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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

 
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 >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/4/2009 10:59:25 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline 		Not sure if this was reported already;

Scenario 1 & 2;
DD Kamikaze (#1422-1425) updares twice on 02/42, gaining a T13 radar set on the second update. I assume the update to #1424 should have been in 02/43 or something.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 211
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 3:46:45 AM   
Jorm


Posts: 545
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline 		Im at work so doing this from memory

MkXVII mine issues

some ships start loaded with them but they are not availabe in the production pool at the start of the game. ie you cant reload you CM's


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 212
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 5:06:50 AM   
Mozo

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline 		I think I found a bug - or something.

If I have a task force of transports with troops, and one ship is damaged (e.g. 15 sys), the entire task force won't unload. I mean never. All ships had troops and supplies in it.

Same happened on load. At Pearl, loading troops onto 4 healthy APs and one slightly damaged (orange). It just sat there with the same load for 5 turns. I remove the damaged ship, reload, and they move out in one turn (as they should).

Hope this was helpful. Does anyone want a saved game with it?

Mozo

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 213
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 5:57:45 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
IMHO, the game is tweaked down for the masses (which might make good business sense) rather that be sharp for the grognards (who I thought formed the swell beyond the need for an AE)


What a sweeping statement to make based upon two miniscule portions of the scenario design which you don't happen to like! Fortunately for you, this "non-grognard" game has an editor which will allow you to fix those "bugs" - probably in much less time than it's taken you to complain about it.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 214
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 7:30:05 AM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		Sorry if this was mentioned before but in the Dec 8th scenario BBs Idaho and Mississippi arrive inearly 1942 with their 1942 Novemberish upgrade (SG radars and 40mm Boforses). New Mexico is OK.


_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 215
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 9:46:38 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline 		Fantastic job,
but just some minor issues !

About Noumea area at start :
AM Chevreuil was already fitted with Asdic and DC rack and charges in summer 1940.
xAKL Vichy never existed i think.
In Noumea there was also in dec 41 :
- AMC Cap des Palmes
- Cargo ship Cagou (2795 tjb 1586 tjn length 93.9m) own by Cie Le Nickel.
- Cargo ship Capitaine Illiaquer (2138 tjb 1168 tjn 82.37m 10kn)
Several coasters : Mawata, Tour de Côte, Loyauté (disp 575t 47.3m 12.5 nds), Néo Hebridais (disp 709t 55.1m 9 nds).


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 216
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 11:39:38 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		Not sure whether this is the right thread for this question about unloading a TF. 

I think I am right in saying that the ability of a ship to unload some load types depends upon the size of the port and the type of the ship. I've hit a problem with this when trying to unload a radar device from an AK at Lunga (port size 2): the text by the unload button is orange and a popup indicates the the TF concerned cannot unload the whole of its cargo.  I assume this is either because the AK's derricks aren't up to the task or the port is too small to handle a load type consisting of a radar device.  My bad for not anticipating this problem; I merely thought 'it's an AK not an xAK, so it will unload.'  Probably I should have put this unit fragment in an AKA, as they seem to have unloaded radars from an amphibious TF at Lunga without difficulty.

What I'd like to know is whether there is any way of determining in advance whether any part of a unit's heavy equipment will be incapable of unloading at any given destination port.  I've scoured the manual for the answer but drawn a blank.  Help would be appreciated.

On an entirely different note, even the inclusion of those tasty little JNR ferries Tenzan Maru and Konron Maru doesn't quite make up for the absence of Conte Verde.  Yes, I know the Italian crew opened her sea cocks, but it's within the bounds of possibility that the Japanese might have got some service out of her...  

_____________________________




(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 217
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 1:50:40 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I've got a DD in Victoria shipyard for repairs (nothing serious, just some system damage) but no matter what option for repairs I give it, the time for repair is the same.  The base has ample supply, no damage, and no other ship in the shipyard.  Every other shipyard has a lower repair time for a given ship compared to readiness or pierside, but not Victoria.  What's going on there?

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 218
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 3:03:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

xAKL Vichy never existed i think.



Have seen a reference to Vichy as a small cargo ship transporting resources from New Caledonia to New Zealand. I believe the reference is in the New Zealand On Line database, but I don't have time to look it up right now.

