Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

gamey turn 1?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> gamey turn 1? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 3:12:26 PM   
admiral56


Posts: 23
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		Lets say i'm playing japanese.

Would it be considered gamey to do 10, 20 or 30 landings/invasions (large and small)?

IMHO, 1st turn attack on PH always seems too weak, is it gamey to attack Manilla instead/also, where i can sink and damage 20+ subs?

_____________________________

Admiral56

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten."
Post #: 1
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 3:47:28 PM   
kaiser73


Posts: 394
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline 		it all depends on the house rules you set before with your opponent.

Most PBEM games use the "Only Port attack on turn 1 is on PH" rule. But it musts decided together.

About landing invasions, same thing.

It's hard to decide what is gamey. Many actions during turn 1 by Japan and Allies player can be gamey.
isn't gamey to evacuate Air from PHI in turn 1 when Japan is supposed to not have striked yet?
or to start evacuate as many lands as possible using a knoledge of Japan future strategy and strengh that Allies hadn't at dec. 8th (historically allies tried at least to defend before deciding to evacuate; many ally players start moving all they can out of SRA on turn 1-2 which is historically unrealistic).

Anyway, it all comes down to what you and your opponent agrees. Just an advice, try to set rules clear since the start. There's nothing worse than starting without clear rules. Cause the guy who will feel tricked by you most prolly decide to drop the game as soon as things won't go his way.

(in reply to admiral56)
Post #: 2
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 4:06:01 PM   
admiral56


Posts: 23
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		thanks Kaiser

Are there any ''standard'' house rules written out there?

Some I've seen that look good are:

only 1 port attack on turn 1
only PH as port attack on turn 1
only land troops under fighter cover (land or carrier based)
no troop/squadron movement for allies on turn 1
no TF creation for allies on turn 1

might be added:

no pulling out of squadrons out of their AO (area of operations like Phillipes, malaya etc...)
till ''key strongpoint'' (like singapore and manilla) falls/surrounded by overwhelming force.

suggestions???

_____________________________

Admiral56

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten."

(in reply to kaiser73)
Post #: 3
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 4:38:47 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The ones I use as Japan are
No port attack except PH. This is because of the time zone difference between Pearl and bases in SRA. Manila and Hawaii were connected by undersea cable (laid in 1905) so Manila was aware of Pearl harbor strike while it was still in progress. But it was still dark in Manila and so the Navy had time to get underway before any Japanese port attack could have been made. This ties to my rule #2
The Allies can issue orders west of PH. But not PH. All TF at sea can receive orders and the Allied player can issue orders because they know before any Japanese movement or landing or attack occurs that they are at war. China has been at war for 10 years so orders there are a no brainer.
Because only by exploiting history is it possible to send landings to certain bases I restrict my landings to only those that occur in Historical turn 1. (I use the turn to redeploy my forces) Also I stay inside my aircontrol. Any TF the is going to conduct a landing at any base not in historic turn 1 I send no closer then 4 hexes from target base. This gives the Allied player at least 24 hours advance notice of TF in area. Simply put no Japanese TF could have arrived unseen and unknown to conduct landings on Allied base. I place them where they can be spotted. (If they are not thats not my problem) But I don't use "Stealth TF"

Basically as Allied player I allow the Japanese to do whatever they want. I figure the fellow playing Japan has hisown ideas and I don't impose my viewpoint on him. (but any Japanese player who exploits the game is a sissy )

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 9:44:44 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to admiral56)
Post #: 4
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 5:12:11 PM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline 		I decided on the following
Japanese: Kido Butai may only attack installations, meaning the squadrons may not be set to naval attack (this is to stop KB from hunting the allied carriers during turn 1); otherwise, no restictions whatsoever.

Allied: no movement whatsoever, no orders. period. (Oh, well, china, ok)

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 5
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 5:20:43 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have found the "1 port attack only" and "allied move created TF's only" options to be agreeable to most people so far.

If you attack PH, you have to leave Manila, Singapore alone. And vis versa. Allowing the allied player to issue orders to created TF's allows him to redirect his CV's if he fears the first turn hunt.

Anything else goes.

(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 6
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 5:41:58 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		I have a problem with allowing unlimited attacks on turn one, even with the one port only attack, since in essence any landing at a port IS an attack.

