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: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock Page: <<   < prev  185 186 [187] 188 189   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/27/2015 1:17:25 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		March 27, 1944

More 2K night bombing by B24D-1.

During the Day, the Allies sweep several bases, especially painful is a sweep of Hammatsu where Zekes only respond, and they get chewed to pieces by Jugs.

Spitfires are sweeping Tokyo at 10K, I may heighten my CAP to 15K in layers to try and get above them. They are painful planes.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5581
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/27/2015 1:23:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Only about 80 4E beasties flew today against either Honshu or the Kuriles...but I only managed to down 1.

A look at the targeted city du jour:




The Ha45 factory started the day of at 60.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/27/2015 2:34:45 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5582
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/27/2015 1:30:08 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Setback during the retreat to the Bangkok line, the 4th ID is cutoff. They are 4 miles from making the next hex to the south, and hopefully I can open up the road from the south allowing them an avenue to retreat, or else they will die fighting in the jungle...buying time.

The Bangkok line is just horrible for Japan to defend with all the open ground in the rear, but to not hold it means giving free time to the Allies. So I guess we will set up some type of defense here...a good Allied player will simply concentrate their forces and punch thru; but, just perhaps, the Allies will divide their forces. Anyway, it should hold for a month or so.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5583
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/27/2015 1:40:54 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Kuriles both island bases fall...

I managed to put three holes in a LST. Yippee!

I flew out a fragment of the base force and a naval guard. I will fly out two more fragments tomorrow.

Both bases were invaded with one division and a tank unit.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5584
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/28/2015 2:28:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Turn is away; trying to rescue the cut off ID in Thailand; starting to feel the bombing effects in Honshu, fighter production is down to 36 per day, from a high of 50. Especially hard hit are the Ki100I. Zekes and Oscars are untouched.

But it is really engine production that has been mauled and could become very worrisome.

Supply generation still holding pretty strong.

8 more months of pounding before 45. Wow.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5585
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/29/2015 11:53:20 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Got a turn, then later an email asking for a redo since the Allies left many orders on the table especially with his Fighters. I really hadn't started issuing orders.

So, I am letting the Allies redo the turn.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5586
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/29/2015 3:21:27 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		March 28, 1944

No night bombing.

Another invasion in the Kuriles.

No bombing of Honshu today at all. Lots of dogfights, we lose less than 2 for each of 1 of his fighters. By far the most damaging planes the Allies use against me are the Spitfires...I manged to bring down another 8 today but they seem very nasty. P51b show up in numbers over Gifu I think...gosh, another 440 mph screamer. We knock down about 7 of those.

Rahaeng attacked again today, it will fall tomorrow as 80% of the defenders leave. Only 3 units at Pisanuloke, withdraw up here almost complete.

Looks good to rescue the 4th ID on the Bangkok/Moulmein Road.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/29/2015 4:30:02 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5587
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/29/2015 11:24:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Today I splurged and switched a Jake factory at Nagasaki over to Jacks...Nagasaki now has one factory making Jacks (or will be) and another making Franks.

Making 13 Franks a day, and it isn't enough. 36 Total fighters per day.

I haven't swept in the last day, and didn't today, but should be able to tomorrow. I can only really sweep with Franks or George both SR3...

I have moved all Oscars and Zekes back to 13 hexes from the closest Allied base. Nicks, KAI Dinah, Tojo, Rex, and Zekes or Zeroes prior to the 5c even further back.

Tomorrow I get another Irving Sa NF at Chiba. Starting to look pretty good with NFs, but boy they get destroyed on the ground when his bombers break thru on daytime raids. A small price to pay if he goes after the runways rather than the factories however.




(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5588
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 12:28:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		March 29, 1944

No night bombing.

Allies are content to sweep to Honshu; about 2 Empire ftrs lost for each Allied: 12 Jugs, 5 Spits, 6 Corsairs, 11 P38J. A lot of Japanese losses came from the P38Js which shot down 5 Rufes and 8 A6M2s which I had a little too close. Wasn't expecting Lighting sweeps, still gratified by the number of Lightnings downed by obsolete planes.

The real excitement is in the far west: the 4th Tank Regiment races north to link up with the isolated 4th ID (and 6 heavy ART units). They breakthru easily, while the 1st Tank Division races north from Bangkok to reinforce the clear hex of death (and to replace 3 heavily disrupted divisions that make good their retreat to Bangkok).

It was a good thing too, the clear hex of death wasn't too heavily bombed (hence my meticulous planning of troop arrivals and departures wasn't strictly needed), the AA present did a great job on protecting the troops on the ground, when surprise, surprise the Allies attack! The 1st Tank Division arrived just in time to hold the line, and inflicted over 100 AV in losses on the attacking Commonwealth troops.

The Allies have 1 Division, 2 Brigades, the Marauders, and some other odds and ends there...it would be nice to counter attack and wipe them out...but for the Allied airpower.

