Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 4:53:46 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline 		Playing v1.6i against the AI

Are these loses realistic?

Allied Losses
Type Weapon used Number of losses
SS Type 2 Depth Chrg 35
SS 53cm Type 95 Torp 3
SS Type 95 Mod-2 DC 1
AM 53cm Type 95 Torp 1
DE 53cm Type 95 Torp 1
LST Sunk by unknown device 3
TK Sunk by unknown device 1
TK 53cm Type 95 Torp 1
xAK 18in Type 91 Torpedo 1
xAK 53cm Type 95 Torp 4
xAK 250 kg GP Bomb 2
AP 53cm Type 95 Torp 1
AP Sunk by unknown device 1
YP 53cm Type 95 Torp 1

Japanese Losses
ACM 500 lb GP Bomb 1
AD 500 lb GP Bomb 1
AG 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 2
AK 1000 lb SAP Bomb 1
AMc 500 lb GP Bomb 1
AO 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 3
AS 500 lb GP Bomb 1
AV 500 lb GP Bomb 2
CA 1000 lb SAP Bomb 3
CL 1000 lb SAP Bomb 2
CL 1000 lb GP Bomb 1
CM 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 1
CM 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 1
CMc 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 1
CMc 500 lb GP Bomb 1
CV 1000 lb SAP Bomb 1
CVE Sunk by unknown device 1
CVL 1000 lb SAP Bomb 1
DD Sunk by unknown device 4
DD 1000 lb SAP Bomb 2
DD 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 1
E 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 12
E 22in Mk 13 Torpedo 1
E 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 1
E 1000 lb SAP Bomb 3
LST 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 7
LST 500 lb GP Bomb 2
ML 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 1
PB 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 12
PB 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 1
SC 500 lb GP Bomb 13
SC 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 2
SC 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 2
SC 1000 lb SAP Bomb 2
SS 1000 lb GP Bomb 1
SS 500 lb GP Bomb 10
SS DC Rack/Mk VII DC 2
SS DC Rack/ Mk 7 DC 1
SS DC Rack/ Mk 9 DC 1
SS DCT Mk IV/Mk VII DC 1
SS K-Gun Mk 6/ Mk 6 DC 1
SSX DC Rack/ Mk 7m1 DC 1
TK 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 27
TK 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 2
TK 21in Mk 10 Torpedo 1
xAK 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 70
xAK XT 21in Mk 14 Torp 1
xAK 21in Mk VIII Torpedo 6
xAK 500 lb SAP Bomb 1
xAK 1000 lb SAP Bomb 1
xAK 1000 lb GP Bomb 1
xAK 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 5
xAKL 1000 lb GP Bomb 2
xAKL 1000 lb SAP Bomb 14
xAKL 20mm Oerlikon AA Gun 2
xAKL 21in Mk 10 Torpedo 1
xAKL 21in Mk 14 Torpedo 81
xAKL 21in Mk VIII Torpedo 2
xAKL 40mm Bofors AA Gun 5
xAKL 4in/50 Mk 9 Gun 4
xAKL 500 lb GP Bomb 1
xAKL 500 lb SAP Bomb 2
xAKL 53.3cm W1 Torpedo 2


< Message edited by Chris H -- 6/22/2011 4:56:03 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 4:56:20 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		What do you mean?

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 2
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 5:12:19 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline 		Allied Sub losses seem rather high. I have yet to get to 1944. I'm at 27 July 1942 in my game vs. AI.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 5:59:27 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Looks good to me, is the AI about out of ships yet?

_____________________________


(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 4
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 6:16:41 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Your sub losses are fairly low.  If you were PBEM, you'd probably have lost ten or more in six months.  Japanese ASW is much stronger in the game than it was in real life, so you'll take some losses.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 5
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 6:19:19 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline 		I'm probably wrong. But 35 subs in 6 months? This makes me worry when I get to that period of my game.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 6
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 6:21:08 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Where in the world are you getting 35 subs in six months?  I looked through the OPs list and found three.

