RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

canuck64 -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/1/2006 8:44:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Question:

Is there any difference in 'Air Shock' and 'PGM Modifier' for PGM equipped aircraft (assuming both are set to the same level). In other words, can I achieve a better Air to Ground result for ALL aircraft (not just PGM equipped ones) simply by increasing the 'Air Shock' to a similar value?

If the Air Shock value is increased on both forces, will that result in a wash when it comes to Air to Air combat or will it still be substantially more lethal with a higher Air Shock value?

Thanks in advance!




Now these are admittedly solid points to look into, is my thinking...I've wondered about the same thing.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/1/2006 9:29:16 PM)

quote:

rather than say it's your PREFERENCE that air be modelled more powerfully, you argue that the engine is "broke".


I say is 'broke' because the power already exists, just not in the hands of the player. In a GAME is that really the best way to handle it? This has NOTHING in the world to do with airpower in the 'real world' anymore. Its simply the way the game handles it that I dont care for...AI controlled airpower (ie, random interdiction strikes) work fine (and some say too well), but player designated strikes accomplish next to nothing.

My original complaint still stands...why are BOMBARDMENT ATTACKS (especially using airpower) so weak vis a vis computer initiated INTERDICTION ATTACKS (which appear to be quite effective and even dont seem to suffer losses like the Bombardments).

So, once more, for the record...Air power AS A WHOLE seems OK in its effects....this is largely because Interdiction IS effective. Bombardment by air is completely ineffective, even when called in on the SAME target status (ie, mobile and moving along a road or clear area). I contend that the disparity should not be anywhere NEAR this great.

But nowhere in the above does it matter what REAL WORLD air power can or cannot do...I just want one part of the engine (ie, the player controlled) to be consistant with the other part (ie, the random AI controlled).

Is that such a bad thing for a game that the PLAYER is supposed to be playing?



Chuck2 -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/1/2006 10:21:21 PM)

Good points, I think it is impossible to except everyone to agree - especially for hypothetical situations. However, the tools are there for designers to modify the scenario environment more along the lines of their views.



PDiFolco -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/1/2006 11:44:42 PM)

There'll always be opponents to any views, even things like "earth is round" were difficult to pass ;) .
Just add my vote to the proponents of air model changes...[:'(]




Chuck2 -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/1/2006 11:57:11 PM)

Excuse me, the world is flat:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374292884/102-7347484-0408141?v=glance&n=283155

[:D]



Bloodybucket28th -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:01:25 AM)

I'm all for making the disparity betwen interdiction and strike results smaller...however, I think that toning down interdiction (in pre pgm scenarios, at least) is the way to go, rather than upping strike results to any great degree.

I hope I haven't come across as contrarian, and I've enjoyed the debate. The free exchange of ideas about TOAW is half the fun!




PDiFolco -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:01:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Excuse me, the world is flat:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374292884/102-7347484-0408141?v=glance&n=283155

[:D]


Oh yeah, and TOAW air warfare is correctly modelled [:D]...



ralphtricky -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:03:51 AM)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/



Industrial -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:11:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/



I demand a new TOAW tile called 'End of the World' which would allow me to push my opponents forces off the edge and into Walhalla! For the sake of realism, do it now [&o]



ralphtricky -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:24:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

rather than say it's your PREFERENCE that air be modelled more powerfully, you argue that the engine is "broke".


I say is 'broke' because the power already exists, just not in the hands of the player. In a GAME is that really the best way to handle it? This has NOTHING in the world to do with airpower in the 'real world' anymore. Its simply the way the game handles it that I dont care for...AI controlled airpower (ie, random interdiction strikes) work fine (and some say too well), but player designated strikes accomplish next to nothing.

My original complaint still stands...why are BOMBARDMENT ATTACKS (especially using airpower) so weak vis a vis computer initiated INTERDICTION ATTACKS (which appear to be quite effective and even dont seem to suffer losses like the Bombardments).

So, once more, for the record...Air power AS A WHOLE seems OK in its effects....this is largely because Interdiction IS effective. Bombardment by air is completely ineffective, even when called in on the SAME target status (ie, mobile and moving along a road or clear area). I contend that the disparity should not be anywhere NEAR this great.