Now, the 4th ID will move south, can they get to Bangkok and relative safety? Only time will tell, there are 16 Allied units one hex north looking for payback!






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/30/2015 1:32:57 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5589
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 12:34:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Yanks continue to consolidate their holdings in the Kuriles....

I lost a dozen Emilies flying out troops(splinters) here. Not worth the cost...but the first interception.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5590
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 12:41:54 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		And finally, off Hong Kong a 50K fuel convoy comes in, and some old Es along with float planes from an AV, manage to force a Yank sub to the surface where she is sunk.





I get 2 Lornas today or tomorrow. I actually have a small factory cranking these guys out, I plan to run one small squadron of them...I wonder how they will do. Very short range but Radar and MAD in June.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/30/2015 1:44:24 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5591
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 3:24:06 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 533
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline 		How has your experience of the Allied night bombing on the HI been so far? Pretty damaging or pretty weak?

Extricating out of Burma/Thailand is not easy! Good luck. Clear hexes of death apply to them too if you still have some Army LBA left :)

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5592
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 4:03:48 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

How has your experience of the Allied night bombing on the HI been so far? Pretty damaging or pretty weak?

Extricating out of Burma/Thailand is not easy! Good luck. Clear hexes of death apply to them too if you still have some Army LBA left :)


My night defenses have been very strong I think...a few slip ups, but in general he has avoided night bombing for the most part.

Might change with the advent of the B29.

I went and checked Tracker, and I find I did much better in the air than originally thought. 17 P47D25 gone! Banzai, Baby...

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 5593
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 4:16:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		This plane is pretty worthless, but Japan had 200+ of them. They dropped depth charges...pretty neat and flavorful.

I will run one small Sentai of them - perhaps two. Can't hurt much can it?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5594
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 4:18:13 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I would die to know your opponent pools and squadrons. He has to be hurting badly as this pace is unsustainable even in 45.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5595
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 4:32:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The Home Islands....

With the recent invasion of the Kuriles, I am now a little worried he might go for the Islands and not Honshu.

Still, Japan has made a lot of progress in fortifying the area.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5596
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 6:40:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I would die to know your opponent pools and squadrons. He has to be hurting badly as this pace is unsustainable even in 45.


You would think so...but he remains incredibly aggressive.


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 5597
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 7:13:08 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This plane is pretty worthless, but Japan had 200+ of them. They dropped depth charges...pretty neat and flavorful.

I will run one small Sentai of them - perhaps two. Can't hurt much can it?





You know it can do ASW max up to 2 hexes away ? It sample of very very useless plane :)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5598
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/30/2015 11:04:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane
You know it can do ASW max up to 2 hexes away ? It sample of very very useless plane :)


Part of the attraction of making a few...at least for me.

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 5599
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 12:00:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		March 30, 1944

Night bombing at 2,000 feet. A good night!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5600
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 12:26:06 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		For the first time in what seems like months, the Allies split up their bombing runs here. It will give me a chance to nail some bombers with exclusive LRCAP positions.

Rahaeng finally falls, but no Allied units are in pursuit mode. The Northern triangle should be able to retreat without a problem now.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5601
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 12:41:45 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Allies strike at Maebashi with very little success...but with more success at Hamamatsu hitting the Ha45 factory there. The Allies seem currently focused on engines and fighters. Tony production is down to 2+ planes per day from 5. Frank is down to 13 per day from 16. Jack production is still climbing thanks to the factory at Nagasaki. Zeke and Oscar production untouched. All these losses are since the beginning of the invasion of Hokkaido and not from last night.

To offset the plane losses on eastern Honshu and Hokkaido, I have started expanding the fighters in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and I might do Harbin.

Japanese fighters did a good job versus Allied sweepers; but I guessed wrong and had fighters north in what I had hoped to be an attractive bait hex, plus I had two squadrons up front to sweep (they didn't fly). I would have been able to really inflict the bomber losses if they were at Hamamatsu...oh well, I seem always to guess wrong when it comes to traps and such.

So, the lightest plane loss day that I can remember in quite a while. We are but one day away from the B29 rolling off the factory lines...18 built per month for the next 6 months.










Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 7/31/2015 1:43:41 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5602
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 3:53:28 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Allies strike at Maebashi with very little success...but with more success at Hamamatsu hitting the Ha45 factory there. The Allies seem currently focused on engines and fighters. Tony production is down to 2+ planes per day from 5. Frank is down to 13 per day from 16. Jack production is still climbing thanks to the factory at Nagasaki. Zeke and Oscar production untouched. All these losses are since the beginning of the invasion of Hokkaido and not from last night.

To offset the plane losses on eastern Honshu and Hokkaido, I have started expanding the fighters in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and I might do Harbin.

Japanese fighters did a good job versus Allied sweepers; but I guessed wrong and had fighters north in what I had hoped to be an attractive bait hex, plus I had two squadrons up front to sweep (they didn't fly). I would have been able to really inflict the bomber losses if they were at Hamamatsu...oh well, I seem always to guess wrong when it comes to traps and such.

