RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (Full Version)

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



Message

Chris21wen -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (1/31/2022 5:45:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen



1 Weather is irrelevant, I did not just run this for one day [snip]





Oh dear, you seem upset that I have questioned your claim that you have found a bug, one that has apparently eluded detection for 13 years. I tried to point you in the right direction, but that was unsuccessful.

So, let's do this in very clinical, emotionless fashion, starting with the above statement, and working downwards over the next few days.



I said 'Now am I missing something or is this a bug?'. I think this is a reasonable question considering what I found. You answered with 'maybe its weather'. This is not the case and I repeat what I said before, I've repeated it four or five time with different scenarios and they all come up with the same, ships that start disbanded in do no appear to fly search mission with their FP or if they do they are registoring as missions with the pilots.

Now before having a go at me over some precieved slight (lot of that going on on this forum lately) I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (1/31/2022 9:58:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

I said 'Now am I missing something or is this a bug?'. I think this is a reasonable question considering what I found. You answered with 'maybe its weather'. This is not the case


Post script to part 1:

Every other variable in your "test" could be exactly the same, and different weather rolls could produce different fly/no-fly results in different hexes, with advanced weather either on or off. It is interesting that your no-flies (from groups on TF ships) seem to be happening up north near the JHI, in the middle of winter, whereas down at sunny Babeldaob they are flying around no problem. "I moved a AV in and out of Truk no joy. Once I sent it to Saipan it did??" This sounds WAD if the weather is different over Truk hex than it is over Saipan.

I don't actually understand why you maintain weather is irrelevant, because it essentially means you can never set up a test in which you control all the variables to test your hypothesis. But moving on ...

Part 2:

I was suggesting you set up a sandbox that uses endurance expenditure as the metric to detect search ops by shipboard groups on ships not in TF.

In the second part of your post you found that float-plane carrying ships disbanded in port, not in a TF, did not generate air missions by the embarked squadrons - except possibly Babeldaob. See manual 6.2.13.

For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance.

That means all ships in the TF, not just the airgroup carrying ships, because everyone has to speed up (carriers going flank speed into the wind) or slow down (float plane recovery) etc. So even if only one cruiser launches its search planes, everyone takes an endurance hit, including the cruisers who for whatever reason, don't launch. It also at least inferentially suggests that only ships in TF's will generate air ops. Anyway, ships in TFs is WAD - after you account for the weather variable, and maybe some other uncontrollable die rolls that are being failed by no-fly groups.

So on to testing anchored ships in Babeldaob.

If anchored ships, not in TF, are launching air missions, then they too should lose endurance. If there is fuel in the base they might top up and expend some ops points, however that is dependent on ship op points and base ops limits permitting the refuel (more variables to eliminate), so to create a 'pure' test environment you need to sandbox that by emptying Babeldaob of supply and fuel. You also need to remove any other possible sources of a refuel, i.e. other TFs, parked tankers or AOs and any other possibility anyone can think of that provide fuel replenishment.

Once your test sandbox is fuel isolated, run the turn repeatedly and check the endurance levels. It is to be expected that your results will show all ships have no endurance loss.

Edit: One thing was unclear from your original posting - you mentioned sending a TF with floatplane carrying ships to a port with a disband order, and seeing later that search ops were flown. Did you mean they flew them while at sea in transit?

quote:

I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.


No thanks, to edit up the sandbox to actually create a proper test environment will like take at least a couple of hours of work. It's your hypothesis that there is a bug - and if it survives the rigorous testing process I have outlined for stage 2 above, maybe it is - subject to weather rolls.




Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 2:47:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]


I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.



Chris21wen -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 5:08:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.


No thanks, to edit up the sandbox to actually create a proper test environment will like take at least a couple of hours of work. It's your hypothesis that there is a bug - and if it survives the rigorous testing process I have outlined for stage 2 above, maybe it is - subject to weather rolls.



You don't need to do that, just run the game normally but if you cannot be bothered that's OK I'll leave it there.

I'll change the wording to 'No it is not the weather causing it'.





Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 9:07:19 AM)

Well, in that case your hypothesis remains unproven.


I can set up an equally unconvincing non-rigorous test and claim it disproves your hypothesis. I parked the HMNZS Leander in Lord Howe island. With Wing Commander Morrison, I.G, appointed CO of its float plane group Sqn 700-10 FAA (1 x Walrus II), with air, aggression and leadership ratings above 50.


Lord Howe island is totally isolated, and has zero fuel (and 10 supply, but not relevant). On arrival and after disbanding into port, the cruiser has 10458 endurance after parking (it dropped out of its SAG adjacent to Lord Howe). Quadrant weather is clear skies. Show clouds is "on". If I see clouds over the base, that turn's result will be discarded.


