Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Production

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Production Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 8:17:48 PM   
Theages

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Austria
Status: offline
What about only shutting off production, when a minimum number of enemy troops is present (AV check) and / or a certain attacker - defender AV ratio is reached (eg. more than 1:1)?


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 31
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 8:21:01 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

The question is different everywhere. At Manila, for example, LI is 100 per day and there is no HI. Not enough to matter in a siege. But take a look at Chungking. Right now all Japan has to do is camp a stack in the hex and that core city is reduced to organic "slash supply" of 400 per day. But full HI/LI gives 540 more per day so long as stockpiles are present, and that depends a bit on Japan closing all hex sides, a much harder tactical problem. Nearly 1000 supply per day is a whole different situation for a siege, and I believe the original devs made the slash supply level be 400 based on an assumption that HI/LI would be available.

I reiterate: Japanese players playing a stacking game also need to be very careful what they wish for. Leaving the situation as it is now will result in potentially severely curtailed HI banks in the late war. For the Allies it is far, far easier to camp on a hex and use the terrain bonus to defend than it is to fully capture the HI-producing city and face losses of devices and most importantly time.


Sure. I most definitely see your point. If the Japanese player chooses to let the Chinese have 1000 per day by failing to bomb the HI or LI, then they have to live with that decision. I can easily counter that by bombing the LI and HI (or deny fuel to prohibit HI). Basically, I think this can be pretty easily countered with tactics if the HI or LI is left producing during a siege. For my own personal play style, the HI and LI will be bombed well before I am even in the hex to avoid letting the Chinese have supplies. If I do not have air superiority, I probably have no business laying siege to the city.

As for late game HI issues, if the Japanese are short on HI in the late game it is probably more a failure to plan in 1942 then the Allies camping HI centers in 1944. For the Japanese, we all know HI will be reduced to nothing over time and have to plan for that. It is just part of what we do.

Wa

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 32
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 8:55:14 PM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline
After reading through all the posts, it seems to me that no option is vastly superior to any other. Each has its own merits.

My contribution to the debate will center on HI production. If I understand what michaelm said, HI goes into a global pool while LI is kept locally. If that's a correct interpretation, then the problem is that it shouldn't be assumed that the HI still being produced can be delivered to other locations. Perhaps the solution there -- and this is purely hypothetical, without regard to whatever programming difficulties may render it impossible -- is to reduce HI production based on percentage of hexside control.

Using these numbers just for the sake of illustration, say a hex side with a road or railroad -- the logical way to ship the HI points -- counts as 10 hexsides, while others count as 1. If the enemy controls the 2 road hexsides in a sample hex but not the rest, then HI output is reduced by 5/6 (20/24). Once all hexsides are controlled and the HI can't leave, production is reduced to 0.

This is all an interesting concept, but I agree with the observations of the dilemma: the need exists to balance gameplay with logic.

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 33
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 9:29:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8459
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages

What about only shutting off production, when a minimum number of enemy troops is present (AV check) and / or a certain attacker - defender AV ratio is reached (eg. more than 1:1)?




Anything, in theory, could be coded, but this proposal doesn't have a lot of logical consistency. If industry is inside the city, why would having more troops outside the city stop it from producing? You also get into satellites issues. For example, this gives the defender free intel on the AV strength of units sieging the city. The defender just has to watch for the switch to flip on or off. Also, a lot of units don't have any AV, but are still enemy units which flip hexsides. Finally, bombing defending troops could have the effect of stopping civilian workers from doing their jobs; flipping the switch the other way through bombing. There is already a way to stop civilians from producing--City attacks on the industry. There's no logical reason killing soldiers should stop steelworkers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Theages)
Post #: 34
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 9:35:35 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8459
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav
As for late game HI issues, if the Japanese are short on HI in the late game it is probably more a failure to plan in 1942 then the Allies camping HI centers in 1944. For the Japanese, we all know HI will be reduced to nothing over time and have to plan for that. It is just part of what we do.

Wa



The Allies can camp earlier than 1944. Heck, they could "camp" using paratroops, at least for a day or two. Step into the hex, and boom! It's down.

