RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Feinder -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/11/2008 4:16:44 PM)

While Bilbow might want to chime in on how effective (or not) our house rules for 4e bombers are.  I think ours have done well enough.  My 4e bombers (CHS), are certainly a force to be reckoned with, but they are not invincible.  Mostly it's just a combination of stacking limits rules:

1.  Bases can only have 50x AF size aircraft, excluing patrols-floatplanes-floatfighters and transfers (must be stood down).
2.  The kicker : The number of 4e squadrons are limited by the following table for current base size:
AF(4) : 1 squadron
AF(5) : 2 squadrons
AF(6) : 3 squadrons
AF(7) : 6 squadrons
AF(8) : 9 squadrons
AF(9) : No limit

A good example of the constraint doing it's job is at Tennet Creek.  It's built do AF(8), I have 9 squadrons there.  Yes, I can dominate Daly Waters (range 5), and occasionally Katherine (range 7).  But Darwin at Range 10 is problematic because I don't have any fighters to escort that far.  It didn't take me very many spectacularly unsuccessfull (and painful), raids on Darwin to take it off the target list.  We've had some clashes over Katherine, but frankly, given his build-up at Daly Waters (about 25 units), I need the full 9 squadrons over Daly Waters to sufficiently crunch the AF there (it's only size 2, but it takes about 4 days to clobber it up to about 90%+, and he can repair in about 6 days, so missions are farily constant).  Also, the Catch-22 for strikes out of Tennet Creek is that, it's the same supply pile that feeds my own army up at Daly Waters.  If I bomb DW with B-24s, I deprive supply to my front-line troops of supply, precluding attack potential.  If I -don't- bomb DW, my army can slowly build up supplies for the next attack, but then Bilbow's army is able to repair the AF, and then able to restart fortification construction.

We don't really have a limit on the number/type of squadrons that can be converted to 4e (even with PDUs).  Reason being, my constraint is more about number of AFs (and the number of sqdns able to be deployed to those AFs).  It doesn't do me any good to convert scores to 4e bombers, because I need to able to put them somewhere. 

It -does- mean that every piece of real-estate is at least marginaly important tho.  Being able to put a 4e bomber squdn on a AF(4) is ok, and the more the better.  But a single 4e squdn attack (esp un-coordinated between several small bases) is annoying for Japan, but not a major threat.

But those bases that can be built to size 6 and 7, those bases are gold targets (to capture). Being able to put up 48 to 96 4e bombers on a coordinated strike makes me giddy (but that's still far below the 200+ plane strikes you hear about in this thread).  Even from a AF(8) (very few of those on the map!), I can only send 144x 4es out.

That being said, we have no limit on 2e strikes (other than the stacking restrictions).  I have certainly have shown up with 300x B-25s.  That will clobber things quite well also (if I can get them within range).

-F-



John 3rd -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/11/2008 4:25:05 PM)

Feinder

That is a GREAT idea!  I have often thought that 4EB could be better limited by the Sz-4 of AF but have never really thought about how.  The thinking and rationale makes a ton of sense to me!  Well done.

Nikademus--I also have to agree with your Archer comments. I truly wished they had allowed Enterprise to run the full 7 seasons. It was getting better-and-better! Oh, well...

As to Kirk--Picard I have to throw in Sisko. Remember when Q first showed up on DS9 and Sisco punched him at Quarks without warning? Q was upset because 'Picard wouldn't do that!' That was funny.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/11/2008 8:12:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

"I've been prepared for death ever since I murdered my crew."  Commodore Matt Decker  The Doomsday Machine This writer's favorite episode of Classical Star Trek.



Of topic yes, but Matt Decker rules.

"Veer off!"



Nikademus -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/11/2008 8:22:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Feinder

That is a GREAT idea!  I have often thought that 4EB could be better limited by the Sz-4 of AF but have never really thought about how.  The thinking and rationale makes a ton of sense to me!  Well done.

Nikademus--I also have to agree with your Archer comments. I truly wished they had allowed Enterprise to run the full 7 seasons. It was getting better-and-better! Oh, well...

As to Kirk--Picard I have to throw in Sisko. Remember when Q first showed up on DS9 and Sisco punched him at Quarks without warning? Q was upset because 'Picard wouldn't do that!' That was funny.





Sisko was great once he got comfortable in the role. I think my favorite Sisko moment was during the episode where they are trying to salvage a Jem'Hdar fighter (with a secret passenger aboard as would be revealed)....the Vorta tries to reason it back and he just goes......"well it was yours.....then it crashed, now its mine..." (or something to that effect) and then gives a winning smile.



