Oolite Bulletins

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:45 am**

A player only uber-weapon inherited from the original Elite. Usually but not always destroying all non-player ships within scanner range at the mere press of a button. All for a cost of only 900 credits. How could it's inclusion in oolite possibly be justified?

Well, I'm going to give it a go

AFAIK (having skim-read numerous threads) not all of these problems have been directly addressed before and many of the possible solutions are new.

My ideas are posted here rather than in 'suggestions' as they are examples of what could be done by seeing each problem in a particular way - they're inspired by the problems but not meant to be definitive answers. In other words: food for thought, not a campaign for inclusion.

Problem: Player centric

If the player has it, then theoretically so should some of the other ships. Adding the Q-bomb means that there is already an alternative.

Solution: Treat it like other player-centric equipment - attach it to a mission

Although it's a one charge item like a missile/Q-Bomb/Gal-drive, it needn't be...

What if it were a 'Q-Bomb Shield', signature specific so that it was only proof against your own Q-bomb? Then you'd have reason to delay launching after priming. Result: a more expensive energy bomb (costs you a Q-bomb for each use) that has a short delay associated with it's firing but then instant detonation.

Problem: Get out of jail free card

It's not just dodging gameplay, it's dodging the most thrilling gameplay.

Solution: Make it cost to use, not just to purchase

If we compare it to the escape pod then functionality is surprisingly similar - one charge item granting escape from a troublesome combat. If it wern't for the fact that it cost you your cargo then the escape pod would even be the more powerful item (avoids all subsequent combats en route to main station).

So what could the energy bomb cost to use?

Maybe its use damages other equipment? Despite shielding the player from the worst of the blast if it actually knocked out the players shields and prevented their recharging until serviced, then it really would be a last resort weapon...

Or have it require and damage/destroy the extra energy unit - the EEU is fairly cheap and might be a necessary sacrifice to provide the 'eye of the storm' type immunity from the energy bomb's blast.

Maybe it's automatic full-fugitive status should you use it? Debatable morality or not, the legality at least could be clear. Or perhaps the safer the system, the worse the penalty. As for the detection of the crime, the detonation signature could be detectable from quite some distance.

Either way, using the e-bomb could then be doging one tough encounter at the cost of later encounters being tougher. It's use could then add gameplay rather than just remove it.

Problem: Too cheap/readily availble

Although superficially easy to fix, if it becomes too difficult to acquire then just how useful is it? I would suggest that the relatively low price and tech level in Elite was not by accident.

Solution: Like a loan, it could be easier to acquire than to pay off

I've already oxp'd this in Weapon Laws by making it available only in dangerous systems but another way might be to make it add service damage to your ship. Use it too regularly and it therefore delays profit (beyond the cost of the bomb) rather than always promoting it.

Or, to make a player really think twice, allow it to be subject to damage. Get your energy bomb damaged in combat and it's a PSC event * Chance of it happening could (and perhaps should) be low but then the consequences would be severe.

Problem: Mission killer

A carefully crafted combat mission could potentially be neutered to become easy and unsatisfying by a solitary use of an energy bomb.

Solution: Provide a reason that it couldn't be used

Recognise that a mission is in progress and (where appropriate) restrict the use of energy bombs. Preventing their sale wouldn't be enough if the player already had one but mission related reasons for not using one could exist.
- subterfuge
- sensitive cargo
- escape pod capture
- nearby innocents and the like
- there are already potential reasons not to fire an energy bomb during non-mission encounters.

The exclusion needn't be written into the mission. If a running mission can be detected then a script associated wih the energy bomb could both disable it and provide the briefest of explanations on screen when the player attempts to use it.

Problem: Adds nothing, only removes difficulty

Debatable this one as the same could be said of military lasers for example (and they're neither expendable nor subject to damage!) Lasers however are essential to the nature of the game, much moreso than the energy bomb especially after the inclusion of the cascade mine.

Solution: all of the ideas above address this in some way

Each one of the following may not be enough to convince in isolation but combining even two of them makes a much stronger case I think.

mission reward
strategy (pros and cons of use)
risk
not suitable for all scenarios

(Early) Conclusion:

Beyond the fact that there are numerous potential solutions ranging from the somewhat convoluted (e.g. 'Q-Bomb Shield') to the starkly simple (risk of detonation if damaged) the enegy bomb makes an interesting item to centre a mission around; missions being the usual excuse for some of the more powerful items of equipment.

For example...