JFB attempts on India and Oz as HI banks would be severely limited. I can get enough stuff to Calcutta on rails to shut it down in a week and keep it down. By late 1942, early 1943. I can't take it, but I can sit in its hex pretty well.

I think a lot of JFBs would be eager for the code to remain as is in terms of their 1942, but I can already hear howls of anguish when no, zero, not a one, Japanese aircraft can be produced in late 1944. As an AFB I can camp with 25-33% of the AV it would take to capture the city given urban terrain bonuses. That frees up a LOT of troops to camp lots of places. Whack A Mole.

I can already see the two dozen thread titles a year from now: "Is camping gamey?!"

Here I am, an Allied player, trying to save JFBs from themselves. Imagine . . .

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/9/2013 9:39:14 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 35
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 9:56:21 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2872
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
I've always played under the assumption that if I occupied an enemy hex containing both HI and LI that both industries would still produce providing there were enough resources stockpiled to allow production to continue, but any inherent source of fuel, oil or resources would stop. This simulated a siege or production just eventually dwindling due to a lack of raw materials.

When I learned the other day that this was no longer the case, that if I simply contest an enemy owned hex that all production stops regardless of stockpiles, I was quite surprised and felt this could have a major effect on gameplay. I totally agree with Bull, be careful what you ask for and I see a scenario where simply contesting these types of bases by the Allies could bring Japan to her knees earlier than thought possible.

I liked it as it was before the patch change. HI and LI should be able to produce as long as stockpiles of fuel/oil/resources exist at the base, but that stockpile can't be added to from any source either internally/externally once the base is contested.

Just my thoughts.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 1/9/2013 9:57:18 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 36
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 10:04:55 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14670
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I've always played under the assumption that if I occupied an enemy hex containing both HI and LI that both industries would still produce providing there were enough resources stockpiled to allow production to continue, but any inherent source of fuel, oil or resources would stop. This simulated a siege or production just eventually dwindling due to a lack of raw materials.

When I learned the other day that this was no longer the case, that if I simply contest an enemy owned hex that all production stops regardless of stockpiles, I was quite surprised and felt this could have a major effect on gameplay. I totally agree with Bull, be careful what you ask for and I see a scenario where simply contesting these types of bases by the Allies could bring Japan to her knees earlier than thought possible.

I liked it as it was before the patch change. HI and LI should be able to produce as long as stockpiles of fuel/oil/resources exist at the base, but that stockpile can't be added to from any source either internally/externally once the base is contested.

Just my thoughts.

AFAIK hex side control dictates movement of raw materials as it does the movement of supply. So unless an attacker has cut off all the routes into a city it's not actually a siege.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 37
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 10:48:29 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
Don't get me wrong here. I am in favor of leaving LI (and HI for that matter) running when occupied and there are resources present. It probably helps the JFB a lot more then the AFB. I am just not opposed to turning it off when occupied like it has been for a while now.

I really think this is not a huge deal. If by the middle of 1943, the Allies are in a position to camp my HI centers in places where I am counting on still having HI centers (The Home Islands, Manchuria, most of China, even Singapore and the DEI), I probably have much larger problems. If by the middle of 1943 the Allies have denied my ability to use HI centers in India or Oz by camping them, I can probably live with that. This is assuming I have decided to let all my units die in place just to have HI run. In most cases, this will not happen when I have the opportunity to maneuver.

The biggest place where the Allies benefit is in China. This is easy to counter with bombing the centers so they are not usable.

Paratroopers? Ok. Since I pretty much expect HI centers to be bombed when in 4E range (read transport range), if I decide the hex is important enough I will have suitable AA in the hex as well as CAP to defend this high value target. More than likely, I will have some garrison as well since pretty much every high value city needs some sort of garrison. I think paratroopers would find it very difficult to attack and live for more than one day if they even survive the initial shock attack. If I have left it defenseless enough that paratroopers can stay there then that is my lack of planning. Again, it is using tactics to prevent bad things from happening.