Tophat1815 -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/12/2008 4:14:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


Kirk was a Quaker compared to Captain Pike.

Pike really new how to pimp dee Orion beotches . . .


Captain Archer is no slouch either. Plenty of testosterone. [:D]

Kirk rocks.........its like Prince vs. Michael......Prince won by default because he retained his sanity. Kirk won by default because they beefed up Picard in the latter NG movies so that he acted more "Kirk-ish"

[:D]





Got to wholeheartedly agree with you on Picards augmentation!



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/12/2008 9:08:57 AM)

well,

i have the hr:
each airbaselevel gives 4 Points... so a lvl5-Airport has 20 Points
Each plane is counted with its engines... so a b25-unit costs 2 points, a p38 also. A betty - the same.
I do not count recce, sea or transportplanes.

Also, the number of both harbour and airfield needs to be 6 for 4-mots.
The lowest number for 4mots is 5 (so you need a lvl1-harbour for attacking from it)

The other limitation is lvlx60=max.planes. (here i mean groupsize)

With this some limits are built in that improve the situation (playing a iron storm mod with japanese 4mots, its not only the allied who are limited)
In china it is difficult for the allies to play "wipe out"
in ng the same. You need time for level 6/5+1. Also, if you put 6 4mot-Groups in a level7, you only have 4 escort groups in the same airbase. And with this, no dive/torpedobombers for defence-ops. You pay a price if you are careless.

Also, no nightbombing at all. As long as the allied player "knows" that the japanese player has planes on an airfield, this is true.

A similar solution for taskforces... each shipclass has points and each tf can have certain point numbers.
Say, a cv-tf has 10 points for carriers, each CV needs 2 points, each CVL/CVE 1. So you can have 10 CVE or 5 CV in each TF. Exception ist TF1-kidabutai as long as they do not disband.

With this i avoid the ultra-unbeatable monster-TFs.
No HR for transport-tfs... after some turns it is quite easy.



TommyG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 4:54:04 PM)


So, based in part on all your comments, I stop large formation night bombing, build my experience up to a mid 60s average and hit Milne Bay in daylight with 125 B-24s. Milne Bay was damaged in excess of 50%, so his fighter response must be coming from nearby airfields. I don't actually know where they came from since the synch bug does not let me see any of our actual battles, I just read results. And, here they are:
Day Air attack on Milne Bay , at 57,96

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
A6M3 Zero x 14
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 23
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 41

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 120

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 6 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 4 destroyed, 15 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 7 destroyed, 27 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 82 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
47 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 4

The loss tables are even worse. According to the table I lost 90 planes (75%) in the air. I came in at 10000 ft since the primary mission was Naval andanother HR forbids naval attacks any lower.
I can not buy that this is a realistic result. Most concerning to me is that there is no quo for my quid. Even assuming that his fighters are in the 90's, I think those .50s in my heavies would have done a lot better. If I have to stop large scale night bombing, there must be some way to balance the play.



mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 5:40:03 PM)

quote:

I can not buy that this is a realistic result.


You are correct.



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 6:28:03 PM)

quote:

Day Air Attack on Schweinfurt, at -132,77

Allied aircraft
291 B-17 Flying Fortress

German aircraft
?? Fighters

Allied aircraft losses
B-17 Flying Fortress: 77 destroyed, 122 damaged

German aircraft losses
Fighters: 38 destroyed


This game is BROKEN!!! [:@]



castor troy -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:16:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

Day Air Attack on Schweinfurt, at -132,77

Allied aircraft
291 B-17 Flying Fortress

German aircraft
?? Fighters

Allied aircraft losses
B-17 Flying Fortress: 77 destroyed, 122 damaged

German aircraft losses
Fighters: 38 destroyed


This game is BROKEN!!! [:@]




there were FAR more German fighters involved against the Schweinfurt raid than seen in this raid of the poster above. While the Tony would be somewhat comparable to the far better armed and overall better fighters the German had (when it comes down to attacking bombers), the 58 Zeroes/Tojos are surely no 4E killers and therefore this result is 100% BS.



mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:21:59 PM)

1. The Zeke, Tony, and Ki-44 couldn't hold a candle to an FW190 or late ME-109. The losses inflicted on the Japanese force in the example given were too low, and the losses on the B-24 force too great, to be accepted as reasonable.

