The Tavern

I'm curious about the reason for two things: the large delay in removing a shield and the gimping of unarmed combat when combined with things like shields/heavy armor. The time delay for removing a shield makes missile weapon swapping practically impossible. The penalties for unarmed combat seem arbitrary to me. Anyone have a moment to explain why things are as they are?

The delay for swapping shields prevents using an xbow/bow and then swapping to a shield and melee weapon for melee, which would get annoying very quickly. UC is much stronger than other one-handers damage-wise at high skill levels, so having a shield penalty is a balancing factor (but it isn't very significant).

the time delay for removing a shield also makes bardiche swapping practically impossible. i'm not sure why you are confused by this. there is a one-handed missile weapon fyi

I've thought about proposing that weapon switch switches both hands at the same time, ie, that you'd be able to switch between 1h and shield to 2h ranged weapon with ', and then ' to switch back to 1h and shield. I'm not sure why demon blade + shield isn't allowed to be mixed with bows, but great sword and bows is fine, or demon blade, shield and sling is fine. I'd love to be able to 1h and shield and still have bow/xbow as an option. Maybe it's just because I can't use slings right now.

Make it take a full turn instead of .5 if you switch both hands, that'd be fine by me

Bows and crossbows really don't need any (further) buffs.

Is "being able to stop using ranged weapon and switch to using a one handed melee weapon with a shield, instead of a two-handed weapon" really a buff to bows/crossbows? (I mean I suppose it would be if one-handed weapons with shields were considered generally superior to two-handed weapons, but they aren't in most cases)

I personally do not think that Crawl should add tactical swapping to another slot. If anything, I think 4 slots like that is already too many.

Siegurt wrote:Is "being able to stop using ranged weapon and switch to using a one handed melee weapon with a shield, instead of a two-handed weapon" really a buff to bows/crossbows? (I mean I suppose it would be if one-handed weapons with shields were considered generally superior to two-handed weapons, but they aren't in most cases)

Yes, because there are characters (and they are probably more common among ranged users, as ranged weapon use means another use for exp) that still want to use one-handed weapons for either exp concerns or if they are lucky enough to find a great one-hander.

imho ranged weapons aren't really that much of an experience sink anymore. Obviously any training costs more than 0 training, but getting bows to 12 for a longbow is really, really cheap compared to the utility it gives an otherwise melee-only character. It's very cheap to pick up ranged now. Crossbows are 16, a bit higher, but still a lot cheaper than "train it to 27 and maybe your stats will be high enough to reach min delay".

I wouldn't need this option so much if slings get buffed and I can just use slings again, but my last centaur was unarmed/bows and it basically meant I couldn't use a shield with unarmed, which I normally would. I even had a +8 shield, awww. Imho ranged weapons are a bit too cheap, exp wise, right now, but I'm not really sure what to do about that. You could change it so they aren't the same as melee weapons, but that was kind of the point of the reform...

tasonir wrote:Imho ranged weapons are a bit too cheap, exp wise, right now, but I'm not really sure what to do about that. You could change it so they aren't the same as melee weapons, but that was kind of the point of the reform...

Well, the way it's generally done for melee weapons is to increase delay.

cerebovssquire wrote:The delay for swapping shields prevents using an xbow/bow and then swapping to a shield and melee weapon for melee, which would get annoying very quickly. UC is much stronger than other one-handers damage-wise at high skill levels, so having a shield penalty is a balancing factor (but it isn't very significant).

Why exactly would that be annoying? Change the swap system to use item 'c' as a shield and just flip flop at will with minimal delay. I'm not sure why that's so much more overpowered than being able to swap between a 2H weapon and a bow, which is currently permitted. Every veteran player I've ever spoken with says 2H > 1H in almost every situation.

With UC you lose the ability to gain bonuses (resists, +enchantment, abilities, etc) from wielding a weapon. That's already enough penalty in my opinion. Not being able to wear a shield or heavy armor seems like a lot of overkill.

skjarl wrote:
cerebovssquire wrote:The delay for swapping shields prevents using an xbow/bow and then swapping to a shield and melee weapon for melee, which would get annoying very quickly. UC is much stronger than other one-handers damage-wise at high skill levels, so having a shield penalty is a balancing factor (but it isn't very significant).