First day - Sqn grounded so that fatigue etc come back to zero. Also to double check ship endurance stays the same.
Second day. Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 3. Third day Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 1. Fourth day Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 0.

Day 5 then repeated multiple times with Sqn700-10 on 100% search at 6k ft, max normal range 4.

Results: Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 0. Turn after turn after turn.


Conclusion: There is no bug and everything is WAD.




Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 10:10:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]


I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.


If onboard groups, no bug, WAD.

Shipboard groups sorties cost TF wide endurance, and if appropriate to mission, an onboard sortie. They do not cost supply or fuel.

Eventually, endurance is replenished by refueling, and sorties costs supplies on rearming from a base with sufficient rearm capacity... but onboard planes don't use it directly.

If you are saying that they were groups on base being serviced by the AVs, then it requires rigorous sand box testing before claiming that is somehow a breach of coding - one that has miraculously avoided detection for 13 years.







Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 12:52:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]


I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.


If onboard groups, no bug, WAD.

Shipboard groups sorties cost TF wide endurance, and if appropriate to mission, an onboard sortie. They do not cost supply or fuel.

Eventually, endurance is replenished by refueling, and sorties costs supplies on rearming from a base with sufficient rearm capacity... but onboard planes don't use it directly.

If you are saying that they were groups on base being serviced by the AVs, then it requires rigorous sand box testing before claiming that is somehow a breach of coding - one that has miraculously avoided detection for 13 years.







Well like I said, it's been a while. A number of years. I'm not usually one to mis-recollect, but it happens. If I have time, I'll check it out, because that's exactly what I'm saying: Mavis, based at the base (which was Baker or Canton Island), being serviced by an AV, without using any of the supply either at the base (which essentially had none) or onboard the AV.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 2:59:25 PM)

My experience as well. In my current PBEM I have disbanded two AVDs at Raoul Island, a dot base without fuel and supplies, and moved-in a squadron of PBYs to fly naval search. They did fly - they found KB heading for Auckland - but the 160 supplies on each of the AVDs remained untouched.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/1/2022 5:51:44 PM)

Have you tracked ship endurance? It should not reduce if the groups are not on board,or if less than 3 aircraft fly on search or CAP.

Also, what happens if you change the mission to naval attack, although leave them on the same search/rest percentages (even if that is 100%)?

I just recreated your situation at Kandavu Is, using the AV Albamarle, and a PBY squadron. On attack but at 100%search, supplies were consumed.



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/2/2022 4:44:33 PM)

It's supposed to burn the supply, though. And considering the ships never ran out of fuel as I was able to sail them away months later... I just wasn't paying attention to the endurance. I do know that the AVPs/AVDs have low enough endurance that I'd notice.

In another recent game of mine where I was the Allies (opponent now on indefinite/permanent hiatus), I had many AVP/AVD forays in the South Pacific with Catalinas. I was finding that unless I had some supplies at the base, they didn't want to fly or they wouldn't be maintained. But as long as I had some supply there, they would fly - and not burn any of the supplies either at the base or on the AVP/AVD.

I'm still intending to do a test, with a video, to show it happening in real time and what the conditions are. Should be simple enough to do a start as Japan and quickly move one of the magic movement TFs with an AV to a tiny island, fly in a Mavis unit, and just run turns with Enterprise/Lexington nearby to get spotted. And keep track of the supplies.



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/2/2022 5:54:03 PM)

I tested it. No supply is being used in cases like this.

https://youtu.be/6FjOhNRVed8

Setup runs through the first 7 minutes or so.

At 7:10 you can see the fuel at Eniwetok is 1153, and supplies still 2800. Supplies on the AV is 1640.

At 7:30ish I begin setting the search and targets.

At 9:41 you see evidence of the planes flying.

At 11:06 - supply situation at Eniwetok and on the tender remains unchanged.

I walk through verifying the number of missions flown, etc.

Per the manual:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

So the 6 missions per phase should have expended 2 supply points (per phase), for a total of 4 supply expenditure.

This is such a minor thing, but it is a thing.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 7:32:13 AM)

At video 7:10ff there is 2800 supply at Eniwetok, and 1640 on the AV as it disbands into port.

Yokohama Ku T1 - transferred from Maleop on December 7, and was stood down with fatigue 7.

At 11.22ff supply states remain the same, pilot fatigue on Yok. Ku T-1. has gone down to 5 pt. Maybe 1 or 2 planes flew.

Your assumption 6 missions were actually flown each phase on December 8 is not scientifically valid - - there are two many variables unaccounted for. If only 1 or 2 planes flew search due to weather, or because of leader/morale rolls, there is no supply expenditure*. Also what is Eniwetok's supply level as a % of needs at base? That also has an effect.