2. The 8th AF mission of which you speak was a deep penetration in which an unescorted bomber force did for two hours fly through well developed terrain guarded by numerous, well-supplied luftwaffe bases. A situation that in no way resembles Milne Bay or anything the Japanese could have done to improve Milne Bay or support a.c. there at any time during the war, even given that this is an alt-history event.

3. Germany had infrastructure including command and control, radar, and good flak, that Japan never established inside the Japanese Home Islands, much less in some podunk on-the-end-of-a-shoestring airbase on the tip of New Guinea.




castor troy -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:34:41 PM)

mdiehl is perfectly right here...



TommyG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:47:05 PM)

Quote:
"Allied aircraft losses
B-17 Flying Fortress: 77 destroyed, 122 damaged "

Yup, the worst losses of the war, 25% of the bomber force destroyed after repeated attacks from top notch fighters and 88mm flack. I attacked a jungle strip over water. and lost 75%. No damageed planes, 100% destroyed. Yeah, these results are broken.



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:54:34 PM)

a) Less Axis fighters - correct. However, there are also considerably less Allied escort too, to wit: none! (and yes, I know that the P-47 couldn't escort the B-17s all the way to Schweinfurt - still, they mattered a lot.)

b) Those are B-24s, not B-17s - less guns, less durability.

c) Finally, just because this example is worse than the worst Allied losses in history doesn't mean that the result isn't realistic. Why do players always think that the game should treat them no worse than history?!



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:57:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

some podunk on-the-end-of-a-shoestring airbase on the tip of New Guinea.

Maybe it isn't in this "version" of WW2?



castor troy -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:58:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

a) Less Axis fighters - correct. However, there are also considerably less Allied escort too, to wit: none! (and yes, I know that the P-47 couldn't escort the B-17s all the way to Schweinfurt - still, they mattered a lot.)

b) Those are B-24s, not B-17s - less guns, less durability.

c) Finally, just because this example is worse than the worst Allied losses in history doesn't mean that the result isn't realistic. Why do players always think that the game should treat them no worse than history?!




sorry VSWG but this result is just not realistic. This is a result from the war between the republic of mars and venus...



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 7:59:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Sorry VSWG but this result is just not realistic. This is a result from the war between the republic of mars and venus...

It is extreme, but not unthinkable.



jwxspoon -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:02:59 PM)

We know this game handles air to air battles in a bloody manner.  Using unescorted bombers in the face of significant fighter opposition is a way to lose a lot of bombers.

In this case, Tom attacked this base the previous day.  Because I have found him to be predictable, I knew he would return today.  So 250 fighters on LRCAP were waiting for him.  It appears that roughly 100 engaged.  It was bloody, and I do feel bad for him.  But this is how the game works.  It's why I don't send unescorted missions with my bombers.

Earlier in the game I had KB set on naval attack with a secondary of port attack and a fighter CAP over KB of 60.  I had two morning naval attacks that were escorted and went well; my ships launched an UNESCORTED port attack in the afternoon.  They ran into less than 20 allied fighters and I lost over 75 of my best planes and pilots.  I liked this result even less than Tom liked losing his bombers this turn, but I also understand that is the way the gamworks.  I chalked it up to further tuition and resolved to not allow it to happen again.  So far it hasn't.

I place great emphasis on fighter training.  Thus my fighter groups that are operating at the tip of the spear are typically 80+ skill level.  I want to make it painful for Tom to continue to use unescorted bombing missions.  Eventually he will get fighters that will sweep mine out of the sky.  But not yet.  :)

jw





mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:16:31 PM)

quote:

So 250 fighters on LRCAP were waiting for him.


That is particularly unrealistic. I wondered where the fighters came from. That there would be more than a squadron at Milne Bay seemed to reflect a simulation's optimism about Japanese engineering that isn't supported by anything in the real war. That large numbers of a.c. were in effect coordinated as "l.r. cap" (a peculiar WitP mission that seems vastly more effective than anything of that nature ever attempted during the war) is even more unrealistic. Where'd they come from? Does Japan have a whole suite of High Wycombe class airbases in New Guinea or is this CAP being miraculously maintained 600 miles from New Ireland?

The logistical and command-and-control wonders of the world that the Axis player can accomplish in WitP (in stark contrast to anything that the Japanese ever did achieve or ever could have achieved in the time frame of WW2) is at the root of much of this sort of thing.



jwxspoon -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:27:54 PM)

mdiehl I believe that everything is unrealistic to you within this game unless it involves the Allies steamrolling the Axis at virtually every turn.