But nowhere in the above does it matter what REAL WORLD air power can or cannot do...I just want one part of the engine (ie, the player controlled) to be consistant with the other part (ie, the random AI controlled).

Is that such a bad thing for a game that the PLAYER is supposed to be playing?

Just to set the record straight here. Elmer (the AI) plays by the same rules you do. He does have a slight advantage in proficiency, but that's it.[sm=00000018.gif] Other than that, as far as I can tell, he plays in the same 'universe' that you do.

The game mechanics may make a distinction between interdiction and combat support, I haven't checked, but what I'm hearing is that there is a difference.

There are two very good reason that interdication and bombardment are of different stengths. I'll be more than happy to debate the first, but I think that resources for this are going to be hard to find.

I see interdiction attacks as being attacks of opportunity determined by intelligence or other factors, that are against moving vehicles/equipment. Bombardments are attacks against an opponent that has had a couple of hours to prepare, and is spread out and ready to mount a defense. Yes, they are going to be different, but see the flat earth discussions about 'obvious' things. If anyone has any references that prove that attacks against static postions are going to be as effective or more effective than attacks against movung units, or if you have other ideas on what these are an abstraction for, I'd be glad to hear what they are.[&:]

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack... If you can sicerely pick A, I'd really like to play you PBEM.[sm=sterb032.gif]

I'm not saying that there may not be problems with the Air modeling, or that it may not be changed in the future. I can easily believe that some of the abstractions that apply for WWII don't apply in modern warfare, although the data posted from the Gulf war seem to indicate that they aren't as changed as one would think. See again, the Flat Earth references[:-]

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer



ralphtricky -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:30:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/



I demand a new TOAW tile called 'End of the World' which would allow me to push my opponents forces off the edge and into Walhalla! For the sake of realism, do it now [&o]

How about a Mount of Doom tile first, once the LOTR scenario gets worked on again!

Anyway, I can see the combat report now...
Ist Calvary retreats...
Off the edge of the world!
And is destroyed!!!
Ring LOST!!!
-100 VP!!!




Industrial -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 12:32:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack... If you can sicerely pick A, I'd really like to play you PBEM.[sm=sterb032.gif]



I use Air power for CS during the first 80% of my turn and than can set them to Interdiction if I want to, has exactly the same effect as having them on 'I' during my entire turn. (Keeping fingers crossed for no turn burns or my AF will be ineffective during my opponents turn)

Maybe you can do something about that? Like, setting them on 'I' automatically sets their movement points to zero?

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 1:48:12 AM)

quote:

Just to set the record straight here. Elmer (the AI) plays by the same rules you do. He does have a slight advantage in proficiency, but that's it. Other than that, as far as I can tell, he plays in the same 'universe' that you do.


By 'AI Control', I mean Interdiction strikes, which the player has no control over, not the PO. Players cant 'order' Interdiction strikes and that is, by far, the most effective use of air power ATM.

quote:

I see interdiction attacks as being attacks of opportunity determined by intelligence or other factors, that are against moving vehicles/equipment. Bombardments are attacks against an opponent that has had a couple of hours to prepare, and is spread out and ready to mount a defense.


In theory, I agree. But this is a turn-based game. So enemy units arent moving and then stopping every time its my turn...there should be some abstraction of continuous movement. Which is I why I mentioned perhaps attacking Mobile/Tac Rsv/Local Rsv closer to the resolution of an Interdiction strike.

quote:

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack


Again, granted but there are a few points:

1) There are (many IMO) times when you want to interrupt the enemy's movement. That is, by far, the most power effect of Interdiction in the short term IMO. And that isnt possible if you wait till your turn to order the strikes. So even if the results were much closer, yes, I still would use Interdiction as a method of screwing up opposing movement (and hence potentially spoiling attacks or flanking etc). Its about the timing in this case and that to me, is a valid trade-off.

2) The results dont have to be night and day like they are now. Something closer, but with the edge towards interdiction would be far superior to my mind. I agree that they shouldnt be 100% equal, but the current model is not even close!

quote:

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?