Why exactly would that be annoying? Change the swap system to use item 'c' as a shield and just flip flop at will with minimal delay. I'm not sure why that's so much more overpowered than being able to swap between a 2H weapon and a bow, which is currently permitted. Every veteran player I've ever spoken with says 2H > 1H in almost every situation.

With UC you lose the ability to gain bonuses (resists, +enchantment, abilities, etc) from wielding a weapon. That's already enough penalty in my opinion. Not being able to wear a shield or heavy armor seems like a lot of overkill.

All enchantment does is increase damage and UC is still a higher than a +9 one-hander of a good base type. Most brands also don't do anything else - though losing pain/vamp/disto can hurt. When I say UC is stronger damage-wise than one-handers, I was referring to enchanted and branded one-handers. You could take a look at Siegurt's great visualisation of damage here; it sadly doesn't include very good one-handers but great swords and claymores compared to UC should still be helpful. Though the weapons are better even at relatively high skill levels, consider that the tests are done with a weapon that's +9 all the time and that doesn't reflect actual gameplay.

There are almost always enough resists on rings and armour, I don't think I have ever used a weapon specifically for resists on a melee-focussed character outside of situational swaps. UC characters can still wield a weapon for a resist in many of these situations - if you are wielding a weapon worse than your main weapon for a resist, you are often trying to run away rather than fight with said weapon.

You can, and should, use UC with a shield under most circumstances. The penalty isn't very harsh and the great thing about UC is that it deals two-hander-like damage and still allows wearing a shield.

---

With regards to swapping to a shield from a ranged weapon, you could make a macro for it to make it equal to swapping to a two-hander, so point taken (though it might somewhat annoy new players who don't know all of the interface). However, I think duvessa's point about not adding another tactical swapping slot because we already have 4 is quite important - e.g. if you have a shield of protection and one with a resistance, you would be swapping them around like rings and I wouldn't want to do more of that. So there are problems with swapping shields indepent of ranged weapon use.

One option is to simply suppress shield SH and brand while the offending item is equipped. You still have the shield on, but since you're actively using both hands you can't actually position your shield properly to block attacks. Functionally like melding equipment during transmutations, but with different flavor text.

I honestly haven't had the problem come up frequently enough for it to feel like it was worth the trouble of fixing, though.

cerebovssquire wrote:All enchantment does is increase damage and UC is still a higher than a +9 one-hander of a good base type. Most brands also don't do anything else - though losing pain/vamp/disto can hurt. When I say UC is stronger damage-wise than one-handers, I was referring to enchanted and branded one-handers. You could take a look at Siegurt's great visualisation of damage here; it sadly doesn't include very good one-handers but great swords and claymores compared to UC should still be helpful. Though the weapons are better even at relatively high skill levels, consider that the tests are done with a weapon that's +9 all the time and that doesn't reflect actual gameplay.

There are almost always enough resists on rings and armour, I don't think I have ever used a weapon specifically for resists on a melee-focussed character outside of situational swaps. UC characters can still wield a weapon for a resist in many of these situations - if you are wielding a weapon worse than your main weapon for a resist, you are often trying to run away rather than fight with said weapon.

You can, and should, use UC with a shield under most circumstances. The penalty isn't very harsh and the great thing about UC is that it deals two-hander-like damage and still allows wearing a shield.

It's an interesting chart, but as it shows you have to take Unarmed to very high skill levels to see those kinds of benefits. Also, I assume his test was done using 2H unarmed/no shield, which is another slot you don't get benefits from if you want to ramp up damage that high. As I see it, there are two benefits to unarmed: you start with the weapon and it does decent damage. The cons are: you have to train it higher than just about any other weapon to get great damage, your damage is significantly gimped if you wear heavy armor and/or shields which removes the reason you wanted to use UC to begin with, you don't get bonuses from a wielded weapon (and shield if you choose to do 2H damage), and it scales up slowly and thus is pretty bad during the early game when you need it most. Discounting the penalties doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, enchantment increases accuracy in addition to damage.

