Let me get this straight... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message


BossGnome -> Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 4:02:34 AM)

Ok, I usually game WW2, but hey, despite being Canadian I still saw Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, and I can appreciate the senseless carnage of the American Civil War too. So I bought this game. Now, I have to say right now I am a little confused by the interface which I still have to get used to, but there just seems to be one major design decision which I'm not sure I understand correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, I may well be.

Ok, so, from what I've gathered, to perform attacks on an enemy territory, your leader needs to be "activated", which can be seen because he will have a red arrow if that is the case. Now, that is not the same as "leader activation", which is something you do when you want to bring more generals onto the play, sort of like hiring new guys. Cavalry does not need to be activated as they can just go with their leader raid, scout, or even overrun hapless unoccupied territories. So hurray for cavalry.

What I don't get is that there doesn't seem to be any way in which I can control which of my leaders actually gets activated? So this would mean that each turn, I essentially have to hope and pray that, through some arcane process, the leaders I need, where all my troops are, get activated, or otherwise my carefully laid plans are laid to waste?

Also, what are the requirements to train militia into infantry? Can militias which I've strategically moved (say from maine or new york) into the same area as my Theater commander (washington DC) still get trained by him on the turn I've moved them? Or do they basically have to spend 1 full turn immobile, unattached, to get the percentage chance of being trained?

Moreover, (and this is an afterthought), does the number of units attached to a leader affect the movement points of the group (I know about the different types of units moving slower depending on the leader's ability with those, I was wondering if adding more of the same type of units would slow things down).

Thanks for all your help, right now I'm a little lost!





John Neal -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 4:12:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

.... your leader needs to be "activated", which can be seen because he will have a red arrow if that is the case.


Leaders need "initiative' to attack (also, they get movement bonus if they have initiative).


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome
What I don't get is that there doesn't seem to be any way in which I can control which of my leaders actually gets activated?


See rules for Leader Initiative.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome
Also, what are the requirements to train militia into infantry? Can militias which I've strategically moved (say from maine or new york) into the same area as my Theater commander (washington DC) still get trained by him on the turn I've moved them? Or do they basically have to spend 1 full turn immobile, unattached, to get the percentage chance of being trained?


Based on my observation they won't train if the leader or the militia strategic move.
If the leader uses regular movement to move to a stationary militia unit, it will train.
(have a chance of turning into a regular)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome
Moreover, (and this is an afterthought), does the number of units attached to a leader affect the movement points of the group


No, but the type of unit does, infantry, artillery, heavy artillery all have different movement points, and the leaders will add their skill (inf/art/cav) to the movement rate if the leader has initiative.







Treefrog -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 7:54:58 PM)

Not to start a flame war here, but your opening statement, ". . . I can appreciate the senseless carnage of the American Civil War too." does not do 100% justice to the sacrifices made by the people on both sides.

I grant that it would have been better for southern statesmen to continue the political dialogue that had served them well for 20 plus years rather than assume the worst and "go to the mattresses" on the issue of states' rights and, by extension, secession.
Unfortunately for 600,000 dead Americans, people stopped talking to each other.

But I think it depreciates that sacrifice to suggest that once hostilities started it was senseless to fight.

Good southern men (and some women) joined and remained in military service to protect their homeland. The Confederate draft excluded men whose families owned more than "x" slaves (five I think), so basically it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Those southern men, poor or otherwise, weren't fighting for the slave they didn't own, but rather for the principals of freedom from tyranny and independence, something they learned directly from their fathers and grandfathers that fought in the First War for Independence.

Northern men placed a very high value on preservation of the Union. Abolitionist constituted only about 10% of the population. When Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation there was talk of mutiny in the Union army; those men certainly did not volunteer to risk their lives to save slaves!! Good Union men volunteered and responded to the draft to save the solidarity of their Union. If the Quebequois vote to secede from Canada, will they be allowed to just walk away? I wonder.

