Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/8/2003 6:48:32 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]the battle of Santa Cruz may also be relevant as to the use of CAP as well[/QUOTE]

Not really, because you can not remove the critical submarine strike. Even then, BOTH side lost rough 43% of their aircraft.

S.C. cost the USA 1 CV sunk and 1 CV heavy damage vs Japan 1 CV heavy damage and 1 CVL heavy damage. (other ships were also hurt on both sides, but we only care about the CV aspect)

The 2.30 patch fixed the suicide rates and brought aircraft losses down to what seems to be more historical ... 40-50% loss.

Coral Sea is roughly the same general result except for some stupidity on Japan's part of spliting off a CVL for a forward scout. Bad mistake, it cost them the CVL.

Pretty much every single CV vs CV brawl worked out the same. The US side lost a fleet CV for a Japan lessor CV or CVL.

Midway is a little different in nature as in reality, the goal was to invade and secure Midway. It was not planned as a CV brawl, as evidenced by the fact that the action took place assuming that there was no US CV's around. Had the *facts* been known or some of the silly mistakes not happened, you would end up with a much more historical result, with 2-3 US CV's sunk for 1-2 Japan CV's sunk.

I see the 2.30 patch as a good thing, seems like some of you see it (and the reduction in air losses that come with it) as a bad thing. Looking at every CV vs CV battle that happened in UV's timeframe, I see Japan winning at a tactical level on pretty much every single matchup. (I do not include Midway for the above stated reasons)

When we play a non-Midway version, (a) we don't make the mistake make at Coral Sea and split our forces and (b) we actively go out CV hunting. The end result is that we are negating a lot of historical realities, and the end result is that the USA generally gets sent packing. The difference here is that a CV loss to Japan is a ship that will never be replaced. A CV lost to the USA is just another silly boat that needs to be renamed again, it is not even a threat to them. It is a pride issue to us who play, but really, a CV back then to the USA really didn't mean a heck of a lot in the greater scheme of things as far as the war effort went. So what, lost one, who cares, we're building another 20 anyways ... If you scratched the other guy (who could NOT replace them) on the way past as you sunk, you accomplished your goal.

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 61
- 5/8/2003 7:25:52 AM   
afenelon

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline 		Mr. Fragg
[B]Not really, because you can not remove the critical submarine strike.

-What strike? Am I missing something?

S.C. cost the USA 1 CV sunk and 1 CV heavy damage vs Japan 1 CV heavy damage and 1 CVL heavy damage. (other ships were also hurt on both sides, but we only care about the CV aspect)

-Right

The 2.30 patch fixed the suicide rates and brought aircraft losses down to what seems to be more historical ... 40-50% loss.

-Wrong, if one side has fatigued CAP, losses are much smaller. But I agree with you 40-50% loss is historical.

Coral Sea is roughly the same general result except for some stupidity on Japan's part of spliting off a CVL for a forward scout. Bad mistake, it cost them the CVL.
Pretty much every single CV vs CV brawl worked out the same. The US side lost a fleet CV for a Japan lessor CV or CVL.

-Right

Midway is a little different in nature as in reality, the goal was to invade and secure Midway. It was not planned as a CV brawl, as evidenced by the fact that the action took place assuming that there was no US CV's around. Had the *facts* been known or some of the silly mistakes not happened, you would end up with a much more historical result, with 2-3 US CV's sunk for 1-2 Japan CV's sunk.

-Agree with you again, there was the expected result

I see the 2.30 patch as a good thing, seems like some of you see it (and the reduction in air losses that come with it) as a bad thing. Looking at every CV vs CV battle that happened in UV's timeframe, I see Japan winning at a tactical level on pretty much every single matchup. (I do not include Midway for the above stated reasons)

-Agree with you that IJN usually must gain the upper hand. Disagree with you because I think they are winning too frequently and by a larger margin than expected, due to the US CV´s usually not attacking IJN ones. Maybe this could improve if both sides manage to set CAP on 50%?

When we play a non-Midway version, (a) we don't make the mistake make at Coral Sea and split our forces and (b) we actively go out CV hunting. The end result is that we are negating a lot of historical realities, and the end result is that the USA generally gets sent packing. The difference here is that a CV loss to Japan is a ship that will never be replaced. A CV lost to the USA is just another silly boat that needs to be renamed again, it is not even a threat to them. It is a pride issue to us who play, but really, a CV back then to the USA really didn't mean a heck of a lot in the greater scheme of things as far as the war effort went. So what, lost one, who cares, we're building another 20 anyways ... If you scratched the other guy (who could NOT replace them) on the way past as you sunk, you accomplished your goal.

