greatest amount of Objective Focus. They moved a large competitive force to Amerish when the Alert came and used that force to focus on Amp Stations. The VS held a good amount of focus as well; they kept a secure grip on Sungrey Amp station despite being the lowest population faction. The NC held almost no Objective Focus as the let their two held Amp Stations fall to no contest while bashing their head ineffectually against a steadfast Vanu Defense.

    The TR, once again, held the best amount of Understanding of the situation. They saw the lower population on Amerish allowed for a comparatively smaller force to move from other continents. A platoon or two leaving Esamir/Indar wouldn't matter much for those continents but when they would arrive on Amerish those forces would be large and important. The VS, also, held a firm understanding that their lower population could not conceivably be able to engage in large and decisive offensive action. Hence their assuming a purely defensive posture. The NC, probably blinded by hubris of previous successes, thought that they could take another Amp Station with their numerical advantage. Instead they were drawn into a lengthy quagmire with no success while simultaneously forfieting two Amp Stations. This is a blamable poor sense of understanding as a whole.

    Finally the TR knew that they had not enough troops to contest all three Amp Stations and that they'd rather not draw the NC into a conflict. This is why they never moved eastward towards the large NC offensive on Sungrey. The TR were wholly content with the NC preoccupation.

    There will be a simple graphic accompanying this assessment.

    =

    Strategy in Planetside2 is what separates this game from any of the mundane arena's. While in the one to one engagements twitch ability and personal skill matters greatly utilizing superior tactics and strategy can level the playing field. Success rarely hinges on an individual's skill and more often hinges on the ability of the whole force.

    To understand strategy and how it informs our movements and our enemy's we can elevate our play to levels where we might not be directly competitive. Failures in strategic vision, otherwise, can lead to even the best forces and players seeing total and humiliating defeat.

    I would like to use this as a time to suggest the following strategic concepts:

    Logistics, Objective Focus, Tactics, and Ability

    I would also push forth necessary requirements of anyone in a strategic position:

    Knowledge of his force; his enemy; his objectives; his logistics

    Finally I think it must be highlighted that any good commander, as said by Napoleon, should: "(have) a cool head, which to judge things in a true light; he should not let himself be dazzled by good or bad news."

    To borrow from Lt. Colonel Alfred H. Burne's spectacular Art of War on Land a commander must be able to adjust and accept momentary upsets as a lesson: When the Duke of Wellington learned that his great flank attack at Toulouse had completely broken down he merely shrugged his shoulders and remarked, "Well, I suppose I must try something else," and which he did, with complete success.

    The fight at Sungrey was simply taking too long and something else had to be tried. Continuing along the incremental tug of war sapped too much effort from the NC and lead to its utter defeat.

  • #2
    Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

    I can't help but think that the issue here is one of not having anyone focused on big picture concerns within the NC. We've got the NCC and leader chat and, to the NC's credit, they're being used well to coordinate between outfits. However, the participants on those channels are all platoon/company level commanders, and speaking from personal experience a platoon leader has major tunnel vision on their current strategic objective. Especially without anyone available to coordinate and allocate platoons to objectives beyond a mere "we need support here" (which tends to cause platoons to dogpile instead of spread out) it's extremely easy for platoon leaders to feel like they have to continue toward their current target regardless of the outside strategic influences unless the situation changes drastically. This is exacerbated by the NCC comm structure, I think, which has platoons only speaking with platoons on their own continent.

    I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. A platoon is not a large enough force to handle a task like an alert on its own, and needs to focus on its own small part of it. Loosely speaking, platoon leaders are focused on taking bases, not continents.

    What I think we need is to find a way to organize multiple outfits and platoons at a higher level, like nominating a higher level commander to manage platoons. It'd leave the platoon commanders free to focus on concerns within their weight class, and it'd allow an overarching strategic vision to handle issues like what you describe.