Wa


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 38
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 11:42:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8459
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav

Don't get me wrong here. I am in favor of leaving LI (and HI for that matter) running when occupied and there are resources present. It probably helps the JFB a lot more then the AFB. I am just not opposed to turning it off when occupied like it has been for a while now.

I really think this is not a huge deal.

You've never played an Allied player who pushes the engine.

If by the middle of 1943,

Fall of 1942 in China for sure. Chinese units break up into tiny pieces real good, and they ressurect for free. Also, the code as I understand it now doens't require the unit have any AV. An HQ with twelve squads could shut down Changsha until you can eject it. Or an AA unit.

the Allies are in a position to camp my HI centers in places where I am counting on still having HI centers (The Home Islands, Manchuria, most of China, even Singapore and the DEI), I probably have much larger problems.

You're probably good for 1942 and half of 1943 in these areas unless your opponent has a strong anti-HR strategy.

If by the middle of 1943 the Allies have denied my ability to use HI centers in India or Oz by camping them

Much earlier. Both have excellent railroads. More to the point, unless auto-vic is the goal there woudl be no reason at all to go to these regions. India only makes sense if the HI points can be banked and sent home. Without them it's a huge risk and expense for really nothing. JFBs woudl be restricted to much more historical geographies. Woudl that lead to more quitting early out of boredom?

, I can probably live with that. This is assuming I have decided to let all my units die in place just to have HI run. In most cases, this will not happen when I have the opportunity to maneuver.

As the Allies I can force your maneuvering into tighter funnels by forcing you to have reaction forces stationed all over the place. Remember, I can shut down ALL production, including fuel and resources, by sticking a base force alongside a base force. Or an AA unit alongside a base force. Battle of the midgets. And I don't have to stay forever. I can kill by the death of a thousand cuts. Take away 25% of the HI-days across the map for 1943 and what does that do to aircraft production in 1945? Can you meet pilot taxes in 1944?

The biggest place where the Allies benefit is in China. This is easy to counter with bombing the centers so they are not usable.

No, the biggest places the Allies benefit are Singapore anbd Palembang, two bases the Japanese need and need fast. So JFBs would love for the code to remain unchanged on that basis. But they'd hate it long-term now that everyone knows how it works.

Paratroopers? Ok. Since I pretty much expect HI centers to be bombed when in 4E range (read transport range),

Transports have more range than most early war bombers. Paratroops also don't have to drop on the HI base. A dot base works fine. They can walk.

if I decide the hex is important enough I will have suitable AA in the hex as well as CAP to defend this high value target. More than likely, I will have some garrison as well since pretty much every high value city needs some sort of garrison. I think paratroopers would find it very difficult to attack and live for more than one day if they even survive the initial shock attack.

See above.

If I have left it defenseless enough that paratroopers can stay there then that is my lack of planning. Again, it is using tactics to prevent bad things from happening.

Wa





_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 39
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 12:08:28 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14670
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav

Don't get me wrong here. I am in favor of leaving LI (and HI for that matter) running when occupied and there are resources present. It probably helps the JFB a lot more then the AFB. I am just not opposed to turning it off when occupied like it has been for a while now.

I really think this is not a huge deal.

You've never played an Allied player who pushes the engine.

If by the middle of 1943,

Fall of 1942 in China for sure. Chinese units break up into tiny pieces real good, and they ressurect for free. Also, the code as I understand it now doens't require the unit have any AV. An HQ with twelve squads could shut down Changsha until you can eject it. Or an AA unit.

the Allies are in a position to camp my HI centers in places where I am counting on still having HI centers (The Home Islands, Manchuria, most of China, even Singapore and the DEI), I probably have much larger problems.

You're probably good for 1942 and half of 1943 in these areas unless your opponent has a strong anti-HR strategy.

If by the middle of 1943 the Allies have denied my ability to use HI centers in India or Oz by camping them

Much earlier. Both have excellent railroads. More to the point, unless auto-vic is the goal there woudl be no reason at all to go to these regions. India only makes sense if the HI points can be banked and sent home. Without them it's a huge risk and expense for really nothing. JFBs woudl be restricted to much more historical geographies. Woudl that lead to more quitting early out of boredom?