-This will be true in WiTP, but not in UV. If the USA losses more than 3 CV´s in exchange for 1 or 2 IJN CV´s, the USN offensive capability is crippled for the rest of the campaign, because it will only get more three CV´s, and two of them in the last half of 1942. If the IJN sinks 4 or more US CV´s in the first two months, withouth losses, then the game is over.....

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 62
- 5/8/2003 7:56:20 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]-This will be true in WiTP, but not in UV. If the USA losses more than 3 CV´s in exchange for 1 or 2 IJN CV´s, the USN offensive capability is crippled for the rest of the campaign, because it will only get more three CV´s, and two of them in the last half of 1942. If the IJN sinks 4 or more US CV´s in the first two months, withouth losses, then the game is over.....[/QUOTE]

Here we will differ wildly in opinions. If you as the USA player loose 4 or more CV's prior to 1943, you DESERVE to loose the game. The Japan player has to play aggressively to stand any chance whatsoever to win the game.

The Allied player simply needs to deny victory to Japan by sitting back and watching the clock tick. The Allied side starts with exactly enough resources to defend each auto-victory location well enough to win the game. The only way you as the Allied player can loose the game to to over extend your starting forces in such a manner to leave a couple of these key bases undefended at which point Japan can walk over you. Since ground combat requires 2:1 odds and all but one auto-victory base is a non-malaria location, the odds become almost 4:1 due to degraded troop conditions on the Japan side. The ONLY location that the Allied player actually has to contest is Luganville due to it being a malaria base and troops needing to be rotated.

After turn 85, victory for Japan is only possible if the Allied player has played stupidly, loosing large numbers of troops and/or silly CV suicide missions. The game is an automatic win for the Allied player as long as the Allied player keeps his hands off the keyboard. Allied air power comes in at roughly 170 planes a month. Japan during the same time period grows roughly 70 planes a month (these are bomber types). In Jan '43 while Japan stays about the same, the Allied side again goes up at insane rates, adding almost an entire month worth of aircraft at Japan rates to their already large advantage.

If you as the Allied player can not control your aggressive tendancies long enough to win, perhaps you should play Japan, where you are rewarded for your aggression instead of punished. :D

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 63
- 5/8/2003 11:01:00 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Here we will differ wildly in opinions. If you as the USA player loose 4 or more CV's prior to 1943, you DESERVE to loose the game. The Japan player has to play aggressively to stand any chance whatsoever to win the game.

The Allied player simply needs to deny victory to Japan by sitting back and watching the clock tick. The Allied side starts with exactly enough resources to defend each auto-victory location well enough to win the game. The only way you as the Allied player can loose the game to to over extend your starting forces in such a manner to leave a couple of these key bases undefended at which point Japan can walk over you. Since ground combat requires 2:1 odds and all but one auto-victory base is a non-malaria location, the odds become almost 4:1 due to degraded troop conditions on the Japan side. The ONLY location that the Allied player actually has to contest is Luganville due to it being a malaria base and troops needing to be rotated.

After turn 85, victory for Japan is only possible if the Allied player has played stupidly, loosing large numbers of troops and/or silly CV suicide missions. The game is an automatic win for the Allied player as long as the Allied player keeps his hands off the keyboard. Allied air power comes in at roughly 170 planes a month. Japan during the same time period grows roughly 70 planes a month (these are bomber types). In Jan '43 while Japan stays about the same, the Allied side again goes up at insane rates, adding almost an entire month worth of aircraft at Japan rates to their already large advantage.

If you as the Allied player can not control your aggressive tendancies long enough to win, perhaps you should play Japan, where you are rewarded for your aggression instead of punished. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Mr Frag,

I congratulate you on your excellent grasp of mathmateics.

You calculations based on available forces are well thought out and well presented.

But.

UV, much like actual warfare, is a function of applying the force. As the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure".

Success in combat is achieving local superiority through manuever. There is so much variability in results because of the human element of planning and executing strategy that undermine the purest of mathmatical approaches to predicting the outcomes of battle.

Superiority with the resulting victory on paper are good. Like the pundits who critique and prognosticate professional football in the US every year, they have very sound arguements as to who will win what division or conference and who will win the Superbowl. And every year, some are right and some are wrong. The calculations based on strengths and weaknesses amount to a hill of $hit.

