Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Malaya Base Changes

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Malaya Base Changes Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Malaya Base Changes - 11/3/2011 7:23:48 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2410
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice work to you John and all the others.  I like your new ideas.  Keep up the good work.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 631
Malaya Deployment - 11/3/2011 4:36:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
JFB BEWARE! I have gotten the redeployment of aircraft and LCU done in Malaya and this place is now a very tough nut to crack. Think we have achieved the goal/vision the Brits THOUGHT they had when the war started.

Changes:
1. 9th Indian ID is spread between Kuantan and Temoluh (2/3 of the ID is at Temoluh). It can be concentrated fairly quickly if wanted.
2. 11th Indian ID is at Alor Star and can be rebuild immediately. Look out for this. This unit could have an assault value of over 300 once rebuilt and defending.
3. 8th Aussie ID is fully deployed in Southern Malaya: Bird Bns at Kloung (can be immediately rebuild), one Brigade at mersing, and the last Brigade at Johore Bharu.

All aircraft (306 Planes!) are stationed at either Georgetown (58 Planes), Johore Bharu (54 Planes), or Singapore (202 Planes). Several BF were moved to either Georgetown or Johore Bharu to reflect changes and increase support.

Since Georgetown is much more important now, the Forts have been raised to 3.

Couple these changes with the reinforced Force Z and LOOK OUT! AFB can actually DEFEND Malaya and the JFB had better make sure they bring ENOUGH to take this place out...

Good Luck to both sides here...it is a whole new scenario...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 632
6th Aussie ID - 11/3/2011 4:41:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
As per our discussions the 6th Aussie ID starts the war deployed in the Pacific. Since the 8th ID is fully committed to Malaya, the 6th must be broken up and spread around: 17th Brigade is at Rabaul, 16th brigade begins at Port Moresby, and 19th Brigade is at Darwin. Comments:

1. The net benefit of this is Rabaul begins the war quite tough to crack. It will probably take a full ID to grab the base.
2. The small Inf Coy that started at Rabaul is now moved to join the other Coy in New Guinea. It begins at Finschhaven.
3. 19th Brigade can be a substantial, quick reinforcement from Darwin to some point if wanted.

Only negative is that it will take some serious work to rebuild this unit into ID strength...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 633
Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 4:25:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
If any of the regular readers get the chance take a look on the other thread at the probable start to the war in China. Holy Cow. It is very different then anything we've dealt with! Comments would be appreciated...

Hong Kong may not be threatened at the start of the war. This may mean that some of her troops could go elsewhere. Translation: The Canadians might get a second lease on life. Any ideas as to where to place them?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 634
RE: Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 8:57:42 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I see three options;

1) Stationed in Sydney looking for a home.

2) Stationed in Capetown looking for a home.

3) Stationed in Singapore wishing they were home.

Joking aside, those troops would make a nice fire brigade so putting them in Capetown might not be a bad thing.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 11/4/2011 8:58:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 635
RE: Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 9:18:41 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7311
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
One Canadian at Port Blair and maybe the second at Cocos Island to act as a very small reserve. The Allies could use CW and/or Dutch APs to pick it up quickly for a deployment somewhere as the flee from the Japanese hordes. 

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 636
RE: Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 9:30:10 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2410
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Man that changes alot.  I like the idea of the Canadian's be a fire brigade. 

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 637
RE: Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 9:52:18 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks for the thoughts! Ideas for the Canadians:

1. Singapore (to die)
2. Darwin (Fire Brigade)
3. Emergency Reinforcements: Pt Blair/Cocos
4. Distant Reserve: Sydney

What do you guys think of that China Map that kfsgo put up on the other thread?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 638
RE: Hong Kong - 11/4/2011 10:54:03 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2410
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Darwin and I liked the map.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 639
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 12:31:01 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I don't understand why they don't control Canton, it would make sense to me that they would have that city under their control.

_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 640
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 2:18:31 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I don't understand why they don't control Canton, it would make sense to me that they would have that city under their control.