I understand it's all opinion, so I won't belabor the point further.

cerebovssquire wrote:With regards to swapping to a shield from a ranged weapon, you could make a macro for it to make it equal to swapping to a two-hander, so point taken (though it might somewhat annoy new players who don't know all of the interface). However, I think duvessa's point about not adding another tactical swapping slot because we already have 4 is quite important - e.g. if you have a shield of protection and one with a resistance, you would be swapping them around like rings and I wouldn't want to do more of that. So there are problems with swapping shields indepent of ranged weapon use.

I'm not so much interested in swapping from a 1H+shield->2H melee weapon as I am in swapping from a 1H+shield->2H missile weapon, but having both options would be nice. I have duvessa blocked, so I did not (and will not) read his/her/its post. I don't have a problem swapping gear around. It's a tactical tool to me and I enjoy the flexibility it provides. Like you say, it's already widely done with rings.

Anyway, since this seems to be the entrenched point of view on these topics, I'll code another patch and merge it into my local repository because I don't agree with the thinking at all. Thanks for taking the time to explain the rationale for this stuff.

What do armour and shields have to do with "the reason you wanted to use UC in the first place"??? I think you mean the reason YOU PERSONALLY wanted to use UC, but you will have to explain that reason to me as I am not psychic. Certainly armour and shields have nothing to do with the two things you listed as being the only benefits of UC.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:What do armour and shields have to do with "the reason you wanted to use UC in the first place"??? I think you mean the reason YOU PERSONALLY wanted to use UC, but you will have to explain that reason to me as I am not psychic. Certainly armour and shields have nothing to do with the two things you listed as being the only benefits of UC.

If we look at the chart comparing different weapons, we can see that UC eventually becomes stronger than +9 weapons, which clearly indicates that the damage is the reason why UC is appealing in the first place. Unfortunately heavy armours and shields penalize UC (unlike normal weapon), making it even more inferior in the early game and possibly not outstanding even in the late game.

You're welcome for explanation.

@Skjarl, the disadvantage of swapping shield might be interface problem. If you can implement it in a way that's clear and convenient for use, I don't see any reasons to not have this change in. If we can swap 2-H weapons, we shouldn't be really prohibited from swapping 1H+shield equipment. It's annoying and uninteresting to be limited to throwing combined with shield while 2-H weapon users can effectively swap to all kinds of ranged weapons.

I'd be happy to see your piece of code working.

Bart wrote:we can see that UC eventually becomes stronger than +9 weapons, which clearly indicates that the damage is the reason why UC is appealing in the first place.

What we can SEE is that UC NEVER becomes stronger than claymores. And takes way too much XP to become stronger than any other endgame quality weapon. Which clearly indicates that someone picking UC for the damage hasn't seen that chart. However both you and skjarl claim to have seen the chart (I am trusting you despite evidence to the contrary), so therefore obviously neither of you are picking UC for the damage. And in that case, I'm still waiting for an explanation.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:What we can SEE is that UC NEVER becomes stronger than claymores. And takes way too much XP to become stronger than any other endgame quality weapon. Which clearly indicates that someone picking UC for the damage hasn't seen that chart. However both you and skjarl claim to have seen the chart (I am trusting you despite evidence to the contrary), so therefore obviously neither of you are picking UC for the damage. And in that case, I'm still waiting for an explanation.

You, uh, realize that claymores are quite rare and might actually never generate at all during your game, much less at a time when they would be useful… right? The player's hands are nearly always going to be available the very moment the players want them, a property that isn't shared by most of the best weapons.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:
Bart wrote:we can see that UC eventually becomes stronger than +9 weapons, which clearly indicates that the damage is the reason why UC is appealing in the first place.

What we can SEE is that UC NEVER becomes stronger than claymores. And takes way too much XP to become stronger than any other endgame quality weapon. Which clearly indicates that someone picking UC for the damage hasn't seen that chart. However both you and skjarl claim to have seen the chart (I am trusting you despite evidence to the contrary), so therefore obviously neither of you are picking UC for the damage. And in that case, I'm still waiting for an explanation.

@TheDefiniteArticle: Listen. I'm willing to discuss things with you as long as you knock off the butthurt attitude you seem to have decided is necessary here. If you disagree with me, make your point clearly and politely or go away. Unlike some folks on here, I'm willing to put up with about .001 seconds of bullshit from strangers on the Internet.

