RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 2:33:14 AM)

Well I just had another of those exceptions. My opponant's TF managed to cross the T on me and I still won the battle.

And once again, the BB hardly fired its main guns. The really funny thing was that with 4 CLs and 6 DDs, the Japanese TF managed a total of 1 torpedo hit, while my Aussie CL managed to get 7 by itself.

Is it broken? No. But it sure can produce some improbable results sometimes.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 3:48:48 AM)

Pauk
I said on that previous example you were wrong and I still maintain you are as the convoy escorts were at least as strong as the attacking TF's but as I said AT THE TIME there are other occasions when convoy battles are weird just that the two examples you were quoting were not them.

I then later when you posted a better example of the point you were making agreed that it demonstrated the point.

I am struggling to see how I can be "knowing you are right but just cannnot admit it" when I agreed with you that convoy v surface combats can be weird on about my 2nd post on this subject - I just disagreed and still do that the 1st two specific examples you posted were wrong you sent in two TF's to a base where they attacked two well protected convoys and didnt crucify the convoys - nothing wrong with that.

The third fight you posted was weird and I agreed with you.

Andy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk



Ok.. as I've expected, only Joe gave reasonable and good answer. Andy, you know that i'm right buy you can't just admit that[;)].

Thanks Joe, i see the point.[:)] It is pitty that person who started this thread didn't have anything to say about this "glitch", but somehow i'm not suprised by that. He is well known.... (censored).




jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 6:11:26 AM)

My goodness ... why must we all be so contrary ... are we not all WITP players here???

If Pauk raises issues should he not be respected for doing so?

If we "all powerful" [;)] developers of the AE update all jump on him with criticism and challenge, why would others be tempted to even ask questions? I do not wish to criticize my project mates but I am embarrassed that three of them are pushing back against what seem to be to be a well meaning questions from Pauk. Certainly we all could word things in a better fashion - but we should support dissent, for without it, most of us would be redundant, eh?

None of us are perfect here either - I suspect we all know that.

I view myself as a WITP player and a helper of other WITP players. Hence in August 2005 I began the odyssey which takes us towards the release of AE. I view it as an honor to be associated with the WITP community and the subset of that community that has chosen to devote their time to create AE. Let us all take a deep breath and try to respect each other before replying further.



wworld7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 8:03:15 AM)

This is the best idea I have seen around here in a long time.

Keep up the good work.






pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 8:56:45 AM)


Andy,

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1080410&mpage=1&key=

so, why repeat all that stuff when it is already written?


As i've said, i'm more than satisfied with the answer Joe give me. So, we all can consider this disscusion finished[:)]



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 7:23:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.



Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.


That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.



treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 7:44:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.



Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.


That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.



In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.



Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 1:52:38 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.


Is this the final versio of what will be in WitP-AE regarding torpedoes?

If yes than this is GREAT and most welcome news - thanks guys for this added realism! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"



treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 2:52:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.


Is this the final versio of what will be in WitP-AE regarding torpedoes?

If yes than this is GREAT and most welcome news - thanks guys for this added realism! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"




It's being tested....as with everything stated here.



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 5:34:11 PM)

That is welcome news. Some of airbase size limitations are very artificial.


ElCid that just depends on production value. For editors there is still be the aerial mine hardcode date. I just hope they get rid of it and just use the device date.



Dutch_slith -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 5:46:45 PM)

Some questions regarding the dutch Navy.

Only the O 20 class was capable of laying mines. Had the minelaying capability been removed from the other dutch sub classes?

Will the four KM minesweepers (A,B,C and D) be in the game?

The Gouvernementsmarine PCs hadn't any ASW weapons, in CHS they had. And in AE?

Zuiderkruis was not a submarine tender. Classification as AE would be better. Still rated as AS?

Serdang was a tender. Not for PTs, but for Patrouillebooten. These were tiny patrol vessels.



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 6:29:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.



Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.


That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.



In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.


Let me take this one step further then.

Let's say I have a big base with lots of G4Ms and an Naval Air HQ at...Guam for instance. Knowing that my opponant will want to try to take it, and knowing that I've got time to prep for it and plenty of supply, can I keep requesting Torpedos each turn to build up a big stockpile, or will I be limited to an artificial hardcap on the number I can store there?



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 7:08:12 PM)

All this stuff about torpedo load outs is actually Air Team stuff. We navy team pukes are not really in the loop - so for definitive answer we should switch the question over to the air team.




mdiehl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 7:08:18 PM)

quote:

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.


This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 7:11:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.


This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.


And we can also say that one of our over-riding goals was to un-em-power the uber air battles - and there are two parts (at least) to that - one is breaking up the larger air attacks into more smaller air attacks - and the other is making it less beneficial to mass air power at a few bases. So ability to micro-manage the torpedo storage would tend to empower rather than un-em-power uber air battles.