Also, at 12:02, you state an expectation that supplies would be expended from the tender. That is not correct, if supplies on base can be used, then they will be used before supplies on a tender are expended.

As Alfred has said, the usual rule is the code doesn't do fractions**. If 1 or 2 planes flew in a phase, there is no supply expenditure.

[*Unless Michael M says there should be a fraction roundup in this instance, but the plain and ordinary meaning of words:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

is 2 planes = 2/3rds - and when you drop the fraction = 0.].

On the on board Pete group, they won't fly if the AV is disbanded in port. Those missions were likely flown on the trip down before the AV was parked.

On board group missions use endurance not supply.

And the expenditure rate is the same - 3 planes on search mission = 1 endurance point (TF wide). The wording is clearer on the threshold:

"For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance."

So if only 2 planes launch.... no endurance is expended.



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 3:50:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

At video 7:10ff there is 2800 supply at Eniwetok, and 1640 on the AV as it disbands into port.

Yokohama Ku T1 - transferred from Maleop on December 7, and was stood down with fatigue 7.

At 11.22ff supply states remain the same, pilot fatigue on Yok. Ku T-1. has gone down to 5 pt. Maybe 1 or 2 planes flew.



Brother, did you not count up the number of missions flown? On which days do you think those missions were flown - days prior to the start of the scenario?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Your assumption 6 missions were actually flown each phase on December 8 is not scientifically valid - - there are two many variables unaccounted for. If only 1 or 2 planes flew search due to weather, or because of leader/morale rolls, there is no supply expenditure*. Also what is Eniwetok's supply level as a % of needs at base? That also has an effect.


So what day(s) did they fly on, then? There were only 2 possible phases when they could have flown the listed 12 missions. If only 2 flew in the first phase, than 10 flew later. Is 10 not greater than 2?

Further, 6 missions being flown per phase exactly matches the settings of the air unit in question, which is size 12 and was set to 50% search. What is 50% of 12? Why, it is 6!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Also, at 12:02, you state an expectation that supplies would be expended from the tender. That is not correct, if supplies on base can be used, then they will be used before supplies on a tender are expended.



I checked the tender because supplies had not been used from the base first. I don't care whether checking the tender was correct or not, I was checking to see if supplies had been used at all. They were not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
As Alfred has said, the usual rule is the code doesn't do fractions**. If 1 or 2 planes flew in a phase, there is no supply expenditure.

[*Unless Michael M says there should be a fraction roundup in this instance, but the plain and ordinary meaning of words:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

is 2 planes = 2/3rds - and when you drop the fraction = 0.].

On the on board Pete group, they won't fly if the AV is disbanded in port. Those missions were likely flown on the trip down before the AV was parked.


The number of Pete missions flown exceeds the number that would have been flown prior to the AV disbanding into port, and the number of missions flown (like the Mavis unit above) exactly matches the percentage set to search and the total number of daytime air phases since the beginning of the scenario.

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions. It's just not relevant here. This is incontrovertible proof in front of us all that supply is not used by float/seaplanes being serviced by disbanded AV*/CS at a base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
On board group missions use endurance not supply.


And it used zero endurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
And the expenditure rate is the same - 3 planes on search mission = 1 endurance point (TF wide). The wording is clearer on the threshold:

"For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance."

So if only 2 planes launch.... no endurance is expended.



This could be true. Why don't I test it next?

I can lead a horse to water, but... Here, why don't I just drown the horse. I'll post another shortly.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 4:06:35 PM)

You know what, if you are sure, report it on the tech thread,load your save as an attachment and ask Michael to look at it.

quote:

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions.


Ah, the truth emerges.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 4:43:18 PM)

How about this one? No supplies at the base, a dozen Cats on 100% search spotting enemy TF - but neither supplies nor endurance spent by the tenders. The Cats must be flying on moonshine.

[image]local://upfiles/1313/BA5B1EE476AC43BE9F16623181F5ADC1.jpg[/image]



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 4:51:19 PM)

I tested it again, this time for nearly a week of in-game time.

On 1 day, the AV appeared to consume some Endurance points when the Petes flew from it while disbanded in port, but this appears to have instead been some kind of rounding error by the code in displaying the endurance level. In no instance did the Mavis unit, set to 100% search and verified by the number of missions flown daily, burn a single solitary point of supply. Tenders disbanded in port service eligible planes at the base for free, full stop. Planes on a tender disbanded in port will fly missions as ordered, full stop. Sometimes those planes on the tender will burn endurance, but sometimes they will not.

Jump to 11:00 if you don't need to see my setup and everything. At that point, missions have begun to be flown by both the Mavis unit and the Pete unit. I was too lazy to do any editing here to remove any of the "chaff" from the replay and whatnot.