Well, why don't they control Wuhan, or the rest of the North China Plain, or the middle Yangtze? Ultimately there is a lot of handwaving going on here to have these things not happen - the Japanese more or less managed to get into their stock-1942 positions within a year and a bit of the war starting. The basic starting point I was given was essentially "Japan buggers up the Shanghai-Nanjing campaign spectacularly", so extrapolating from that - I've basically gone for "Japan Really Doesn't Want another huge, messy urban battle that'll wipe the stuff they're trying to make an economic prospect out of off the map".

The outline timeline going on in my head looks something like this:

- Nothing much happens in 1937. There will be the usual run of 'incidents', but I guess everyone rolls hard sixes and nothing major comes of them. The Kwantung Army is making crazy smuggling money in China, so, y'know, they're ok with not pushing things too hard.

- Soviet-Japanese 'incidents' start to pop up in 1938, in a more serious way than in reality. Most of the Japanese troops on the mainland are in Manchuria, after all, and they can only cause retarded international incidents in their immediate vicinity...

- 1939 sees a continuation of that process and probably results in pissing off the USSR sufficiently to cause something Serious on the Manchurian border - a Khalkhin Gol on steroids, I guess. After a pretty severe beatdown (which it would be, realistically), Japanese attention shifts to China. For whatever reason, the balloon goes up around Shanghai late in the year. The great preoccupation of the Chinese in the immediate pre-1937 period was building up a sufficiently large competent armed force to prevent Japanese landings on the coast around Shanghai - two years of buildup gives them a much greater ability to do that. So, the Japanese can't go around Shanghai - they have to go straight at it.

- 1940 is mostly occupied blowing apart Shanghai, Nanjing and every bush and berm in between. Japan isn't really prepared for operations on a large scale here - I can imagine their being removed from Shanghai completely for a while - so it takes time to get everything moving in the first place and longer to move beyond a stalemate. That reorganised army the Chinese put together is mostly wrecked, but so is is the Japanese force that's been pushing upriver - as is the primary economic center of China. That's the sort of thing that takes a while to fix...and while all this is going on there's a huge blowup over French Indochina - I'm not sure how exactly the Japanese do that one without getting involved in the wider war, but it's gotta involve a hell of a display.

- Into 1941, you see movement in the North (where offensives had been limted due to paranoia about Soviet intentions after the M-R Pact and, franky, a lack of need - Japanese political control is spreading just fine without a war) after the Germans invade Russia. Rebuilding infrastructure and reorganising troops around the lower Yangtze is liable to take a while - the Japanese want to get something out of China, economically. Easy pickups on the coast are taken by the Navy, but the Army declines to be involved in a big way - their pet project in the North is going just fine - and Hong Kong and Canton are blockaded rather than occupied. The end result's the same - armament imports have to go via Burma or the USSR.

So, that brings us to Dec. 7. By this point things are relatively quiet - the KMT Govt has removed itself to Wuhan and in trying to conserve its strength and keep a lid on a country that thinks far more should be done to actually fight is mostly leaving the Japanese alone - which suits them fine, as they're getting more out of China economically and there's a whole other war to get ready for. A force is probably getting ready to push further up the Yangtze, though there's limited urgency to it.

An initial Japanese plan for Dec. 8 or so in the Pearl River delta might be something like this (except with appropriate new bases):



Occupy Macau, jump into Daya Bay and move north to cut the Canton-HK railway, then march into HK at a leisurely pace. HK is known to be considered a hopeless case by UK, so forces needed are minimal - the trick is being strong enough to cover against any intervention by the Chinese - Guangdong is not happy with the relatively non-belligerent attitude taken by central govt but receipt of arms shipments is dependent on behaving, so forces available will be limited - after which the cover force can go do something useful elsewhere, either in China or not. Control of HK and Macau closes the Pearl to the Chinese - at which point Canton is really fairly irrelevant as it's a port without a sea.

Or just start the Japanese in control of Canton as usual. Like I said, I haven't actually decided what to do with it.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 641
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 3:55:02 AM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Any ideas as to where to place them?


On a transport enroute to Australia? Either from east or west. I don't know the history of that unit, but I would say from the east somewhere near Canton.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 642
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 2:22:41 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Once again a brilliant piece kfsgo. Makes perfect sense even before I have coffee.

