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: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features

 
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] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
[Poll]

RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests Go Here]


Downed pilots / CSAR (without using the EE)
  13% (72)
Improve weather modelling (local fronts etc.)
  12% (66)
Dedicated sensor page on DB viewer
  3% (21)
Intermittent sensor settings
  5% (28)
TOT planner/Advance Strike Planner
  29% (155)
Display weapon firing arcs in DB viewer
  1% (7)
Custom draw on map
  3% (16)
Additional contact info for passive sonar contacts
  1% (6)
Ability to group ref points
  0% (2)
Ability to name grouped ref points
  1% (6)
Sprint and drift while on mission
  1% (6)
Order weapons with active datalinks to self destruct
  0% (1)
1/3rd rule option for strike missions
  0% (1)
Multiple map windows
  2% (12)
WEGO MP
  4% (26)
Real-time MP
  9% (48)
Mid-flight mechanical breakdowns on aircraft
  0% (1)
Expand space ops (Shuttle / Skylab, armed sats etc.)
  1% (8)
Sunrise/sunset/nautical twilight calculator
  0% (1)
Option to enable a message when a vehicle reaches a specific waypoint
  0% (3)
Ability to change color of grouped refpoints and shaded patrol areas
  0% (3)
Aircraft Maintenence and Support Crew Modeling
  1% (10)
Player's Alarm Clock
  0% (1)
Collateral Damage Zone (CDZ)
  0% (2)
Unit proficiency affects adherence to ToT
  0% (0)
Optional "Beginner" GUI
  1% (6)
Make sonobuys and refpoints unselectable when invisible
  0% (0)
Ability to deactivate (destruct) sonobuoys
  0% (0)
Use "Areas" or "Routes" to simplify refpoint management
  0% (2)
Display unit thumbnail image right next to unit icon
  0% (0)
Customizeable soundslot per unit-type (hear a sound when select a unit
  0% (0)
Display time at current rate to charge SSK batteries to full
  0% (0)
Lag in obtaining info from non-realtime intel/recon assets
  0% (3)
Hotkey to change sonobuoy visibility
  0% (0)
Attack a Reference Point
  0% (4)
Show unit weapons list (nominal) for identified contacts
  0% (0)
Reverse targeting vectors (show who is targeting selected contact)
  0% (3)
Helo in-flight refuelling (from ships)
  0% (3)
Apply the 1/3 rule to Ferry Flight missions
  0% (1)
Extra filter on DB-viewer for platform sub-type
  0% (0)
Refuel Option: Set amount of fuel to take on
  0% (3)
Ability to resize icons so big icons in small countries don't overlap.
  0% (0)
Message Log option to hide messages that break fog of war.
  0% (0)
Hover (RAST) refueling for helicopters
  0% (2)
Filtering and search added to add cargo dialog
  0% (0)
Ship Towing
  0% (4)


Total Votes : 533
(last vote on : 2/3/2022 4:12:52 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/15/2018 8:45:35 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944


Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.


Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 811
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/15/2018 11:30:53 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx


quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944


Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.


Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

I mean, if you're going to do over-penetration, we might as well add JDAM impact angle and fuse settings to the manual fire dialog

(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 812
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/16/2018 6:57:03 PM   
SunlitZelkova

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx


quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944


Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.


Weaponeering in Command is a dark art enough as it is. Now I have to consider over-penetration?

I mean, if you're going to do over-penetration, we might as well add JDAM impact angle and fuse settings to the manual fire dialog


Fuse settings would be nice too! For nuclear weapons, selecting the yield would also be handy, as well as detonation altitude.

_____________________________

Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin

(in reply to ExNusquam)
Post #: 813
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/17/2018 8:52:46 AM   
NimrodX


Posts: 82
Joined: 5/12/2018
Status: offline 		Draw radius circle around ruler tool.

make ruler tool persist on screen until next time Ctrl-D is hit.

(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 814
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/17/2018 3:55:23 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline 		Still looking for an in-game timer. One that you can set to go off at a certain time or after certain amount of time and pauses the game with a message.

(in reply to NimrodX)
Post #: 815
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/22/2018 5:14:17 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Suggest over-penetration and failed warhead features in CMANO:.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CavasShips/status/996212808617426944


Malfunctioning missiles/bombs/shells is already a thing I think.

Over penetration would be nice though.


I think over-penetration is the sort of thing that is already taken into account with a general "probability of failure". Adding a seperate, curated, "probability of over penetration" would not bring much extra to the simulation.

Sometimes whan a bomb, AA missile or torpedo (etc) "misses" or "malfunctions", its representing the probability of of things like GPS failure, power failure, dud fuse, faulty datalink, ricochet, dumb luck or perhaps "over penetration".