I did contaminate the test a little bit with destroyers that showed up with rescued ground troops from an air attack - so they had probably expended AA ammo, and replenished that when they reached Eniwetok. I had a thought that, perhaps, the supply expenditure from the tender on those 2 days (4 points each day) was from rearming the destroyers even though they aren't supposed to. So maybe the supply was burned by the DDs, or maybe it was burned by the Pete unit on those 2 days but not on any of the other days. Regardless, we know that supply was not used for the flying boats at all, not once, and that supply/endurance was not used by the Pete unit in most if not all days.

Interestingly, the tender's endurance actually went up between December 11 and December 12, from 18215 to 18219, while the fuel at the base remained at 1080. It went back down the day after (I noted it going down in my video, but upon re-watching I realized that the endurance was at 18215 before jumping up to 18219 - it was not something I was looking at prior to the turn when it inexplicably went up by 4).

https://youtu.be/byhTU_GMaLk

I attempted to test the SCTF reaction issue in the other thread but it was an afterthought and I did not get any reaction results, either from patrol zones or remain on station, with task forces at DL 10/10 for each side and distances of 1, 2, and 5 hexes (reaction ranges set to 6). So, inconclusive.



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 4:53:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

You know what, if you are sure, report it on the tech thread,load your save as an attachment and ask Michael to look at it.

quote:

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions.


Ah, the truth emerges.


This thread isn't about Alfred. Stop trying to derail it with... whatever this is.

I am sure and I've just done 2 extensive, unedited video tests of it. If you don't want to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a "bug", then that's your problem. I still posted them for everyone else's benefit. It would be nice if, instead of simply calling into doubt other people's assertions (backed up by actual evidence), you provided something tangible to the contrary.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:00:45 PM)

Guys,

If you are so sure that there is a bug, report it, and load your sandboxed save games.

Why go round in circles with me pointing out the serial logical fallacies in your tests?

I'm not the ultimate arbiter of this.

quote:

Interestingly, the tender's endurance actually went up between December 11 and December 12, from 18215 to 18219, while the fuel at the base remained at 1080.


Did you send any fuel there?

Better report that as a bug then, eh [;)]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:02:34 PM)

What serial logical fallacies have you pointed out in my test?



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:06:43 PM)

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:08:42 PM)

Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:10:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.


Or, you could put your tests on the tech thread and ask Michael M to take a look.

Your choice.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:20:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

What serial logical fallacies have you pointed out in my test?


TBF I was responding to the other fellow, but if you are confident about your test parameters and results, and that you have eliminated all uncontrollable variables, why not submit your results to MichaelM as a bug report?

Maybe he'll test it and say you are right.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:25:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?


Because we want you to admit that you are wrong and we are right, a public apology and the promise that you will mend your ways to become a better forumite [;)]

Na, seriously - you are right about possible uncontrollable variables, but with tests being run over weeks it appears to be pretty sure there is an issue.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 5:42:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?


Because we want you to admit that you are wrong and we are right, a public apology and the promise that you will mend your ways to become a better forumite [;)]

Na, seriously - you are right about possible uncontrollable variables, but with tests being run over weeks it appears to be pretty sure there is an issue.



... [Edited because LST couldn't take the bet]

Edit: That is conditional on you proposing a specific bug to MM, which MM agrees is there, and not some variation on it that is merely related to your proposal.


Against that, if no bug, you send me a case of French Syrah of my choice.


Agreed? He didn't.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 6:07:39 PM)

The bet expires in 10 minutes...

And expired ...



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 6:19:59 PM)

Sorry, been afk for supper. Had to google "French Syrah" - although I'm living in France, I'm not into wine, preferring beer, true to my origins. Betting is against my religion, but I'll post in the bug thread in the tech subforum and we'll see.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/3/2022 6:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Sorry, been afk for supper. Had to google "French Syrah" - although I'm living in France, I'm not into wine, preferring beer, true to my origins. Betting is against my religion, but I'll post in the bug thread in the tech subforum and we'll see.



Good enough.


There goes my free case of Shiraz.



Lokasenna -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/5/2022 9:32:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.


Or, you could put your tests on the tech thread and ask Michael M to take a look.

Your choice.


No choice - there is no "Michael take a look" anymore, the bug fixes are done. I don't think you've been paying attention since you just keep saying that.

This is just about posting so people are aware of what can be done. You're clearly only interested in trying to poke holes and it comes across as some kind of personal crusade that isn't even about the bugs and oversights.



Ian R -> RE: Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel (2/6/2022 12:36:35 AM)

Just post it on the tech thread.

Edit, don't bother, LST already did - and Micheal already looked and posted today. WAD, apparently.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4923122&mpage=2

Are you going to now apologise for your intemperate & unnecessary personal attacks and accusations of trolling?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5957031