A 'mad scientist' has built a new kind of bomb that's going to destroy an important facility and all nearby.
Can the player prevent it from detonating in time?
Should they succeed then does the player choose to...

hand it over to GalCop and risk their reverse engineering other such devices? (becomes available later as an exclusive purchasable item to the player; subject to clean standing with GalCop)
destroy it themselves so that no one can have it? (removed from the game)
keep it for their own use? (single use but the most powerful variant)
sell to the highest bidder? (potentialy leading to other missions)

A bit of moral ambiguity never hurt a game featuring killing

Even if one were to ignore missions, in a game where

Code: Select all

#define PIRATES_PREFER_PLAYER			YES

I think there remains a case to give them good reason to

And OXP may be the right/best/most appropriate way to offer that.

* Press Space Commander

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:03 am**

Elite manual (Redspear's emphasis) wrote:
Energy Bomb Specification: Medusa Pandora Self Homing Energy Bomb (available at Tech Level 7 worlds or higher) is a tactical weapon capable of Megazon Destruct Force 13. Has heat radius of 900 km. Developed by Klaus-Kline laboratories for multi- role combat using "launch-and-leave" techniques.

DEFENSIVE MEASURES...

So what about defensive measures against the energy bomb?

The ECM was proof against missiles.
In Oolite it became more common but then hardened missiles are available... There could be similar with the energy bomb, the 'hardened' version being the Q-mine.

If an energy bomb reliably destroyed 2 or 3 combatants out of every 5 or six (rather than all) then it remains powerful but not devastating. It could more often tip the scales of a fight rather than outright win it for you.

In Spectrum Elite it would destroy one thargoid in an ambush but no more. Better might be that it was incapable of destroying thargoids but would wipe out any and all thargons.

So what could be proof against it?
(I've already given a clue to my thinking...)

Something expensive enough that not all opponents would have it...
Yet not so much that the player couldn't consider it relatively early in their career...
Something that relates to the energy bomb description...
Something that preferably already exists, and so doesn't add to equipment clutter...
Something that is maybe currently undervalued/considered optional...

What about Heat Shielding?

It's low tech but costs half as much again as a beam laser.
Currently it's only use is to make fuel-scooping easier.
It's of the same price and similar function to docking computers and yet fuel-scooping is almost entirely optional and docking essential.

So by comparison:

Missile Vs Bomb - single target Vs multiple
Standard Vs Hardened - energy bomb Vs Q-Mine
Expense Vs Utility - hardened missiles being much more expensive Vs hardened bombs (Q-mine) being much trickier to use (delay and danger)

As long as there is a suitably adjusted chance of enemy ships having heat shielding then it could work as desired. Furthermore, because of its area-effect nature, there wouldn't be the same issue with ECM where only one opponent has to have it in order to counter your missiles. An enemy couldn't use their heat shielding to protect any of their accomplices, only themselves.

I like this idea so much that I'd oxp it if I knew how to make damage selective... Another one for the back-burner

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:10 pm**

In Elite on Commodore 64, the Energy Bomb would destroy all the Thargons the Thargoids launched and badly damage undamaged Thargoids. It was enough to turn the fight, but only if you weren't already nearly dead.

I modified the Energy Bomb OXP that cim made and use it in testing...doing 100 damage at a time but with unlimited uses.

In Oolite, as a 1-shot weapon that wouldn't even destroy tougher ships, it was almost balanced...but I tended to not use it or the Q-Mine due to their cost and inconvenience of having to switch to them in combat.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:17 pm**

There's also (if the Energy Bomb becomes available to all):

Problem: Collateral Damage (This Includes You)
Oh look! There's some ships in combat over th—FZARP
Press Space, Commander

Giving players and NPCs access to weapons of mass (and fairly indiscriminate) destruction isn't a great idea, and IMO this applies to the Q-bomb too. Detonating a Q-bomb, and fleeing the onrushing expanding sphere of doom would make a great one-off finale to a mission, but it's not something which I would want to use regularly, and I definitely wouldn't want to find NPCs dropping them willy-nilly, either.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm**

A lot of food for thought. But as one who was passionately on the barricades for getting the Oolite smartbomb abolished some 17 years ago, my personal feelings and conviction remain intact.

The smartbomb (and I will continue to use this term) was for me one of the biggest conceptual let-downs of og Elite. Even as a brand new game to the nipper me, I thought this was something of a desperate player's ace one would rather find in a cheap computer game (Dropzone, Sheepoids?) not in this -in every other way- magnificent one. I blame the gaming trends of the times.

