Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Surface Combat Sux

 
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 >> Surface Combat Sux Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 7:01:22 PM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		OK,
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

How often do you get a shot like that? It's 10 Jan 42...I'm thinking about breaking up the Brit TF into one-ship TFs just to see what happens. This is crap...
Post #: 1
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 7:29:29 PM   
Dr. Foo


Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Change Commanders.


I have had some rather questionable things happen as well. While playing Coral Sea my carrier planes would constantly go after AK's and not the carriers that were in range and spotted.

< Message edited by Dr. Foo -- 9/4/2004 6:19:46 PM >

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 2
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 8:00:38 PM   
cave_45


Posts: 8
Joined: 11/25/2002
From: Gloucestershire
Status: offline 		Those two ships probably acted as screen ships absorbing the fire from your TF. If you only have an average commander, but the AI is clued up a little more they will employ this tactic more effectively to avoid the loss of many ships.
As you admit the battle was completely one sided, the AI would not just sit arround waiting to be picked off one by one , they will flee, and with certain nominated ships try and provide a screen to let the others escape.

This seems to be what has happened here, I would suggest changing your surface commander, and possibly loosing revenge from the TF. In my own personal experience I have found 1 CA a couple of CL's and DD's works very affectively at smashing up enemy shipping, especially with a good commander.

Of course not all battled are not favourable, and the outcome will not always be what you hope... but there are a lot of variables so from time to time things will seem very unfair, ti's war remember there are no rules as to who wins and who looses, you can only try your best, and if it doesn work,.... try harder next time!

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 3
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 8:10:42 PM   
John B

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		This does seem to happen frequently in surface combat. But although we see the action as each ship firing in turn, they are actually presumably all engaging simultaneously. The "screening ship" idea may be part of it, but surface combat commanders do seem to have a habit of ordering all their ships to concentrate on one or two targets rather more often than they would historically. Itt seems to happen particularly when a combat surface task force engages an unescorted convoy. You would expect, when the opposition had DDs especially, for quite a few AKs /APs to go down , but often its only one or two, maybe 10% of the convoy.

(in reply to cave_45)
Post #: 4
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 9:25:57 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		is "Sux" a word?



_____________________________


(in reply to John B)
Post #: 5
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 9:58:00 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

is "Sux" a word?




I don't thinxo.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 6
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 10:11:06 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Welcome to the aggrivating world of "surface combat". Wait until you get the
"explanations" of how those two staggering six-knot wrecks "shielded" the rest
of the 7-11 knot targets from the attack of a group of 20-35 knot warships in-
tent on their destruction. On a clear day with good visibility......

It's a bug in the surface action system that arose from the desire to reflect the
rather common occurance of a few blazing (and very visable) targets to attract
a lot of fire during a night action. Unfortunately, it also shows up during daytime
actions when it produces rediculous results such as you experianced. Keep your
fingers crossed that the next patch will offer a fix.

_____________________________


(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 7
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 10:31:00 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I am waiting on the standard answer we have seen so many times.

"It is a 60 mile hex and some of the ships were not sighted".

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 8
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/4/2004 11:46:27 PM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		The commander was "top notch" for the Brits...he wasn't the problem, unless...

"TF Commander to All Ships: Now hear this, now hear this...OK, you see those two screening ships? OK, on my signal, I want all friendly fire concentrated on those two 6-knot tubs. Let the 24 other scantily-armed, slow-ass ships loaded with Japanese troops, equipment, and supplies escape. TF Commander, out."

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 9
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 12:01:43 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		Are there any examples of task forces dispersing to pursue a scattering task force? The only approximation I can think of was Leyte Gulf and the pursuit of Taffy 3 and the Japanese did not dispurse and did not engage or sink all 6 CVEs.

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 10
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 12:55:14 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Look at what happened in real life, then be thankful for a game that simulates it so well.

Leyte Gulf - overwhelming surface force gets marginal victory against screening forces and does not penetrate to the invasion transports at all.

Savo Island - surface force annihilates screening ships and does not penetrate to the invasion transports.

There's not much point in going on and on about this. I suggest that you attribute the "kill one let the other hundred go" results to fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want.