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 219
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 4:18:42 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Not sure if this was reported already;

Scenario 1 & 2;
DD Kamikaze (#1422-1425) updares twice on 02/42, gaining a T13 radar set on the second update. I assume the update to #1424 should have been in 02/43 or something.

Kamikazes were a bit boogered there and a couple other places. All fixed up now. Thanks, Juan.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 220
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 5:00:01 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline 		Just want to double check on this info, Yugumo class DDs carry 400 tons of bunker fuel giving them an endurance of 5000 nm. While Akitsuki carries 1097 tons of fuel and has the same endurance. Is there information alluding to the Akitsuki class having more than 2.5 times worse fuel efficiency than previous DDs? I realize that they were getting quite large for DDs while still being equipped with DD engines but would that truly affect the fuel usage this badly?

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 221
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 5:56:07 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source. I'm sure other sources may say other things, but we can't pick and choose. We must use a consistent source. If you wish to vet this, please use Jentschura, and if there is an error, please give the data and the source ref. We'll be happy to fix, but must maintain consistency. Thanks.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 222
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 6:16:13 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source. I'm sure other sources may say other things, but we can't pick and choose. We must use a consistent source. If you wish to vet this, please use Jentschura, and if there is an error, please give the data and the source ref. We'll be happy to fix, but must maintain consistency. Thanks.


I see the figure 8300 pop up a lot, but I dont have a source. Will do some searching to find one.

On the Akizuki class, is there any reason why you've chosen to use the romanization of 'Akitsuki' for the class, but retained 'Akizuki', the more common one, for the ship itself?

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 223
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 6:35:14 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I see the figure 8300 pop up a lot, but I dont have a source. Will do some searching to find one.

I see that too, but we must use Jentschura, for consistency. Gonna have to rely on Jentschura, there, pal.
[edit] if Jentschura says ca. 8000 nm with the noted bunkerage, be glad to do the switcheroo.
quote:


On the Akizuki class, is there any reason why you've chosen to use the romanization of 'Akitsuki' for the class, but retained 'Akizuki', the more common one, for the ship itself?

No particular reason. Had several people working on the different parts of the database, and each one, I'm sure, used their own transliteration convention.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/5/2009 7:20:22 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 224
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 7:43:07 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline 		I'm just trying to get a feel for how these ships are going to drain fuel stores now.

Aoba class: 1858 tons of fuel; 4.41 nm/ton, weighs 10822 tons.

Oyodo: 2360 tons of fuel; 4.66 nm/ton, weighs 10252 tons.

Agano class: 1405 tons of fuel; 4.48 nm/ton, weighs 7590 tons.

Myoko class: 2214 tons of fuel; 3.37 nm/ton, weighs 14743 tons.

Mogami class: 2215 tons of fuel; 3.38 nm/ton, weighs 13668 tons.

Yugumo class: 400 tons of fuel; 12.5 nm/ton, weighs 2600 tons.

Akitsuki class: 1097 tons of fuel; 4.56 nm/ton, weighs 3430 tons.

Shimakaze class: 750 tons of fuel; 7.73 nm/ton, weighs 3000 tons.

Tenryu class: 1070 tons of fuel; 4.67 nm/ton, weighs 3948 tons.

Yamato class: 6300 tons of fuel; 1.28 nm/ton, weighs 67123 tons.

Nagato class: 5650 tons of fuel; 2.1 nm/ton, weighs 42750 tons.

Ise & Fuso class: 5100 tons of fuel; 2.12 nm/ton, weighs 39535 tons or 38536 tons.

Kongo class: 6330 tons of fuel; 1.89 nm/ton, weighs 35740 tons.