I never managed to invent any form of fantasy physics justification for it. One button, everyone else on the screen dies except you. Why should pathetic little me have my fingers on such an awesome weapon bought cheaply and commonly, in an otherwise cruel and ungenerous universe. For what reason should I be granted a Deus ex machina?

But I can play with your suggesions:

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:03 am
For example...

A 'mad scientist' has built a new kind of bomb that's going to destroy an important facility and all nearby.
Can the player prevent it from detonating in time?
Should they succeed then does the player choose to...

Sounds cool. I think for me, such a weapon would have to be huge and cumbersome, no pocket nuke. And an additional awesome contraption would be necessary to shield anyone who expects to survive its use.

Another reason OXPs are great.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:41 pm**

Disembodied wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:17 pm
Problem: Collateral Damage (This Includes You)

Indeed. Classically that it the problem (indescriminate destruction) but most 'solutions' attempt to remove it rather than solve it. What I mean by that is that either the energy bomb is removed or neutered.

If it looses its 'instant kill' property then I would argue it loses its character. So I'm personally ruling out it being an 'energy bomb' in name only here, mainly because that's already been done and fully implemented (Q-mine). Most prior solutions I have read have been of this variety but then we may as well be discussing how to reimagine the Q-mine (not that that isn't perfectly valid, it's just another discussion).

So if not reducing the effect (instant kill), could we reduce its applicability (restrictions or countermeasures for example)? I find that much more interesting both intellectually (to whatever extent I'm qualified to use that word... possibly not that much

) and in terms of gameplay than just dialing down the damage.

As usual, the problems are easier to spot than the solutions.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:25 pm**

Decrease its radius of effect from edge of radar to about half that and its indiscriminate nature makes it more usable instead of less.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm**

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm
A lot of food for thought. But as one who was passionately on the barricades for getting the Oolite smartbomb abolished some 17 years ago, my personal feelings and conviction remain intact.

You're of the 'remove' camp which, at the very least, is successful in terms or removing the problem and not just the device.

To my mind there are three other main options: reinstate, replace or reform. Further, I think that the last two two have often been conflated to the extent that most attempts to reform were effectively suggesting a replacement (which is, after all, what the Q-mine is).

Reform to my mind is to keep the essential (and controversial) characteristec of the energy bomb: the instant kill. After 'reinsatate' it is perhaps the hardest to justify and yet potentially the most satisfying; it's also the only one of the four that hasn't really been done by my estimation.

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm
The smartbomb (and I will continue to use this term) was for me one of the biggest conceptual let-downs of og Elite. Even as a brand new game to the nipper me, I thought this was something of a desperate player's ace one would rather find in a cheap computer game (Dropzone, Sheepoids?) not in this -in every other way- magnificent one. I blame the gaming trends of the times.

Whilst I take your point that it does seem like it was inherited form some side-scrolling space-shooter of the 70s I do think it adds something. It does sit less well with the character of oolite/elite however in both it's player-centricity (even for elite) & its 'destroy (almost) anyone' nature. Given a choice between remove and reinstate (purely as in elite) then I think I might favour 'remove' but then there are other choices too.

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm
I never managed to invent any form of fantasy physics justification for it. One button, everyone else on the screen dies except you. Why should pathetic little me have my fingers on such an awesome weapon bought cheaply and commonly, in an otherwise cruel and ungenerous universe. For what reason should I be granted a Deus ex machina?

Never an issue for me: my imagination exceeds my IQ... possibly by some distance

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm
But I can play with your suggesions:

That's the spirit!

Switeck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:25 pm
Decrease its radius of effect from edge of radar to about half that and its indiscriminate nature makes it more usable instead of less.

That's the kind of suggestion I've seen little of - you'd be in keeping very much with it's character and and yet adding a caveat. It would still be recognisably an energy bomb and therefore I'd class it as a 'reform' rather than a 'replace' (personal rule of thumb: if it's less like an energy bomb than a Q-mine is then we may as well accept the Q-mine as the new energy bomb).

Most combatents end up at about that range or less anyway however, so it would be interesting to know how much difference that would make.

Imagine if most ships had a 50% chance of heat shielding and that shielding was proof against energy bombs. A script could set this chance for any oxp ships or special circumstances where it might be unknown... It's so simple and yet solves so many problems ultimately including player-centricity.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm**

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm
To my mind there are three other main options: reinstate, replace or reform. Further, I think that the last two two have often been conflated to the extent that most attempts to reform were effectively suggesting a replacement (which is, after all, what the Q-mine is).

Talk of reformation can be fun. But the bottom line is that such a weapon would be available to player and NPC alike, yes? EB-detectors are soon for sale at TL11+?