Take Palambang, some Japanese players land forces there on turn one, but there are 2 CL's in port plus other ships. The rule of not creating TFs by the allies prevents them from being used, when in fact the chance that the Japanese would have gotten there undetected is remote. The bombardment task force wrecks havoc on the ships trapped in port cause the rule of no TF's.

Thus the Japanese player has free reign to ignore historical restraints while the allied player is stuck with historic play on turn one.

(in reply to admiral56)
Post #: 7
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 5:50:32 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I no longer go for Palembang turn 1. Gives the Allied player easy bombing with B17's. Had to modify that one.

Port attack, in my eyes, only denotes air attacks. Otherwise Singapore, Manila, and PH are going to get smacked.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 8
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 5:52:09 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Twotribes A Japanese player who uses a non historic turn 1 and requests the Allies not to give orders while he conducts ahistoric landings and bombardment attacks is exploiting the game and thus behaving like a Sissy

(He is using stealth technology, knowledge of enemy dispositions and is afraid of allowing any deviation from his plan.

Japan "That can't happen"
Allied "Why not"
Japan "It's not part of my plan"

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 9
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 6:43:12 PM   
admiral56


Posts: 23
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		Personnally, i dont like the 1 port attack with that many subs in manilla, I can see lots of AK's and auxilliaries, with sone DD's etc... in manilla, but not 25+ subs n manilla lined up for a turkey shoot

i would like for allies to be able to send at least 60-70% of those subs out to seea aon turn 1 to avoid a sub massacre.

As i jap, sinking all those subs (or severely damaging them) is much better than crippling some rusty old BB's...

my 2 cents...

_____________________________

Admiral56

"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten."

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 10
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/1/2004 6:54:08 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

is exploiting the game and thus behaving like a Sissy


Actually is is not "sissy" and not "gamey"

The correct term is "you are playing like WITP Girley Men"

Beezle
(Who lives in Cahleefohneeya where Arnie is Governator)

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to admiral56)
Post #: 11
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 12:47:19 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Simple solution is give Japan player a choice ... They can forgo the Dec 7th surprise toggle and be able to attack anywhere they want and as much as they want

If not, then they must follow the clock. One has to attack based on the clock TZ differences. You can't attack PH at dawn and ALSO attack Manila at dawn and ALSO attack Singapore at dawn and expect surprise.

Since dawn occurs hours apart in different locations, it is impossible to have surprise in all of them.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 12
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 1:13:37 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Thats fine but you still have to allow the Allied player to in put orders.

Example of why
A Transport TF moves 4 hexes per day. (2 hexes per movement phase) If the Japanese player is going to attack a base that is 16 hexes away it means his TF will be at sea for 4 days prior to arriving and commencing landing. Allied patrol AC have a range of at least 12 so the last 3 days the TF will be in range of being spotted. (72 hours for Allies to react. Allied reaction of moving a TF from one of their bases to another is not as provocative as a Japanese TF moving to within 72 hours of hostile action) It is simply an exploit for ther Japanese player to claim he could move unobserved. If he moves to 4 hexes and remain undected good for him. But if he is spotted the result is much more fair and honest then to suddenly on turn 1 begin unloading on a rear Allied base. A rear Allied base is simply a base that to reach the Japanese have to move through waters the Allies have air control over.
You cannot surprise Pearl Harbor if on Dec 5th a transport TF escorted by warships is spotted moving towards Palembang. (There is no legal peaceful explantion the Japanese goverment could have given. The Japanese were very carefull to keep all their transport TF within their own waters prior to PH strike.
Is it really asking too much for the Japanese to provide the Allied player with a 24 hours window to react when in reality he would likely have 3 times that?

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 6:15:03 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 13
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 1:22:43 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Since dawn occurs hours apart in different locations, it is impossible to have surprise in all of them.


Unless the person you are trying to surprise 8 time zones later is named Douglas MacArthur

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 14
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 1:35:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Mac was not surprised tacticly. (He might have been in shock that the Japanese were crazy enough to start the war) US Army bombers scored their first hit on enemy transports on first day of landings. The US Army airforce loss at start was not as legend has it "rows of neatly parked aircraft" but aircraft on fields refueling after flying ineffective missions or aircraft shot down by A6M2 escorting Japanese strikes.
A look at the map of the Philippines shows much of the problem. There are simply too many places for the Japanese to land for you to defend them all. Since a landing is a forgone conclusion you are left with two options.

