Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

 
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 >> Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
[Poll]

Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?


Yes
  69% (145)
No
  30% (64)


Total Votes : 209
(last vote on : 1/17/2005 7:42:03 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Politica... - 1/5/2005 2:34:58 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		I thought this was a good question.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Post #: 1
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 2:45:35 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		I said "yes", because there should be some cost, whether of political points, supply, HI, or what have you.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 2
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 3:35:04 PM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		Yes. Various elements of the Japanese Military and Industrial "complex" would have a stake in what aircraft were being produced. Changing those has some political "cost" associated with it.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 3
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 3:43:21 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Big time! Thanks for this Kid. If simply changing a/c HQs costs PP, then this should be quite the PP hit.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/5/2005 9:39:09 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mbatch729)
Post #: 4
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 4:25:08 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type.

Keep in mind that *both* sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 5
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 4:39:29 PM   
forranger

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Switzerland
Status: offline 		Clear no from me. Japs are punished already with retooling cost for factories.

I'd welcome loss of experience though. No pilot can climb into the cockpit of a new plane and give the same performance he aquired during long training in his older crate.......

How about experience loss of 5 to 10 points for each pilot of a squadron changing planes?

_____________________________

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. (Rommel)

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 6
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 5:00:37 PM   
MadmanRick


Posts: 579
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: New York City, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. Yes, this should apply to both sides and it should be by type and I believe the penalty should be similar to the one currently used for switching a/c HQ's. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick

_____________________________


"Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter". Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 7
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 5:09:23 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I'll use the Nate as an example.
On Dec 7 1941 Japan has 2 factories producing the Nate. 700 Nates in the pool. Without any rule change both these factories convert on turn 1. If they convert to Oscar-Ib (the aircraft players are going to upgrade to) it costs 49k supply and 29 days. Oscar-Ib production would then be 111 aircraft per month.

There are 11 Sentai of 36 AC and a half dozen or so 12 AC Chutai Approx 468 AC total.
67 Oscar-Ib in pool.
It takes 29 days to reach full production. (converting just the Nate factories)
So a little over 4 months after the war begins Japan can convert all existing Nate groups to Oscar-Ib.

If this seems reasonable then no further limits are required.

If it seems a little too easy then something has to brake the speed. (Not stop it from occuring)

Why didn't Japan embark on a program that would have so cheaply improved the Army Air Force?

In the game these factories are being converted (most likely to A6M2 production that result in a large stockpile of A6M2 after the A5M are converted.)

It doesn't cost anything extra. It costs the same 49k of supply that most Japanese players are all ready expending changing the factories.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 8
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 5:09:27 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type.

Keep in mind that *both* sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed.


Aside from any political issues, let's talk historical context, historical limitations, what have you, that this game utterly fails to model. We don't have any penalties for HQ or nationality interaction aside from a few restricted HQ limitations. Ships don't have HQ attachment restrictions at all,and personally I believe they are needed. No IJA vs IJN conflict limiting operations, sealift capacity etc. Wonder why the PI and Malaya and everything else falls so fast? The invasions at the opening of hostilities basically maxed out Japans sealift capacity, but in every PBEM of WITP, the Jap player triples the size of the invasion forces for PI and Malaya, and does so within the first week! Yet...we are frigging with historical forces. Lets finish the vegetables on your plate, kids, or no desert.

Personally, if we are going to add this, then more pressing things need to be added as well.

Add HQ attachments for ships and have real restrictions added to HQs for all unit types. eg:

--Mixed Command HQ operations, ie, operations conducted by SouWesPac but require CVs attached to CentPac must pay PPs to allow them to transfer, mixed Jap Army and Navy operations must pay PP if units from one support the other etc.

--Make AK/AP type eligible to carry units of same HQ. Such restrictions will force the player to build up PP in order to conduct ops, thereby slowing down the game.

--Ships of differing HQs if placed in same TF suffer penalties in surface combat (represents lack of training among strange ships of same nation)

--Ships of different Nationalities pay more severe surface combat penalties due to an even greater difference in operational methods and lack of unit training.

--Add morale and fatigue to ships!!!

To me, PPs are not just political, but operation points, logistical points,whatever hindrance is necessary. Of course PP need bespent for upgrades, butlet'snot forget the need for PPs elsewhere as well.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/5/2005 10:53:35 AM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 9
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 5:21:07 PM   
forranger

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Switzerland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. ............. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick


How about allied cannonfodder? Playing allies I can think of upgrading US and aussie wirraways, buffalos and P-40E earlier (don't know if brits and dutch will be allowed earlier upgrades than now, they have plenty of upgrade candidates too), and once P-38's get produced you'll have more longrange escort squadrons for 4E bombers sooner. The impact will be felt on both sides.

Experience penalty would hurt more. Changing planes of elite squadrons would be a tougher decision.

_____________________________

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. (Rommel)

(in reply to MadmanRick)
Post #: 10
What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 5:58:38 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

What about EXP?