There are four different fighter bases involved here.  Pardon me for not consulting a realism coach in deciding where or how to base my fighters.  As Tom himself said regarding his deployment of hundreds of 4E bombers to Cooktown, I am 'God' in my game and can deploy my fighters as I wish.

There is plenty of unrealism here in this game. It is unrealistic that Tom has parked every allied CV until he has hellcats and avengers on all of them. But that is his preroggative.

This thread originated as a discussion of massed 4E night bombing within the WITP game in 1942 and has morphed as the game has done so.  Tom has been a good opponent here and is blowing off some steam.  If he can't get over it, and adjust his tactics accordingly, we'll both go find other opponents.



jw



castor troy -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:28:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Sorry VSWG but this result is just not realistic. This is a result from the war between the republic of mars and venus...

It is extreme, but not unthinkable.



unless the US bombers didnīt encounter a hurricane on their way home it is 100% unthinkable. Please look at the numbers again. 90 B-24 shot down. This is as if Austria would beat the US in American football. This wonīt happen. Correct myself: this would either happen than 90 B-24 being shot down by those Japanese fighters. This is 100% (again) UNTHINKABLE AND BS...



TommyG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:45:06 PM)


My chief complaint is the lack of damage the bombers do. No matter how experienced his 100 fighters are, they should not come off so lightly against 120 B-24s. The issue, within the framework of the game, is that the japs get to keep their experienced pilots and there is nothing the allies can do until late in 43 to even gain experience. I can live with my losses so long as I inflict a reasonable amount on the enemy. I think it is either a defect in endurance of IJ fighters (too high) or more likely an algebraic combination of experience, leadership, and, most importantly, numbers, that the allies can not match and that creates skewed results. CHS makes it worse because of the increased endurance.
When night bombing creates an non historical result, an HR is required. When A2A reults are even more out of wack, it is a game feature that I should learn to live with. I don't think so.



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:55:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

unless the US bombers didnīt encounter a hurricane on their way home it is 100% unthinkable. Please look at the numbers again. 90 B-24 shot down. This is as if Austria would beat the US in American football. This wonīt happen. Correct myself: this would either happen than 90 B-24 being shot down by those Japanese fighters. This is 100% (again) UNTHINKABLE AND BS...

I stand by what I said.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd add some rationale to your posts, instead of just posting "BS" and UNTHINKABLE". No offence, but you're not arguing, you're trying to"kill by hyperbole".

Let's just agree to disagree. AE will solve this problem anyway.



HansBolter -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 8:57:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

So 250 fighters on LRCAP were waiting for him.


That is particularly unrealistic. I wondered where the fighters came from. That there would be more than a squadron at Milne Bay seemed to reflect a simulation's optimism about Japanese engineering that isn't supported by anything in the real war. That large numbers of a.c. were in effect coordinated as "l.r. cap" (a peculiar WitP mission that seems vastly more effective than anything of that nature ever attempted during the war) is even more unrealistic. Where'd they come from? Does Japan have a whole suite of High Wycombe class airbases in New Guinea or is this CAP being miraculously maintained 600 miles from New Ireland?

The logistical and command-and-control wonders of the world that the Axis player can accomplish in WitP (in stark contrast to anything that the Japanese ever did achieve or ever could have achieved in the time frame of WW2) is at the root of much of this sort of thing.



I couldn't agree more. I have put forth the same argument regarding the absurdity of LRCAP in Uncommon Valor. It is a common tactic in UV for the Japanese player to make unopposed surface bombardment runs on Port Morseby with the bombardment TF starting from a position a few hexes south of Gili Gili completely impervious to the bombers based at PM because the tactical AIs assessment of the escort/cap ratio prevents the bombers from ever flying. The failure to sorty results from the TF being conveniently out of escort range but absurdly within the LRCAP range of the Zeros based at Rabaul.

I have repeatedly argued that LRCAP should have a hard range limit for all sides and NOT be based on the the normal range of any given fighter type.

Projecting effective LRCAP over a distance of 400+ miles over a moving target is simply beyond ludicrous.

It's the single biggest thing that needs to be fixed in AE.



castor troy -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 9:10:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

unless the US bombers didnīt encounter a hurricane on their way home it is 100% unthinkable. Please look at the numbers again. 90 B-24 shot down. This is as if Austria would beat the US in American football. This wonīt happen. Correct myself: this would either happen than 90 B-24 being shot down by those Japanese fighters. This is 100% (again) UNTHINKABLE AND BS...

