Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

KEEP IT SIMPLE

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> KEEP IT SIMPLE Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
KEEP IT SIMPLE - 5/13/2000 12:33:00 AM   
A_Master

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline 		First, I have to admit I still play the original PW (with patch). I tend to dust if off around the end of December. It's a great game if you understand what's going on. Without the computer gaming world pacific war issue, the game would be near un-playable. Friends of mine still find it un-playable as many factors are undocumented or don't appear the be reasonable. Fleet, Air and base commanders should be explained in detail. Putting a high air rated commander in charge of a carrier should mean something, the same goes for a ground general for troops. Command points, base theater control, supplies, subs etc... need to be explained and simplified. Also a task force of four carriers within range of spotted other enemy carriers must attack with all aircraft. In the original game, I've had only one of four carrier's airplanes go after the japs, this cannot be allowed to happen in the remake. Fleet actions could be broken down to sub phases when they occur. In a week, a lot could happen. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Easy self explanatory logical menus. Keep clicks down to the minimum. Make it FUN. Know your audience. DON'T, DON'T, DON'T make it real time. Too many strategy games die due to this. Play test. Play test, Play test. Don't just see if the game runs and doesn't crash, try different strategies, like the japs invading Hawaii etc... to see how the AI react. I've noticed in the original, if the Americans take rabul early, the japs spend the remainder of the game trying to retake. Developers, game designers need to know what the AI objectives are and alternatives. Looking forward for updates. Cheers..... Howard ------------------

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 5/13/2000 11:59:00 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		Great post, A_Master. I strongly agree that commanders should have a powerful influence on the performance of the forces under their command. If I have a commander that is highly skilled in leading a certain type of combat force into battle, then I should get a significant bonus in combat results if I match him up with the kind of soldiers that he is adept at leading. Maybe even a bit of a spotting chance bonus on enemy task forces for good air commanders. What's the point of having all these great commanders if they don't do you a lot of good to have around? And I also agree about the interface. It needs to be kept as simple and logical as possible. Now I didn't say that it should cut down your options, but it should be so intuitive and easy to grasp in it's layout that it's very easy to use and understand. Keeping the number of clicks needed to accomplish something to an absolute minimum is important to reaching that goal. And, of course, the interface should be fully explained in the manual. Real-time?? ARGGH! Don't even utter those words. Needless to say, real-time would be a BAD thing to make this game. I'm sure Gary and the rest of the Marix team are far too smart to do something that dumb, so don't worry about it too much. I'm REALLY looking forward to this game. I had a lot of fun playing PW, but the awkwardness of the interface and especially the tediousness of running supplies all over the place made it very tiring at times. I hope the interface and supply system are greatly polished and streamlined in the sequel. A lot of times playing PW I felt more like a supply officer than a combat commander. So hopefully the logistics system will be less time-consuming and the player can concentrate on fighting the war.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 2
- 5/15/2000 9:00:00 PM   
Peter Bollmann

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/3/2000
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		The supply system of pacwar is perfect. I would like to have it again.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 3
- 5/16/2000 2:23:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Well, there was a problem dealing with the Allied supply. Ships kept on being sent to Calcutta. And, with all tankers, they tended to be sent to a useless base after reinforcing it with fuel. The IJN liked to make Iwo Jima a main naval base, and all the tankers sent to drop off fuel just remianed there, and were useless. This resulted in the fuel supply to drop too fast, as, there were no tankers left to get fuel from the East Indies.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 4
- 5/16/2000 7:02:00 AM   
norsemanjs

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Enderlin, ND, USA
Status: offline 		The Iwo oil fleet of course was a bug. And since the code is going to be all new, we can probably expect some new bugs. Who knows maybe the Saipan oil fleet. I don't have too many gripes about the supply system of the old pacwar. It can certainly improve and I'm sure Mr. Grigsby like any designer has a list of things that he would do a bit different if he could do it over again. Especially with better resources in hardware and software. One thing that could improve was shipping routes and submarine interdiction of shipping. I also didn't seem to realize much assitance from escorts, especially aircraft carriers. I always had the impression that aircraft carriers escorting convoys made a huge impact on the ability of convoys to take fewer losses and increase the mortality of the attacking subs. The US often would put carriers into a convoy to escort it if it was important enough, they lost the Wasp on such a mission. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this, maybe I'm wrong. Also the Japanese subs with airplanes, should show be a lot better at spotting shipping. Was this really the case?