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm
Never an issue for me: my imagination exceeds my IQ... possibly by some distance

Excellent. This needs creativity:

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm

Switeck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:25 pm
Decrease its radius of effect from edge of radar to about half that and its indiscriminate nature makes it more usable instead of less.
That's the kind of suggestion I've seen little of - you'd be in keeping very much with it's character and and yet adding a caveat. It would still be recognisably an energy bomb..

Yes, this feels useful. But to deal with the formidable power release that blasts outward at everyone but one self, snug in the eye of the storm? I would propose that even if equipped with a costly anti-EB-shell, the executor of this weapon would take an enormous risk to use it. Draining costly shield energy to charge up agonisingly slow, leaving one with perhaps enough juice to survive it. A last-ditch hail Mary queen sacrifice when all other sane options are exhausted.

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:34 am**

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm
Talk of reformation can be fun. But the bottom line is that such a weapon would be available to player and NPC alike, yes?

Yes, and I think I've addressed that - if it's a major problem then grant the player heat shielding at the start.
Giveaway? The player can spend their extra cash on the energy bombs that otherwise wouldn't exist (just like the heat shielding didn't in elite).
Otherwise only pirates in the more dangerous systems have access (gameplay and supply issues, don't you know...)

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm
EB-detectors are soon for sale at TL11+?

Are they needed? If going with either the fugitive or Q-bomb shield ideas in the original post then that might make more sense.

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm
Never an issue for me: my imagination exceeds my IQ... possibly by some distance
Excellent. This needs creativity:

It might be excellent for you

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm
But to deal with the formidable power release that blasts outward at everyone but one self, snug in the eye of the storm? I would propose that even if equipped with a costly anti-EB-shell, the executor of this weapon would take an enormous risk to use it. Draining costly shield energy to charge up agonisingly slow, leaving one with perhaps enough juice to survive it. A last-ditch hail Mary queen sacrifice when all other sane options are exhausted.

Did you catch this one?

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:45 am
Maybe its use damages other equipment? Despite shielding the player from the worst of the blast if it actually knocked out the players shields and prevented their recharging until serviced, then it really would be a last resort weapon...

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:44 am**

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:34 am

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:59 pm
EB-detectors are soon for sale at TL11+?
Are they needed?

Well it could be nice to have a sporting chance to dash off to a surviving distance, to potentially avoid:

Disembodied wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:17 pm
"Oh look! There's some ships in combat over th—FZARP".

Since maybe diminishing damage with distance to the epicentre factors into your thinking (what you may mean with "make damage selective")?

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm
Did you catch this one?
Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:45 am
Maybe its use damages other equipment? Despite shielding the player from the worst of the blast if it actually knocked out the players shields and prevented their recharging until serviced, then it really would be a last resort weapon...

No, but that's quite close. The inability to regenerate while stuck at a critically low level is very punitive. Though still short of possible self-immolation.

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:03 am
I like this idea so much that I'd oxp it if I knew how to make damage selective... Another one for the back-burner

I hope you figure it out. I'd subject myself to it.

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 9:30 am**

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:44 am
Since maybe diminishing damage with distance to the epicentre factors into your thinking (what you may mean with "make damage selective")?

Ah... Once again my seeming inability to adequately explain myself may have struck...

Firstly 'that' was Switeck's idea.

Secondly, it wasn't diminishing, it was simply a reduced range (because...)

Thirdly, I had been making the point that the distinctive character of the energy bomb was the either/or 'instant kill', not X amount of damage (with the possible exception of Thargoids) and THAT very feature was both more interesting and yet most challenging to integrate into the game.

So 'make damage selecrive' means either/or, not divisible by X.

Old Murgh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:44 am
No, but that's quite close. The inability to regenerate while stuck at a critically low level is very punitive. Though still short of possible self-immolation.

I'm guessing you also missed this one then...

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:03 am
Or, to make a player really think twice, allow it to be subject to damage. Get your energy bomb damaged in combat and it's a PSC event * Chance of it happening could (and perhaps should) be low but then the consequences would be severe.

Honestly Murgh, don't encourage Redspear to quote himself, whatever you do...

So two of the simplest ideas so far are the one from Switeck (the either/or, yes/no factor being range) and the one from my second post where the either/or factor is whether of not heat shielding is installed.

So heat shielding would grant full immunity and its absence would mean full vulnerability.

As long an non-player energy bombs were rare (and heat shielding neither very common nor very rare) then any warning would only need to be enough to make clear that the game hadn't crashed, not necessarily to facilitate escape.