I stand by what I said.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd add some rationale to your posts, instead of just posting "BS" and UNTHINKABLE". No offence, but you're not arguing, you're trying to"kill by hyperbole".

Let's just agree to disagree. AE will solve this problem anyway.



We certainly disagree. Thereīs no need to add some rationale to my post because it would be the same to say that this is realistic as if I would say Germany had a chance to defeat the Allies. Thereīs nothing to argue about with this result. I wonder if you really think that this is right. If so, then what have you done the last two years?

I guess you know what it takes to shoot down a B-24, no?

And why does AE change it when itīs so perfectly modelled. Sorry, those results are BS. I canīt find another word.



TommyG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 9:11:24 PM)

Does AE fix this? If so, how?



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 9:21:17 PM)

I think that:

1) There will generally be a lot less planes in the air as they require greater maintenance and support (the logistical problem)

2) The air combat model itself should be less bloody as plane to plane encounters should happen less than they do in stock.

But read up on the air thread in the AE subforum for more details.



VSWG -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 9:26:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG

Does AE fix this? If so, how?

By making it much harder to keep so many 4Es flying from a single base - especially 2 turns in a row (if I understood jwxspoon's post correctly).

Unmitigated slaughter of unescorted bomber raids by a prepared and experienced enemy will - and should - be still be possible.



jwilkerson -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/14/2008 11:56:40 PM)

TommyG, are these results from our game of 3 years ago - or a newer one?

Either way, if you want some tips on what to do in the game - and can tell you what Moses did in our game (I've still only been playing Japanese - so Moses was the Allies).

He avoided long range unescorted attacks against big fighter bases.

But that being said - I avoided big fighter bases - I found that spreading my fighters out got better results (less of mine shot down - more of his shot down) - and I'm talking mid 1943 when there are plenty of Corsairs and P38s and even P47s running around.

Put lots of air near the enemy airbases - fight them as close up as you can. Like Moses hit me EVERY DAY in Burma from his bases in India. I'd train up one of my fighter groups - it might last at the front for 1 turn - or maybe a little longer with luck.

Don't fly large unescorted strikes and the enemy airbases - we both saw what happened three years ago - no need to validate that it still works that way - it does!




mdiehl -> RE: Is 4e night bombing gamey? (8/15/2008 12:02:32 AM)

quote:

mdiehl I believe that everything is unrealistic to you within this game unless it involves the Allies steamrolling the Axis at virtually every turn.


You believe incorrectly. I completely support all manner of Axis game successes provided that the underlying framework for these successes are within the bounds of plausibility. Coordinating LR CAP from airbases over a distant target is not within the plausible bounds of WW2 Japanese capability.

quote:

There are four different fighter bases involved here.


That's three too many, by real world examples.

quote:

Pardon me for not consulting a realism coach in deciding where or how to base my fighters.


I'm not knocking your strategy. I'm knocking the design that permits it.

quote:

As Tom himself said regarding his deployment of hundreds of 4E bombers to Cooktown, I am 'God' in my game and can deploy my fighters as I wish.


Quite so. I wonder why the consim thinks the Allied player is going to have hundreds of 4Es at Cooktown when they'd only be concentrated to that extent for important strategic targets, most of which were presumed to be in Europe (although I could see an argument for the Allied player attempting to build up good enough logistics such that by mid-1943 he might hammer Tarakan, Balikpapan, or some of the other Indonesia-SRA barrier resources --- in effect the low hanging fruit from Australia.

But in your game, given that you have concentrations of laughably unrealistic masses of laughably overrated Japanese fighters, I don't have a problem with your opponent massing 4EBs for night bombing raids. I think he was a bit of a sucker to agree to your demand that he only use them in daylight ops mode, precisely because I know that the Japanese has the unrealistic capability of making a wholesale hash of daylight 4EBs.

quote:

There is plenty of unrealism here in this game. It is unrealistic that Tom has parked every allied CV until he has hellcats and avengers on all of them. But that is his preroggative.


Agreed. But parking every Allied CV until the Hellcats arrive is a realistic solution to an unrealistic problem regarding exaggerated IJN fighter capabilities. "Sir Robin" is a choice that the real world USN did not embrace because the real world USN expected (and achieved) far better results than the virtual USN represented in the game -- wherein the Allies 1942 choice it to play "Sir Robin" or else play the "Invincible" Black Knight as his limbs are predictably shorn away.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.75