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 5
- 5/16/2000 7:30:00 PM   
emetcalf

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: Longview, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Maybe, but the Japanese really never hunted merchant shipping. It was 'beneath them' or some other reason related to their honor. They hunted warships and scouted for high command. The problem with the float-plane subs is that they take so long to operate the planes and submerge again.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 6
- 5/17/2000 5:57:00 AM   
norsemanjs

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Enderlin, ND, USA
Status: offline 		You are correct the Japanese were more interested in attacking warships. I think that we should be able to modify the doctrine for subs by setting target priorities similar to how air groups were given target priorities in the original Pacwar. I did some investigating about the Japanese subs with planes and it seems they were often used as advanced recon for carrier/surface groups ala Midway. So you may be correct that in the antishipping role the planes may have been less effective by exposing the sub to enemy aircraft. [This message has been edited by Norseman (edited 05-16-2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 7
- 5/18/2000 12:17:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		It is true historically that Japanese subs were used primarily as fleet scouts and anti-warship vessels. But, PacWar is to be created allowing for the player to choose what type of war they are going to wage. If they want they can order their IJN subs to attack Allied merchant vessels. However, I think that there should be some sort of penalty (ie. They behave worse) when they do something a-historical. You could sent your subs vs. Merchants, but, they could be hard coded to have better results per engagement if they went after warships, or were scouts. This isn't to say that someone might see the greater benefit in having subs attacking merchant ships (even though there is some sort of penalty).

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 8
- 5/18/2000 12:32:00 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		I'm not against having supply limits be a factor in the game. It just seems like I ended up spending an awful lot of time loading supplies and moving then all over. A more powerful/streamlined interface might help with this, too.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 9
- 5/20/2000 3:10:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I think that there should be some options included in order to simplify gameplay even more than the original PacWar does. Have an option delegating ALL supply efforts (even for Isolated Bases). The interface should be completely redone, as I am sure (by the previews) is being done. Areas that are more specialized would be greatly beneficial. One option that would be great is to add a base list, one depicting all bases under their control, to be shortened by selecting options of specific commands. You could then select the individual base off the list, instead JUST hunting for it on the map. The map hunting option should still be there, but, in other games (empire building games, notably Master of Orion II) a list such as this enabling access to ANY base by just clicking on it from a list would really unclutter things up.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 10
- 5/20/2000 3:52:00 AM   
sbond

 

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/4/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		After playing this game (old version) for years I never really thought of it as hard to master. But, I had a friend try it recently and he gave up rather quickly due to the overwhelming demands of the game. Anyway if you introduce this game to a friend here are some hints of mine to give them a better chance of learning and sticking with it. Have them play only one Command such as SEAC or South Pacific command (this guy was trying to command the whole Allied Force). There are some cheat sheets for hot-key commands out on the internet. Stay with em for a bit and maybe play hotseat to get them use to it. I'm sure there are hundred other ways of introducing the game, but the more we have playing the more we can destroy latter in multiplay . This game has one of the highest learning curves I have seen in a game, but anyone who has a interest in massive strategic warfare simulation should enjoy it after a small investment of time. I am rambling here but wanted to pass this experience on to others who may be thinking of showing it to friends.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 11
- 5/20/2000 4:09:00 AM   
A_Master