The slaughter was regrettable, not in the minds of those that served, it was not senseless.

As for your question, it is a fair statement that unlike most games, GGWBTS presents the challenge of HOW to get those men to move forward and do something. With cardboard counters one just shoves them forward. This game is more complicated. The explanation above is a good one. The movement/attack challenge is part of the wonderful texture of the game.

I wish you well in your experience with this marvelous game. [:)] Many consider the ACW to be the first modern war. As such, you may find that the strategy of WW2 has some relevance here.







Bo Rearguard -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 8:11:10 PM)

quote:

Ok, so, from what I've gathered, to perform attacks on an enemy territory, your leader needs to be "activated", which can be seen because he will have a red arrow if that is the case. Now, that is not the same as "leader activation", which is something you do when you want to bring more generals onto the play, sort of like hiring new guys. Cavalry does not need to be activated as they can just go with their leader raid, scout, or even overrun hapless unoccupied territories. So hurray for cavalry.


Yeah...it's a device to simulate the rather herky-jerky, stop/go nature of the ACW which saw a general like Rosecrans basically camped out with his troops in Murfreesboro, Tennessee for 9 months despite constant prodding from above to get moving, to cite an extreme example. If you had total control of keeping your troops rolling forward as the Union the game would probably be over in 1862.




IronWarrior -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 8:11:31 PM)

Well said Treefrog!

I am a proud Virginian, not because of what the State is today, but because of what it once was. It saddens me to see what she has become today, while ironically the State flag bears the motto: Sic Semper Tyrannis.

I feel like the sacrifices of the ACW go unappreciated, and much more than just the Confederacy was lost at the end of the Civil War. Whole cultures and customs lost to homogenized States, great thinking and ideological philosophies from great Virginians such as Thomas Jefferson were also lost.

Much was at stake and lost in the Civil War, its effects are certainly felt today. I would ask that you rethink the word senseless, as the causes were great on both sides.




Treefrog -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 9:40:18 PM)

The sixth paragraph should have read, "The slaughter was regrettable, but in the minds of those that served, it was not senseless. "[sm=dizzy.gif]




BossGnome -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 9:59:07 PM)

Very well very well, I didn't mean to belittle the sacrifices of those who died in the war. The intent of this post was for me to get help to understand how to play this game properly, not to discuss the reasons behind the war.

I've had a few more runs with the game today, and there are still a few things that I still don't get.

First of all, how do you mount an effective blockade of southern ports. On the first turn I moved the Union fleet in the gulf of mexico over to the mouth of the mississippi river, shot up some artillery there, and camped. All was well and no trade made it through to the mississippi towns that turn. Now, however, two turns later, my fleets in mississippi R1a don't seem to be intercepting anything anymore... Moreover, I have no idea how to catch commerce raiders, or how to blockade the rest of the confederacy. What are some good hints for the naval war?

Also, amphibious movement. I seem to be having trouble with that one. Does "amphibious attack" qualify as simply crossing over a river? I have a general in Cincinnati, with 3 movement points and initiative, who can't get across the river to Lexington. There is a transport in that river. Does that mean it's an "amphibious assault?

Supply depots. As the union it seems i have near infinite supplies. (If I am correct somewhere in the 2000s at the beginning of 1861). So basically what is stopping me from building forts and depots wherever I want as long as I have the generals to do it? Isn't it advantageous for the union to just go all out and build a lot, since they have so much material?

Areas without roads or railroads. I've noticed that there are a few areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri that don't have any roads or railroads going through them. What are the movement costs for going through those territories? I assume movement costs change with type of terrain, but how are those affected by lack of roads also?

Finally, initiative again. I understand that a theater commander's initiative chance is based on the amount of pop centers of the area he is located in, the amount of factories in that area, and a few other things. So basically stash your theater commander in a big city and that's the best you can hope for. Army commanders, I don't understand quite as much. I understand that having a supply depot gives a bonus, but what about more than 1 depot? Do forts give a bonus? Do population centers give a bonus?