(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 7
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 6:31:46 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline 		I was looking at the last number on that line.
SS Type 2 Depth chrg 35. So I'm probably reading it wrong.
With the next two lines makes 39?

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 8
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/22/2011 11:29:23 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your sub losses are fairly low.  If you were PBEM, you'd probably have lost ten or more in six months.  Japanese ASW is much stronger in the game than it was in real life, so you'll take some losses.



What does ASW mean?

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 9
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 8:48:17 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec

I was looking at the last number on that line.
SS Type 2 Depth chrg 35. So I'm probably reading it wrong.
With the next two lines makes 39?



Correct. The last figure in the line is losses due to that weapon and 39 Allied sub losses is correct. This list is of cause reported losses according to Tracker but as I'm playing the allies I can assure you that 35 Allied sub have been sunk in 6 months by a Type 2 Depth chrg.

< Message edited by Chris H -- 6/23/2011 8:52:53 AM >

(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 10
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 8:49:28 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your sub losses are fairly low.  If you were PBEM, you'd probably have lost ten or more in six months.  Japanese ASW is much stronger in the game than it was in real life, so you'll take some losses.



What does ASW mean?


It should be AASW - Another Allied Sub Wasted.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 11
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 9:13:11 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your sub losses are fairly low.  If you were PBEM, you'd probably have lost ten or more in six months.  Japanese ASW is much stronger in the game than it was in real life, so you'll take some losses.



What does ASW mean?


ASW = Anti-Submarine Warfare.

A few others you will occasionally see:

ASuW = Anti-Surface Warfare
AAW = Anti-Aircraft Warfare


ASW is hunting subs, ASuW is your Surface Combat task force, and AAW is flak, to make it all simple.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 12
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 11:04:17 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Thank you Shark! 

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 13
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 12:24:17 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I see now. I was reading the list like it was from the Ships Sunk list on the game menu rather than a list generated by Tracker (I haven't ever used Tracker and thus hadn't seen how it generates lists).

I told ya you'd see at leat 10 or more subs sunk in a six month period!

36 or 39 or whatever is obviously way too much for a six-month period, but as stated, IJ ASW is too strong in AE. This has been discussed at length in many threads over the past two years. By the time the Allied torpedo dud rate declines in 1943, IJ ASW becomes very strong, thus limiting the effectiveness of Allied subs. I don't think I've eseen any PBEM game in which Allied subs had anywhere close to the "anihilation effect" on IJ merchant ships that they did in the actual war. But Allied subs do get the occasional spectacular hit on an IJN capital ships, and those of course are memorable and important hits that get alot of attention.

But, no, the Allies never lost anywhere like 39 subs in a six-month period. If memory serves, the USN lost something under 100 subs during the entire war.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 14
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 12:32:13 PM   
redcoat


Posts: 1035
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
If memory serves, the USN lost something under 100 subs during the entire war.


A list of U.S. submarines lost in the Pacific Theater by date.



_____________________________

“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 15
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 2:40:48 PM   
Bill Durrant


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Oxfordshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
If memory serves, the USN lost something under 100 subs during the entire war.


A list of U.S. submarines lost in the Pacific Theater by date.




That's less than the Brits. Around the mid 70s I believe but would have to check


< Message edited by Bill Durrant -- 6/23/2011 2:42:28 PM >

_____________________________

Sunk by 35cm/45 1YT Gun - Near Singapore

(in reply to redcoat)
Post #: 16
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 4:02:14 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I see now. I was reading the list like it was from the Ships Sunk list on the game menu rather than a list generated by Tracker (I haven't ever used Tracker and thus hadn't seen how it generates lists).

I told ya you'd see at leat 10 or more subs sunk in a six month period!