Can we lower the EXP of all pilots in some squadron by some amount (let's say 10 - 20 points) whenever the aircraft type for that squadron is changed?

Wouldn't that be historical and accurate?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 11
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 6:09:55 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Experiance loss should not be more then a point or 2. A trained pilot is around a 50-55 rating. Losing 20 points is a bit much.

The Allies cannot alter their production so they are limited in number of groups they can alter and the timing. The Japanese can convert to new aircraft models every group they want within 6 months of that aircraft entering production.
If we keep the auto upgrade of factories where they convert instantly and free of charge the Japanese could upgrade even faster.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/5/2005 11:10:31 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 12
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 6:16:32 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Experiance loss should not be more then a point or 2. A trained pilot is around a 50-55 rating. Losing 20 points is a bit much.


I respectfully disagree!

IMHO no pilot can hop from one aircrfat type to another and loose just 5% of his skill (i.e. 1 - 2 EXP points as you suggest) - historically the difference from aircraft types was always big and transition period is required for additional training.

Again, IMHO, the 20-30% loss of skill (i.e. 10- 20 EXP points) is more realistic...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 13
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 7:15:59 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Sorry Apollo
got to disagree here also
off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 4th FG changeing to the P-51

also, there were units that would bring in one or two of the newer plane type, to be flown by all hands, while the stock pile was being built up for there change over

a number of GE units would change models as they came in, how many times do you see a JG that the Staffels are flying different planes

so I do not think a "large" exp drop is needed

(alot of times what we see in unit from the PTO and what not, when they were pulled out of the line for R@R and refit, would then be giving new plane types, for training and working up, but they would of been out of the line anyway)

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 14
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 7:27:05 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		okay what kind of penaltys or restrickions (sorry for spelling) can we add in ?

IE for the IJA, can they change there planes to IJN types, or only IJA types (2nd would be better)

for Allied units, can different models be used between the Allies (US Fighter Group flying Spits, or only can fly US planes, again, 2nd is better)

the only real changes I would want to make in my games, would be the Chinese AF, and I would want to use, the Demons and Hawks that build up in the stock pile, as opposed to trying to Uberaize them

can the "cost" be made based on the year/month of the plane type ?

say it is 06/43, changeing a plane type to another plane from 04-06/43 would cost high,er, while a plane type from 09/42-03/43 would be less, and even less if it is before that (months and dates based on what you feel would be best)

hope some of that made sense

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 15
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 8:02:39 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		You guys must have forgot. When you upgrade, all the aircraft are in a not ready state (I'm at work and can't get the ture term). The time it takes to get the new aircraft into a ready state represents the pilots getting use to the new model. This was our answer to the experiance issue. I do not see this changing.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 16
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 8:14:54 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I will say yes, but it should be limited to about 50 pp points. That keeps it fairly small and managable for the Japanese player, yet not free.

I as the Japanese have trouble keeping PP points in my pool, but I try and switch HQ's for my units when I can so the chain of command makes some sense to me.

I will avoid the historical arguments, because what happened in history goes out the window the moment I make my first order.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 17
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 8:21:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: forranger

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. ............. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick


How about allied cannonfodder? Playing allies I can think of upgrading US and aussie wirraways, buffalos and P-40E earlier (don't know if brits and dutch will be allowed earlier upgrades than now, they have plenty of upgrade candidates too), and once P-38's get produced you'll have more longrange escort squadrons for 4E bombers sooner. The impact will be felt on both sides.

Experience penalty would hurt more. Changing planes of elite squadrons would be a tougher decision.



Err I am always critically short of P40E's as is I would not want more P 40 squadrons.

It could be usefull for downgrading from 40 E's to 40 B's if required.

Andy

(in reply to forranger)
Post #: 18
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 8:24:21 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		I voted yes. There has to be the price for changing the history.

And I think allies should not have this option at all. Or at least PP penalty for Allies has to be enormous.

P.S. I'm in July 1943 playing allies against AI and have more than enough Lightnings, Hellcats and Corsairs to wipe the table by Jap air force.

_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 19
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 8:26:25 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

I respectfully disagree!

IMHO no pilot can hop from one aircrfat type to another and loose just 5% of his skill (i.e. 1 - 2 EXP points as you suggest) - historically the difference from aircraft types was always big and transition period is required for additional training.

Again, IMHO, the 20-30% loss of skill (i.e. 10- 20 EXP points) is more realistic...


Leo "Apollo11"


Apollo 11, I respectfully disagree. You are probably thinking about modern aircraft where the changeover can easily take several months even for an experienced pilot (they have to learn all the new systems, mainly - their former aircraft will have been 1-2 generations earlier). With WWII aircraft, there wouldn´t be nearly that much of a difficulty. If you can believe Scott Crossfield´s autobiography, all he needed to switch from the Hellcat to the Corsair was a single familiarization flight. German fighter pilots switched frequently between types without a lot of adversarial effects.