Anyway, thanks for your help. I've always found wargames to be the most fun way to learn about history, and I hope to have many hours of enjoyment with this game, as soon as I get how to make things work like I want them to!




Bo Rearguard -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 10:10:40 PM)

quote:

Supply depots. As the union it seems i have near infinite supplies. (If I am correct somewhere in the 2000s at the beginning of 1861). So basically what is stopping me from building forts and depots wherever I want as long as I have the generals to do it? Isn't it advantageous for the union to just go all out and build a lot, since they have so much material?



It may seem this way early on, but even as the Union I've found if you go fort and depot-building crazy, even you will eventually run out of, or low on supplies, especially with the need to supply the larger army deep in enemy territory. [;)] All those depots left behind in your rear areas are locking up 20 supplies a turn. At some point start disbanding those depots you longer need. Unfortunately you can't recover the costs of the forts.




IronWarrior -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/12/2008 10:24:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Areas without roads or railroads. I've noticed that there are a few areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri that don't have any roads or railroads going through them. What are the movement costs for going through those territories? I assume movement costs change with type of terrain, but how are those affected by lack of roads also?


In normal movement roads cost one movement point, in reaction phase it costs two. Areas without roads will have movement costs depending on the type of terrain. Clear is 2, Woods 3, Swamp 4, etc. There are other movement costs to be aware of such as entering a contested region (+1), unit w/out initiative (+1), moving in winter (+1) although this is not applicable by rail or transport.

quote:


Finally, initiative again. I understand that a theater commander's initiative chance is based on the amount of pop centers of the area he is located in, the amount of factories in that area, and a few other things. So basically stash your theater commander in a big city and that's the best you can hope for. Army commanders, I don't understand quite as much. I understand that having a supply depot gives a bonus, but what about more than 1 depot? Do forts give a bonus? Do population centers give a bonus?



Forts and population centers will not have an effect on Army Commanders' initiative. The Army Commander's attack rating is compared to a random die roll. 5 is added to the roll unless the leader is in a non-friendly region that doesn't have 20 supplies. The bonus from the TC is also added. During non-winter turns the check is made against random 14. In winter it is made against random 28.




Treefrog -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 12:09:33 AM)

Very well very well, I didn't mean to belittle the sacrifices of those who died in the war. The intent of this post was for me to get help to understand how to play this game properly, not to discuss the reasons behind the war.

I've had a few more runs with the game today, and there are still a few things that I still don't get.

First of all, how do you mount an effective blockade of southern ports. On the first turn I moved the Union fleet in the gulf of mexico over to the mouth of the mississippi river, shot up some artillery there, and camped. All was well and no trade made it through to the mississippi towns that turn. Now, however, two turns later, my fleets in mississippi R1a don't seem to be intercepting anything anymore... Moreover, I have no idea how to catch commerce raiders, or how to blockade the rest of the confederacy. What are some good hints for the naval war?

It sounds like perhaps your fleet in the Mississippi is not supplied. You catch commerce raiders by putting supplied cruisers, preferably with a good leader, in the commerce raider/pirate box. The balance of the blockade is typically done by capturing the offshore island, putting a garrison and depot there, and putting 2 or 3 cruisers in the sea region.

Also, amphibious movement. I seem to be having trouble with that one. Does "amphibious attack" qualify as simply crossing over a river? I have a general in Cincinnati, with 3 movement points and initiative, who can't get across the river to Lexington. There is a transport in that river. Does that mean it's an "amphibious assault?

Assuming the leader has units attached and has a red arrow, he should be able to cross on the bridge without any transports at all. Check the movement point costs; I 'm not looking at one but 3 mps should be enough to follow a railroad across a bridge into Ky.

Supply depots. As the union it seems i have near infinite supplies. (If I am correct somewhere in the 2000s at the beginning of 1861). So basically what is stopping me from building forts and depots wherever I want as long as I have the generals to do it? Isn't it advantageous for the union to just go all out and build a lot, since they have so much material?