So, the lightest plane loss day that I can remember in quite a while. We are but one day away from the B29 rolling off the factory lines...18 built per month for the next 6 months.










quote:

B29


Be ready, he has already got ~50 B-29 in new arriving squadrons in Aden. He can withdraw those a/c and put them to work over Japan in 1 - 2 weeks ( it take time to get flight ready those beast )

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5603
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 4:15:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Be ready, he has already got ~50 B-29 in new arriving squadrons in Aden. He can withdraw those a/c and put them to work over Japan in 1 - 2 weeks ( it take time to get flight ready those beast )


I figured he might get some early, I can't remember what our reinforcement delay is (if any) and about 20 days ago I really layered the fighter defense deep from Hokkaido assuming that B29s could show up anytime.

At least the most important cities have fighters and AA. Some of the smaller industry locations don't...

Thanks for the warning!

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 5604
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 5:19:25 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		B29s are fragile and the game seems to ignore their tremendous speed. They will be shot down just as easily as B24s. Erik never had any trouble to intercept them despite them in many cases being faster then the defending fighters. Their main advantage is the range but that doesn´t apply in your game since your opponent is already within B24 range.

Don´t worry about them too much.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5605
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 7:55:42 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

B29s are fragile and the game seems to ignore their tremendous speed. They will be shot down just as easily as B24s. Erik never had any trouble to intercept them despite them in many cases being faster then the defending fighters. Their main advantage is the range but that doesn´t apply in your game since your opponent is already within B24 range.

Don´t worry about them too much.


Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters ;) They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 5606
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 8:00:36 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters ;) They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I'm probably the only Allied player here who flies my 4E bombers at 20k feet in most situations. I just hate flak losses...a lot.

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 5607
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 8:15:29 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Sangeli


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters ;) They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I'm probably the only Allied player here who flies my 4E bombers at 20k feet in most situations. I just hate flak losses...a lot.

When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 5608
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 8:35:41 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

Well I was still taking flak losses at 15k feet (as in, planes outright destroyed by flak shown in the combat report) so I brought it up to 20k feet. But believe it or not I still occasionally lose planes at 20k feet too. Another advantage of flying at 20k feet (or even higher) is that you can also fly your escorts higher as well without worrying as much about whether they will fly together. The combination of all the factors (including the ones MrKane mentioned) definitely does reduce losses by a fair amount in all situations.

That being said, you definitely notice a drop in the number of hits. It's just a trade of mission survival rate at the cost of less damage dealt. I think for most routine missions you're better off flying high since retaining pilots and planes is very important. But if you're going after a target of opportunity and the potential damage you can do outweighs the extra losses you might take then obviously go fly low.

The big difficulty I think is evaluating the differences in survivability and hit percentage as a function of altitude. I really don't have a strong idea on the magnitude of the differences...I just notice that one is higher than the other. This would be an excellent thing to test if someone has some free time. I wonder if Alfred is a lurker in this AAAR....

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5609
RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock - 7/31/2015 11:07:36 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

Well I was still taking flak losses at 15k feet (as in, planes outright destroyed by flak shown in the combat report) so I brought it up to 20k feet. But believe it or not I still occasionally lose planes at 20k feet too. Another advantage of flying at 20k feet (or even higher) is that you can also fly your escorts higher as well without worrying as much about whether they will fly together. The combination of all the factors (including the ones MrKane mentioned) definitely does reduce losses by a fair amount in all situations.

That being said, you definitely notice a drop in the number of hits. It's just a trade of mission survival rate at the cost of less damage dealt. I think for most routine missions you're better off flying high since retaining pilots and planes is very important. But if you're going after a target of opportunity and the potential damage you can do outweighs the extra losses you might take then obviously go fly low.

The big difficulty I think is evaluating the differences in survivability and hit percentage as a function of altitude. I really don't have a strong idea on the magnitude of the differences...I just notice that one is higher than the other. This would be an excellent thing to test if someone has some free time. I wonder if Alfred is a lurker in this AAAR....


I have noticed substantial improvement flying over the flak.

Some of the weaker 8cm Japanese flak tops out around 23K, the stronger at 27K. This early, before a lot of the 12 cm upgrades, the Allies probably could get by flying around 20-23K and minimize flak and disruption losses....probably only important over a few heavily guarded AA bases. You aren't going to fly over the 12 cm.

Turn is away, trying to score some beasties over in Indochina...

Even with the B29 coming due, I get the four cannon Jack. Looking forward to him!

Alfred has chimed in from time to time. Given all the variables, and unknowns, I don't see how you could test in conclusively. Perhaps enough for some guidelines.

I have noticed the B29s can arrive over the target very early in the day, before sweeps a lot of times. So perhaps I will get some good shots at them.


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/1/2015 12:09:38 AM >

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 5610
Page:   <<   < prev  185 186 [187] 188 189   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock Page: <<   < prev  185 186 [187] 188 189   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

2.172