Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: How he got the new ratings

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: How he got the new ratings Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How he got the new ratings - 9/24/2006 1:10:25 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Except for the case of multiple engines along the center axis (very rare), multi-engine planes in WWII have their engines on/in the wings. Because the engines are heavy, this means that they have a lot more inertia to overcome when they try to roll. It's basically the physics concept of angular momentum.

This is one big difference between single and multi-engine planes in WWII.


I understand about the concept of angular momentum. But I am only discussing max speed and rate of climb. I don't think that angular momentum plays a part in this.


This thread is about the maneuverability rating. Max speed and ROC are used in the formula to derive maneuverability because they affect it. Same thing regarding multi-engine - it affects angular momentum, which affects roll - so it is part of the formula to derive maneuverability, because roll is part of maneuverability.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 181
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 1:19:20 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		What are you using for gross weight. Loaded or Max?

(in reply to Mifune)
Post #: 182
RE: How he got the new ratings - 9/24/2006 6:09:24 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Except for the case of multiple engines along the center axis (very rare), multi-engine planes in WWII have their engines on/in the wings. Because the engines are heavy, this means that they have a lot more inertia to overcome when they try to roll. It's basically the physics concept of angular momentum.

This is one big difference between single and multi-engine planes in WWII.


I understand about the concept of angular momentum. But I am only discussing max speed and rate of climb. I don't think that angular momentum plays a part in this.



Well - as far as it goes - you are right. But the function under construction/analysis here is NOT about speed or ROC per se. They are ELEMENTS of the function. So is number of engines. The function is maneuverability. Worse - it is a composite maneuverability - both horizontal and vertical - and at all altitudes. So we must put in all the elements that matter. We are NOT saying speed or ROC are related to the number of engines (except, of course, they really are in this sense: for any given size of engine, the more you have, the more speed and ROC you will get - which is why they have more engines!). The multiple engine solution comes at a penalty - you DO get more speed and ROC - but less maneuverability. The function says that. Wether or not it does so properly requires statistical analysis. But it is in a crude sense quite right - 4E is worse than 3E is worse than 2E is worse than 1E. It is all I hope for in a simple "quick and dirty" approximation.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 183
RE: How he got the new ratings - 9/24/2006 6:10:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Something I just thought of concerning the dividing by the number of engines. Now that Wing Loading and Power Loading is taken into account do you penalize multi engine planes for speed and ROC. Wouldn't all planes, in theory, be consistent for those two factors. For example, shouldn't a 2-engine plane with 1000 hp engines with a ROC of 3000 and weight of 10,000 lbs work the same as a 1-engine plane with a 2000 hp engine also with a ROC of 3000 and a weight of 10,000 lbs.

Why would the 2-engine plane be penalized in those factors?



The multi engine penalty - it is not just for twin engine planes - but all of them - is meant to address the problem of conservation of angular momentum. It is meant to say that it is a severe restriction on maneuverability. It is a nice part of the function - whatever the number of engines - it goes there. There is, however, this caviet: multiple engines on one axis count as one engine. This can occur in 3 ways (and does NOT occur in WITP so far).

1) Two engines coupled to act as one.
2) Two engines with a common shaft - driving counter rotating screws on the same hub.
3) Two engines on a single axis - one driving a tractor and one a pusher.

Anyway - the number of engines is in the deonominator because that is the right place for it to be. It divides what otherwise would be the maneuverability value - a composite function - by N. It is not meant to say any particular element of that function is so divided.


Sid -- I understand why the penalty is used as it impacts wing loading and power loading. But does the "problem of conservation of angular momentum" have any impact on max speed or ROC. If it doesn't, why penalize those factors?



The problem is you are being too analytical: I am NOT penalizing those factors. The number of engines is meant to affect the composite function - and it is not a comment on any particular other factor.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 184
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 6:12:57 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

What are you using for gross weight. Loaded or Max?



Until now we did not use weight at all. Now we have loadings, we are using two weights. Wing loading uses empty equipped weight and power loading uses all up weight. This isn't what I would have done - I would have used normal weight for both. But in playing with the numbers this is what seemed to work best - and I did delegate this task to a volunteer. One must respect volunteers - or one won't have any.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 185
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 8:52:29 AM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		"What are you using for gross weight. Loaded or Max?" Gross weight is "loaded" weight, not "max" weight.

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 186
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 11:39:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - what he meant was "normal load" or "maximum load" - I am sure.

(in reply to Mifune)
Post #: 187
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 12:05:05 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Mifume answered fine. Normally stats list empty, loaded and max weights. He clarified that loaded weight and not max weight was used. Thanks.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 188
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/24/2006 4:39:01 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		So, with all of this being said are we actually ending up with any major changes in the aircraft manoeuvrability scales?


Question: I note the Ki-21 Sally doesn't have any armour in RHS EOS 4.46 ... Is this correct?

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 189
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/25/2006 1:22:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, with all of this being said are we actually ending up with any major changes in the aircraft manoeuvrability scales?