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline 		Yes, I agree. Keep it simple. One general base menu/list is all you need. Super impose this over the map. Menu/list must have the following data: Base Name Parent Base/Command Supply Distance from Base/Command In supply Size of Base / % damaged Size of Airport / % damaged Size of Port / % damaged Base Commander Air Commander Naval Commander Number of Airplanes assigned to base (could be number or squadrons) Number of Ships at base (could be split by warships and transports) Size of garrison (could be number or units) Amount of supplies at base Amount of fuel at base List Should be sortable. By clicking say: -Base/Command, all bases assigned will be sorted by their appropriate command base, and should be highlighted on the map in different colors. Western pacific could be red, Australia blue, India green, etc... (if supply lines are to long, then moving a base to a different command HQ will change base/command and color. Supply line would also be shortened). -In supply, yes or no. If no, bases could be color coded red. -Amount of fuel or supplies at base. Find out where you have stocks of fuel/supplies are when needed. Ascending or descending. -Base size will give you a descending / ascending list of bases. These to could be color coded for various sizes. 0 - white, 1 - yellow, 2 - orange, etc.. - Same goes for all other information except commander information which could be sorted by name or experience level. Clicking on base name on list, will automatically take you to the base on the map (list will still remain active for additonal selection until closed).

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 12
- 5/20/2000 4:31:00 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		Great ideas for the interface, A_Master. We're on the right track here. The goal is to have a powerful interface that will allow quick and easy access to any information, orders or options the player might wish to look at. All while requiring as few clicks/key strokes as possible to navigate through.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 13
- 5/20/2000 1:45:00 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		I agree that the new game should try to simplify some of the logistics chores, that is, make the cpu do the work not the commander. That's what those supply types are for eh? I personally enjoyed the level of detail combined with grand strategy that made PACWAR the classic it is. Few games hold up so well or have so few bugs or design flaws considering the return for your play time. As far as submarine strategy I recall that originally the US submarine force was set to use the same strategy as the IJN, attack fleet units and scouting but evolved into the war-winning anti-commerce strategy over time. They also learned alot from the Germans in the Atlantic. I think the Japanese player should have that option as well and not suffer any penalty. I that naval units should gain experience the same way as air and LCU's did in PACWAR. Thrilled to have GG on the team and hoping to spend many sleepless hours playing the new version.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 14
- 5/20/2000 10:32:00 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline 		I am really looking forward to this game. And I echo the above sentiments: keep it simple! By that I mean let the computer handle many of the mundane chores and let the commander - command Panzer General was terrific with this idea: left click on a unit or "task force" and a single screen appears giving you instant information. Mouse clicking a thousand times every ten minutes, and constantly digging through endless menus, is NOT my idea of fun The game should be about strategy, supply and maneuver - but it shouldn't be about how many sacks of potatoes should go to a unit on Saipan. Also - please - don't use drab unit counters with some obscure symbol on it. Use great graphics - we want SEE those ships - the battlewagons, the carriers - use authentic profiles for them - with sounds - use the graphics power of the computer - this game should be a feast for the eyes as well as for the brain There is no law that says a wargame can't also be a great looking game... Who knows - it may also draw people who have never played wargames before (much the way the original Panzer General did). Don't dumb down the game - just make it accessible - with depth of game-play and graphics ------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 15
- 5/20/2000 11:55:00 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		I don't think you have to worry, Von Rom. Have you seen the redone pacific map? Now that is one good looking map. If the side profile 2D pictures of the units could be done in color that would nice. But even if they are done in black and white, certainly just about everything else will be done in fine color.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 16
- 5/21/2000 2:28:00 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline 		Dunedain: I agree the map looks terrific. The one thing I liked about Pacific General was the great looking naval units The destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers all LOOKED authentic. There is just something about moving those carriers and battleships into position to engage the enemy that is quite fun and moving. Even Civilization II had good unit graphics to represent each of the naval forces. People have come to expect that sort of thing these days - it is exciting to move those big ships around ------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 17
- 5/21/2000 5:03:00 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		True, but they only had a couple ships to worry about, so you expect each ship to look great. When you're moving whole TF's around it's a bit different. But I like the good looking ships they had, too.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 18
- 5/24/2000 4:40:00 AM   
A_Master