Another thing along these lines is aircraft flying Air Superiority missions often get 'knocked off' of their mission. They are still fine and I can put them back on mission at will, but its just a micromanagement hassle. Unless the unit is thrown into 'reorganizing' or somesuch, it shouldnt 'forget' its mission requiring the player to babysit them multiple times in a turn.

Thanks for the input!




ralphtricky -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 1:56:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?


Another thing along these lines is aircraft flying Air Superiority missions often get 'knocked off' of their mission. They are still fine and I can put them back on mission at will, but its just a micromanagement hassle. Unless the unit is thrown into 'reorganizing' or somesuch, it shouldnt 'forget' its mission requiring the player to babysit them multiple times in a turn.

Thanks for the input!


Those 2 Items I can look into.[sm=00000436.gif]



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 8:19:57 AM)

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for taking a look at those items.

Any ideas on these?:

quote:

Is there any difference in 'Air Shock' and 'PGM Modifier' for PGM equipped aircraft (assuming both are set to the same level). In other words, can I achieve a better Air to Ground result for ALL aircraft (not just PGM equipped ones) simply by increasing the 'Air Shock' to a similar value?

If the Air Shock value is increased on both forces, will that result in a wash when it comes to Air to Air combat or will it still be substantially more lethal with a higher Air Shock value?


Thanks!



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:34:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

About five turns. Were the Germans still disorganised from the long bombardment when the British went over the top ninety years ago this weekend?


I could be wrong, but I dont believe there were B52s ninety years ago this weekend.


No- but there were thousands of barrels of artillery. The effect is the same as carpet bombing.



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:37:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
I've had read many comments from players and designers that TOAW 3 interdiction is too good now at forcing ground units into reorganization or even routed status.


It depends on the scenario. Certain maps 'dilute' the impact of interdiction over a larger area. See for example Bob Cross' France 1944 scenarios versus various Normandy scenarios. Interdiction is much less effective in the former, largely due to the large size of the map.

If air units could be targetted to a specific area, this would make interdiction much more effective in the large scenarios. Then it would probably be a good idea to tone it down. As it is, doing so would make the setting totally useless in a lot of situations.



Chuck2 -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:39:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
I've had read many comments from players and designers that TOAW 3 interdiction is too good now at forcing ground units into reorganization or even routed status.


It depends on the scenario. Certain maps 'dilute' the impact of interdiction over a larger area. See for example Bob Cross' France 1944 scenarios versus various Normandy scenarios. Interdiction is much less effective in the former, largely due to the large size of the map.


The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:41:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.


Units get retreated from interdiction in COW already. Not routed, though.



Chuck2 -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:47:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.


Units get retreated from interdiction in COW already.


Not at nearly the same rate. It's a behavior that's been noted.

quote:

Not routed, though.


Don't know, but it would be very difficult under COW.



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 6:48:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

In theory, I agree. But this is a turn-based game. So enemy units arent moving and then stopping every time its my turn...there should be some abstraction of continuous movement. Which is I why I mentioned perhaps attacking Mobile/Tac Rsv/Local Rsv closer to the resolution of an Interdiction strike.


If you order a planned strike against a unit that's moving you'll be out of luck. It won't be there by the time the planes arrive.

Hence interdiction. Aircraft fly out and find their own targets. Of course, for this to work really well we should be able to set areas of operation for each air unit.

quote:

Another thing along these lines is aircraft flying Air Superiority missions often get 'knocked off' of their mission. They are still fine and I can put them back on mission at will, but its just a micromanagement hassle. Unless the unit is thrown into 'reorganizing' or somesuch, it shouldnt 'forget' its mission requiring the player to babysit them multiple times in a turn.


It's important that the other side (i.e. whoever's not currently playing their turn) can have his aircraft knocked on to rest.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 8:23:51 PM)

quote:

It's important that the other side (i.e. whoever's not currently playing their turn) can have his aircraft knocked on to rest.


Fine, then make it so that only the non-phasing player has this occur. Either that or have those planes (on both sides) be inaccessible for the rest of the turn. Currently all it is for the phasing player is an exercise in tedious micromanagement and mousework.

quote:

It depends on the scenario. Certain maps 'dilute' the impact of interdiction over a larger area. See for example Bob Cross' France 1944 scenarios versus various Normandy scenarios. Interdiction is much less effective in the former, largely due to the large size of the map.