Once you have developed the enemy intentions you respond with a rapid movement and destroy the landing. Or you concentrate at a place and fight a defense battle.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 12:52:19 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 15
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 7:45:06 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline 		I don't remember the exact date off hand, but I don't think the Japanese declared war on the Dutch until the landing at Tarakan on Jan 11. Now, while they were obviously aware that the war was coming their way, ABDA and all that, they didn't go out actively seeking the war either. But, on the other hand, the Japanese didn't go sailing thru Dutch territorial waters either before that date.

Unfortunately, the game isn't set up that way, in that Dutch units are able to actively work with and for the allies right away, thus making them targets for the Japanese.

That said, I guess the best way to handle that is the way that you do; allowing the Allied commands to react to the news of the PH attack only west of the dateline.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 16
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 8:09:11 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		December 7 Japan declares war on the United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Finland, Hungary and Romania.
Canada declares war on Finland, Hungary, Japan and Romania.
Panama declares war on Japan.
Greece breaks diplomatic relations with Japan.
Nicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Vichy France.
Norway breaks relations with Finland.
Yugoslavia at war with Japan.
December 8 The United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Nicaragua declare war on Japan.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 17
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 9:36:55 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline 		Retract my above comment regarding the date of the Dutch declaration...it should have read "the first overt move against Dutch territory" was on the 11th.

Irregardless, I agree that a Japanese landing force that was moving through the South China Sea toward Palembang or Batavia would have found someone waiting for them. How effective they might have been is questionable, but, they would have been aware.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 18
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 9:43:05 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Beezle
(Who lives in Cahleefohneeya where Arnie is Governator)


HAHAHA. That is too great Beezle.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 19
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 4:50:39 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		I always got a chuckle about *us* declaring war on Japan first. Mess with us will ya? We don't need the Yanks, we'll take you on all alone!

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 20
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 7:06:10 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		What is the public opinion on IJN going CV hunting on turn 1? Set KB a/c on Naval attack and send them to the *supposed* position of US CVs? But giving Allied player all the freedom he wants. Dirty trick or what? Japanese expected US CVs in the general area of PH historically, so one could argue they knew as much as any player knows...

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 21
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 7:27:06 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Oleg,
Dirty trik? Well not really those carriers are in three different groups on my turn one pbem game, and to attack only one and maybe not find it wastes your other options, and to attack two or three invites a cv trade, often I have seen the posts here of jap players cv's woes one early game turns.... jap cvs are too valuable and fragile ...etv

So not gamey but very risky.

In regard to the origonal? I do not think the Brits or the US where much aware of the December movement, pre war of shipping, and thus I could see borneo attacked t1, and raids at Hong Kong Singipore minila but only surprise at PH... maybe a new feature, actually it can be modeled as a ho rule with us not allowd to fly cap at Pearl and no Fleet formation..

< Message edited by freeboy -- 9/3/2004 1:27:30 AM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 22
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 7:57:17 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: admiral56

Lets say i'm playing japanese.

Would it be considered gamey to do 10, 20 or 30 landings/invasions (large and small)?

IMHO, 1st turn attack on PH always seems too weak, is it gamey to attack Manilla instead/also, where i can sink and damage 20+ subs?


The GAMEY portion of doing a massive number of invasions on the 7th as the Japanese
is that they were trying to achieve "suprise". If most of your navy has been spotted on
the 5th and 6th escorting massive convoys of troops far beyond any rational Japanese-
held destination, it's hard to argue for "suprise". Or against massive Allied reaction and
re-deployment to meet such obvious threats. Historically the Japanese landings on the
first day of the war were pretty much limited to Northern Malaya/Southern Thailand. The
convoys headed there could legitimately be assumed to be heading into the Gulf of Thai-
land right up to the last moment, and as Thailand was already pretty much in the Jap
camp, triggered worry but not reaction.

_____________________________


(in reply to admiral56)
Post #: 23
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 8:11:28 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What is the public opinion on IJN going CV hunting on turn 1? Set KB a/c on Naval attack and send them to the *supposed* position of US CVs? But giving Allied player all the freedom he wants. Dirty trick or what? Japanese expected US CVs in the general area of PH historically, so one could argue they knew as much as any player knows...