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline 		First, another point I missed above on the "BASE" screen. When you actually click on the base from the either the sorted list of bases, or actually clicking from the map, the base screen will appear. On this screen should be up to 3 additional lists. List are: 1) Air base list by squadron with: squadron number, number of aircraft, make of aircraft, experience, percent damaged, percent upgrade (if squadron could be partially upgraded), moral if added, supply status, orders. 2) Army Base by division (or company?) with: unit number, size, optimum size, experience, supply level, entrenchment, orders. 3) Naval base list by ship with: ship name, picture, class, size, armament (main, secondary), aa, torps, armor, speed, fuel, damage, aircraft capacity (including sea planes), sub (if appropriate), mtb (if appropriate), radar. Second, about pictures of actual ships. Having played most of the HARPOON series, seeing the actual ships is great, the first time, maybe the second time, but after the third time you play you get bored of it and turn off the option. The same with sinking or missile strikes. After the first few missle hits, you get bored of the film, and you just turn off the option. If adding actual pictures of ships and film footage of ww2 battles to the product will make or break the product, or add an additional 6 months to development, or result in an huge disk space requirement, I would suggest dropping the idea from the project and focus on game play.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 19
- 5/24/2000 10:06:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		It isn't difficult to find pictures accurately representing ALL of the ships that took part in the War in the Pacific, nor would it be too difficult to replicate them. You state that good graphics wear off after a while, but, you forget the reverse of that. Bad graphics can ruin a game. The original PacWar graphics were good for the time, but, they are SEVERELY outdated. Having just improved icons (which wouldn't take up too much time) would be a staggaring improvement over the original. Check out the War in the Pacific Webpage Matrix game has, and go to the screenshots. The ones they have there of ships and planes are pretty good, and aren't too difficult to create.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 20
- 5/24/2000 9:18:00 PM   
A_Master

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline 		I agree. But as a wargammer, I would like them to concentrate on AI and game play first, and worry about the Bells and whistles later. No amount of pictures or movies will same the game if it plays crummy.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 21
- 12/22/2000 4:35:00 AM   
C3I2

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/9/2000
Status: offline
"Also - please - don't use drab unit counters with some obscure symbol on it. Use great graphics - we want SEE those ships - the battlewagons, the carriers - use authentic profiles for them - with sounds - use the graphics power of the computer - this game should be a feast for the eyes as well as for the brain There is no law that says a wargame can't also be a great looking game..."
As for troop designations I usually prefer standardised icons. Not pictures of men with rifles or whatever, so its something that should be optional. It is as simple as that. Same with sounds of course. C3I2

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 22
- 12/26/2000 4:22:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline 		On simplele: I had a thought or two on how to handle routine supply. Have a default setting. Maybe something like it is now. Before you quit the orders phase you should be able to view scheduled supply and raw material/oil harvest. You should be able to see what portion of your merchant fleet is utilized in this and make adjustments. You should be able to adjust the default plan and see if your new plan is supportable. For example, Tell the computer that I want 5000 more Supply dropped at Rabual than the normal default this turn. The computer could tell you that that is within your mechant fleets capability or indicate the shortfall in tonnage. Possibly even indicate that this would result in leaving X number of resource units at the sourse. I would immagine this interface to be graphical. Maybe bar graphs and a pie chart etc. You can drag the pie slices making each bigger or smaller. ETC. Drag a few bars around alla Masters of Orion. Just a couple of thoughts. One of the frustrating things I find in the game is to have a crystal clear #1 sacrifice anything else objective and not be able to get adequate supply for it. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 23
- 12/26/2000 8:10:00 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by sethwrkr: On simplele: I had a thought or two on how to handle routine supply.
That is a great idea, Seth. Anybody remember Master of Orion with its mini barcharts that you could change/tweak with your mouse?