The graph has a lot of adjacent colors so parts of it are hard to make out, but it quite clearly shows unarmed edging out both claymores and greatswords by skill level 27. If you don't think damage is why anyone ever chooses unarmed combat, then by all means tell us with the real reason for choosing it.

@Bart: Thanks. I doubt I'll submit these patches, though. They would almost assuredly be rejected and I'm not motivated enough to actually start up my own public fork of the code.

skjarl wrote:If you don't think damage is why anyone ever chooses unarmed combat, then by all means tell us with the real reason for choosing it.

I can see 3 good reasons:
1. I am a troll
2. I am a felid
3. I am a draconian and want Dragon Form for the coolness factor

Otherwise, I would not choose unarmed. Well, maybe with a ghoul.

to be quite honest there isn't a good reason to choose UC unless you want to use transmutations or have claws

Magipi wrote:
skjarl wrote:If you don't think damage is why anyone ever chooses unarmed combat, then by all means tell us with the real reason for choosing it.

I can see 3 good reasons:
1. I am a troll
2. I am a felid
3. I am a draconian and want Dragon Form for the coolness factor

Otherwise, I would not choose unarmed. Well, maybe with a ghoul.

In case one, you're still choosing it because of damage. Case 2 isn't really choosing it at all since that's the racial restriction, but I'll concede the point. Case 3 is....LOL.

Fair enough.

I certainly don't think "it's available from the start and you don't need to find a good weapon" is a big factor in choosing UC. It's based on the assumption that you might not find a good weapon, which due to weapons like great swords, dire flails, glaives, scimitars and great maces is virtually never going to happen. If a person is hellbent on finding a demon weapon or highest-damage twohander (exec axe/bardiche/claymore) then they might fail to find one, but that person is likely undervaluing the good but common weapons named before. And sure, you technically start with your endgame weapon with UC, but your fists are a lot worse than a lot of other starting weapons before you reach good levels of skill.

So yes, damage (at least claws/tmut damage) really high compared to other one-handers (for claws; the good transmutations don't work with a shield) is the reason for me. And yes, I am aware there are penalties attached to shield + UC use, but they are less significant than the penalty of having no SH in my experience (not that SH is particularily great, don't get me wrong).

skjarl wrote:I'm willing to discuss things with you as long as you knock off the butthurt attitude you seem to have decided is necessary here.

I could say the same to you.

The graph has a lot of adjacent colors so parts of it are hard to make out, but it quite clearly shows unarmed edging out both claymores and greatswords by skill level 27.

What it quite clearly shows is that UC and claymore are nearly identical at 27 skill. We certainly can't tell if that tiny gap amounts to a worthwhile difference. And at every skill level that matters, greatsword is superior by a wide margin.

Shields and Armour have nothing to do with why you would or would not choose Unarmed Combat; the fact that you are using UC should not significantly alter your shield/armour decisions, and vice versa. If you had actually tried it you would know this. Your entire understanding of how Unarmed Combat compares to weapon combat is flawed and empty of real game experience (hint: none of it is opinion, and discounting the penalties DOES make them not exist, because things that don't matter, in a very real sense don't exist either). But you have deliberately made yourself unable to hear the advice of probably the single most knowledgeable player, and you are apparently willing to go to such lengths as hacking the game to, I guess, avoid wielding a sling? So I have to admit I don't expect you to have much understanding.

Ah, Tavern, and here I thought I missed you while CDO was down.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:What we can SEE is that UC NEVER becomes stronger than claymores

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:What it quite clearly shows is that UC and claymore are nearly identical at 27 skill. We certainly can't tell if that tiny gap amounts to a worthwhile difference. And at every skill level that matters, greatsword is superior by a wide margin.