(in reply to SunlitZelkova)
Post #: 816
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/22/2018 7:16:54 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

I think over-penetration is the sort of thing that is already taken into account with a general "probability of failure".


Can't deny the missile might have failed, but still can be a lethal failure:

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201607020003.aspx

If not the OP, this fishing dingy will turned into a confetti. Surely it's armed with a deadly warhead, but not set off inside the boat. As tested in CMANO many times in attempt to replicate such incident, either a full-blown destruction, or the failure nullify the threat entirely.

_____________________________


(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 817
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/23/2018 12:24:26 AM   
NimrodX


Posts: 82
Joined: 5/12/2018
Status: offline 		Saving games and other data in the user directory would be helpful for managing backups.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 818
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/23/2018 5:18:10 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline 		Lethal failure = a succesful hit to the simulation engine, in other words, you can expect a conventional hit and an lethal over-penetration to look identical inside CMANO, which IMO is already happening.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 819
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/24/2018 4:29:55 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Lethal failure = a succesful hit to the simulation engine, in other words, you can expect a conventional hit and an lethal over-penetration to look identical inside CMANO, which IMO is already happening.


I was talking about the detonation effect, calculated to DP bonus in CMANO. I also know a tomahawk with more remaining fuel in it could cause bigger damage than lesser because of the FAE, but only works when achieved adequate penetration.

OP however is indicate the missile warhead goes off too late, or even a dud, that the remaining kinetic energy will go through the ship hull, the shorter of the cutout width, the more likely to cause OP. The target will not receive DP bonus when warhead explode outside the ship, unless it's a fixed, land-based unit that being bombarded vertically, since ground cannot be overpenetrated.

Here's the example, see how much the detonated force of energy escaped from the other side. If they are all inside the ship, it'll rain a shower of steel already:



< Message edited by Dysta -- 5/24/2018 4:46:25 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 820
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/27/2018 12:54:27 AM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline 		Requesting the ability for players to select which hangar/tarmac space their aircraft are stored in on an airbase, or for the computer to store aircraft in the least damaged hangars/tarmac spaces by default.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 821
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 5/29/2018 5:21:36 PM   
BDukes

 

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline 		Can please we have back button on database viewer?

Issue when click to weapon but then have to go through list below to get back to platform. Not a big deals with some things but like American DDG or CG lots. Back button me much easier.

Low priority.

THank!

(in reply to Excroat3)
Post #: 822
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/8/2018 7:38:00 AM   
Lunex

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/5/2014
From: Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi,

I'm the author of the Command Scenario Browser , a software for filtering and finding the right scenario to play.
As of now there is no way to start the Command apllication with a scenario as parameter - so you can find yourself a nice scenario in the tool, but you have to choose it in CMANO by hand afterwards.

I suggest registering *.scen files with windows and the Command application to accept a scenario file with path as parameter.
(The launcher should forward any start parameters to the application)

This would enable double clicking scenario files to start Command with it in explorer and the Command Scenario Browser .

best regards
Lunex

(in reply to deepdive)
Post #: 823
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/8/2018 7:15:54 PM   
mats0916@rogers.com


Posts: 75
Joined: 6/17/2014
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi

I would like to suggest a possibility to rename multiple reference points at once.

And while I am at it I would like to suggest the possibility to change throttle and/or altitude for multiple selected waypoints.

Lastly I would love to have a pan function for the map if I press the middle mouse button

Cheers and thanks for a great game. You have come a long way since Harpoon 3

_____________________________

Cheers,
Mats

(in reply to Lunex)
Post #: 824
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/14/2018 2:11:45 PM   
Rain08

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/18/2016
Status: offline 		Be able to plot the course for multiple missiles that's going in the same general area. For example when you plan to do a Tomahawk strike on an airfield and you want to direct them to the blind spots. Instead of individually plotting the course per target, you should have the option to select multiple missiles and have the course plotted together. I suppose this is more of a convenience thing since it's really annoying to plot the same course over and over again for multiple missiles.

(in reply to mats0916@rogers.com)
Post #: 825
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/14/2018 5:25:58 PM   
Filitch


Posts: 423
Joined: 6/25/2016
From: St. Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rain08

Be able to plot the course for multiple missiles that's going in the same general area. For example when you plan to do a Tomahawk strike on an airfield and you want to direct them to the blind spots. Instead of individually plotting the course per target, you should have the option to select multiple missiles and have the course plotted together. I suppose this is more of a convenience thing since it's really annoying to plot the same course over and over again for multiple missiles.

You could allocate several missile per target and plot course for whole bundle.

