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: recon

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: recon Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 1:10:08 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline 		Yes, you should of course bomb the isolated/forward recon bases mercilessly as this is relatively low cost, high reward and gains experience. But the key to really bombing the Lufwaffe is to spam bomb (in games with unlimited bombing). Basically the Soviets have far more bombers than the Germans have fighters and it reaches a point where you are basically bombing air bases that no longer have any coverage. In games with no house rules for air base bombing you can literally hit a base 15 times or more. So yes, early in the game and early in the bombing you might take massive losses, but eventually it turns and you are destroying hundreds of Axis planes every turn. In my last game with unlimited bombing, the Axis had under 800 planes left in late September '41 and pretty much no recon planes left at all. In my current game against the same opponent, we are playing on 3 bombings TOTAL per turn (not per base) and the Axis have about 3000 planes in June '42.....

Honestly, I really need to pay more overall attention to the air war. It's a very weak part of my game. One thing I did notice just last turn when looking at some battles seeing how the Germans were able to penetrate my lines was that despite having over 10,000 planes, in major battles sometimes only 13 Soviet planes were going up while the Axis had ****loads supporting their attacks. No idea why....


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 301
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 1:20:49 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattp

Yes, you should of course bomb the isolated/forward recon bases mercilessly as this is relatively low cost, high reward and gains experience. But the key to really bombing the Lufwaffe is to spam bomb (in games with unlimited bombing). Basically the Soviets have far more bombers than the Germans have fighters and it reaches a point where you are basically bombing air bases that no longer have any coverage. In games with no house rules for air base bombing you can literally hit a base 15 times or more. So yes, early in the game and early in the bombing you might take massive losses, but eventually it turns and you are destroying hundreds of Axis planes every turn. In my last game with unlimited bombing, the Axis had under 800 planes left in late September '41 and pretty much no recon planes left at all. In my current game against the same opponent, we are playing on 3 bombings TOTAL per turn (not per base) and the Axis have about 3000 planes in June '42.....

Honestly, I really need to pay more overall attention to the air war. It's a very weak part of my game. One thing I did notice just last turn when looking at some battles seeing how the Germans were able to penetrate my lines was that despite having over 10,000 planes, in major battles sometimes only 13 Soviet planes were going up while the Axis had ****loads supporting their attacks. No idea why....




which really re-enforces the argument for a limit. I'd be happy to agree to a strict version if an axis player really wanted it ... such as no more than x attacks per airbase and y in total for the turn. Both sides did carry out major airbase attacks in support of set piece offensives ... the Soviets got caught out badly at the start of Kursk when the Germans detected their incoming attack .. but it doesn't seem to have been done week after week on quiet sectors. Given the acknowledged gaps in the WiTE air war model its not something I'd really want to seek to exploit

reasons for poor Soviet performance are that up to Nov (or is Dec) 41 there is a serious malus, so the planes take off (use up miles) but poor co-ordination means they don't reach their targets. Also check the admin score of your air commanders, if this is low then you maybe missing a lot of dice rolls.

Final issue is the short range of many Soviet fighters, in the main the Germans had a large advantage in this respect so maybe able to call in fighters from a wider range. Soviet doctrine was that the fighter was there to defend Soviet airspace and protect ground operations ... they had (and this carried into the Cold War) no real doctrinal commitment to the western idea of air superiority as such. This was very much reflected in their plane design.

From their experience in the Civil War and then the concept of the deep battle doctrine, they expected ground units to outrun air cover, one reason why the at start Soviet divisions are fairly rich in AA as there was an expectation they'd have to defend themselves. As so often with Soviet doctrine/operations in 1941, the theory was fine but the execution dire.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/10/2015 2:23:09 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 302
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 1:33:18 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Airfield bombing is limited in .05 to first mission on a turn (when group is at 0% miles flown), just like unit or city bombing (with the exception of German June 22nd, 1941 turn).