You could at least admit you've made a mistake reading the chart. In your understanding of 'skill level that matter' greatsword will be superior, but me or Skjarl were talking about the big picture (which does not matter for you), where eventually greatsword just falls behind. Now a dessert:
Trivia 1. slaying will give unarmed combat bigger edge due to the fact that UC is (at high skill levels) faster.
(Edited after Sar's comment)
Trivia 2. UC, unlike flaming claymore, is far more universal by not being affected by enemies' (fire) resistance.
(Edited after Duvessa's comment)

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:Shields and Armour have nothing to do with why you would or would not choose Unarmed Combat; the fact that you are using UC should not significantly alter your shield/armour decisions, and vice versa. If you had actually tried it you would know this.

Tried, disagree completely in case of armour and to some degree in case of shields. Did YOU try, or did you just want somebody to do it for you?

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:(an aggressive, rude part which you should be banned for) and you are apparently willing to go to such lengths as hacking the game to, I guess, avoid wielding a sling (...)

There is only one person you're apparently listening here to, so:

Crate wrote:except slings, they're awful, rip

Oh, the slaying point is actually a bit relevant, since slaying also increases aux attack damage, and if you're not using a shield UC comes with an extra aux attack (so slaying is a bit better still than just the eventually-fast attack speed suggests, though since UC takes so long to get there it's not faster than 0.7 for most of the game). Of course, you can't assume you're going to find slaying when you start a game, which is typically when you make the choice to use UC (if you start with a book you probably don't want to spend xp on 27 levels of UC, unless you're a troll and you were going to use UC regardless).

I personally think that using UC should not meaningfully affect your armour decision (and yes I've played plate UC characters), but unless you worship Trog it's pretty likely you wanted reasonably light armour anyway for UC (especially since it's so xp-hungry).

Bart wrote:Trivia 1. slaying will give unarmed combat bigger edge due to the fact that UC has higher base damage.

Base damage? Slaying is just a flat bonus.

Sar wrote:
Bart wrote:Trivia 1. slaying will give unarmed combat bigger edge due to the fact that UC has higher base damage.

Base damage? Slaying is just a flat bonus.

I think it's because of enemy AC. If you go above enemy AC, every extra point of damage is one point of damage. If you don't go above enemy AC, every extra point of damage is wasted. So being more likely to beat AC makes slaying better.

Sar wrote:
Bart wrote:Trivia 1. slaying will give unarmed combat bigger edge due to the fact that UC has higher base damage.

Base damage? Slaying is just a flat bonus.

Oh? My bad. After changes to slaying I believed it is a percent value. Thanks. Nevertheless, UC should benefit more because you attack at lower delay, so flat bonus applies more often. Thanks, Crate, for pointing that out. I agree that most of the time unarmed will be outperformed by good weapon except very late game - and that's what me and Skjarl suggested to be the reason why UC might be appealing.

Patashu wrote:
Sar wrote:
Bart wrote:Trivia 1. slaying will give unarmed combat bigger edge due to the fact that UC has higher base damage.

Base damage? Slaying is just a flat bonus.

I think it's because of enemy AC. If you go above enemy AC, every extra point of damage is one point of damage. If you don't go above enemy AC, every extra point of damage is wasted. So being more likely to beat AC makes slaying better.

I have to disagree (almost) entirely. Almost because it's true that if you don't go above enemy ac the bonus is doing nothing, but unless you try to kill a hell sentinel (or other super high ac) with a dagger it's not going to happen often.
What happens more often is that slaying helps the most exactly when you are struggling against enemy ac: imagine that only 5 damages would go through enemy ac, but if you have +5 slaying then you do 10 damage.
5 -- > 10 = 100% increase
If you already hit hard enough that 20 damage would go through what you get is: 20 --> 25 = 25% increase
Being a flat damage slaying is of course better on fast weapons. At low skill UC is slower than most weapons (even without counting shield/armor delay), at high skill when it gets faster it already does so much damage that slaying is less important (still good of course).

So overall I think that slaying is less useful for UC than for most other weapons.

Bart wrote:Trivia 3. UC is more accurate. Rarely, but it matters.

if the claymore is +8 or higher, then this is wrong

duvessa wrote:
Bart wrote:Trivia 3. UC is more accurate. Rarely, but it matters.
if the claymore is +8 or higher, then this is wrong

Indeed. Next time I'll check formulas before posting.

Konedar wrote:(stuff which comes from an incorrect premise)
So overall I think that slaying is less useful for UC than for most other weapons.