36 or 39 or whatever is obviously way too much for a six-month period, but as stated, IJ ASW is too strong in AE. This has been discussed at length in many threads over the past two years. By the time the Allied torpedo dud rate declines in 1943, IJ ASW becomes very strong, thus limiting the effectiveness of Allied subs. I don't think I've eseen any PBEM game in which Allied subs had anywhere close to the "anihilation effect" on IJ merchant ships that they did in the actual war. But Allied subs do get the occasional spectacular hit on an IJN capital ships, and those of course are memorable and important hits that get alot of attention.

But, no, the Allies never lost anywhere like 39 subs in a six-month period. If memory serves, the USN lost something under 100 subs during the entire war.


US sub losses for the entire war Pacific and Atlantic was 52. Not sure ofthe allies.


_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 17
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/23/2011 5:42:29 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		In Pacific theatre allies lost 59 subs.

(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 18
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 12:37:55 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Durrant

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
If memory serves, the USN lost something under 100 subs during the entire war.


A list of U.S. submarines lost in the Pacific Theater by date.



That's less than the Brits. Around the mid 70s I believe but would have to check

Warspite1

The British lost 74 in WWII according to Osprey.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Bill Durrant)
Post #: 19
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 12:49:17 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		.....of which only three were In the Pacific/Indian Ocean.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 20
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 1:22:08 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		There are two thoughts on using subs. First as a 'throwaway' device to just sink whatever it can before dying itself. Or second, as a strategic device that needs to watched and cared for. As Japan by 2/43 I have 'allegedly' sunk 20 US subs and 2 Dutch so obviously the Allied player in my game is using his subs the second way. BTW only 15 subs lost in ALL of '42.

If you want to use your subs as a strategic resource you should observe the following rules (which I am blatantly stealing from another thread but too lazy to find out the link )
1. Never go into shallow water. If you find a sub there move it away asap.
2. Any damage over 10 return to port for repair. Why make it eaiser for them to die?
3. Do not put more than one per hex. That is like a becon to the other player saying 'Here I am, we are giving you two chances to attack me for the price of one ASW group.'. So spread them out.

So yes your losses are way too high for just six months into the game IF you want them to be used as strategic resources. Otherwise the losses are just fine

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 21
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 3:31:52 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

There are two thoughts on using subs. First as a 'throwaway' device to just sink whatever it can before dying itself. Or second, as a strategic device that needs to watched and cared for. As Japan by 2/43 I have 'allegedly' sunk 20 US subs and 2 Dutch so obviously the Allied player in my game is using his subs the second way. BTW only 15 subs lost in ALL of '42.

If you want to use your subs as a strategic resource you should observe the following rules (which I am blatantly stealing from another thread but too lazy to find out the link )
1. Never go into shallow water. If you find a sub there move it away asap.
2. Any damage over 10 return to port for repair. Why make it eaiser for them to die?
3. Do not put more than one per hex. That is like a becon to the other player saying 'Here I am, we are giving you two chances to attack me for the price of one ASW group.'. So spread them out.

So yes your losses are way too high for just six months into the game IF you want them to be used as strategic resources. Otherwise the losses are just fine


It's also best if you can find the supply lines and use them there. Convoys are usually easier prey than a well escorted carrier group (though I have gotten USN carriers within the first 2 weeks of a game before, with subs). While the obvious ploy of hanging around major ports seems tempting, you can also bet the most ASW and air patrols are concentrated there as well. Better off to catch them in the mid pacific where air patrols are non-existant.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 22
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 7:11:17 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline 		I always have to laugh when people compare the game losses with real losses. The Japanese "player" (be it AI or human) does not use historical Japanese tactics, and likely the allied player isnt either (I suspect you park your subs in a hex rather than have them patrolling several hexes). And yet someone feels the game is out of whack because they lost more than the "_______" (fill in the side here) did in the real war.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 6/24/2011 7:12:57 AM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 23
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 8:07:08 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I always have to laugh when people compare the game losses with real losses. The Japanese "player" (be it AI or human) does not use historical Japanese tactics, and likely the allied player isnt either (I suspect you park your subs in a hex rather than have them patrolling several hexes). And yet someone feels the game is out of whack because they lost more than the "_______" (fill in the side here) did in the real war.