I always seem to run short of supplies, although lots of people don't seem to have that problem. Build forts along your front line and put depots in regions that will host ACs or unit commanders that want initiative.

Areas without roads or railroads. I've noticed that there are a few areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri that don't have any roads or railroads going through them. What are the movement costs for going through those territories? I assume movement costs change with type of terrain, but how are those affected by lack of roads also?

Roads and railroads facilitate movement through all terrain; the movement cost is minimal because you are moving along the improvement, regardless of terrain type (swamp, forest or mountain). The instant you try to move cross country (through a region side and not along the road/railroad) the full terrain movement cost kicks in; this may prohibit movement completely in some cases.

Finally, initiative again. I understand that a theater commander's initiative chance is based on the amount of pop centers of the area he is located in, the amount of factories in that area, and a few other things. So basically stash your theater commander in a big city and that's the best you can hope for. Army commanders, I don't understand quite as much. I understand that having a supply depot gives a bonus, but what about more than 1 depot? Do forts give a bonus? Do population centers give a bonus?

Your ability to gain initiative is IMHO about the most critical rule you need to learn. TC initiative is based on three factors: his rank (1 through 4), his admin rating (1 through 4) and his command rating (1-20). You should be able to do the multiplication in your head to get an estimate of the chance that any TC or TC candidate will gain initiative. Once you determine whether the TC gains initiative, you go to step number 2, whether the AC gets initiative. That is likewise a fraction based on three factors: the aggressiveness of the AC, his supply or friendly territory status, and bonus from the TC with initiative (this bonus is a function of the city he is in i.e. population plus factories with bonus if he is in D.C.). The AC needs a depot with at least 20 supply; more than that doesn't help, but if a cavalry/mounted raider hits the place and captures/destroys to less than 20 you are hurtin' because the supplies are not replenished until after the initiative determination phase (see turn chronology). Forts give no bonus in initiative determination. Population centers only give a bonus through the TC initiative.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I've always found wargames to be the most fun way to learn about history, and I hope to have many hours of enjoyment with this game, as soon as I get how to make things work like I want them to! After mastering initiative calculation, look into combat. I have posted a synoposis in the warroom. Enjoy.




Treefrog -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 12:32:04 AM)

Oops, admin ratings are 1 through 6, not 1 through 4.[sm=terms.gif]




Bo Rearguard -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 1:27:41 AM)

quote:

Areas without roads or railroads. I've noticed that there are a few areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri that don't have any roads or railroads going through them. What are the movement costs for going through those territories? I assume movement costs change with type of terrain, but how are those affected by lack of roads also?


During the regular movement phase only, you are guaranteed to able to move at least one region if you have not moved during the reaction phase and you are moving into a friendly controlled area. Helps in those road less mountains




John Neal -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 1:36:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog
...
Your ability to gain initiative is IMHO about the most critical rule you need to learn. ...
...


Agreed. Rule 6.4, starts on page 75.


quote:

...
The AC needs a depot with at least 20 supply; more than that doesn't help, but if a cavalry/mounted raider hits the place and captures/destroys to less than 20 you are hurtin' because the supplies are not replenished until after the initiative determination phase (see turn chronology). Forts give no bonus in initiative determination. ...


Too clarify, IF the army is not in friendly territory, it needs 20 supply.
The fort does help against the raiders, theoretically. Fortress more so.




hgilmer2 -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 2:23:09 AM)

quote:

Areas without roads or railroads. I've noticed that there are a few areas in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri that don't have any roads or railroads going through them. What are the movement costs for going through those territories? I assume movement costs change with type of terrain, but how are those affected by lack of roads also?


If those territories are owned by the enemy, you might have a very hard time moving into some of them.  I was finally able to take the eastern most regions of Kentucky using Custer (On Union side) and on turns he got initiative - probably in the summer too.