O.


The Japanese HOPED the US CV's would be in PH. They had NO idea where they were
otherwise. Players know EXACTLY where they are (which is what makes CV Hunting
even possible). They also KNOW that their A/C enjoy distinct "built in" advantages at
the start of the game. The Japanese THOUGHT they were better prepared and equipped,
but they didn't KNOW it down to the A/C values the way players do. Nagumo was wor-
ried sick he was putting his head into a noose. Players KNOW better. Hindsight is an
enevitable issue in historical games..., and limiting how much advantage the players
can take of it a major challange. Changing the basic historical moves based on game
knowledge is "pushing it". How bold would you be if you DIDN'T know every factor
involved down to the last decimal place? Suppose there was a 50-50 chance that the
PH strike was seen, all guns were manned, and all CAP was flying, and the US had put
TBF's into service early? You have to remember that the real commanders didn't know
SQUAT compared to what you know..., then decide how GAMEY your actions will be.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 24
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 8:14:07 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I always got a chuckle about *us* declaring war on Japan first. Mess with us will ya? We don't need the Yanks, we'll take you on all alone!


Hi, Canada did not like having it's troops in Hong Kong attacked.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 25
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 8:20:13 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The Japanese HOPED the US CV's would be in PH. They had NO idea where they were
otherwise. Players know EXACTLY where they are (which is what makes CV Hunting
even possible). They also KNOW that their A/C enjoy distinct "built in" advantages at
the start of the game. The Japanese THOUGHT they were better prepared and equipped,
but they didn't KNOW it down to the A/C values the way players do. Nagumo was wor-
ried sick he was putting his head into a noose. Players KNOW better. Hindsight is an
enevitable issue in historical games..., and limiting how much advantage the players
can take of it a major challange. Changing the basic historical moves based on game
knowledge is "pushing it". How bold would you be if you DIDN'T know every factor
involved down to the last decimal place? Suppose there was a 50-50 chance that the
PH strike was seen, all guns were manned, and all CAP was flying, and the US had put
TBF's into service early? You have to remember that the real commanders didn't know
SQUAT compared to what you know..., then decide how GAMEY your actions will be.


Hm.

Using CVs for port attack is generally stupid idea in the world of WITP/UV, and is very rarely used. It was like that in history as well - massive US raids vs. Truk and Rabaul later in war are basically "Naval attacks" on base hex, in WITP lingo. Seen like that, PH was maybe the *only* pure port attack in WW2 IIRC (at least in Pacific, lets forget about Taranto for now).

So, if you'd erase all my historical knowledge from my head, but kept my knowledge of WITP system, I would not be doing PH on turn 1, but will try to do something to catch US CVs.

The most important thing we know (and Japanese didn't) is that CVs are way more important than a bunch of old BBs. So how we do use that (legitimate) knowledge without being gamey?

O.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 9/2/2004 7:21:19 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 8:34:38 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Oleg that sounds reasonable. To make it fair the Japanese CV can move no farther then 5 hexes from Midway. (any direction) and the USN CV get to issue orders on turn 1.
Or if that is too much. Then allow IJN to go where they want but USN gets to give orders as well. It would be a waste of time for the IJN. The USN just heads south at full speed.
Now you have IJN CV needing fuel and their oilers many hundreds of miles behind. (The tankers move as far as they can already. No change in orders will get them further south.)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 27
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 9:25:26 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Oleg,
Want to do a small five day ocean only pbem simulating this with me... you set my forces at random start advanced damage and weather, then go looking, I won't hide either, at least not too much?

< Message edited by freeboy -- 9/3/2004 3:25:45 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 28
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 9:27:26 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Oleg,
Want to do a small five day ocean only pbem simulating this with me... you set my forces at random start advanced damage and weather, then go looking, I won't hide either, at least not too much?


OK, will do. What was your mail again?

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 29
RE: gamey turn 1? - 9/2/2004 9:31:09 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		sent you note with info, when will you send the turn? Just so I'll be looking for it, I'm on Mountain Standard Time, Denver.. US.. and I think you are in Europe.. like +8 from me...
Thanks.. we will let you see the results in an aar if Oleg consents...

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> gamey turn 1? Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.750