This game is already far too bloody in its naval combat results as it is. Leave it alone. Many's the surface force commander who broke off action on the basis of "if we continue, we'll be within range of LBA at first light," "there are reports of superior enemy surface forces just beyond the horizon," and the like.

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 11
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 1:12:44 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Look at what happened in real life, then be thankful for a game that simulates it so well.

Leyte Gulf - overwhelming surface force gets marginal victory against screening forces and does not penetrate to the invasion transports at all.

Savo Island - surface force annihilates screening ships and does not penetrate to the invasion transports.

There's not much point in going on and on about this. I suggest that you attribute the "kill one let the other hundred go" results to fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want.

This game is already far too bloody in its naval combat results as it is. Leave it alone. Many's the surface force commander who broke off action on the basis of "if we continue, we'll be within range of LBA at first light," "there are reports of superior enemy surface forces just beyond the horizon," and the like.


This would be fine, if we got the occasional decisive engagement. I certainly haven't played enough yet to know how often, if ever, decisive surface engagements do happen, but from what I've read on the forums here, they seem to be extremely rare.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 12
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 1:18:27 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Well, don't forget about the Battle of the Dogger Bank in 1915.

The British side, HMS Lion had been put out of action, and on the German side, the SMS Blucher had been reduced to a blazing wreck.

Admiral Beatty (HMS Lion) had wanted his second in command to go on after the rest of the German Fleet, as Blucher was going to sink anyway. Instead, his 2IC misinterpretted the signal, and used the remaining British battlecruisers to pound the Blucher until she finally turned turtle. Because of this, the rest of the German battlecruisers, a few of whom had suffered considerable damage, made good their escape. Very odd things can happen in war, for a variety of different reasons.

Such as the Battle of the River Plate. The Graf Spee could have easily eluded Force G, but Kapitan zur See Langsdorf mistook the 3 cruisers for destroyers, and closed the range. He did tealize what he had done until he was under 6 and 8" cruiser fire. Even Commodore Harwood (HMS Ajax) remarked "I can't understand what their captain is doing. If you have a longer reach than the other dellow, why get in close?).

Battles are a mixed, and confused thing.

Also, what you could be experiencing is like the convoy attack of the Admiral Shceer on HX 84. The Merchant cruiser Jervis Bay purposely drew the fire of the Scheer, so that the rest of the convoy could escape. In the end, the Scheer only netted a few ships, instead of the feeding ground of dozens of ships. Again, it is all part of the fast pace of battle, limited intel and communications, and the plain not realizing what is out there.

_____________________________

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 velkro)
Post #: 13
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 1:46:23 AM   
kew

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 8/10/2004
From: Vail, Colorado
Status: offline 		Perhaps this is the Chaos theory at work?

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 14
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 1:53:24 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		I disagree...

"Leyte Gulf" = The Japs were getting shelled by DDs, bombed by fighters and Avengers, and knew that a crapload of CVs were around.

"Savo Island" = More than 2 Allied ships were attacked, and they were COMBAT vessels, not cargo...they shot back.

In my game, the Jap convoy was moving at 6 KNOTS, deep inside MY LBA range and wayyyy outside of his, and getting shadowed by recon planes. My slowest ship was a 20-knotter. BUG BUG BUG

"fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want." = BUG

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 15
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 2:10:13 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		Scheer vs. merchant CRUISER could cause a skipper to want to take out the most dangerous vessel first, but not if it was Scheer vs. pea-shootin' cargo ships...

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 16
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 2:13:28 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		...Something tells me that the Scheer's opponents weren't limping along at 6 knots...

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 17
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 2:13:28 AM   
Tankerace


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

ORIGINAL: velkro

I disagree...

"Leyte Gulf" = The Japs were getting shelled by DDs, bombed by fighters and Avengers, and knew that a crapload of CVs were around.


Incorrect sir. The Fighters and Avengers, flying from Taffy's 2 and 3, had exhausted their stores of bombs and torpedoes after the first run. Subsequent runs were made by Macheguns only.

Second, there weresn't a "crapload of CVs around". The Japanese knew that Halsey had been lured away by Ozawa's First Striking force, and were at that time in the process of sinking his carriers. The Japanese knew that no massive airstrike would be coming for at least 6 hours.