BossGnome -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 2:39:16 AM)

Thanks for all your help! I actually feel like I sort of know what I am doing now! I just ran a few turns of a re-started game again as the union and the result has been a dramatic improvement over my previous performance. I only have 1 last point of uncertainty:

My fleet in the gulf of mexico still doesn't seem to be blockading anything. My cruisers are not in the river delta per say, just in the gulf. They are not connected by any line of ships back to new england or washington DC, they are basically alone. Somebody earlier mentioned the idea that maybe my ships weren't getting supplied? How would supplying my ships work?

Thanks!




IronWarrior -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 3:28:52 AM)

ack! I just realized that I said 5 for being in supply and TC help would be added to the roll. It is actually added to the adjusted attack rating which is measured against the random die roll.




BossGnome -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 4:16:54 AM)

Alright, I just ran another turn and none of my ships are blockading anything. This is despite me holding two of the coastal islands (the one nearest washington DC and the next one down), and having 4 cruisers stationed in the first island's area. Moreover I have 2 cruisers and 1 gunboat in the gulf of mexico.

And yet I am stopping nothing!




Bo Rearguard -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 4:51:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Alright, I just ran another turn and none of my ships are blockading anything. This is despite me holding two of the coastal islands (the one nearest washington DC and the next one down), and having 4 cruisers stationed in the first island's area. Moreover I have 2 cruisers and 1 gunboat in the gulf of mexico.

And yet I am stopping nothing!



Check to see if your ships in the Gulf have a 'crates' icon in the lower left of their counter. If not, they are out of supply and blockading nothing since that value is reduced to zero for unsupplied naval units. To be in supply there most be an unbroken chain of transports starting in a sea region adjacent to them and leading back to a Northern port.




wargamer123 -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 2:39:22 PM)

On the flip side, 20 years of discussion delayed the inevitable. The South probably had a better chance before the North was swelled with immigrants and industry so the South was in true effect fighting a war they could not win. So they should have never fought it! It was a losing war!

600 thousand died because of stupidity.. Nothing changed but the rape and ruin of the Southern way of life anyway. There never was going to be a CSA...

Anyway, it's a marvelous idea to ponder, in War Games. It's much like a Germany vs USSR/Western Allies..outproduced, out manned, outgunned.





Erik Rutins -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 3:07:27 PM)

On the other hand, could something as entrenched as Slavery really have been abolished without a war?




elcidce -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 3:18:41 PM)

There were prominent Southern leaders like Sen. John C. Calhoun who realized the slavery could not continue but struggled with a way to abolish it with out causing chaos and destroying the Southern economy. He wrote about this in his papers. The Nullification issue is overlooked in many explantions for the cause of the war but underlines that the cause was over the growing political power of the Northern politicians who repeatedly acted against the needs of the Southern states and the country in general leading up to the war. Just my two cents. Im looking forward to trying the game out. I think Im going to buy Forge of Freedom first.




elcidce -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 3:18:41 PM)

duplicate




elcidce -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 3:18:42 PM)

duplicate




wargamer123 -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 4:01:20 PM)

Erik, entrenched because their economy lived on it. Though millions of former slaves in the North had not much better a lifestyle in Yankee Factories. So honestly either way, the plight of the Slave and his freedom was not going to be answered and was not answered by the Civil War. Rather 100 years of issues that to this day are unresolved fully. I think the North had a lot of Idealistic men, but was it worth the death of so many, including more oppression on Former Slaves after the Civil War..

The South should have been shown the slow way into a new way of doing things. Pay, free and employ Blacks in their cotton fields, as they were foolish to believe they had much better...

I think the South thought they had a chance, maybe a peaceful succession..

Elcidce I wasn't aware of that.. :)






Erik Rutins -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 4:27:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
Erik, entrenched because their economy lived on it. Though millions of former slaves in the North had not much better a lifestyle in Yankee Factories. So honestly either way, the plight of the Slave and his freedom was not going to be answered and was not answered by the Civil War. Rather 100 years of issues that to this day are unresolved fully. I think the North had a lot of Idealistic men, but was it worth the death of so many, including more oppression on Former Slaves after the Civil War..


