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: December 1944

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: December 1944 Page: <<   < prev  176 177 [178] 179 180   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 7:37:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		A few notes...

Your move thru the Horn...is simply amazing. You constantly do things that I think will get you destroyed, and come out ok.

The Allies sweeping with Hellcats on day 1...I just can't understand. That he didn't set up sweeps at smaller bases 1 hex away to draw in leaking CAP hard to understand. That he sent in bombers on the very first day of the sweeps is also confusing, and that they were set to hit strategic targets down low and not the runways.

Allied miscues continue.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5311
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 8:06:36 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		RESOURCES ?? Why would he attack resources? Personally as a Japanese player I would love that. Everything is more valuable than resources.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5312
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 9:05:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Damned straight BABY!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 5313
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 9:47:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

A few notes...

Your move thru the Horn...is simply amazing. You constantly do things that I think will get you destroyed, and come out ok.

The Allies sweeping with Hellcats on day 1...I just can't understand. That he didn't set up sweeps at smaller bases 1 hex away to draw in leaking CAP hard to understand. That he sent in bombers on the very first day of the sweeps is also confusing, and that they were set to hit strategic targets down low and not the runways.

Allied miscues continue.


Should note on how much I knew this was a gamble. I accidentally left my Auto-Upgrade active when the Kido Butai disbanded in Port 6-7 weeks ago and I had EIGHT of nineteen CVs begin their upgrade. When I saw this...well...I didn't want to tell anyone. STUPID!

Couldn't just sit for that amount of time so we created two 4CV--1 CVL TFs and kept Hiryu and Ryujo on Tanker Escort duty shuttling tankers back-and-forth thru the Mindanao--Ternate Gap. Brought out the 2 TFs and needed to do something to stay viable so this raid was it. Now we'll dock at Soerabaja in three days and all seven of the upgraded CVs will be available within 4-5.

As to the burning fuel comment. It isn't any big deal. I have moved SOOOOOOO much oil and fuel out that the Fleet can be active for quite some time without issue. Have 50,000 aboard AOs and another 60,000 at Saipan presently. Will add 50,000 more with the pair of Tanker Convoys shuttling thru right now.

Dan has done recon every turn over Soerabaja for ages and never once took a swipe at the CV in Port. Yes--I had 250+ Fighters on CAP but--as we all know--the 4EB pretty much always gets thru. Was very nervous about that.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5314
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 9:50:12 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Almost everybody fails to turn off upgrades, but to have 19 carriers left...man your Japan is juiced!

How in the world did CR even agree to the game?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5315
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 10:04:26 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Almost everybody fails to turn off upgrades, but to have 19 carriers left...man your Japan is juiced!

How in the world did CR even agree to the game?


He was lied to? *cough* aircraft replacement *cough*


_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5316
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 10:05:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		NEITHER of us had a clue as to how out-of-whack this ancient version of RA is!

The current version is soooooooooooo far toned down compared to this one. This is why I didn't want to re-start the match when Dan asked. We had advanced the Mods so much in the intervening time that I didn't want people to think, as by your comment, that this is what the Mods are.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5317
RE: December 1944 - 9/27/2017 10:06:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Aircraft replacement is now fixed and HAS BEEN fixed for a long time. It is because of this match that we did that.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5318
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 7:24:58 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Here are the losses for the day:






Wow, this is good.

Where and how the P 51s were involved? Against what?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5319
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 11:22:23 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Add in that John and I learned how to adjust yearly pilot replacement rates just before the current version I'm using. . I was playing around in the Editor and found the right tab. I clicked on the four small boxes on the left side and saw the one that controls pilot numbers and skill levels for each year.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 5320
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 12:46:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The P-51s were bagged over China by a batch of Franks. I put them at 30,000 (on a whim) and they plastered the Mustangs on the dive starting the fight.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5321
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 2:19:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		December 11, 1944

The 1.0x10^6 stays in its exact same spot and hits Nagasaki again. This time the Allied Force runs into twice the number of fighters that they did the previous day.

Sweeps/Strikes
252 F vs 10 F4U
232 F vs 10 F4U
212 F vs 310 F4U--34 F6F Escorting 58 Avengers: WOW!
156 F vs. 37 B-24
120 F vs. 36 B-24
103 F vs 8 B-24
79 F vs 78 F6F

Here are the results. Nearly all of those Ops losses came from the Fall of Changsha today where 38 Fighter Airframes were lost before I could finish getting them out. The losses were nearly 1-1 in the air.