That is why they play the games.

That is also why many of us play UV.

You mathematicly based logic fails to account for the variabilities of the application of the force by humans.

Ask Yamamoto about the "Allies doing nothing and winning". He may provide a number of contradictions to what you puport to be the ground truth.

Experts who flout numbers as a way to accurately predict the outcomes of chaotic processes like combat are more than often proved wrong.

Yes, using situations where the unknowns and variables are few, such as no variablility in reinforcements so you can plan precisely based on the enemies reinforcement arrivals makes things easier, but there is still the choas of combat.

Based on my tests, the outcomes of even fights are highly variable and cannot be counted on with a measureable level of reliability, which means UV seems to do a good job of modeling uncertainty and choas in combat.

I say that a good player can overcome a "mathmatical" disadvantage, simply because it is an aggregate number, and does not represent the effects of deployment, and the resulting interactions with the opposing player.

Over reliance on numbers can lead to self fulfilling prophesies of defeatism.

Like Johnny Unitas said before every football game he played "talk is cheap, lets go play"

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 64
- 5/8/2003 12:11:46 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		For CAP percentages, here are some numbers for the Japanese:

36 Zeros were used as escort for the strike on Midway
18 Zeros were part of the initial CAP
36 [I]more[/I] Zeros were launched during the course of the attacks on the Japanese force for a total of 54 Zeros engaged in CAP

This breaks down to a 60% CAP level for the Japs, precisely the default selected by the AI.

Meanwhile, the Americans escorted their strike with 26 Wildcats, only 16 of which actually participated in the attack, the other 10 diverted to Midway after not finding the target. I don't know precisely what the Americans had left behind as CAP, but the Jap attack on Yorktown ran into a CAP of 12 planes.

At Santa Cruz, the Americans had an effective CAP level of 90%. It would have been 100% except some of the Wildcats were being repaired. At any rate, they decided to use every fighter they had to protect the carriers, and it still didn't work.

Another interesting note on CAP effectiveness would be that even at the Turkey Shoot, there were still some Jap leakers. They didn't score anything and most of the leakers were dealt with by AAA. Nevertheless, even with all their advantages, the Americans were not able to achieve 100% protection.

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 65
Stubborn? - 5/8/2003 12:30:17 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
This is my reply to the previous quote.

Flying aircraft in the Pacific or in any theater of WWII was extremely draining under all conditions. Fighter craft had no autopilots so the pilots had to be alert at all times on at all times. WWII fighters were "hot", high performance planes that required detailed attention all the time.

[/QUOTE]

Ok. Did not pilots learn to fly without really having to concentrate on on it...? But you allways had to be alert for the enemies.

[QUOTE]

The biggest drain on pilots was the adrenaline rush from the fear and excitment of actual combat.
One tight engagement or bombing run could physically exhaust a pilot. Two or three days of actual combat (remember most missions did not necessarily have much in the way of combat for fighter pilots) could break a pilot down.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, combat fatigue is wery understandable. Both fysically and mentally, expecially from air to air combat but also from bombing...

But still I feel that sometimes this effect is exaggerated. Like when large group of CV based planes attack lightly defended target. Like couple DD's. Escorting fighters get much fatigue even if not engaged any enemy fighters... And for bomber pilots such attack propably was not as straining experience than attacking against heavy CAP&AA. Atleast after target allready have received 10+ bomb hits.

Unless pilots got tired from just flying around... Sounds like that
partly might be the case.

[QUOTE]

Navy pilots generally had it better as carriers had first rate medical facilities and excellent food. Most forward land based air pilots had not only to deal with combat but with disease and very rudimentary diets. This in itself would contribute heavily to fatigue. Somtimes the situation would dictate that pilots with milder forms of malaria or dystentery would have to go up. This is especially true of Japanese land based pilots who had very little access to proper medical facilities and very poor diets when compared to Allied pilots. [/QUOTE]

---------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag

Maintaining 50% of your fighters airborne over your task force (which translates to 100% of your fighters as there are two phases) means that 100% of your planes will be flying each day, with repairs and such only being done at night by the tired maint crews.

[/QUOTE]

Maintenance crew fatigue propably doesn't effect pilots wery much, I think... Crew fatigue propably resulted slower maintenance and repairing of planes.