Actually I always use patrol zones, using all 3 way points that cover an area of about 20 hexes. I set each patrol manually (and it is a PITA to be sure) but I am usually rewarded with several successful patrols.

As far as real losses...meh, its a game, I don't expect it to play out historically. If it were going to play out historically, what would be the point in playing the game?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 24
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/24/2011 3:41:04 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		Actually the end result turns out to be the same in most games

So while the path from beginning to end differs, Japan still will go under given equal players (and sometimes even not, lol)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 25
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/26/2011 7:54:37 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

There are two thoughts on using subs. First as a 'throwaway' device to just sink whatever it can before dying itself. Or second, as a strategic device that needs to watched and cared for. As Japan by 2/43 I have 'allegedly' sunk 20 US subs and 2 Dutch so obviously the Allied player in my game is using his subs the second way. BTW only 15 subs lost in ALL of '42.

If you want to use your subs as a strategic resource you should observe the following rules (which I am blatantly stealing from another thread but too lazy to find out the link )
1. Never go into shallow water. If you find a sub there move it away asap.
2. Any damage over 10 return to port for repair. Why make it eaiser for them to die?
3. Do not put more than one per hex. That is like a becon to the other player saying 'Here I am, we are giving you two chances to attack me for the price of one ASW group.'. So spread them out.

So yes your losses are way too high for just six months into the game IF you want them to be used as strategic resources. Otherwise the losses are just fine


I do all od these things except occasionally suybs do go into shallow water when passing through. 90% of the sub losses are in deep water of which you can now add 7 more in 10 days of July and I getting pretty p%$% off with it.

It is the biggest bug in the game, and before some one tells me to go play a mod, I don't want to play a mod, I want to play the game I purchased.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 26
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/26/2011 7:59:16 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I always have to laugh when people compare the game losses with real losses. The Japanese "player" (be it AI or human) does not use historical Japanese tactics, and likely the allied player isnt either (I suspect you park your subs in a hex rather than have them patrolling several hexes). And yet someone feels the game is out of whack because they lost more than the "_______" (fill in the side here) did in the real war.



First I don't park anything. I always set up a patrol area and never spend more than 2 days in any hex and then it is always furthest from the base. Were I suspect the base may have lots off ASW activity I keep the sub moving.

Secondly its not Japanese tactict thats the problem, it's one particular ship the E class.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 27
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/26/2011 7:59:50 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I always have to laugh when people compare the game losses with real losses. The Japanese "player" (be it AI or human) does not use historical Japanese tactics, and likely the allied player isnt either (I suspect you park your subs in a hex rather than have them patrolling several hexes). And yet someone feels the game is out of whack because they lost more than the "_______" (fill in the side here) did in the real war.


Actually I always use patrol zones, using all 3 way points that cover an area of about 20 hexes. I set each patrol manually (and it is a PITA to be sure) but I am usually rewarded with several successful patrols.

As far as real losses...meh, its a game, I don't expect it to play out historically. If it were going to play out historically, what would be the point in playing the game?


Me to.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 28
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/26/2011 4:24:25 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I always have to laugh when people compare the game losses with real losses. The Japanese "player" (be it AI or human) does not use historical Japanese tactics, and likely the allied player isnt either (I suspect you park your subs in a hex rather than have them patrolling several hexes). And yet someone feels the game is out of whack because they lost more than the "_______" (fill in the side here) did in the real war.


The problem is not that a player changes the tactics..., it's that he CAN change the tactics! The training, equipment, and skill levels of the Japanese ASW forces at the biginning of the war were sadly neglected and poor---but in the game using better tactics overcomes all these other RL shortcomings.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 29
RE: Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 - 6/26/2011 6:54:14 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

The problem is not that a player changes the tactics..., it's that he CAN change the tactics!


That's not the problem, that's what WitP/AE is all about!

_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.26b
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW / Torch
1.01.37 - 1.01.44 beta

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Losses at Sea - First 6 months of 1944 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328