, I can probably live with that. This is assuming I have decided to let all my units die in place just to have HI run. In most cases, this will not happen when I have the opportunity to maneuver.

As the Allies I can force your maneuvering into tighter funnels by forcing you to have reaction forces stationed all over the place. Remember, I can shut down ALL production, including fuel and resources, by sticking a base force alongside a base force. Or an AA unit alongside a base force. Battle of the midgets. And I don't have to stay forever. I can kill by the death of a thousand cuts. Take away 25% of the HI-days across the map for 1943 and what does that do to aircraft production in 1945? Can you meet pilot taxes in 1944?

The biggest place where the Allies benefit is in China. This is easy to counter with bombing the centers so they are not usable.

No, the biggest places the Allies benefit are Singapore anbd Palembang, two bases the Japanese need and need fast. So JFBs would love for the code to remain unchanged on that basis. But they'd hate it long-term now that everyone knows how it works.

Paratroopers? Ok. Since I pretty much expect HI centers to be bombed when in 4E range (read transport range),

Transports have more range than most early war bombers. Paratroops also don't have to drop on the HI base. A dot base works fine. They can walk.

if I decide the hex is important enough I will have suitable AA in the hex as well as CAP to defend this high value target. More than likely, I will have some garrison as well since pretty much every high value city needs some sort of garrison. I think paratroopers would find it very difficult to attack and live for more than one day if they even survive the initial shock attack.

See above.

If I have left it defenseless enough that paratroopers can stay there then that is my lack of planning. Again, it is using tactics to prevent bad things from happening.

Wa





Moose, I disagree that you can do these things against a good player. You have to get the units there for them to have any effect. That is the glaring weakness in your plan to use tiny units and base forces. If you bring a lot of force to the party that is different, and of course you can only do so much of that. Needing reaction forces - yeah, that's closer to reality anyway.

As far as HQ units go, they won't even enter an enemy controlled hex without units that have AV going with them. That rule might extend to any unit with 0 AV, but for sure it coves HQ units.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 40
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 1:23:05 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8459
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Moose, I disagree that you can do these things against a good player. You have to get the units there for them to have any effect. That is the glaring weakness in your plan to use tiny units and base forces. If you bring a lot of force to the party that is different, and of course you can only do so much of that. Needing reaction forces - yeah, that's closer to reality anyway.

As far as HQ units go, they won't even enter an enemy controlled hex without units that have AV going with them. That rule might extend to any unit with 0 AV, but for sure it coves HQ units.


Do good players always play other good players?

In China, the units start there. You don't need to transport them. They can atomize and hide in woods and mountains. They would be slowly killed, but the objective is not to hold territory, it's to take individual HI-production-days away from Japan.

In terms of large HI producers even an audatious Allied player can't do much until mid-1943, but after that there are targets in Indo-China and the south China coast that can be forced with carrier investment. Rangoon is very possible. The Batavia area can be hit fast from the IO with losses. If it is taken spreading into Java is feasible if the Japanese are occupied elsewehre. To some extent these are suicide missions, but the Allies have deep pockets. It might not work, but the bigger point is it skews games while it's being tested, for completely artificial reasons.

Never heard that rule on HQs. Is it documented anywhere? I know base forces with 0 AV go into enemy occupied hexes. I just did it last turn. Not only 0 AV, zero devices. Basically a CO and his dog.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/10/2013 1:24:04 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 41
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 4:15:32 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14670
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Even in China you have to get the units there - from those woods and mountains. A good player will not let you do that (twice, at least!).

The HQ thing is well known but I have no idea if it is in the manual or elsewhere.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 42
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 4:35:42 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1275
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
Instead of all or nothing, just cut all production by 50%when enemy av is in the hex. This will reflect the actual and psychological impact of enemy forces in the area. The economy in that hex will be impacted by workers abandoning the factories to get away from the war. There were a number of cases were this hampered the war effort. I recently read that dock workers fleeing Rangoon severely impacted the use of the port.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 43
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 10:04:12 AM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: online
Well, as there are so many opinions, would it be possible to add that due a command line order like -i (just as an example!) to activate it, or no command to have it as it is? So people can easy try it out and see how much different it actually will be and can turn it off easy if its too good.