I really hope he comes in again tomorrow. Fly in more Fighters and set a low-level CAP Trap for the Allies. If he hits again tomorrow then we will release the Kamikaze and other units being held back and try to pierce a tired set of Fighter Pilots...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/28/2017 2:22:01 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5322
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 2:40:40 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


The difference here is that I don't believe in auto-victory. When I start I plan to go to the end...



CR believes in it. It's the only way an Allied player can win.


Not a fan of it as I think it causes players to play the game and not the simulation. I do think that if the Allies make it then they have probably done a petty good job of beating Japan. If Japan makes it then I think the Japanese player has a pretty weak-assed opponent. I really don't worry about it. I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 5323
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 2:55:48 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Where (and why) are you still flying the Ki-44-IIa and A6M4-J, John?

Re: air losses: Great! Any exchange of >1:2 for you pushes autovictory further and further back. Those B-24Js, PB4Y-1 and F-7As (42 total) cost him double VPs.

Plus, losing 7 F-7A liberators in one day? Ouch!

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5324
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 2:58:32 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.


Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? ) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5325
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 3:29:53 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		IF you both enjoyed the match and had fun doing so - does "winning the military" war matter? Does "winning the VP count" matter?



_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5326
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 3:59:12 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Not a fan of it as I think it causes players to play the game and not the simulation.



Uhm...I-R-Confused. For years everyone has been saying this is a game, not a simulation

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5327
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 8:28:06 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.


Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? ) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.


Well, as long as we are not playing for money. I don't really care if he thinks he won or lost. Actually Viberpol is my long term opponent and in our last campaign he surrendered the day of the Russian activation. He has ships and aircraft left but his supply and fuel pools were drained. He congratulated me on my win. I told him it was a draw because I really did not do anything more than the Allies actually pulled off. He was beat but I did not have any boots on the ground in the HI. Draw in my book.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5328
RE: December 1944 - 9/28/2017 10:58:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Haven't seen many Posts by Viberpol. Is he still around?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5329
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 11:59:16 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.


Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? ) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.


Well, as long as we are not playing for money. I don't really care if he thinks he won or lost. Actually Viberpol is my long term opponent and in our last campaign he surrendered the day of the Russian activation. He has ships and aircraft left but his supply and fuel pools were drained. He congratulated me on my win. I told him it was a draw because I really did not do anything more than the Allies actually pulled off. He was beat but I did not have any boots on the ground in the HI. Draw in my book.


I don't get this argument. If you did what the Allies did, you won because they won. Unconditional surrender (with one condition, but who's quibbling?). If that isn't winning, what is? They never landed on the HI, so you shouldn't need to either, if it's a sim.

The VP system and the victory conditions allow the Allies to win in other ways than having to channel everything toward the HI. This to me is a good thing for longevity of the game.

And if it IS a sim, as you say, then ignoring the core design can lead to strange things, such as NAGASAKI BEING BOMBED (!!!!), while Japan wastes ships and men plinking at Liberty ships down by Oz. In any reading of the Japanese Empire and culture would this have happened? Such an assault on national honor would have resulted in every single platform and man who could get home, coming home. The design encourages that, if it's respected. When four Liberty ships are 40 VP, and strat bombing can reap thousands in one night, the Japan player ought not to be down by Oz doing anything, sim or game.

Being half-pregnant--liking the plinking for 40 VPs because it's a rush to sink something, while still "not playing for an auto-vic"--can lead to bad games. The two opponents are playing different games in fact. The design genius of GG's system is Japan doesn't have to win to win. They just have to not lose. The Allies can't do better than a draw if they don't achieve auto-vic, and they have a timetable than makes pushing and risking mandatory. For an endeavor that takes four years or more that's pretty exciting.

Right now, in this game, I feel as if CR and John are playing two different games. Lowpe has posted extensively about how Japan can have a yabba-dabba-do time trying to stymie the Allied timetable, and win. I've learned from reading his posts, as I haven't been in an end-game for about five real time years. Even though Japan gets crushed every day, the design, if it is respected, can provide excellent gaming up to the last day.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5330
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 1:54:07 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 5331
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 4:33:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		December 12, 1944

The thoughts of opening up the bombers in Japan against the American 1.0x10^6 are smashed today when I do a fighter tally. The enemy targets Nagasaki again today to very little effect. There will be more on that later.