1. Unarmed is not particularly slower than most other weapons at equivalent skill levels, provided you upgrade your weapon:
Skill 0: UC 10, Falchion 13
Skill 12: UC 7.77, Longsword; 8
Skill 18: UC 6.66, Greatsword: 7
Skil 24: UC: 5.55, Claymore: 7

There are spots in the skill progression where UC will be slower, and spots where UC will be faster than a "weapon you might have at that same point" depending on what weapons you might have by what point in the game.

2. "By the time UC is faster than a weapon, it will already have sufficiently large base damage that slaying will make a smaller percentage difference"

Again it depends on what you are wielding. For the *heaviest* weapons (i.e. claymores/bardiches/exec axes) UC will *always* be faster, and will gain pre-slaying damage quickly, but not enough to surpass them until you get to near-27 skill, so obviously for those cases UC gains more from slaying. However since weapons (particularly lightweight ones) gain *speed* more quickly than UC, some of the lighter weapons at lower skill levels will be faster and do about the same or less damage than UC, and for those weapons slaying will be a bigger benefit.

Obviously daggers (and quickblades) are the most excessive example of the "fast, low-skill needed weapon" and obviously they get the most benefit from slaying, UC falls somewhere in the middle-to-high end range of all weapons for "slaying usefulness" however once you weed out the "things you probably shouldn't be doing" (Like fighting a hell-sentinel in melee with a dagger) UC falls in the "more useful" side of that range (again, there's always exceptions, demon whips and quick blades get more benefit from slaying than UC, Claymores and Bardiches less)

I should probably do this with PMs, but the interface is terrible and I don't have much time at the moment, so:

TheDefiniteArticle and skjarl: Chill. Out. The comments are getting too personal.

njvack wrote:I should probably do this with PMs, but the interface is terrible and I don't have much time at the moment, so:

TheDefiniteArticle and skjarl: Chill. Out. The comments are getting too personal.

I would not worry about it. He's on my foes list with duvessa now so we'll never speak again.

Siegurt wrote:
Konedar wrote:(stuff which comes from an incorrect premise)
So overall I think that slaying is less useful for UC than for most other weapons.

1. Unarmed is not particularly slower than most other weapons at equivalent skill levels, provided you upgrade your weapon:
Skill 0: UC 10, Falchion 13
Skill 12: UC 7.77, Longsword; 8
Skill 18: UC 6.66, Greatsword: 7
Skil 24: UC: 5.55, Claymore: 7

There are spots in the skill progression where UC will be slower, and spots where UC will be faster than a "weapon you might have at that same point" depending on what weapons you might have by what point in the game.

2. "By the time UC is faster than a weapon, it will already have sufficiently large base damage that slaying will make a smaller percentage difference"

Again it depends on what you are wielding. For the *heaviest* weapons (i.e. claymores/bardiches/exec axes) UC will *always* be faster, and will gain pre-slaying damage quickly, but not enough to surpass them until you get to near-27 skill, so obviously for those cases UC gains more from slaying. However since weapons (particularly lightweight ones) gain *speed* more quickly than UC, some of the lighter weapons at lower skill levels will be faster and do about the same or less damage than UC, and for those weapons slaying will be a bigger benefit.

Obviously daggers (and quickblades) are the most excessive example of the "fast, low-skill needed weapon" and obviously they get the most benefit from slaying, UC falls somewhere in the middle-to-high end range of all weapons for "slaying usefulness" however once you weed out the "things you probably shouldn't be doing" (Like fighting a hell-sentinel in melee with a dagger) UC falls in the "more useful" side of that range (again, there's always exceptions, demon whips and quick blades get more benefit from slaying than UC, Claymores and Bardiches less)

Can't really argue with your corrections if we are talking about a "vanilla UC" but my remarks were mostly based on experience with trolls and transmuters. Trolls have higher dmg due to claws and (at least for me) slower speed due to using a shield and sometime dragon armor. About transmuters attack speed is valid what you've written (except statue form) but their damage is higher due to forms so I still have feeling that slaying is less useful for UC than for most other weapons.

The Tavern

Mechanics questions

Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions

Re: Mechanics questions