The retreated due to the fact that the screening vessels put up a hell of a fight, and that he would have to depart at some point to make sure Halsey's Third Fleet couldn't get in range to launch.

I assume you are referencing the attack on Taffy 3, which aside from Surigao Straight was the only major surface attack at the time.

_____________________________

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 velkro)
Post #: 18
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 2:14:10 AM   
Tankerace


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

ORIGINAL: velkro

Scheer vs. merchant CRUISER could cause a skipper to want to take out the most dangerous vessel first, but not if it was Scheer vs. pea-shootin' cargo ships...


A merchant cruiser means a merchant SHIP with 2 to 4 6" guns., Not an actual Cruiser.

_____________________________

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 velkro)
Post #: 19
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 2:14:48 AM   
Tankerace


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

ORIGINAL: velkro

...Something tells me that the Scheer's opponents weren't limping along at 6 knots...


You are right. They were doing 9 to 11, the typical speed of an early British Merchantmen.

_____________________________

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 velkro)
Post #: 20
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:08:25 AM   
Montrose


Posts: 72
Joined: 8/30/2003
From: Gloucstershire UK
Status: offline 		Ahem - he's here again . Guys, you really don't have to try to make any convoluted imaginary leaps to try to explain this 'phenomenon'. This is just a very silly feature as clearly specified in the manual.

The game has been programmed to target the highest Detection Level ship on the other side (as Mike Scholl has said). Watch the replays, the only time you will not see a ship going for the highest DL target on the other side is when it is firing back defensively at someone who has just fired at it.

So, when it gets to it's turn to fire, a ship looks amongst the visible enemy ships for the one with the highest DL level, and fires at it. The stupidity is that obviously the ships with the highest DL are the ones which are already on fire. Result - massive concentration on any burning ship (even in daylight) to the exclusion of the others. You see huge amounts of hits on a very few ships while the rest are ignored.

I haven't attended a naval gunnery school, but would take a guess that target threat, mission, firer capabilities, friendly targetting and much other goodness is factored in to a fire plan. Was any Captain taught to always empty all his guns into the biggest inferno he could see and totally ignore everything else?

If ships were declared as sunk more regularly in surface actions (to force the firers to look for alternative targets) it would help. But we've all seen how long ships take to sink in WITP, even transports can take masses of hits before the AI declares them sunk. Factor this in with the single digit rounds of combat phases, and it is unfortunately exacerbated further.

Imagine you are commanding the Iowa. At 25,000 yards range you spot the Yamato about to open fire at you, and also a dead in the water, totally ablaze from end to end, minesweeper. As you watch all your guns swing over to the minesweeper, do you still think this system is remotely realistic?

Hehe, sorry for the rant. I love this game, but I can't stand this surface combat routine.

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please MATRIX PLEASE DROP DETECTION LEVELS AS THE TARGETTING DETERMINANT.

It's fine for determining who is visible, but for targetting anything else would be a huge improvement, even if they were just chosen randomly.

_____________________________

I spend my time building castles in the air, but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.

- Don Juan

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 21
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:11:17 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: velkro

I disagree...

"Leyte Gulf" = The Japs were getting shelled by DDs, bombed by fighters and Avengers, and knew that a crapload of CVs were around.

"Savo Island" = More than 2 Allied ships were attacked, and they were COMBAT vessels, not cargo...they shot back.

In my game, the Jap convoy was moving at 6 KNOTS, deep inside MY LBA range and wayyyy outside of his, and getting shadowed by recon planes. My slowest ship was a 20-knotter. BUG BUG BUG

"fate, command, circumstance, and whatever else you want." = BUG


Control yourself, you'll spurt.

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 22
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:12:37 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		Way to go Montrose! Now, it's off to put another 60 rounds into two more APs...

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 23
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:13:12 AM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		spurt

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 24
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:26:18 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: velkro

OK,
A Brit TF consisting of the Revenge, 1 CA, 4 CLs, and 2 DDs intercept 26 Japanese TKs, AKs, and APs with not a single warfighting ship amongst the Japanese TF. Out of the 26, 13 of them are already smoking after numerous air raids. This TF is moving at about 6 knots due to damaged ships. So, I turn on the combat display so I can see my fun.