[QUOTE]

Add the fact that the fighters are only a 3rd of the planes that must be kept flying and you quickly see just how silly it is to expect to be able to sustain that level of operations.

[/QUOTE]

But was pilot fatigue the reason for beeing unable to go on if no serious fighting was not fought?

[QUOTE]

The CV's simply did not carry enough fuel/bullets/bombs for round the clock operations. The planes during that time period did not have any labour saving devices to keep the pilot rested, he had to physically fly the plane, do the navigation, etc, all by himself.

[/QUOTE]

Propably all pilots did not navigate... Atleast not when serving in CAP. And I would have thought that flying itself would have become quite subconscious action, like driving a bike... etc. But as I said, don't know. Thanks for your enlightening posts :)

It sounds like that there were bottlenecks that prevented operations for several days in a row and that some that are not simulated may be transfered to effect in pilot fatigue. I hope that this is not the case, because higher pilot fatigue kills your pilots and lets enemy to stay alive. Would be better if less planes would be in air but pilots in better shape... In CV's point of view result would be quite same, but pilots would be more reliable in combat.

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 66
- 5/10/2003 6:59:41 AM   
afenelon

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Here we will differ wildly in opinions. If you as the USA player loose 4 or more CV's prior to 1943, you DESERVE to loose the game. The Japan player has to play aggressively to stand any chance whatsoever to win the game.

The Allied player simply needs to deny victory to Japan by sitting back and watching the clock tick. The Allied side starts with exactly enough resources to defend each auto-victory location well enough to win the game. The only way you as the Allied player can loose the game to to over extend your starting forces in such a manner to leave a couple of these key bases undefended at which point Japan can walk over you. Since ground combat requires 2:1 odds and all but one auto-victory base is a non-malaria location, the odds become almost 4:1 due to degraded troop conditions on the Japan side. The ONLY location that the Allied player actually has to contest is Luganville due to it being a malaria base and troops needing to be rotated.

After turn 85, victory for Japan is only possible if the Allied player has played stupidly, loosing large numbers of troops and/or silly CV suicide missions. The game is an automatic win for the Allied player as long as the Allied player keeps his hands off the keyboard. Allied air power comes in at roughly 170 planes a month. Japan during the same time period grows roughly 70 planes a month (these are bomber types). In Jan '43 while Japan stays about the same, the Allied side again goes up at insane rates, adding almost an entire month worth of aircraft at Japan rates to their already large advantage.

If you as the Allied player can not control your aggressive tendancies long enough to win, perhaps you should play Japan, where you are rewarded for your aggression instead of punished. :D [/B][/QUOTE]


-Unless, I misunderstood you, we have almost the same opinion. I disagreed from your statement that CV losses are less important to US than to Japan, because the US have how to replace them. This is not true, from my point, because in the time frame covered by UV, the US receives only 3 fleet carriers after its prewar 6 CV´s, and two of those three in the second half of 1943. Now, reading your answer, I have the impression we agree about the fact that US must avoid CV losses early in the game. And I agree completely with you that the US must avoid CV engagements early in the game (in v2.20, however, it could try an engagement after having 4 CV´s, given the super CAP effects). In v 2.30, of course, the US player must be much more cautious (since his CAP does badly and his bombers refuse to attack IJN CV´s)

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 67
- 5/10/2003 7:09:49 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		1. I never saw USN bombers refusing to launch strikes against anything under 2.30. However, I saw IJN bombers refuse, and semi-refuse to launch strikes against USN CVs under 2.30 several times (three at least).

Worst thing I saw USN do under 2.30 is launch unescorted strikes (both sides do that sometimes, and it's very frustrating, but also very realistic).

2. USN CVs are already more valuable (LOTSA more valuable) than IJNs, simply because they have greater capacity, and are more durable. In UV this translates into being worth more points. Trading 4 IJN CVs for 4 USN CVs will bring substantial difference in points in favor for IJN player. Which, IMO, is fine.

O.

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 68
- 5/10/2003 7:19:48 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		In my opinion losing 4 american CV simply makes the game even.
You will still be able to amass the killer CV Task Force.
It will just take longer.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 69
- 5/10/2003 8:11:13 AM   
afenelon

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]1. I never saw USN bombers refusing to launch strikes against anything under 2.30. However, I saw IJN bombers refuse, and semi-refuse to launch strikes against USN CVs under 2.30 several times (three at least).