Soviet and Axis Ally planes were also bugged in that they couldn't (in most cases) fly automated missions when outside of land battle.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 303
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:07:04 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		Will that change limit the air unit to only one airbase strike a turn?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 304
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:15:14 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Airfield bombing is limited in .05 to first mission on a turn (when group is at 0% miles flown), just like unit or city bombing (with the exception of German June 22nd, 1941 turn).

Soviet and Axis Ally planes were also bugged in that they couldn't (in most cases) fly automated missions when outside of land battle.



if you are looking at small rebalances, axis losses to AA have gone from far too many to far too few. Constant bombing of a city stuffed with flak is seeing minimal (1-2 per turn if that) losses as a result. Somewhere between the old norm and the new would be realistic ... not least a deterrent to axis players city/port bombing turn after turn with no real cost.

_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 305
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:17:43 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		That's why I haven't built a single AA unit in my game. They are rather pointless now.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 306
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:25:23 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		umm.......

so every air unit will have to choose between bombing ground units, airbase attacks, or running supply drops....

Getting very restrictive on air use.....a game turn is 7 days......Mise well just remove planes if you keep restricting it, as they will be sucking up far more trucks/supply than they are worth to mess around with.....

IDK I think making a player choose between only 1 air mission per turn is abit to restrictive...esp as house rules make the situation playable as is....just my 2 cents...with that change it will make it pointless to attempt to conduct an air war at all on the other side....again a balance benefit to the Axis.

As I would much prefer to bomb hexes I need to attack over enemy airbases....so basically you will make it to where the soviet player wont be conducting an air war against the luftwaffe. Which will be a huge balance swing long term to axis IMO.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 9/10/2015 3:29:59 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 307
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:29:09 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Actually spent a lot of time to try to balance flak. Axis are slaughtered late war in AI wars, but take very small losses early. City flak gets some bonuses though. Better fire, takes part in combat, easier to remove when enemy is near.

Structure bombing should be scaled to factory size, will have to check this. 5 percent of level 20 is more than 5 percent of level 1.

It's still possible to strike same air base many times, but each group can do it only once per turn, so you run out of available groups pretty quickly.

Chaos, ground support and interdiction is unlimited and that's what counts in the long run. No large strategic bombing campaigns in the East.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 308
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:44:47 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Yes but you will be forcing the player to choose between one first mission...is alot of competing priorities for the first and only mission of a turn aside from hoping something automated is generated...I think long term this will be a massive benefit to the Axis.

As to strategic air war no...but bombing the other sides air bases and aerial attrition was used by both sides at different points in the campaign.

Even city bombing of Moscow was done for awhile in 1941/1942....however losses were to high for the Germans to continue.

So it was attempted and found not worthwhile as far as strategic air war.

I understand ground support may still automatically show up, but it is critical to bomb Axis ground units for disruption as well before assaults. I have seen a decided difference in combat results with and without pre assault air bombing.

You will be taking that option away now as the Soviet player will have to choose between airbase attacks and ground unit attacks....thats the choice I think is dumb and dont like....especially since you can already only ground bomb once per turn per air unit.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 9/10/2015 3:56:13 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 309
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 2:49:22 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		Chaos is right, this changes is just so unnecessary and worse. Strategic bombing is striking pop centers and industrial targets and that has always been limited by players. Allowing multiple strikes against airbases was imo one thing in this air portion of the game that actually worked. Players had house rules that limited the damage inflicted and eventually would allow the Soviet player to gain air superiority. Why is this suddenly an issue that requires a game change? It's silly that air units can only do one mission in the course of a week.

Take your time releasing v.05. I don't want it.


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 310
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 3:04:19 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Long turns without ability to react by the opponent are reason that even a sound rule can be made overpowered and leading to snowballs.