You would think it would be a shooting gallery, right?

WRONG!

For some odd reason, every one of my ships decides to pummel a damaged TK and a damaged AP. Each of those two Japanese ships received like 55 hits. Not one other ship was even shot at!!! What the heck!!!???!!! Is my peoples stupid or is this a software glitch!?!? If you think about it, the Brits should have taken out like at least half of those tubs...it was daytime and the Japanese TF was SLOW. The Brits had full load of ammo and fuel and was set to "Patrol".

How often do you get a shot like that? It's 10 Jan 42...I'm thinking about breaking up the Brit TF into one-ship TFs just to see what happens. This is crap...


You have the right idea there... the game currently allows the TF that gets the worst of a fight to "teleport" to a neighboring hex. So if you break up your TFs into smaller groups, and place them around the hex that you will attack, you will can sometimes get two attacks on the same retreating TF.

In a way, this "feature" actually helps the Allies early on in a campaign game, because it means that you can spread your surface combat ships all over the place and really mess up the Japanese attacks and troop movements. And as a bonus, it means that if you run into a Japanese surface combat TF, you only loose one or two ships instead of a number.

Essentially, there is no way to wipe out a large transport TF without lots of attacks from lots of surface combat TFs, and preferably with lots of air attacks too. And in WitP transport TFs don't turn-and-run at the first shot as they did in UV and Pacwar. So they do stick around longer to allow more shots at them.

Does all this rationalization mean that the current targeting system is a "good" system? No, but it's all that we've got, and the designers appear to be "in love" with it, so I guess that we've just got to learn to live with it.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 25
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 7:16:04 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: velkro

spurt


Stick with it, velkro.

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 26
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 8:38:29 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		OK, back to redoing the surface rutines, If the forces split up, maybe we should also add a rutine for scatter where large ship concentrations of lightly armed ships break into smaller groups upon contact with more hevily armed ships that are less numerous, ending the debate about, "why didn't my ships shot target X?


SUX is a word Nic, is is latin for really really bad

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 27
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 8:51:49 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 9/5/2004 2:56:14 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 28
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 3:31:01 PM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		Actually, I think that the surface combat routine is fine the way it is.

If one imagines hitting a big gaggle of freighters all bunched neatly in a small area, then the results are hard to explain.

However, in fact, it was traditional for freighters -- when not escorted -- to run with picket ships. That is to say, one or two freighters would run a fair distance away from the pack. The idea is that the surface ships would see this freighter, he would radio in to the rest of the pack, which would scatter, moving off in all directions.

The task force commander then has the option of going after -- perhaps -- one or two more ships, or splitting up his own task force to go after multiple shiips. But, there is safety in numbers -- in terms of AA coverage, in terms of firepower in case the task force should run across some enemy surface ships. Plus, there is the fact that surface ships travelling in a straight line are at risk of submarine attack, and go through fuel quickly (reducing the amount of time they have on patrol). And, a fleeing merchant ship, if it is fleeing anywhere, just might be seeking the protection of some really big guns that happen to be in the area. Splitting up to pursue multiple targets is very dangerous. To get one or two more freighters, it hardly seems worth it.

So, I think, the existing model does a good job of capturing what would actually happen if a group of surface ships encountered freighters in the actual war. The picket ship would certainly die. The task force would be able to hunt down one or two additional ships. Then the task force would go back into traditional patrol mode.

< Message edited by Thayne -- 9/5/2004 1:32:34 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 29
RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/5/2004 7:10:26 PM   
velkro


Posts: 118
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		Spurt again. Come on, now. blah blah blah. Are you kidding me?

The existing model does not capture the fact that 26 slow, burning, unescorted Jap cargo ships got pounced on deep inside the DEI by ten or so fast combat ships, and only 2 Jap ships were targeted! This has been going on for 3 game days in a row now with the same result!

"TF Commander to all ships: Now hear this, now hear this: The movie tonight will be "Mildred Pierce". Oh, yeah, and if I catch anyone destroying more than 2 APs in one engagement, that officer will be cashiered! Now hurry up with those next two ships so we can get back to port, drink some tea at the club, and reload...That is all..."

(in reply to velkro)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Surface Combat Sux Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

4.406