BTW, I voted for no PP penalty for switching the upgrade path. If there is any penalty at all, it should be for re-equipping a unit, EVERYTIME. Re-equipment planes have to be produced, assigned, transported to the receiving unit etc.

There is another aspect that has been overlooked, IMHO. In the Rel. 1.41 thread, Halsey thought that the "Zero Bonus" should be deleted. I beg to differ! Judging from historical experience, there should be a bonus of this kind for any new type that goes into combat, at least for fighters. It always took the opposition some time to come to grips with the characteristics of a new type. Remember, for instance, the time JG´s 2 and 26 introduced the FW190 at the Channel. They ran up a 10-1 kill ratio against the Spit V, to a large part because the RAF had no idea how to counter the beast. The RAF did better after a FW190 had been captured and test-flown. Or remember how Japanese pilots were surprised initially by the bottom-rear gun on the TBF. Or the way Allied pilots had to learn they couldn´t just dive away from a Ki-61.

Ideally, any new type (except level bombers, transports, patrol planes) should get a 10-20% air combat bonus during the two months after first being used in combat, but that feels too complicated to implement. Perhaps for the first three months after start of production?

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20
RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/5/2005 8:29:09 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

I voted yes. There has to be the price for changing the history.

And I think allies should not have this option at all. Or at least PP penalty for Allies has to be enormous.

P.S. I'm in July 1943 playing allies against AI and have more than enough Lightnings, Hellcats and Corsairs to wipe the table by Jap air force.


OOH, you are going to piss off the Allied boys with that suggestion. But I agree, they do not have to fear FUBAR'ing their production.

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 21
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 8:43:55 PM   
Jaws_slith


Posts: 615
Joined: 1/11/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Experiance loss should not be more then a point or 2. A trained pilot is around a 50-55 rating. Losing 20 points is a bit much.

The Allies cannot alter their production so they are limited in number of groups they can alter and the timing. The Japanese can convert to new aircraft models every group they want within 6 months of that aircraft entering production.
If we keep the auto upgrade of factories where they convert instantly and free of charge the Japanese could upgrade even faster.


I voted yes,

Allies cannot alter their production..... this means that we can only update the squadrons if there are enough aircraft in the pool made by the computer. A Jap player can made any plane he like (of course with a little penalty). I think the PP must be 10 to 20 for the allies unless their production is also adjustable. (I prefer a free Allies production system limited by the real historical production date)

_____________________________

Good Hunting

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 22
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:28:35 PM   
CMDRMCTOAST


Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline 		I voted yes but I think it should be a small price to pay
on top of the other penalties incurred maybe a small drop
in experience and political points based on some kind
of average of the # of squadrons affected.
the smaller the amount of squadrons involved the less penalty incurred
and vice versa.

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Jaws_slith)
Post #: 23
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:36:17 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I will say yes, but it should be limited to about 50 pp points. That keeps it fairly small and managable for the Japanese player, yet not free.

I as the Japanese have trouble keeping PP points in my pool, but I try and switch HQ's for my units when I can so the chain of command makes some sense to me.

I will avoid the historical arguments, because what happened in history goes out the window the moment I make my first order.


I vote yes too, but 50 points is too small, IMO. That's only one days' PP allowance. (Just because you are meticulous and change the HQ to the theatre the unit is going to be in does not mean every other Japanese player does.)

Since the game already has a code to calculate the cost to change HQ's for the air unit, use that. (I think it's 4 times the max number of aircraft in the unit.) I think that amount is good.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 24
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:38:30 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

this means that we can only update the squadrons if there are enough aircraft in the pool made by the computer


The Allied production rates are 1711 aircraft per month when the game starts. It only goes upwards from there.

Even dealing with the FG (the largest unit in the game), thats 23 complete groups of aircraft every single month.

(in reply to Jaws_slith)
Post #: 25
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:42:19 PM   
Harald1050


Posts: 81
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Wien
Status: offline 		I voted no, because i totally agree with the arguments of mikemike.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 26
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:43:34 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Some bombers, some are Dakotas, some are avengers, etc. Not every Allied fighter unit is gonna be Corsair/P51.

If you don't agree, then put a stiff PP on swapping aircraft models outside of the current "path".

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 27
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:56:10 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Not every Allied fighter unit is gonna be Corsair/P51.


Don't need to be, lots of P-40N's, P-38's and other pretty little numbers that eat Japanese aircraft until some of Japan's '44/'45 aircraft can be brought online.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 28
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 9:59:46 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Than a meaningful PP cost is called for then, right?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 29
RE: What about EXP? - 1/5/2005 10:05:12 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Personally, I look at it as a free for all ... thats what you guys wanted ... thats what was built.

Adding rules that complicate it just means people will be complaining about the rules later after playing just like we are seeing in the CV coordination thread now. It was a great thing when it was added and EVERYONE was FOR it. Now it is just some eveil code that stops a player from doing what they want.

Thing very carefully when you vote for stuff. Your choice just might come back to haunt you in the future.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

5.781