    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

      Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
      I can't help but think that the issue here is one of not having anyone focused on big picture concerns within the NC. We've got the NCC and leader chat and, to the NC's credit, they're being used well to coordinate between outfits. However, the participants on those channels are all platoon/company level commanders, and speaking from personal experience a platoon leader has major tunnel vision on their current strategic objective. Especially without anyone available to coordinate and allocate platoons to objectives beyond a mere "we need support here" (which tends to cause platoons to dogpile instead of spread out) it's extremely easy for platoon leaders to feel like they have to continue toward their current target regardless of the outside strategic influences unless the situation changes drastically. This is exacerbated by the NCC comm structure, I think, which has platoons only speaking with platoons on their own continent.
      Great points. I should have prefaced this by saying that the NCC was out of commission during this particular endeavor and that I did not have the details on anything being discussed in Leader Chat. This being said I agree that the NCC is limited in its capabilities since its an abstraction of a 'kinda sorta' Joint Force Operation. However I think the lack of a command structure in the NCC is good. The point is that the NCC helps to aid in cooperation between parallel elements. Its a feature of the NCC to not have a grand-viseir because it is merely an Opt-In impromptu communication facilitator.

      The company level aspect of this game is incredibly abstract as it has no true in-game representation. It certainly exists but is only truly facilitated through third party features (as such there is no way for a platoon to join a friendly company). It is an absolute shame that they do not because the game then favors the organizations that are large in nature.


      I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. A platoon is not a large enough force to handle a task like an alert on its own, and needs to focus on its own small part of it. Loosely speaking, platoon leaders are focused on taking bases, not continents.
      Certainly the Platoon is the smallest effectual strategic group and is often worried about immediate tasking, however, since many platoons operate solely on their own it is mandatory that they also appreciate a long-term strategic vision. I think it is obvious that a squad that operates alone has a squad leader who is more concerned about strategy than a squad that is operating under the vision of a Platoon Leader. The basic rule, I feel, is that the Absolute Leader of any force (as in the person who has no superior) must be concerned about the strategic level play within his domain. During Alerts a PL, and a solo SL, is responsible for positioning his force where it is most valuable. (This is being said academically. As a subordinate to the PL/SL you never question his decisions during the operation)

      The above case had at minimum two platoons worth of NC forces engaging Sungrey Amp station (probably six squads that are segmented and not unified) and in the absence of a unified commander who is it up to on deciding if Kwhatee or Wokuk are to be defended?

      What I think we need is to find a way to organize multiple outfits and platoons at a higher level, like nominating a higher level commander to manage platoons. It'd leave the platoon commanders free to focus on concerns within their weight class, and it'd allow an overarching strategic vision to handle issues like what you describe.
      I disagree. There is no need to outsource important strategic decisions or a strategic awareness beyond the PL. It would certainly be beneficial if we could ever field a large cooperative force but if we are just fielding one Platoon it is only on us, as a TG platoon, to do what we are capable and comfortable with doing. We can expand this with seeking direct Joint Action with other outfits like was done with the stellar NC10/TG coop where the outfits took turns commanding the 4 Platoon Affair.

      Until the game incorporates Platoon+ Cooperation in-game there is a political line to be toed when trying to forge cooperative alliances on such a interdependent basis.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

        I'm personally of the opinion that the NC as a whole as of right now is very tunnel vision. I know that I have platoon led before in holding amp stations and people will just be throwing themselves into a meat grinder to hold insignificant land. I think the NCC is a great idea in theory but I believe they need to take it to the next level and actually decide leaders to guide the operations as a whole. Without someone calling the shots like you said platoons tend to group up and you end up with 5 platoons in one spot and no one anywhere else. Another thing I've noticed is that NC also tend not to fall back enough. I'm a leader who will abandon a fight and one or more territories if that means we can fall back to a more defensible position which we can hold off a zerg indefinitely. I actually led one of those platoons to defend Dahaka amp on Indar and sacrificed the two areas right before the western outpost. If anyone is familiar with this area its almost indefensable without large numbers because its all open but the western gate has huge walls and a tank gen. Throwing down tank mines and pulling a few vanguards cuppled with a few AA maxs on the wall and an infantry squad sitting on the shield gen and the point we held the zerg off with one platoon verses their 3 plus TR platoons. I think people forget that durring those specific alerts its not teritory that maters but specific bases so why hold onto huge areas when you can protect one small base that has walls and gens?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

          NCC is simply too many Chiefs and not enuff Indians. There is no central core. If you feel that 1 platoon can hold off a well organized and centrally commanded zerk like the TR or VS then my friend you are living in another world.
          Yesterday's alert was to take and hold as much of the Esamir territory as possible, NCC started with 55% and ended in last place in the alert, why? First of all as time goes on more and more of NCC refuses to participate in the alerts, why? Because they usually lose, why? Because without a central command structure there is no organization. It's like the little dutch boy trying to plug the leaks in the dam. I had recommended that others play on other servers to see how they do it, I wonder how many have actually done that. I have.