Absolutely. As I said above, perhaps a look into the formulae that convert the airpower to interdiction level per scale needs to be looked at. It seems too effective at the lower end scales, but its feels fine at 25km/hex (except for the problem with it being drawn off by the first handful of units moved).

quote:

If you order a planned strike against a unit that's moving you'll be out of luck. It won't be there by the time the planes arrive.

Hence interdiction. Aircraft fly out and find their own targets. Of course, for this to work really well we should be able to set areas of operation for each air unit.


Yes, that is exactly the point. The PLAYER should have the ability to target certain units/armies/routes etc. That is not possible with the Interdiction routine, so it SHOULD be possible to launch effective strikes using the Bombardment routine instead.

What I'm saying is that since the player has no control over where Interdiction takes place, they should have SOME effective option that allows them to use their airpower where they want it. We dont have the game engine specifying where you can fire your artillery support or where your reinforcements go so why does it have to specify where your effective air power goes?

As mentioned, a good alternative solution would be to allow the player to designate certain areas for interdiction strikes for air units and then the AI controls exactly what is hit and when. That would be fine too.

Note that this is more of an issue at the larger scales where interdiction is already less effective. Having your only six or seven shots 'wasted' on non-critical areas of the map really dilutes air power. And having no other way to effectively order air strikes means that air power is dramatically underpowered...not because they cant kill anything, but because they just randomly kill whatever is moved earlier in the turn.

Part of the problem also results from not being able to specify defensive CAS. Again, the player is at the mercy of the AI to put it where it needs to be and not be 'drawn off' by utterly unimportant battles occuring earlier in the turn. And this problem is exaggerated because 'simpler' battles are resolved before more complex battles resulting in a much higher probability of 'wasted' airpower.

So, if you are on the defensive, you have effectively NO WAY of getting your airpower where you want it. All you can do is HOPE the AI puts it where you think it should go. If airstrikes were worth a damn you could actually pick some targets in threatened or important areas of the battlefield to attack. Currently that is a waste of time, readiness, and aircraft, leading to a situation where airpower feels ineffective overall (and again, not from lack of kills per se, but from lack of any form of cohesion).

To me, that is not a good model for the air engine. It has nothing to do with 'realism' and everything to do with implementation in the game system.



JAMiAM -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/2/2006 9:23:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

quote:

It's important that the other side (i.e. whoever's not currently playing their turn) can have his aircraft knocked on to rest.


Fine, then make it so that only the non-phasing player has this occur. Either that or have those planes (on both sides) be inaccessible for the rest of the turn. Currently all it is for the phasing player is an exercise in tedious micromanagement and mousework.

I'm going to take a strong exception to this statement. It is not a tedious exercise in micromanagement. It is an essential exercise in micromanagement. If you leave air units on mission until they go into reorg, by default, then you are going to have your air units end up being utterly unusable by the second turn of the scenario, in many "busy" scenarios.

By having the units go into Rest status, it gives players the option to continue to push with them, by reassigning them active missions, or to take the advice of their unit commanders and...rest!

The non-phasing player already has these micromanagement decisions taken care of by the AI. If you pay attention to your Air Report when you're in a long turn, you'll notice that the enemy AS raises and lowers throughout the turn, as the AI reassigns "at rest" units to AS missions.



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/3/2006 12:54:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Fine, then make it so that only the non-phasing player has this occur.


Well, it's also important if you're moving an air unit that friendly fighters can get knocked off for the duration.

quote:

Absolutely. As I said above, perhaps a look into the formulae that convert the airpower to interdiction level per scale needs to be looked at. It seems too effective at the lower end scales, but its feels fine at 25km/hex (except for the problem with it being drawn off by the first handful of units moved).