_____________________________


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 643
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 5:19:59 PM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
quote:



On a transport enroute to Australia? Either from east or west. I don't know the history of that unit, but I would say from the east somewhere near Canton.


Historically the Canadian battalions ("C Force") had only arrived in mid November, and doing some quick googling it looks like transports consisted of Awatea (NZ)(13,482 tons, 20 kts cruise, 23 kts max) with Prince Robert (RCN) as escort. The vehicles for the troops followed on the SS Don Jose which arrived at Manila mid December and on SS Fernplant which was routed to Los Angeles and never crossed. The troops were also pretty green and probably need a period of workup and training as they had been garrison troops.

If my RCN suggestions could be used, I'd add the CL and DDs as escort. If the decision is made not to reinforce Hong Kong as a warning to the Japanese, and since C Force would be motorized, I'm not sure where you would put them, I could see Singapore, Malaya, or Australia as options...

An interesting historical clip:
http://archives.cbc.ca/war_conflict/second_world_war/clips/2016-12774/

Edit (some more links):
http://www.hkvca.ca/teacherszone/teacher_content/LITTLE%20KNOWN%20FACTS%20-%20C%20Force.pdf

http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2011/11/hong-kong-the-inside-story-of-canada-e2-80-99s-role-in-a-doomed-garrison/

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Canada/CA/163-HongKong/index.html#despatch

Edit: (Awatea capacity from link immediately above)
quote:


When the S.S. Awatea left Vancouver she carried 248 tons of baggage and equipment belonging to Brigade Headquarters and the two battalions of "C" Force, together with 104 tons of foodstuffs and 120 tons of ammunition (Movement Control to G.O.C. Hong Kong, 28 Oct 41, op cit). This cargo included all ordnance and technical stores that Canada had undertaken to provide for the Force (see para 19). These stores occupied about 35,000 cubic feet of the Awatea's total of 45,000 (Hqs 20-1-20 Vol. 2, Q.M.G. to Minister, 19 Dec 41). By an unfortunate mishap the vessel sailed with the balance of this space--some 10,000 cubic feet--unfilled.


These were the vehicles that would be dispatched on the two following ships (Don Jose/Fernplant)

< Message edited by xwraith -- 11/5/2011 5:31:42 PM >

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 644
RE: Hong Kong - 11/5/2011 10:41:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Nice. I will look into this and see about the options. Thanks.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 645
Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 3:28:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I think the Canadians will deposited at Darwin for game start. They could then be deployed forward or to Cocos to secure it. Port Blair will be easily reinforced within days if the Allied player wants.

Will make this change in a while. Anyone with a better idea has until then to chime in!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 646
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 5:54:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Am working on the odd stuff here and there before sending the files out and am having an issue with placing the Canadians at Darwin. It doesn't make sense as I think about it. If they don't deploy to Hong Kong then the logical place would be Singapore. The TF came from the east so it makes sense that it would continue on as a reinforcement aiding the build-up that we have detailed within the Mod. If anyone can provide some form of solid thinking here that would lead them AWAY from Singapore then I am all ears.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 647
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 5:56:06 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8155
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

How about in Canada?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 648
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 7:52:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
For the moment the Canadians are at Singapore. We can discuss this more if people have good ideas.

The Files have been sent to FatR and kfsgo to their work to go on.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 649
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 8:04:49 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I have been thinking about the Canadians and believe they should start in Canada ready to respond to a threat against the Dominion.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 650
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/7/2011 10:26:47 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

For the moment the Canadians are at Singapore. We can discuss this more if people have good ideas.




Singapore is exactly where they belong if not being "thrown to the wolves" in Hong Kong.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 651
RE: Blame Canada! - 11/13/2011 10:42:48 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

For the moment the Canadians are at Singapore. We can discuss this more if people have good ideas.




Singapore is exactly where they belong if not being "thrown to the wolves" in Hong Kong.



The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Canadians would go to the med or Europe. In our world the war is going well for the allies and with the pacific nations pulling their forces out of those theaters I would imagine the Canadians would go in their place.


_____________________________


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 652
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/26/2011 6:24:31 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
With the retention of the Washington by the the US, and the Tosas by the Japanese, have we made the decision as to what the British are going to gain?