After a day or two of constant raids the enemy would either reinforce his base or withdraw. Now damaged planes await oblivion without reacting. And you can bomb too much because entire air armies can bomb single location which would be coordination nightmare when done in parallel. Just like ground attacks are out of sync. Attack from the back and exploit with units near front to maximize mp for deep raid.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 311
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 3:16:33 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline 		Can we get some input on how this patching process actually works? Who comes up with these design changes? Who decides which change gets implemented? Who does the beta testing?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 312
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 3:20:26 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Well a damaged plane is going nowhere really.....I disgree with your assessment.

With house rules limiting air strikes to 3 per airbase per turn the game works fine IMO.

Also isnt coordination a leadership roll in the game....we are already seeing far less planes launched on your once per turn air attack than you have available to use.

Often much less........so that coordination or lack thereof is already built into the game.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 9/10/2015 4:27:53 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 313
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 3:31:39 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline 		I agree, limit it so that a single airbase can only be bombed 3 times per turn. No need for the restrictive "1st action" as it's incredibly limiting. I find it limiting that you can only bomb units and cities with your first action as well. So I agree with Chaos and M60 on this one.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 314
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 3:37:39 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Yes, this is not user friendly, if you move your airbase for example, but it was a ready solution on hand. Would prefer to limit per hex.

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 315
RE: recon - 9/10/2015 5:48:37 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		you can limit per hex with house rules.......if the game system cant do it.....

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 316
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 4:31:07 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Can we get some input on how this patching process actually works? Who comes up with these design changes? Who decides which change gets implemented? Who does the beta testing?


Why no answer to this important question? I would like to know who pulls the strings behind the curtain. Is there something wrong with that? We are spending hours after hours playing this game. What if the entire process is rigged?

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 317
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 6:43:18 PM   
Sorta

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 11/30/2009
Status: offline 		Bozo you are right the system is clearly rigged. My guess is that an Asian betting cartel has wagered millions of euros on the outcome of Pelton's AAR - would explain why everything is so biased towards the Axis...

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 318
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 6:51:28 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

ozo you are right the system is clearly rigged. My guess is that an Asian betting cartel has wagered millions of euros on the outcome of Pelton's AAR - would explain why everything is so biased towards the Axis...


Did you fix your fatal error?

(in reply to Sorta)
Post #: 319
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 6:56:00 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Can we get some input on how this patching process actually works? Who comes up with these design changes? Who decides which change gets implemented? Who does the beta testing?


Why no answer to this important question? I would like to know who pulls the strings behind the curtain. Is there something wrong with that? We are spending hours after hours playing this game. What if the entire process is rigged?


Hi Bozo

fascinating and valid view, but it is *ahem* an AAR thread

_____________________________


(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 320
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 6:58:18 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Hi Bozo

fascinating and valid view, but it is *ahem* an AAR thread


Correct, my apologies. I just moved it.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 321
RE: recon - 9/11/2015 6:59:06 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Can we get some input on how this patching process actually works? Who comes up with these design changes? Who decides which change gets implemented? Who does the beta testing?


Why no answer to this important question? I would like to know who pulls the strings behind the curtain. Is there something wrong with that? We are spending hours after hours playing this game. What if the entire process is rigged?


Sorry, no time to answer all posts.

List of people that took part in creating 1.08 is in the credits. Some work with me to this day. Some helped only once or twice. Those that are active have greater impact on the changes I propose, and/or they propose some changes that are later discussed, implemented, tested, altered, tested, accepted or dropped. Some people are more competetive types and they see things differently, than for example me. I try to make changes that make sense from logical and historical standpoint, while working around issues created by turn based IGoYouGo mechanics and problems with scale. Sometimes this forum and player's current problems are my source of inspiration. Of course playing 220 turn PBEMs to test impact of changes is impossible, so we have to make short tests or run AIvsAI games that don't show the whole picture so we have to rely on experience and intuition. This is a very iterative process and the adjustments can be made indefinitely. If you don't like those changes you could revert to 1.07.10, which is the last 2by3 WitE. 1.08 is a bit mine & the rest of beta team. It's impossible to achieve perfection with single patch, but we try to adapt and adjust. Hope you have more fun than anger in the process.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 322
RE: recon - 9/12/2015 9:38:12 AM   
Matnjord

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 2/3/2015
Status: offline 		Dayum, I leave for a couple of weeks and dozens of divisions get encircled, Stavka loses morale, considers joining the gulags with e-Stalin, then changes its mind, grits its teeth and goes back to working on sending OKH to the other side of the Oder! My little peanut gallery heart barely managed to resist the shock!