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 44
RE: Production - 1/10/2013 1:46:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8459
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


The HQ thing is well known but I have no idea if it is in the manual or elsewhere.


Not 100% known.

BTW, the base force CO's dog wanted to take a leak in the jungle. The unit wandered away from the base and back into deep canopy this turn without being attacked. That's a new one on me too.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 45
RE: Production - 1/11/2013 6:03:16 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Instead of all or nothing, just cut all production by 50%when enemy av is in the hex. This will reflect the actual and psychological impact of enemy forces in the area. The economy in that hex will be impacted by workers abandoning the factories to get away from the war. There were a number of cases were this hampered the war effort. I recently read that dock workers fleeing Rangoon severely impacted the use of the port.


This sounds pretty good to me. As an old Squad Leader player, the tank factory putting out T-34s at the front lines in Stalingrad stands out in the memory pretty well. Production should be possible if resources exist in the hex.

However, the key is transparency. If everyone knows what's happening, everyone can adjust his play style to deal with it.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 46
RE: Production - 1/11/2013 3:59:23 PM   
Theages

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages

What about only shutting off production, when a minimum number of enemy troops is present (AV check) and / or a certain attacker - defender AV ratio is reached (eg. more than 1:1)?




Anything, in theory, could be coded, but this proposal doesn't have a lot of logical consistency. If industry is inside the city, why would having more troops outside the city stop it from producing? You also get into satellites issues. For example, this gives the defender free intel on the AV strength of units sieging the city. The defender just has to watch for the switch to flip on or off. Also, a lot of units don't have any AV, but are still enemy units which flip hexsides. Finally, bombing defending troops could have the effect of stopping civilian workers from doing their jobs; flipping the switch the other way through bombing. There is already a way to stop civilians from producing--City attacks on the industry. There's no logical reason killing soldiers should stop steelworkers.


The scope of the game doesn't allow for a "realistic" solution.

Now it is all or nothing. Even a single non-combat unit stops production. The other way around the presence of 30 combat units won't impact production even if there was no defender.

I don't think the cities were all surrounded by a wall with all factories etc inside (medieval style). I doubt the defence of cities was done at the perimeter. A stronger defender would move out to engage the enemy before he can do harm to vital facilities. A weaker defender would protect defensible positions and vital points. He would have to give up parts of the city. So the size of the troops on both sides would be important for how much of a given area is controlled by which side.

A single map hex covers a "large" area. It can be assumed the industries' facilities (etc) are not concentrated on a single spot. To have a defender protect all sites of production, he would require a certain number of troops. The more enemy troops arrive, the more troops he would require to hold them all, or just give them up due to the size of troops arriving.

In real life there never was an all or nothing control of a town (if it was defended). It would take the successful attacker some time to capture the town. And that means production facilities would also change hands not all at once but time after time.

If there are enemy troops in the same hex, there should be "free" intel (up to a certain degree) since your troops are able to see them! You should be able to guess, if there are more enemies than you have troops (maybe not AV but troops).

It is also not logical to prevent resource / oil from producing. If the defender has enough troops he should be able to protect those centers.

If the "steelworkers" are forced to work for an occupying force, they would run away, when enough soldiers are killed. If they are loyal, killing their protectors could also make them flee.

Conclusion: all or nothing (current situation) seems sub-optimal

Another approach for a solution could be to include a random factor for each game turn, how many LI, HI, oil etc can produce. Maybe really just random or influenced by number of troops present or anything else(eg. a counter going up in relation to the odds of an attackers attack and going down in relation to a defender's attack)

An enemy at a base, who doesn't attack should not be able to prevent production.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 47
RE: Production - 1/12/2013 1:26:19 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9114
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Any changes need to fit in with the current simple method of either producing with enemy present or not.
1. Either LI and REF can produce with enemy present or not.
2. Either HI can produce with enemy LCU/TF present or not.



_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Theages)
Post #: 48
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Production Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.096