Worst thing I saw USN do under 2.30 is launch unescorted strikes (both sides do that sometimes, and it's very frustrating, but also very realistic).

2. USN CVs are already more valuable (LOTSA more valuable) than IJNs, simply because they have greater capacity, and are more durable. In UV this translates into being worth more points. Trading 4 IJN CVs for 4 USN CVs will bring substantial difference in points in favor for IJN player. Which, IMO, is fine.

O. [/B][/QUOTE]


1.In four battles I had with v2.30, USN bombers refused to attack IJN ones three times.

2.IJN actually TRADED 4 CV´s for 4CV´s in 1942.....it wasn´t very helpful to them, right? In the no Midway scenario (#17), however, if you trade 4 CV´s for 4 CV´s, the the USN player is at big disadvantage, because IJN still have 4CV´s vs 2CV´s (of course, one must consider that Junyo class CV´s are not really fleet CV´s...) and the USN will receive its Essex class CV´s almost in the endgame (the Essex arrives in early 1943). On the other, hand, if the US trades 4 CV´s to 4 CV´s and captures Lungaville, the the IJN superiority in CV´s become useless, as the growing power of US LBA creates a air superiority zone in the Salomons theatre.

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 70
- 5/11/2003 10:18:12 AM   
Philbd

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Gales Ferry, Ct
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel you're one of those anal types, using *games* not to *play*, but to over-analyze every **** result, and always look after "bugs", "strange results" etc. and present them with very definitive, authoritative tone...

Please, don't take this (too) personally, there are more of your "sort" on this board, but now it's you.

There are *players* among us that logged tens of hours of playing under 2.30, both against AI, and in PBEM, and don't complain.

Now, to answer your main points.

CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?). 2.30 didn't change a thing here.

Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault!

To say 2.30 favors IJN is to admit you haven't played enough under 2.30. I played PBEM's under 2.30 from both sides, and have seen nothing but defeats for IJN (be it me, or my opponent). Recently, playing as IJN, I lost 2 CVs and CVL (with another 2 CVLs damaged) to inflict only minor damage to USN CVs.

Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP).

Under 2.30, I've seen like 8-10 IJN CVs go down (mine, and my opponent's), and only 1 USN CV (in my game against Tanaka, he caught Enterprise alone, seeing the end is near, I tried to escape, unloaded the planes, and he managed to sink the thing, not being protected by CAP etc.)

O. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you are 'sorry' to say it why say it. :( Your opinion is no more valid/invalid than Alex's. What is apparent is .... wel it's pretty obvious so why say it. You've seen-I haven't. I agree with Alex that against a competent Japanese player, the US player is at a serious disadvantage in the scenario. JMHO or
OALAEGOATAS:D

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 71
- 5/13/2003 3:00:05 AM   
afenelon

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline 		More simulations


#5-East Salomons (me USA)
IJN: 2CV´s plus 1 CVL damaged
USN: 2 CVs damaged
All CV´s able to retreat

#6-East Salomons (me IJN)
IJN: 1CV plus 1CVL sunk
USN: 2 CV´s damaged, but able to retreat

In both simulations, losses in combat were higher for USN (2:1) while the USA shot down much more planes with flak (2:1). US had more planes in their carriers (225 vs 172) and still got some support from LBA. F4F´s flee from combat even with 50% CAP and fatigue aroun 25. I use 50% CAP. AI seems to be using 60% CAP.

#3-Santa Cruz (me USN)
USN: 2 CV´s sunk
IJN: 1 CV sunk

Result close to historical. I would say the current system results in almost historical results for smaller battles, while its behavior is chaotic for large carrier battles (because the ineffective US CAP allows too much IJN planes attacking the ships). Up to know I have 7 battles simulated.

Overall results:
USN: 12 CV´s lost
IJN: 2 CV´s plus one CVL lost

Results in large battles (involving 7 or more CV´s)
USN:10 CV´s lost (Enterprise and Saratoga eventually sank on #4)
IJN: No losses

Results in small battles (up to 7 CV´s-CVL´s count as 1/2 CV)
USN: 2 CV´s lost
IJN: 2CV´s plus one CVL lost


My results (me vs AI or human)
Me: 5 CV´s lost
Enemy: 9 CV´s plus one CVL lost

Seeems to be more related to side and # of carrier involved , than to the way I or my opponents use carriers, right?

(in reply to afenelon)
Post #: 72
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.375