          Until the NCC can get their heads out of their a** and start participating as a true military command structure, then the NC as a whole will always suffer. There is an old saying "Do what you always did and you'll always get what you always got".

          As far as not questioning the PL..........well in the military the PL has earned the role of the PL by his years of dedication and the number of results he has obtained. Here it's a matter of saying "I'll be PL", surely you can't reasonable believe that just because someone says "I'll be PL" makes him infallible and beyond reproach. If so then it's tantamount to being on the playground as a kid and if you don't do what the kid who owns the ball wants then he'll take his ball and leave. Sorry for the bluntness but the truth of it still stands, if you can't justify your actions to someone else then how did you justify it to yourself. In management we had a saying "Let the cream rise to the top", leaders are chosen not by their superiors but by their peers. This environment can allow that to happen (Sparhawk is an excellent example) but in general it's not overly conducive to it.

          So make a decision and justify that decision, and eventually people will stop asking. If you can't or won't just because you feel beyond reproach as a PL, then I along with several others will continue to play the game to our enjoyment and that doesn't depend on how well we respond to an alert or operate within a platoon. And before anyone says "Then why are you in TG" my answer to that is because I enjoy being in a squad with friends that actually accomplish what we set out to do and those accomplishments are not dependent on a PL beyond reproach.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

            Dead bloated corpses also rise to the top . . .
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

              Just one little comment here, in light of following orders being a requirement in this community, not an option.

              Having a sound rationale for tactical decisions is a must, otherwise those decisions aren't perhaps all that tactical. However it isn't the Squad Members job to constantly challenge those orders, nor whisper behind the PL/SL's back, nor repeatedly ask for explanations. That is effectively dooming the SL/PL to failure and falsely proving a self centred view that the orders were flawed in your opinion by tying the PL/SL up with having to deal with a bunch of backseat leaders.

              I like the playground analogy so here's one, constantly challenging the SL/PL etc instead of doing your job, i.e. executing those orders to the best of your ability is akin to the little kid who at every simple request says ".....but why?"


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                Yeah emale we called them "floaters' in the military.....but nothing in the world like wading through them on a mission.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                  Originally posted by Rageq3a View Post
                  NCC is simply too many Chiefs and not enuff Indians. There is no central core. If you feel that 1 platoon can hold off a well organized and centrally commanded zerk like the TR or VS then my friend you are living in another world.
                  See I used to feel that way about the NCC as well. Today I view the NCC in a different light; its a better /Leader chat. It's more responsive, the people in it are trying their best with what they have, and generally its just the well organized Outfits cooperating and not anyone with 100Certs in Leader Chat.

                  The NCC is a means to elevate the contributing parts of the battle to more than just a sum what it isn't going to do is make the Outfit Platoon that is participating better. Outfits don't go out of their way to mingle too much and for all the Outfits out there there are different opinions and methods and tactics (all in their own way relevant and fashioned for those communities).

                  Originally posted by Rageq3a View Post
                  Yesterday's alert was to take and hold as much of the Esamir territory as possible, NCC started with 55% and ended in last place in the alert, why? First of all as time goes on more and more of NCC refuses to participate in the alerts, why? Because they usually lose, why? Because without a central command structure there is no organization. It's like the little dutch boy trying to plug the leaks in the dam. I had recommended that others play on other servers to see how they do it, I wonder how many have actually done that. I have.
                  I participated in last night's late Alert, Amp Stations (once again), with CML and had a stellar experience with them fighting all over the Auraxian globe at points that mattered. I don't think it is fair to suggest that NC outfits ignore alerts; there may be other reasons for failures. I know last night we did well and I was not in the NCC coms but I could tell there was Global communication in attempting the Alerts.