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 24
- 12/28/2000 1:22:00 PM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline 		Major Tom, Why penalize Jap subs that go after merchants. Would they have had a handicap? Beter torpedos and very good subs with professional crews. I think not. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 25
- 12/30/2000 2:26:00 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Japanese submarines engaged in attacks on merchant shipping should have a huge penalty for the following reasons. 1. Good submarines. I think not. These submarines were large in order to provide the required range for Pacific operations. Because of this, they had a very limited diving depth. In fact, Japanese ASW suffered because they assumed a maximum diving depth of 200 feet based on their own experience. They set their depth charges accordingly until late in the war. Because of their small size, U-boats could dive to deeper than 300 meters. Although also large, U.S. fleet class submarines could dive to around 350 feet; later to 450 feet due to very high quality structural design and construction. Because of the limited diving capability, I class submarines would be fresh meat to U.S. DD and, particularly, hedgehog armed DE's from mid '43 on. 2. Again, due to their large size, I class boats had a monster sonar signature. Whoops! Can't dive deep enough to get below a thermal. One more rising sun on a destroyer bridge. 3. Lack of Radar. Although U-boats did ok without radar, the vastness of the Pacific is very different. It would be difficult to locate targets without air recon (which U-boats had during the period of success). This would force the I boats to operate relatively close to ports, where they would be subject to attack by hundreds of aircraft. By late 1943, Allied aircraft radar was good enough to detect surfaced submarines at long range. They could even detect periscopes in good weather. A large submarine is bound to have a longer diving time than a U-boat. By 1944, transiting the Bay of Biscay was almost as dangerous as attacking a convoy. An I boat would fare far worse. 4. The IJN submarines greatest asset was the Long Lance torpedo. But in convoy warfare, this asset might be a liability. This torpedo was fast, long ranged, reliable, and packed a tremendous punch. Against a 10,000 ton freighter making 10 knots, so what. It was a steam torpedo, leaving a bubble trail right back to the torpedo tube. Huge sonic signature, can't dive deep enough to reach a thermal, and the hedgehog armed DE is following a road map right to your front door. You might consider early retirement. In fact, the I boat was totally unsuitable for commerce warfare. The most it could have been was a nuisance, forcing a convoy system. The Japanese command recognized the strengths and weaknesses of their submarine weapon and used is properly. They did sink several aircraft carriers. And, if they got the Indianapolis coming instead of going? Paul

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 26
- 12/30/2000 1:21:00 PM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline 		Paul, I do not buy it. If JAP Subs can kill fast escorted fleet carriers then they can kill merchants. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 27
- 12/30/2000 3:33:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by sethwrkr: Paul, I do not buy it. If JAP Subs can kill fast escorted fleet carriers then they can kill merchants. Seth
It isn't about killing Seth, its about surviving *after* you've killed. Yes, they could kill merchants, with that torpedo of theirs they could kill anything, but afterwords they often couldn't survive the DE/DD counterattack, particularly later in the war, and especially against any carrier task force or supply convoy with escort carriers providing ASW, which we got much better at as time went along.

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 28
- 12/30/2000 10:35:00 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: It isn't about killing Seth, its about surviving *after* you've killed. Yes, they could kill merchants, with that torpedo of theirs they could kill anything, but afterwords they often couldn't survive the DE/DD counterattack, particularly later in the war, and especially against any carrier task force or supply convoy with escort carriers providing ASW, which we got much better at as time went along.
For gameplay purposes I totally agree with your post-in real life accuracy I'd have to disagree with the escaping part of your post. The Japanese Bushido Code (of honor) demanded they kill thier enemies and dying with "honor" while doing this would allow them to thier version of "heaven" where thier ancestors would greet them. Hence many volunteers for kamikaze missions (as early as Pearl Harbor midget subs)were sincere and had NO hopes of surviving because that would be considered a failure by society and dishonor thier family names! ( I dont understand it either- just have read it over and over.)

_____________________________


(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 29
- 12/31/2000 10:48:00 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		IIRC, the only carrier an I-boat killed was the Wasp, early in the war. Late in the war, the I-boats were nowhere near as effective against the type of escort that developed. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to A_Master)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> KEEP IT SIMPLE Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.000