It's not the scale per se, but the area covered by the map. Obviously if aircraft are operating over 1/4 of the area they'll be able to spot a particular unit four times as often. I don't think changing the formula is really the solution, but if we can set areas of operation for individual air units that will solve it completely- along with various other complaints.

quote:

Again, the player is at the mercy of the AI


To be clear, he's at the mercy of the random number generator. There's no AI involved.



golden delicious -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/3/2006 12:55:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The non-phasing player already has these micromanagement decisions taken care of by the AI. If you pay attention to your Air Report when you're in a long turn, you'll notice that the enemy AS raises and lowers throughout the turn, as the AI reassigns "at rest" units to AS missions.


So far as I'm aware, it's an automatic switch (which occurs sometimes if there's an air attack on resting units)- not the PO making any decision.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/3/2006 9:25:55 AM)

quote:

I'm going to take a strong exception to this statement. It is not a tedious exercise in micromanagement. It is an essential exercise in micromanagement. If you leave air units on mission until they go into reorg, by default, then you are going to have your air units end up being utterly unusable by the second turn of the scenario, in many "busy" scenarios.

By having the units go into Rest status, it gives players the option to continue to push with them, by reassigning them active missions, or to take the advice of their unit commanders and...rest!

The non-phasing player already has these micromanagement decisions taken care of by the AI. If you pay attention to your Air Report when you're in a long turn, you'll notice that the enemy AS raises and lowers throughout the turn, as the AI reassigns "at rest" units to AS missions.


Many times I see my Air Superiority aircraft 'lose' their mission and they are still just fine. After every interdiction strike by the opponent quite a few AS aircraft will be bumped back to rest, but they are still fine (certainly still quite mission capable). In a larger scenario, it just means you have to open the air report and manually move them all back on mission.

I understand what you are saying, but I still see it as something undesirable. Perhaps a button to 'lock' your planes onto mission until forced to reorganize might be a solution? The PO goes ape on airfield strikes so I'll likely not have access to a lot of planes the next turn anyways...I'd rather get mileage out of my AS aircraft on my turn.

Perhaps it just personal preference (and probably scenario dependent). But an option to 'lock' them on mission would be very helpful IMO. YMMV.



JAMiAM -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/3/2006 9:59:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Perhaps it just personal preference (and probably scenario dependent). But an option to 'lock' them on mission would be very helpful IMO. YMMV.

I'm all for options, when they can be easily implemented without breaking things.[:)]



ralphtricky -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/5/2006 4:08:42 AM)

I'm going to post in the scenario design section what the difference is between Air Shock and PGM



RyanCrierie -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (7/5/2006 6:17:53 AM)

Can I make some points here?

1.) I don't expect a squadron of light to medium aircraft (12 or so fighters or light bombers) to do much against a target before the precision munitions revolution of the late 1980s.

2.) However, a mass attack by a large amount of aircraft would inflict a large amount of damage. While the amount of casualties would be low compared to a ground assault, the unit shouldn't be capable of moving or doing anything after quite a lot of aircraft went over the unit's area of operations, and bombed, shot/strafed anything of importance; so it should be either reorganizing (yellow stripe) or routed (red stripe) after a really big air attack, even if very little casualties are caused.

3.) Carpet bombing should have a quality of it's own. It doesn't matter if you have WWII technology -- if you send a thousand B-17s to carpet bomb a specific area; with the shear tonnage of bombs raining down, the chances of virtually anything down there being hit will be very high.



Boz -> High Altitude bombardment (7/5/2006 8:48:43 AM)

A pressing question on my mind is how a bombardment with high altitude bombers (for example the B-36) is handled.  Recently I tested the effect of 60 B-36s bombarding a 150 Rifle squad unit within a 5 kilometer hex. Time for turn was set to 6 hours.  Now the damage done was in the range of 5-20% of the enemy.  But I routinely lost upwards to a dozen bombers on the attack!  Does the computer consider all attacks ordered directly by the player to be carried out at low altitude where the infantry is capable of downing the bombers?   On a side note the casualties for the enemy seems quite small when considering the massive number of bombs ripping that area apart.  In later tests I checked the enemies’ readiness (usually knocked down to around 67% by the bombing) and saw how they responded to a follow up attack by a similar infantry force. This was in the same turn after the bombardment took up 30% of the turn. They were routinely capable of repulsing the enemy following the attack.  The effects of 1,200 some odd tons being delivered on this unit should leave survivors deaf, disorganized and not in the shape to fight.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125