                  Originally posted by Rageq3a View Post
                  Until the NCC can get their heads out of their a** and start participating as a true military command structure, then the NC as a whole will always suffer. There is an old saying "Do what you always did and you'll always get what you always got".
                  See I have to just disagree with you here. The NCC is not a structure of that kind and I think that it speaks volumes that CML, the group that is largely behind the erection of the NCC, seeks no desire to control any participating Outfit members. They got their ducks in a row and it works for them, but they have the humility not to try and force that vision on other sovereign Outfits. I may be wrong but I do not believe the Vanu Alliance has an over arching military structure; its still very much Joint Operations. When GU13 came out the NCC saw huge participation and stellar success.

                  Finally I just can not stress enough here that the failure of this alert is not on the NCC as no outfit was in there.




                  Below I'm going to quote both Rageq3a and Wicks as the subject broached is very important if even off topic:

                  Originally posted by Rageq3a View Post
                  As far as not questioning the PL..........well in the military the PL has earned the role of the PL by his years of dedication and the number of results he has obtained. Here it's a matter of saying "I'll be PL", surely you can't reasonable believe that just because someone says "I'll be PL" makes him infallible and beyond reproach. If so then it's tantamount to being on the playground as a kid and if you don't do what the kid who owns the ball wants then he'll take his ball and leave. Sorry for the bluntness but the truth of it still stands, if you can't justify your actions to someone else then how did you justify it to yourself. In management we had a saying "Let the cream rise to the top", leaders are chosen not by their superiors but by their peers. This environment can allow that to happen (Sparhawk is an excellent example) but in general it's not overly conducive to it.

                  So make a decision and justify that decision, and eventually people will stop asking. If you can't or won't just because you feel beyond reproach as a PL, then I along with several others will continue to play the game to our enjoyment and that doesn't depend on how well we respond to an alert or operate within a platoon. And before anyone says "Then why are you in TG" my answer to that is because I enjoy being in a squad with friends that actually accomplish what we set out to do and those accomplishments are not dependent on a PL beyond reproach.


                  Originally posted by Wicks View Post
                  Just one little comment here, in light of following orders being a requirement in this community, not an option.

                  Having a sound rationale for tactical decisions is a must, otherwise those decisions aren't perhaps all that tactical. However it isn't the Squad Members job to constantly challenge those orders, nor whisper behind the PL/SL's back, nor repeatedly ask for explanations. That is effectively dooming the SL/PL to failure and falsely proving a self centred view that the orders were flawed in your opinion by tying the PL/SL up with having to deal with a bunch of backseat leaders.

                  I like the playground analogy so here's one, constantly challenging the SL/PL etc instead of doing your job, i.e. executing those orders to the best of your ability is akin to the little kid who at every simple request says ".....but why?"

                  A ton of things to cover between these two posts:

                  1st I have to disagree that a PL in a game should be held to the same standard as anything in real-life. We have an incredibly limited pool of PLs and all of them operate on different biases and opinions and methods and have different availability. Ultimately they are beyond reproach (in game) because no one else chose to step up in their stead and they are taking a huge burden upon themselves for little reward to them while providing a potentially huge reward for the community in being the unifying 'Leviathan' of Hobbe's lore.

                  2nd The game is too open ended and values might change so much between our voluntary leaders that what I consider a Strategic Must might be considered a Strategic Distraction to another. Some people do not care about Alerts at all; and they aren't wrong for that opinion. When we join a TG Platoon or Squad we are choosing to put ourselves under the strategic vision of that member. Its a contract once you hit that Join Button to listen to them and follow them through hell and high water.

                  3rd Now a concern I have is that due to the valuable nature of our Leaders in game in providing our outfit longevity (I hold the TG Platoon/Outfit as being analogous to the TG Server in other games) it makes it sort of unwise to disagree with them for fear of incurring offense. Platoon Leading is stressful most often and when things aren't panning out it is very stressful and to be told after all of it that perhaps XYZ decision was wrong . . . well that's potentially both humiliating and damaging. Even if its just objective criticism if its not been asked for we might not want to bring it up. . . conversation is difficult at times and I know full well how words wear on people.