< Message edited by Filitch -- 6/14/2018 5:29:09 PM >

(in reply to Rain08)
Post #: 826
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/15/2018 1:00:45 AM   
Rain08

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/18/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Filitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rain08

Be able to plot the course for multiple missiles that's going in the same general area. For example when you plan to do a Tomahawk strike on an airfield and you want to direct them to the blind spots. Instead of individually plotting the course per target, you should have the option to select multiple missiles and have the course plotted together. I suppose this is more of a convenience thing since it's really annoying to plot the same course over and over again for multiple missiles.

You could allocate several missile per target and plot course for whole bundle.


I mean for example striking an airfield. It would involve striking multiple targets however those targets would be in the same general area. Currently you can't bundle the plotting since a target is classified as its own so you have to individually plot the missile (group) for each target.

(in reply to Filitch)
Post #: 827
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/19/2018 4:02:25 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2428
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline 		I know I placed it in the main forum. Just to make it official; not sure you could implement

Not sure without looking at code how easy this would be...

You do a great many things with 'zones'.
What of being able to put a different set of weather conditions inside of a zone.
I was thinking particularly in the case of Vietnam, weather over the flight deck might be clear, but the weather over Khe Sahn would be fogg or foggy/rainy...
You get the idea.

I know there would be limitations to that idea, but since most of the scenarios are short in duration anyway, it might allow for some interesting conditions.

As I thought about it... one of the big issues might be if the firer is outside the zone, and the target is in the zone.
Anyway, it was just a thought to put out there.

_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to Rain08)
Post #: 828
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 6/20/2018 5:19:35 PM   
obrien979

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/18/2018
Status: offline 		Here are my requests for future features:
1. Easier Panning of the Map: Would like to see a better way to panning the map. Currently the use of the arrow keys is slow and doesn't allow for easy switching between locations. The Right Click method is also slow and doesnt allow for easy in panning. Suggestion would be to Incorporated an additional button, like Left-Ctrl and Right Click & hold, this will allow for quick and smooth panning.

2. Tactical Graphics: The ability to add tactical graphics would help tremendously by adding a sense of real military planning. The use of MIL-STD 2525C is widely used in all military operation planning and in all command and control facilities.

3. Better Search options in DB Viewer: This is a big one on my list and probably several others. I would like to suggest adding search options, like "by sensor type", "by weapons", "by DBID". This would help greatly when trying to research multiple aircraft and ships to determine which one is best suited for the job. Also it helps in faster reference to the correct item.
------------------------------------
The following are some additional features I would like to see, but no on my top list.

A) Allow escort option for ferry missions and support missions: This could potentially allow for mission designers and players to assign a group of Fighter Jets to escort a VIP Ferry Mission or maybe to have a fighter jet trail a GLobal Hhawk while on station to protect against incoming Enemy Jets.

B) Mission Planner / TOT Coordination Planer: Allows players and designers to add some more realistic military planning to this. Have the ability to plan a mission with several different planes from across the map at different locations, and have them all drop their bombs precisely at the same time on multiple targets giving the "Shock and Awe" effect.

C) Blocking out irrelevant content from Database Records: Suggest blocking our irrelevant data, for the version you have, from the Database Viewer to reduce the the need to try and make, for example, Commo connections work; I personally fought with that exact thing until I finally gave up and asked the forum about the commo model. Only to find out that commo networks are truly model and used in Pro Editions. Either block the sections that will not work with commercial version (or whatever edition you way have) on increase the use and functionality of the Commo Model for the commercial edition.

Thank You for your time in reading this and I look forward to any future discussions.



_____________________________

BOB

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 829
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/20/2018 5:34:15 PM   
p1t1o

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

quote:

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Lethal failure = a succesful hit to the simulation engine, in other words, you can expect a conventional hit and an lethal over-penetration to look identical inside CMANO, which IMO is already happening.


I was talking about the detonation effect, calculated to DP bonus in CMANO. I also know a tomahawk with more remaining fuel in it could cause bigger damage than lesser because of the FAE, but only works when achieved adequate penetration.

OP however is indicate the missile warhead goes off too late, or even a dud, that the remaining kinetic energy will go through the ship hull, the shorter of the cutout width, the more likely to cause OP. The target will not receive DP bonus when warhead explode outside the ship, unless it's a fixed, land-based unit that being bombarded vertically, since ground cannot be overpenetrated.

Here's the example, see how much the detonated force of energy escaped from the other side. If they are all inside the ship, it'll rain a shower of steel already:




I understand what is meant, but weapons in CMANO have a probability-of-failure which can be said to encase all modes of failure not explicitly calculated, eg: overpenetration.

The same can be said of probability-of-hit, this can be said to represent succesful hits and failures-which-still-cause damage, such as a dud ASM that penetrates and causes catastrophic fires.

Adding a mechanic that changes the damages level based on remaining fuel? That could be ssaid to be taken into account by the variable damage model.