Glad to see you didn't give up Loki, this AAR is a joy to read for those like me who don't have the time nor the hardware (my poor PC died an ignominious death and still hasn't been replaced) to play this game and have to vicariously experience it through your excellent reports.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 323
RE: recon - 9/13/2015 7:38:52 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Matnjord

Dayum, I leave for a couple of weeks and dozens of divisions get encircled, Stavka loses morale, considers joining the gulags with e-Stalin, then changes its mind, grits its teeth and goes back to working on sending OKH to the other side of the Oder! My little peanut gallery heart barely managed to resist the shock!

Glad to see you didn't give up Loki, this AAR is a joy to read for those like me who don't have the time nor the hardware (my poor PC died an ignominious death and still hasn't been replaced) to play this game and have to vicariously experience it through your excellent reports.


aye, we'll carry on, at the very worst, its a chance to explore the process of building the Red Army 2 and to see what happens. Problem is the current patch does seem to have thrown the balance of 1942 badly. Its the sort of thing that only really becomes obvious once you have a decent batch of games reach that stage as all the changes, in themselves, are reasonable and were aimed at ending the opposite problem of 1942 being a tedious variant of WW1 (the western version).

_____________________________


(in reply to Matnjord)
Post #: 324
Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 7:41:29 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942

Strangely after the dramatic German victories in the previous week the level of fighting dropped.


(Soviet defensive positions near Kaluga)

Apart from ensuring that all the Soviet formations in the Bryansk pocket were cut off they did little to exploit their gains or Soviet disorganisation. However, their victory meant that over 500,000 men were now cut off.



Stavka ordered a further retreat to a line from Rzhev to Vyazma. Here the best formations of Kalinin Front occupied defensive positions that had been prepared in late 1941.


(Soviet armour dug in behind Vyazma)

It was hoped that such a strong defense on the southern approach to Moscow would force the Germans to either move their armour eastwards or north towards Rzhev. In either case this would cost them time, limiting their scope to exploit the current situation.


[1]



For the week, losses were actually light on both sides. The Germans lost 18,000 men (5,000 killed), 120 tanks and 65 planes. Soviet losses were 48,000 men (18,000 killed and 9,000 prisoners), 90 tanks and 120 planes.

[1] For once here is the actual final deployment. I'm showing it as the next turn sees all those 45-50+ defensive stacks just broken as the Germans advance at will. Since they are mostly made up of Gds, this is not the 40NM problem but that the Germans are simply now far too strong at this phase under the current patch.

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 325
RE: Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 10:26:33 AM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline 		It's interesting, because on the surface looking at GHC counters and CV vs Soviet Counters/CV, it would seem impossible to break the line. If the Germans can get 50 CV per hex and attack from 2 hexes (not easy at this point), they can barely muster 2:1 odds against a Soviet 50 CV stack. I realize that there are other factors, use of reserves etc... But what I've been seeing in my game in some combats is German CV going from 1000 to 2700 and soviet CV going from like 800 to 600 during the actual resolution. So by assumption this would imply that the initial attack is being made at far less than the 2:1 odds and yet still successful. I also notice that tons of support and air is committed by the attacker and far less air and support is committed by the defender. But with such massive inflation in CV for the German attacks, how can one possibly defend regardless of the defensive CV stacks you build...

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 326
RE: Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 1:36:50 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		One should play with Alt CV to reduce amount by which CV on counter differs from actual CV in combat.