                  I wonder if this fear could be abated?

                  Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                  Dead bloated corpses also rise to the top . . .
                  I think the point is that not everyone wants to/can/is willing to lead. Therefore you let the leaders rise. Its a strong argument for an open means to allow for Leaders.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                    Bang on target.

                    Don't cry to me of a lack of leaders when we have a surfeit of those unwilling to be led. When you see a hesitant leader and criticise him, remember, on many occasions you, the questioning one, the undermining one, are the individual that put a hitch in the stride of potential new leader. You are the one that broke the Chain of Command, note it's called Chain of Command. Not Chain of Query, not Chain of Second Guessing or anything else.

                    Someone steps up to lead, you support them or point yourself to the door. You don't sit in the gallery with a sniper rifle and second guess someone with far more on his plate than where his next kill is coming from or what his battle rank is. I've been here years and I will always follow a new SL/PL into battle and literally run myself ragged to carry out their orders. Partly because it's what this community is about, mostly because I am so damn proud to see them stepping up and tackling such a difficult challenge.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                      It's not an issue of PL's being infallible, it's an issue of not sabotaging squad/platoon morale. After the op has ended, on the forums, hell, even through /tells in-game is a more appropriate way to voice concerns. When I did martial arts it was a courtesy that, if you had an issue with a black belt or wanted to point out a mistake, you could absolutely do so, but you should do so PRIVATELY, so as not to compromise their leadership or cause them to lose face. I think it's a good way to run things, personally. I think it's especially in a game like Planetside where SLs and SMs really need to be able to trust their leadership in order to function. A bad plan executed well will be better than a good plan executed poorly, as the saying goes.

                      <edit> Also, as a general thing, if you've got a problem with how a PL or SL is leading things the BEST way to deal with it is just to take the SL or PL position yourself next time! Not to mention we desperately need more people to go ahead and take leadership roles, we struggle to find enough SLs to run even a single platoon, even though I'm pretty sure we could run two some nights based on how quickly squads fill up. Also, the few people who ARE stepping up are going to get tired of stepping up to the plate all the time eventually.

                      As for that Amp Station alert, I was in on leader chat during it, and that actually seemed to be where most of the communication was happening! There was a lot of excellent cooperation between outfits through there.



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                        I understand and can appreciate the argument, it may be cultural (I'm from the country in the deep south), but for anyone to say their are above reproach (including me) in game or out just kinda rubs me wrong. I have been at this since April and have seen many leaders that I have no problems at all following and taking orders from and will gladly do so time and time again. This game comprises of many puzzle parts that hopefully come together in a homogenous form to elicit a victory. To feel that anyone has such a total grasp on all of those parts and can formulate a plan to address them all in a meaningful way I personally feel is asking way too much of 1 person.

                        But several people coming together towards a common solution, has always been the most benefiting solution. I'm not talking about everyone in the platoon, but the PL and SL's conferring on a objective, gives a much wider application of the strengths and weakness of the squads in addressing the objectives. But that requires a 2 way street of communication, not one without reproach. And actually allows the burden of command to be more widely distributed and shared, not to mention the commitment to the plan being more focused.

                        Being beyond reproach sounds more like Buzzcut's method of command to me.

                        And I agree that in-game there should never be questioning once the plan has been formalized, if you don't agree with the current methods or being asked to participate in meat-grinding objectives then everyone has the option of just quitting the squad without being verbal about it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Alert Assessment 8/11/13: What is Strategy?

                          I think its a miss communication based on semantics. I think we ultimately agree with each other.

                          For me to clarify what I mean as 'beyond reproach' I mean you can disagree all you want but you will do your best to follow those orders or you excuse yourself from the Platoon. And I think we should strive for a two way street and that feedback should be incorporated in our outfit duties. We have all of the infrastructure here and even in game.

                          This being out of the way let us broach the concept of Strategy and what we think we should focus on, how, and why?

                          Comment

                          Connect

                          Collapse

                          TeamSpeak 3 Server

                          Collapse

                          Advertisement

                          Collapse

                          Twitter Feed

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X