The easiest solution would be for a third Nelson-class battleship. This would make sense as it would balance the new construction by the other two powers.

I am sure that there would have been a provision to keep two additional King George V-class (the WW1 version) until they were completed. With the British budget difficulties, it might have meant that those two ships were kept until the war. This solution requires new graphics, but they are probably out there.

The third solution would have been an entirely new design. There was an alternative to the Nelson that was a battlecruiser. This design (F2/F3) called for 15" guns in the same arrangement and a 30 knot speed on the treaty limited displacement of 35,000 tons. This design would have required the design of a new gun (15"/50) and a new turret. Probably not something that the British government would have done.

The British would have wanted the 16" gun armed ship to counter the American and Japanese ships, and the Admiralty would have pushed for it in their budgeting. Based on that, there should be a third Nelson roaming the Earth in this alternative history.

The Collingwood (to keep up the Admiral name theme) would probably have been retained in the Atlantic in a similar fashion as the other two ships, appearing in the Pacific in mid-1945, or whenever the need for ships in the European theater is lessened.

Because of her later construction, and improvements to her boilers based on later construction, her machinery won't be as worn out as the Nelson or Rodney, meaning less refit time before deployment. This assumes that there was no need for her in the Indian Ocean before then. She would have been a part of any anticipated British invasion in Burma or Malaya.

Just tossing this out there.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 653
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/26/2011 6:56:25 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Interesting thinking.

If the Brits built two more KGV Class BBs what would they look like in 1941? I don't know a lot of specifics regarding the British Navy at the end of WWI.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 654
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/26/2011 8:44:06 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Interesting thinking.

If the Brits built two more KGV Class BBs what would they look like in 1941? I don't know a lot of specifics regarding the British Navy at the end of WWI.



These wouldn't have been additional ones, they would have been survivors of the Washington Treaty process. The King George V, Ajax, Centurion, and Thunderer were disposed when the Nelson and Rodney were completed. The Thunderer was actually an Orion-class battleship, but very similar.

I am guessing that they would have similar upgrades to the Resolution-class battleships rather than the extensive upgrades that were given to some of the Queen Elizabeth-classes.

What was the result of the London Naval Conference in this time period? This conference resulted in additional scrappings for the powers. We don't see this for the Japanese because of the rehabilitation of the Hiei following 1936. This resulted in the scrapping of most of the older British ships including the Tiger and the Iron Duke-class battleships. If you have the King George V-class ships being eliminated during the later treaty, that would make for the Iron Duke's still being available. They would also have had the same upgrades as the Resolution's interwar.

I'll see if I can figure out what the changes in 1922 would mean for the 1930 treaty if someone else hasn't already done it.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 655
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/28/2011 3:58:16 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Another ship that might be added help to the Allies. HNMS Barentsz. Barebtsz She would start in Soerabaja with some minor system damage or in Tjilatjap 411228. Handy repair ship that has been lost to history.

On a side note, if we add Brit BB's to the SW Pacific, one of the things it appears the UK did was send a repair ship and a depot ship if this was a permanent station. Something to think about.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 11/28/2011 4:17:27 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 656
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/28/2011 5:17:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That is a nice site. Adding a Dutch AR in late-Dec 41 would be a nice touch. I like it!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 657
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/29/2011 12:06:58 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Thinking about something else while looking at Dutch ships. Since we are changing history a bit, instead of the US canceling all the ships they did, why not sell some of them to the French. For example, they canceled 2 Independence class CVL's and never finished one in the yards. Why not let the French have them. We canceled a ton of DD's and DE's, and the French gold reserve is in Canada. Would it be a stretch that instead of giving the French the CVL's in 45, let them have them sooner. Same holds true for the Dutch. What do you all think??

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 658
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/29/2011 3:17:01 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I am considering adding a few more Dutch ships from that website. It makes for some interesting reading.

Will also put in a few more Canadian vessels.

Skyland has the French THOROUGHLY taken care of!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 659
RE: The Big THREE? - 11/29/2011 5:46:50 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Skyland has the French THOROUGHLY taken care of!



Speaking of which, you'll probably need art for the Jean Bart:







Pointy bugger...

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Malaya Base Changes Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

0.130