On the attacks there were 451 Naval Fighters accounted for. HQ moved a 36 plane Judy Kamikaze Group to Moppo to check the Allied CAP. Sure enough, they fly and attack. What they encounter staggers the High Command. They DBs run into 1,353 Fighters ON CAP! This makes a total of 1804 Fighters involved in attack and defense. We're not even talking about how many have the day off.

Holy CRAP!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 5332
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 4:40:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		December 12, 1944

"Gentlemen: The target for today is NAGASAKI. For the previous two days we have been weakening this target and today is MAXIMUM effort. The army pilots, in their fancy P-47 and P-51s, are even joining us at the party. Good Luck!"

The fight over Nagasaki and ground targets:

188 F vs 23 F4U
160 F vs 12 F4U
142 F vs 14 F4U
106 F vs 358 F and 117 Avengers Heavy Industry--14 Hits
62 F vs 25 F4U
28 F vs 19 F4U
9 F vs 3 B-24
5 F vs 45 P-47, 40 B-24 Light Industry--2 Hits
29 P-47, 10 P-38, 28 B-24 Light Industry--1 Hit
10 B-24
16 P-51
28 P-51

All this for 14 HI and 3 LI. Losses are posted below. They are serious but pilot losses are not too bad. Take out the Judy 'probe' and we're at 2:3 for fighters.

Rotate out--Rotate in.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5333
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 4:42:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		CAP 50% Range-0

Franks 9,000FT
Tony 7,000Ft
All Others 5,000Ft

Suggestions?



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5334
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 4:45:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		December 12, 1944

On the POSITIVE SIDE!

I-206 makes THREE separate attacks and SINKS THREE LSTs near Noumea! Down goes LST-910, LST-778, and LST-885.

A plaintive BANZAI can be heard from the South Pacific...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5335
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 5:06:38 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.


In the game space I think a lot depends on what is meant by "sim." A game like Kerbal Space Program, where you design and fly spacecraft from a 3rd-person POV, is a sim. We don't conn USS Fletcher. I don't know where the boundaries of the word lie. This is at least a "model" of the PTO. That has wiggle-room too.

But it's without question a "game." There is a score, and the score leads to a winner and a loser. Zero sum.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/29/2017 5:13:31 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 5336
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 5:13:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Holy CRAP!




I left one quote.

It's certainly a hill to climb. So you need all your pieces, and you need to use them relentlessly, without worrying so much about your losses. Care about mission kills, not sinkings.

As an AFB, the one thing I really hate in the late game is kamis. They do tremendous damage when they hit, and the ship they hit is most likely out of the war for the duration. We never know how many Japan has, what type, and what altitude they will come in on. You need a lot more of them on the axis you know his carriers live in. Any airframe, no matter how old, is useful. The AI, when it uses kamis, flies Willows at times. (!!) They die, but they eat up AA and CAP passes.

Every sub you've got should be west of the HI somewhere. DCs run out. You might get lucky. Again, think mission kill.

You've let his cluster of CVs psych you out for many months. At this point I recall a saying my dad brought home from Korea, courtesy of a USMC gunny: "They can kill you, but they can't eat you." Things could be worse. You know exactly where his strength is. Attack it. Don't dink. Swing for the fences.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5337
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 5:14:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Well said and VERY true Mr. Moose!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 5338
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 5:15:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.


In the game space I think a lot depends on what is meant by "sim." A game like Kerbal Space Program, where you design and fly spacecraft from a 3rd-person POV, is a sim. We don't conn USS Fletcher. I don't know where the boundaries of the word lie. This is at least a "model" of the PTO. That has wiggle-room too.

But it's without question a "game." There is a score, and the score leads to a winner and a loser. Zero sum.


You reminded me of the Great Naval Battles Series. THAT had some serious SIM angles to it.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 5339
RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 6:14:58 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		That Death Star CAP is ... impressive. It's interesting to see the air battles over Nagasaki as the stakes are implicitly higher right on your home turf.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5340
Page:   <<   < prev  176 177 [178] 179 180   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: December 1944 Page: <<   < prev  176 177 [178] 179 180   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

1.296