But again, I would point out that the Navy Team is not the best place to go for answer to air questions, the air team have the hands, arms and figures deep into the air aspects of the game. They are the best source of data on air issues.




castor troy -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/6/2008 7:36:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.


That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.



Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.


That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.



In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.



does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?



TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 3:47:52 PM)

quote:

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.


This feature is still in test, but I saw both Repulse (5) and POW (1) take several torpedoes as the AI pulled them back towards Ceylon through the Malacca Straits…

They should not be “harassment” tools as long as the IJ player maintains an robust supply and Air HQ (in range) combo in a level 4 AF.

Less than that and you risk gradual reductions in the number of A/C that will carry them.



TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 3:50:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.


Is this the final versio of what will be in WitP-AE regarding torpedoes?

If yes than this is GREAT and most welcome news - thanks guys for this added realism! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

Pretty much



TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 4:06:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.


This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.


The components the make up a single torpedo are assumed to be inherent in supply. We discussed using a production model to create and track individual torpedoes, but found it to be problematic and OTS for this project. We chose to make the supply value of a single torpedo 10 supply point. Thus outfitting a single Daitai will cost 270 supply. That is for one sortie. It could get expensive.

Add to that the need to be in range and operate from a proper AF (4) to get full participation and figure out all the places where you can manage that and you get a bit more restricted than stock.

The difference is we have several layers of restriction

Supply levels determine how “Healthy” an HQ is.
Proximity to that HQ determine what AFs have access to them (there are rules for inside and outside HQ range)
Once a 1-3 AF qualifies (using supply levels factors as a basis 1x normal Supply, 2x normal supply etc.)…
AF size further restricts usage Operationally, (AF size 1-3) but does not prohibit them
. only a % of the A/C at that AF will carry them. That % decreases as the size AF decreases.



TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 4:13:42 PM)

quote:

does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?


At the operational level it would be irresponsible to inject that much control over individual torpedoes. Naturally, there were instances of Strikes being launched against targets that did not warrant torpedo attack, and we have a matrix that attempts to prioritize targets, but it is not a sure thing.

The best way to determine if a torpedo attack is warranted is to heavily search a sector you suspect enemy CVs inhabit and be certain that they are there before you select the “Use Torpedoes” option in you Air units. Else you may have torpedoes going into a Neosho or some other unbelievable target.

As I said earlier this is still in test…



ny59giants -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 4:41:19 PM)

Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(]



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 4:45:06 PM)

Hey that's a great question - even I'm waiting with baited breath for the answer to that one!
[:D]



castor troy -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 4:50:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?


At the operational level it would be irresponsible to inject that much control over individual torpedoes. Naturally, there were instances of Strikes being launched against targets that did not warrant torpedo attack, and we have a matrix that attempts to prioritize targets, but it is not a sure thing.

The best way to determine if a torpedo attack is warranted is to heavily search a sector you suspect enemy CVs inhabit and be certain that they are there before you select the “Use Torpedoes” option in you Air units. Else you may have torpedoes going into a Neosho or some other unbelievable target.

As I said earlier this is still in test…




We even get an option "use torpedoes"? Wow! [X(]



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 6:38:35 PM)

quote:

Add to that the need to be in range and operate from a proper AF (4) to get full participation and figure out all the places where you can manage that and you get a bit more restricted than stock.


Shouldnt this been downgraded to AFB 2 or 3 at least(for 1 engine planes obviously)? I know that AFB sizes are somewhat ambiguous since they dont represent only the tarmac size but support equipment too. But since an Aircraft Carrier with a 250m "tarmac" with necessary tools can send Torpedo Bombers that would mean that 99% of any AFB should be able to be transformed into a 4 class airfield with necessary investment.



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 7:04:46 PM)

I don't know that many landbased airfields that can travel into the wind at 30 knots, though, so that 250m long mobile flight deck has a slight advantage over a level 1-2 airbase...



treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 7:50:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(]



Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps.

For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days.



ny59giants -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 8:09:18 PM)

quote:

Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps.

For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days.


I don't think you understood what I was asking. If you are playing a 2 day turn PBEM and your CVs getting into a battle with other CVs on day 1, will they automatically reload with torpedoes, if available, on the CVs and use them again on day 2?? Or will they use just bombs the second day since the player is not able to manually reload them??

A test of this would be good for you developers using a 2 day turn of PBEM to see how the AI reacts to this possible situation.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 8:23:18 PM)

You set a toggle switch for the individual air group (either Use Bombs or Use Torpedoes). As long as the base/carrier has torpedoes available, that switch remains set. You don't have to manually set it each day.



ny59giants -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 9:06:25 PM)

Thanks T, I didn't know that. [:)]



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/7/2008 10:21:26 PM)

What are the restrictions on CV's resupplying with torps?



Page: <<   < prev  41 42 43 [44] 45   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.345703