Question: I note the Ki-21 Sally doesn't have any armour in RHS EOS 4.46 ... Is this correct?



They are significant changes. They are not really major - except perhaps in the case of the later P-38 (and maybe the F7F) - which went up by 43% if we do not give it a bonus! Since addressing the concerns of P-38 fans was the reason for the review - this is not at all bad an outcome - although it took three tries and bringing in another person to crunch endless numbers.

As far as I know - Sally does not have any armor. This was introduced by the Ki-49 Helen for JAAF service. See

The Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu in Japanese Army Air Force Service. It appears someone gave Ki-21 armor in WITP - and I talked to Joe about it when we were reviewing Japanese planes for CHS. We decided it was probably a JFB somewhere - and could find no justification for it - so we took it out.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/25/2006 1:24:41 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 190
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Good News] - 9/25/2006 3:11:45 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ok, cool. Just wanted to know since I noted the disparity... If that's what the facts show then that's how it should be.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 191
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 12:42:03 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		First of all, we have a superior rating system to what was previously available.

It keeps heavy bombers (and similar 4 engine transports and flying boats) anchored about 4 (3 to 5); it lets high performance planes get rated way up in the sky; and it spreads twin engine planes way out - almost down to big plane levels if dogs and better than some single engine types if hot - and mostly in between - just right.

Second, we have a data exchange problem: I don't have the Japanese data (done first) - and cannot use it until I do - so there will be no 5.10 today.

Third, Houston - we have a problem:

RHS tried to do several things at the same time re aircraft - including address operational attrition - AAA attrition and air combat attrition. Two of these - the first two - required we use a lower range for durability. The third is hurt by lower durability - but we compensated for that by weapons changes AND BY a lower maneuverability scale. I set the limits as "3 or 4 at the low end and just over 30 at the high end" because - at 36 - planes become excessively lethal in our system.

The present - vastly improved - scale has planes in the 40s - up to 47 I have seen (for the P-80), 42 (F4U-1D), etc.
We probably will make "uber cap" worse than ever it was if we let such ratings in.

The solution is some kind of data compression of the range. Normally I would use a K factor - but to get 47 to below 36 is way too big a correction to apply to many cases.

Seeking ideas.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/7/2006 6:34:34 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 192
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 2:11:11 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

First of all, we have a superior rating system to what was previously available.

It keeps heavy bombers (and similar 4 engine transports and flying boats) anchored about 4 (3 to 5); it lets high performance planes get rated way up in the sky; and it spreads twin engine planes way out - almost down to big plane levels if dogs and better than some single engine types.

Second, we have a data exchange problem: I don't have the Japanese data (done first) - and cannot use it until I do - so there will be no 5.10 today.

Third, Houston - we have a problem:

RHS tried to do several things at the same time re aircraft - including address operational attrition - AAA attrition and air combat attrition. Two of these - the first two - required we use a lower range for durability. The third is hurt by lower durability - but we compensated for that by weapons changes AND BY a lower maneuverability scale. I set the limits as "3 or 4 at the low end and just over 30 at the high end" because - at 36 - planes become excessively lethal in our system.

The present - vastly improved - scale has planes in the 40s - up to 47 I have seen (for the P-80), 42 (F4U-1D), etc.
We probably will make "uber cap" worse than ever it was if we let such ratings in.

The solution is some kind of data compression of the range. Normally I would use a K factor - but to get 47 to below 36 is way too big a correction to apply to many cases.

Seeking ideas.


Not to sound like a dunce, but are you saying that the lower durability is causing an increase in the air combat attrition?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 193
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 2:20:21 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Herrbear,

Yes... and also vs AAA and in terms of ops losses.


Why not apply a K factor? It preserves relative manoeuvrabilities thus fulfilling the goal of internal consistency. I don't see how any non-K solution is going to keep the relationship of the manoeuvrabilities of planes to the same ratio as currently pertains.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 194
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 5:11:02 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Sid,

I'm also at a loss to understand why you feel a K factor would mess things up? If the highest you've got so far and anticipate is 47, then use a K factor or 1/3 (0.75). All the calculated Maneuver ratings get multiplied by 0.75. What would this mess up?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 195
First idea: Jet plane correction factor - 10/7/2006 6:28:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We have one data anomoly - the P-80 - and it is way up there at 47.
We make a special correction for jets. This is valid: in my day we found that speed was not
all - and we were DEFEATED by ancient MiG 17s - out turning us - UNTIL we engaged them
with A-1 Skyraiders - which out turned them! A plane is not always better due to speed - too
much speed = reduced ability to engage in tactical combat. Dog fights are never at high speed
for that reason: you may be in a Mach 2.2 figher - but NOT if you are in a dog fight.

So we divide by 3 for all points above 29 for jets: 47 (18 points higher becomes 6 points higher) = 35
acceptable.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 196
RE: second idea - 10/7/2006 6:31:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Accepting the jet plane modifier, we have reduced the scale of the issue: worst case (as far as I know) is 42.