So according to the data used, Akitsuki is as fuel efficient as an Agano class CL weighing slightly more than twice it's weight. This is a decent match up due to the time of construction too. Tenryu is of similar efficiency but is old and weighs only 500 tons more. Aoba also comes close to Akitsuki's fuel efficiency but is older and sizes up to more than twice the DD's weight.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 225
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 8:05:03 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah it shows probably an error in Akitzukis. I don't think "consistency" of sources is good enough when there is something clearely off, we should use the best judgement, that is of course only my opinion.
I never saw a serious normalisation effort in ships or aircraft in encyclopedic data. It is usually pick the data from here, there and there is it. The more outrageous are in aircraft mixing maximum ranges with weapon load.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 226
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 8:47:13 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline 		I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 227
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 9:21:33 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

I cannot say I disagree Juan. I, too, am a believer in efficiency data. I have been waiting for Joe Wilkerson to hop in here. Maybe, if I don't hear anything from The Powers That Be, that tell me to keep my winkie in my pocket, I could maybe look at Conways , and maybe slip something in , but ... you would owe me a good Rioja or Rueda, or a tinto from Argentina or Chile.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 228
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 10:26:12 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source.



I did use Jentschura, but also Lacroix and Watts, those were top three, but others for specific ships. I will try to answer specific data questions, but right now I am living in a hotel working on bringing up a big project for my day job and do not have my sources with me. Project finally went live today, so I should be home tonight and then can try to respond to some of the questions.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 229
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 10:31:03 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source.

I did use Jentschura, but also Lacroix and Watts, those were top three, but others for specific ships. I will try to answer specific data questions, but right now I am living in a hotel working on bringing up a big project for my day job and do not have my sources with me. Project finally went live today, so I should be home tonight and then can try to respond to some of the questions.

And that would be God speaking, so far as I'm concerned. You guys might be brilliant, and I'm sure you are, but God can shrivel my winkie, and I like my winkie.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 230
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 11:32:39 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		TMI!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 231
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 11:49:46 PM   
dwbradley

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		OK, I¡¦m back with some more impressions from my play so far. This time the subject is the new surface TF routines. As I say, these are impressions, not rigorous analysis, but I think how players respond to the game is feedback that may be of value.

I have played the Coral Sea (completed) and Guadalcanal scenarios (early Oct. so far) so this includes a fairly small sample size, yet I feel like I am getting a reasonable feel for how the play goes.

First let me say that I am a big fan of what the new routines can bring to the game. The added action of mid-ocean intercepts and enhanced reaction adds a lot of excitement. Big kudos to whoever thought this through and worked it into the game.

That said, I hope you don¡¦t mind if I say that for me the overall result misses the mark a little bit. To be a bit more specific:

1. It almost seems as if the action level is TOO high. Maybe it is just the comparison with WITP but it almost seemed that every time two TFs crossed paths a surface action ensued. Is there a probability of intercept variable that could be tuned?

2. Little big men. I¡¦ve seen the buzz about killer PTs and such. I saw no PT action but did see more that a few underdog TFs come off no worse then even and in some cases better than even. I¡¦m not sure there is an issue here but I am leaning that way.

3. Who fights who first? When a raiding surface combat TF enters a hex with multiple TFs what decides the order of actions. On a couple of occasions I had some fairly weak transport TFs absolutely destroyed by the raiding force and THEN the raiders would face off against protecting surface combat TF(s). And then break contact and slip away with a great victory. Could this happen? Certainly, and there are no doubt may examples. But I would think if you send a raiding TF into such a situation you would be taking a great risk of encountering the defenders first, which I would think should be the more probable outcome. How probable? I can¡¦t say and yes I have only a few examples to build a case on. It¡¦s feedback, yes?

4. Run away, run away!!! This comment is based upon but a single example, but it was quite confusing to me. I had an invasion fleet consisting of two amphibious TFs, a surface combat TF, an air combat TF, and a replenishment TF. The lead TF was one of the amphibious TFs with orders to go to Port Moresby and unload. All of the rest were set to follow the lead TF except for the replenishment TF which was set to follow the air combat TF. The lead TF was set to Remain on station (I¡¦m pretty sure, but can¡¦t prove it now and doubt does creep in). The fleet reached PM and began unloading in the first portion of the first day of a 2-day turn. The lead TF thereupon reacted to the presence of an enemy TF which consisted of a single damaged DD. The lead TF fled, dragging all the rest along. There are two possible cases here. One is that I indeed did have the TF set to Remain On Station in which case I don¡¦t think this should ever have happened, or maybe it would be the rarest of events. In the second case, If I had screwed up ( not the most unlikely of events ƒº) and had the TF set on Retirement Allowed doesn¡¦t the presence of the covering forces count for anything? Any of the TFs, including the amphibious ones had sufficiently powerful warships to take on this DD and win. Puzzling.