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 327
RE: Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 2:31:55 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Loki-First off your stacks are deceptively strong...most of your CV is coming from Fortifications.

If he organizes the attack right with Panzer units in the assault having alot of engineers none of your Fortification CV will count in the battle. So really all those stacks against the right assault forces are only 20 or so CV.

So not near as strong as they appear. Yes it will take an effort but since he is about 100% strength basically 1 panzer stack with a full attack can prolly break one of those hexes especially if he softens you up with airpower and uses a good German leader.

Your next issue is you army HQs should be parked on the tank corps- with that set up once he gets a hole he just has to drive thru and then that will displace your HQs making the entire rest of the line lose command and control and thus become a ton weaker. Always place HQs near the frontline with a combat unit even if its only a BDE of some sort so they can only be displaced by attacks not just German movement.

Also I dont know but if you moved them alot on your turn they could be quite fatigued which makes them fight worse by far. The germans due to higher experience level can move further and still fight well, Ive found soviet units if they move alot fight much worse end result.

Tank Corps as your reserves is abit weak- Cav Corps are much better as they have more Manpower- 1 battle and a Tank Corps is about useless for the rest of the turn. Also you should have your tank armies assigned to a front for more command rolls. Right now you get one roll probably at 6 Skill and then straight to Stavka....means if you fail the first roll your tank corps are actually fighting at about 25% or more less than printed CV. I did this by having one front that is nothing but tank/mech corps assigned to tank armies. Then where he moved the panzer ball I moved my entire tank front to match.

Shock armies = my local/front reserve forces and my tank front = my strategic reserves/counterpunch front. Still not sure I was happy splitting up all my shock armies 1 per front. It worked but until I got my tank front active later in 1942 it meant coordinated efforts between the shock armies was rough.

Just another key note but you always have to remember your fighting German movement as much as German CV. Really IMO should have left at least a 1 division screen in all that good terrain in front of your main position. Forces him to expend movement first to attack that unit then movement to actually move in and take the hex...not to mention more fatigue/disruption to his unit then your unit just gets pushed into the new MLR so not a bad thing. For this area being critical to Moscow I would have done a normal division screen then 2 div line then bde/div behind main line....then strategic reserves of picket lined tank/cav corps.

Other benefit of alot of units behind the MLR is you can put them all in reserve mode and usually get at least a couple defensive activations. I have found they rarely rout and even if they do and he wins it will just push the MLR troops back into the back up positions. You would be surprised sometimes 1 BDE defensively activating can shift the odds to just under 2.0 esp if the German player is doing hasty attacks or just trying to attack with enough to win to save MP for other moves/assaults. Creates uncertainty for the German player and forces overcommittment or failed attacks both good for you as Soviets.

Mattp- yes massive CV swings on assaults defense- alot has to do with how well prep'd the hex is and how good the leaders are more than anything. Lots of disruption/fatigue massively reduces final CV calculations. Is why having the best Soviet Generals in Key positions is critical. As it mitigates the German leadership edge in at least a couple locations. Next is bomb the German spearhead units every chance you get, and keep them in a Zoc if you can all the time. Dont let them get free turns of rest if they are trying to push assaults. Also if you leave them un- zoc'd you are losing out on german attrition.

A 500k pocket is a tough blow, but its almost mud and you have the reserves just a matter of rebuilding and digging in. Plus by 1943 your mobile forces will be stronger due to morale/experience increases not to mention better ToEs.



(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 328
RE: Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 2:45:59 PM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		@morvael: "One should play with Alt CV to reduce amount by which CV on counter differs from actual CV in combat."

Is this variance display only? (I.e., the combat CV is the same in either case, one just sees it estimated in "alt CV" games.)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 329
RE: Turn 66: 17 – 23 September 1942 - 9/13/2015 3:06:45 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		rrbill- yes Alt- CV just shows u what the effective CV should be with command and control, and leadership taken into effect.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: recon Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

0.875