So we use similar logic: high speed beyond a certain point is of diminishing returns in terms of value in
maneuver:

we say "every 2 points above 29 is needed to up the score by 1" -

so 41 (12 points above becomes 4) = 33; 42 (13 points above becomes 4.5 rounding up to 5) = 34

both acceptable.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 197
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 6:34:25 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear




Not to sound like a dunce, but are you saying that the lower durability is causing an increase in the air combat attrition?




I am saying it should tend to do that. More than that - I am saying that something awful happens when you reach or exceed maneuverability = 36. I want to avoid that.


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 198
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 6:37:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Herrbear,

Yes... and also vs AAA and in terms of ops losses.


Why not apply a K factor? It preserves relative manoeuvrabilities thus fulfilling the goal of internal consistency. I don't see how any non-K solution is going to keep the relationship of the manoeuvrabilities of planes to the same ratio as currently pertains.



It is the obvious answer - but if applied to the whole range K would be about 0.75

and that is way too much at the low end. We will force all big planes into 3s and you won't know the difference between a dog and a good one maneuverability wise. We will make the twin engine types recompress and be much closer to the same. I think I have a better idea - leave most alone - and just address the statistical anomolies at the very top end. Relatively - this favors the 2E types - which should win points for those who think they always get short changed.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 199
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:57:05 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Sid,

Is it possible to give us a list of the ratings, as turned in, for planes with manoeuvrability above 30, listing which will be reduced and how much they'll be reduced to...

Then you could get some good feedback ( you'd probably also need to put in the manoeuvrability for the P38s and Stan and Toryu-Ki-45).

Your explanation re: modding the top manoeuvrabilities seems reasonable but a lot would depend on the exact numbers.

Ps. From what you are saying I am presuming there is an in-code "knee" at 36? That's pretty poor modelling ( conceptually I disagree with all knees. relative relationships must be conserved without any "knees" interfering).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 200
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 3:03:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It is my intention to create a list - but this will be time consuming - showing all planes - former maneuverability - and new one - and maybe RHS and stock - side by side (like I did for ships and air units in the past).

At the moment I have NO data for Japan at all - although it was done first I do not have it.
And some Allied planes are missing. There are 224 of them - and list typing takes time. I am just brainstorming in this thread - and I don't propose to get too bogged down. We got something that should work - and I intend to release it about 12 hours after I get the Japanese data - whenever that may be? Mifune may be infected with a computer virus again.

I am pretty sure the proposals above will be acceptable - although I will look at any other concept suggested.
I like them because they preserve the vast majority of the rating system - and case by case data is very nice.
The new system is either

1) The same as the old one for some planes
2) Higher for some planes
3) Lower for some planes

and in every case but one (which may involve an engine count error) the changes all "feel" right.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 201
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 3:08:50 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Cid. Hi there. Just wanted to ask if you were thinking of drastically reducing the pilot experience levels in your mods, including the named pilots ratings? I've done so in my experimental CHS test bed game and the results are extremely positive. As one can expect, pilots with more average ratings are not racking up quadruple ace status in a few weeks.

Well worth trying in yours given all the changes and massive effort you have put into it.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 202
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 3:21:43 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 203
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 4:04:01 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.


Not sure but I think the experience levels rise relative to the base replacement experience level. Eg, if one reduced the pilot exp accross the board by 25, the yearly increase will show a 25 relative reduction. Then again, nothing is documented so this is a reasonable guess only.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 204
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:02:12 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		New pilot experience is based on the table established in the scenario editor when the scenario is first established. You get new pilots based on the monthly rate you created and if you go over that rate then the pilots come in at half the experience.

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor or if 0 is entered for experience come in at the experience level that is based on the chart that is in the manual on pge 196. Section 15.2.3

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 205
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:10:05 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor


Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 206
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:22:57 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor


Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?



I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set.

I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 207
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:24:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Cid. Hi there. Just wanted to ask if you were thinking of drastically reducing the pilot experience levels in your mods, including the named pilots ratings? I've done so in my experimental CHS test bed game and the results are extremely positive. As one can expect, pilots with more average ratings are not racking up quadruple ace status in a few weeks.

Well worth trying in yours given all the changes and massive effort you have put into it.



I believe you suggested this before. So I looked at it and adopted it in a limited sense. RHS no longer uses CHS ratings - which seem to have been virtually identical to stock - and I thought about every case. This is not the same thing as saying I got them right - but I think we need to get some human tests to see how they are working before we think about further changes.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 208
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:25:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.


I can ONLY change the 1941 experience levels. Later years are built in to the code and are also pretty good - and just about what you think they ought to be.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 209
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited - 10/7/2006 10:27:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.


Not sure but I think the experience levels rise relative to the base replacement experience level. Eg, if one reduced the pilot exp accross the board by 25, the yearly increase will show a 25 relative reduction. Then again, nothing is documented so this is a reasonable guess only.




I believe it is documented - and even published - and it is also on the forum somewhere - there is a table - in the manual I think - explaining the rating by nation and year built into the hard code. We ONLY progam the scenario start values.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: How he got the new ratings Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   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

0.641