In summary, I am excited by the promise of the enhanced surface routines. I hope this feedback (in sum with everyone else) helps any review and improvements that may be needed.

Dave Bradley

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 232
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/5/2009 11:55:43 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Just had the Allied DD chew (3681) somehow end up with 200 torpedoes with the left side launcher in Pearl Harbor?

It looks ok in the editor for the campaign.


Question: Will this fix itself during a the next ship upgrade?





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/6/2009 6:04:15 AM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 233
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 1:57:50 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

TMI!


Sola Deo Minutia....

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 234
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 10:03:43 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

xAKL Vichy never existed i think.



Have seen a reference to Vichy as a small cargo ship transporting resources from New Caledonia to New Zealand. I believe the reference is in the New Zealand On Line database, but I don't have time to look it up right now.



The ship is not listed in the 158 free french merchants list neither in Miramar ship index but anyway it is just a detail.



< Message edited by Skyland -- 8/6/2009 10:12:44 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 235
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 1:04:34 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

So according to the data used, Akitsuki is as fuel efficient as an Agano class CL weighing slightly more than twice it's weight.


Go to the "Clunkers-for-Cash" web site, and you'll see this model qualifies for one of the largest available rebates!






(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 236
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 1:49:39 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

4. Run away, run away!!!


dwbradley,

You should lead with a surface combat TF and follow with the amphib TF.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 237
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 2:44:44 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I've seen the "transport TF withdraws from combat" or "evades combat" report, and then on the big map you get a "TF retreats towards xxx" and the icon moves to a new hex.  I've also seen transports in transit reverse course when they get an intel report that there's a carrier/surface TF ahead of them.  They reverse for a turn and then resume course.  The TF's evading combat will abort their unloading if there's a tough enough enemy in or near the port, a single damaged DD though shouldn't have triggered that response IMO unless the TF commander was had really low command values.

It does appear that the surface warfare routine is overly bloody and weighted towards the smaller ships.  A small squadron of MTB's sank Maya in my campaign, for example, even though she was in a TF with 3 DD's.  Several times PT boats have gotten within 1000 yds of transport and combat TF's and torpedoed something, then escaped scott free.  Destroyers appear to take a lot of gunfire to hit, but can't take a lot of damage once they do get hit.  That part makes sense, but not the getting hit part.  The IJN trained hard in night fighting tactics, but I've yet to see much evidence of it in the battles in my game.  I had a large ABDA TF maul a CL-led screening force and then take on a 2 BB TF with only damage to half the force and no sinkings, all at night.

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 238
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 3:48:01 PM   
dwbradley

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

quote:

4. Run away, run away!!!


dwbradley,

You should lead with a surface combat TF and follow with the amphib TF.



I think you are right. I was using my old WITP methodology. I'm learning, I hope.

Dave Bradley

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 239
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 3:51:59 PM   
dwbradley

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've seen the "transport TF withdraws from combat" or "evades combat" report, and then on the big map you get a "TF retreats towards xxx" and the icon moves to a new hex.  I've also seen transports in transit reverse course when they get an intel report that there's a carrier/surface TF ahead of them.  They reverse for a turn and then resume course.  The TF's evading combat will abort their unloading if there's a tough enough enemy in or near the port, a single damaged DD though shouldn't have triggered that response IMO unless the TF commander was had really low command values.

It does appear that the surface warfare routine is overly bloody and weighted towards the smaller ships.  A small squadron of MTB's sank Maya in my campaign, for example, even though she was in a TF with 3 DD's.  Several times PT boats have gotten within 1000 yds of transport and combat TF's and torpedoed something, then escaped scott free.  Destroyers appear to take a lot of gunfire to hit, but can't take a lot of damage once they do get hit.  That part makes sense, but not the getting hit part.  The IJN trained hard in night fighting tactics, but I've yet to see much evidence of it in the battles in my game.  I had a large ABDA TF maul a CL-led screening force and then take on a 2 BB TF with only damage to half the force and no sinkings, all at night.


So the question is: Is there fire underneath all this smoke? Or is this just another case of mass hysteria? We'll have to trust the devs to give it a looksee and make changes if they find something.

Dave Bradley

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

1.484