Im not saying these kinds of less-than-perfect hits or misses shouldnt be modelled, Im saying that they already are, in a cover-all fashion.

Whether or not it is worth adding the CPU cycles to calculate dedicated conditions is another matter - what would it really add to the simulation? When a vampire fails to cause damage to your ship, does it matter if it was a physical miss or a ricochet off the hull? If a vampire hits your ship, does it matter if the damage is caused by the warhead or by a dud missile penetrating an ammo magazine?

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 830
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 6/21/2018 6:48:28 PM   
Excroat3

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline 		I don't think we have this already, but having an option for the player to select what stores to jettison, or just having a "jettison ordnance" option, rather than just having aircraft jettison only when under attack. Would be useful for aircraft low on fuel and you need to lighten the load they are carrying.

(in reply to p1t1o)
Post #: 831
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features [Feature Requests ... - 7/9/2018 10:19:44 AM   
Talisman

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline 		Hey guys, one of the features I like most about CMANO is the message log. It provides a window into the heart of the simulation and enriches the games experience greatly!

I see there is a 'Print Log to File' feature, which saves a .txt file to the game root, but I would really love a slightly more powerful log export feature.

Firstly, it's a wealth of data, so it should ideally be stored and thus exported in .CSV or similar format. This would make the post-game presentation, sorting, filtering and ultimately, analysis of the data so much easier.

Another big thing for me would be the ability to record the message logs of all in-game sides, not just the player side. Assuming the data was in .CSV format, one could then filter by side, message type, unit type etc. etc. to review the build-up to and culmination of any event from the perspective of all involved.

Just a thought...

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 832
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 7/15/2018 6:33:51 AM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline 		Submarine specific Suggestion:

A tickbox to automatically order a submarine to go above and beneath the layer in intervalls to check for sound contacts on both sides of the layer.

(in reply to deepdive)
Post #: 833
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 7/19/2018 4:29:17 PM   
tjhkkr


Posts: 2428
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

Submarine specific Suggestion:
A tickbox to automatically order a submarine to go above and beneath the layer in intervalls to check for sound contacts on both sides of the layer.


That is kind of a neat idea.


_____________________________

Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 834
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/1/2018 1:58:34 PM   
drakk0r

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/12/2007
Status: offline 		Control over towed array deployment would be nice. Currently towed arrays are not deployable in shallow waters, and do not take into account how deep the platform is. So a sub in 800 ft of water 10 ft over the sea bottom can deploy but a sub in 100 ft of water at periscope depth cannot.

Also, greater control over the towed arrays would allow you to choose whether you listen above or below a layer.

(in reply to tjhkkr)
Post #: 835
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/1/2018 7:42:59 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

Submarine specific Suggestion:

A tickbox to automatically order a submarine to go above and beneath the layer in intervalls to check for sound contacts on both sides of the layer.


They should do this already, if you assign them to an ASW patrol.

Subs with a towed array will alternate between IIRC intermediate depth and "just above layer", to let their array hang under the layer while themselves remaining above it. Subs without a TA will periodically duck under the layer in order to let their hull sonars listen.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 836
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/1/2018 8:34:06 PM   
HellcatOne


Posts: 79
Joined: 7/25/2017
From: Italy
Status: offline 		simply question: If i have a game feature request, i write here or open another topic?

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 837
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/2/2018 8:03:37 AM   
Rory Noonan

 

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline 		Posting it here is the best way

_____________________________


(in reply to HellcatOne)
Post #: 838
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/9/2018 11:41:23 PM   
AlphaSierra

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/13/2017
Status: offline 		I would love to see a way to save a particular formation (air or surface) and be able to execute that pre-planned formation at will.

Thank you.

_____________________________

I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones

(in reply to miller7219)
Post #: 839
RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features - 8/12/2018 8:56:44 AM   
serjames

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 2/21/2016
Status: offline 		Ability to land helicopters in the field (obviously subject to Terrain etc) e.g. insert of Special forces and then hold on the ground for recovery.

Ability to search with text in the OOB viewer

Ability to see Ground units stored as Cargo either in vehicles or buildings in the OOB viewer

Pop-up message when an aircraft lands and defaults to reserve loadout... (must be the MOST frustrating thing to come back to an airbase after 3 hours and find ALL your strike aircraft now sitting there empty... (!!!) The log message isn't enough here we need something more interactive. An alternative loadout on the DOCTRINE might be useful? E.g. no strike loadout - then defer to X loadout, then y loadout etc

Edited to add: Seconded the ability to Jettison ordinance on command

< Message edited by serjames -- 8/13/2018 8:49:28 PM >

(in reply to AlphaSierra)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: RUNNING POLL - gameplay features Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   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

2.219