I compared it to ECM as a countermeasure but it's functionality would be automatic (no key press or energy drain), and most crucially to my mind, unlike ECM it would only defend an individual ship and not any allies. Unlike ECM where your missile doesn't hit the sidewinder because his python friend has an ECM, if that sidewinder doesn't have heat shielding then nothing is saving him/her/it from an energy bomb.

So you drop the bomb and some of your opponents outright perish. If you're really unlucky, all of them have heat shielding; hit the jackpot and it's none of them.

At 1,500 Cr hear shielding is already pretty expensive for what it does and if that sidewinder can't afford a beam laser (1,000 Cr) then maybe it's fair to assume that heat shielding probably hasn't been installed yet.

Most adversaries don't have a military laser remember (which is pretty suspicious if one is trying to avoid player-centricity) and at 900 Cr a 'pop', you'd be much better saving up for one of those in the long run.

Another good reason that the player likely wouldn't face an energy bomb very often is that the player is normally alone and outnumbered.

It would be a ruthless pirate indeed that energy bombed his 'friends'. While one might think that's just the sort of thing a pirate might do, it's probably also just the kind of thing their accomplices would guard against/insist upon the spoils being spent elsewhere (like something that doesn't also destroy any booty).

The energy bomb is a weapon to be employed to best effect by one against many, not many (or even few) against one.

Maybe that's never really been spelled out because it's glaringly obvious but it is also something of an explanation and purpose for its seeming player-centicty within the game.

To my mind this point is HUGE yet I never saw it mentioned in any of the posts on this subject (did I miss it?)

Generally speaking...

Pirates don't buy it: expensive, destroys booty and allies/decoys.
Convoys don't buy it: destroys escorts, only gets you out of one encounter.
Police don't use it: ...not a good idea for a police force in terms of sustainability (not to mention morale...)
Hunter's might in desperation: stay clean until you get heat shields as a player and you are safe.
Couriers could use it: ...but then if not a freighter, their main strategy is often speed, or their predicament often to be in a cheap ship.

Who then is it of most interest to? The lone trader with a reasonable cargo capacity who can't yet afford all the bells and whistles of a fully equipped ship but could refund the bombs purchase within a few trips.

Who does that typically sound like do you think Mr. Jameson?

The energy bomb is not just player centric by availability, it's player centric by role.

Perhaps some more savvy pirates could even detect it an leave the player alone (they already assess player threat level I believe). In any case they needn't (and arguably shouldn't) be always defenceless against such a potentially devastating weapon.

Without the ECM, four missiles would be close to an energy bomb with regards to effect in some encounters... and much cheaper too.

It's the countermeasure (although there's a complication I explained above) that stops it getting out of hand.

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:09 am**

In the light of prior confusion, a TLDR for the last post...

The question isn't just why wouldn't non-player ships have energy bombs but also when would non-player ships actually use them?

The more restrictive the latter (and I'd say it's pretty restrictive), the less problematic the former becomes.

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:30 pm**

Redspear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:22 pm
Switeck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:25 pm
Decrease its radius of effect from edge of radar to about half that and its indiscriminate nature makes it more usable instead of less.
That's the kind of suggestion I've seen little of - you'd be in keeping very much with it's character and and yet adding a caveat. It would still be recognisably an energy bomb and therefore I'd class it as a 'reform' rather than a 'replace' (personal rule of thumb: if it's less like an energy bomb than a Q-mine is then we may as well accept the Q-mine as the new energy bomb).

Most combatents end up at about that range or less anyway however, so it would be interesting to know how much difference that would make.

Imagine if most ships had a 50% chance of heat shielding and that shielding was proof against energy bombs. A script could set this chance for any oxp ships or special circumstances where it might be unknown... It's so simple and yet solves so many problems ultimately including player-centricity.

My statement was about making the energy bomb more useful, because it's less likely to catch "new arrivals" barely on the edge of your radar range in its blast radius. This only figures into "game balance" if a lot of other factors are considered -- such as heat shielding, damage to your own ship, etc...happens as well. Otherwise, the energy bomb is a pure "I win!" 1-button-press...that's why I hacked it for use in testing instead of regular gameplay.

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:32 pm**

Does the Energy Bomb have to do any damage at all, I wonder? What if it's just an area-effect "disruptor", or some such thing, that when triggered forces nearby ships to performTumble for a short space of time?

Oolite Bulletins

The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems

Re: The Energy Bomb - new 'solutions' to old problems