But the South was seeking to expand Slavery to new territories as well and from my reading of history, they were getting more ambitious with that over time. It was bound to lead to conflict.

quote:

The South should have been shown the slow way into a new way of doing things. Pay, free and employ Blacks in their cotton fields, as they were foolish to believe they had much better...
I think the South thought they had a chance, maybe a peaceful succession..


Well, the South ultimately decided to start the war because they didn't like the way things were going in terms of politics. They seceded, stopped talking and started shooting. I don't see that the North had much choice at that point but to respond in kind.

Who do you think could have shown the South a way to change their entire economic structure peacefully?

It's just unfortunate that Slavery was part of the original colonies and thus already entrenched by the time of the founding of the nation. The founders recognized that this would be a major problem in the future of the nation.

Regards,

- Erik




Erik Rutins -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 4:29:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome
Alright, I just ran another turn and none of my ships are blockading anything. This is despite me holding two of the coastal islands (the one nearest washington DC and the next one down), and having 4 cruisers stationed in the first island's area. Moreover I have 2 cruisers and 1 gunboat in the gulf of mexico.


To get back on topic for a sec...

BossGnome, have you had a chance to watch the tutorial videos, play the tutorial scenarios and read the manual yet (in that order)? I think the vast majority of what's confusing you will be easily resolved by the information in those sources, and they will probably give you a much more comprehensive understanding of the game than a forum discussion can.

Regards,

- Erik





wargamer123 -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 5:18:04 PM)

Erik, they were definitely pushing it, wanting I believe New Mexico/Arizona and I'm not sure about California to have Slavery.
I think without the leadership the South had, and determination..the War would not have been so bloody and so long.
The Divisions today are not so deep, but when I was good ole Dixie, I could still feel a tension amongst the people. Ironically to me, most of these types would not have had the money to own slaves, or at least very many. The Bourgeois Southerners adapted to things better, as today they aren't suffering much..
The War in no way in my mind changed the USA. Abolishing only slavery in name, but punishing the South's Aggression and destroying it's way of life. The North did go into the South with Raiding parties, Abolishnists hellbent on changing things. Causing all sorts of havoc or so I read.
I do not believe you are right..the South was bold to want to stretch slavery but it something that would die, I do not feel it would survive 'long'.. It died in every other nation including the North!




IronWarrior -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 9:28:07 PM)

True that many in the South were pushing for expansion. My example, Jefferson, was a slave owner. It is said to have weighed heavily on his conscience. Jefferson even helped to pass legislature to stop expansion of slavery in the west. It is also said that he planned to release his own slaves as soon as he got out of debt, which he never did.

The problem I had with what happened is that the Union's new power grabbing, more powerful centralized government was making the new rules, but not giving any solutions to the problems.




Bo Rearguard -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/13/2008 10:08:37 PM)

I guess Yankee ingenuity can be blamed as well. There were many indications that slavery was beginning to die out even in the South in the late 18th century. Then along came Eli Whitney and his 'gin which made the short staple cotton that grew so well in the South wildly profitable. Even more so with free labor to pick it.




heroldje -> RE: Let me get this straight... (8/14/2008 1:21:02 AM)

"The War in no way in my mind changed the USA. Abolishing only slavery in name, but punishing the South's Aggression and destroying it's way of life. The North did go into the South with Raiding parties, Abolishnists hellbent on changing things. Causing all sorts of havoc or so I read. "

Abolitionists were considered extremists even in the North.  Before the war they had an extremely small political footing.  It wasn't until well into the war that ending slavery became a viable platform.  The emancipation proclamation elicited mixed reactions at best.  There were no raiding abolitionists inciting riots.  You need to shop at a new book store.   The war radically changed the country in so many ways I don't even know where to start...




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.359375