Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: USFEE or USAFFE

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: USFEE or USAFFE Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 7/30/2004 2:08:33 AM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 31
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/1/2004 10:15:49 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi,

Looking at the control zone map the border between the South zone and the South-East zone runs between Australia and DEI. When I go back to the Tactical map and turn on the Zone location text it shows that parts of Northern Territory and more of New Guinea belongs to the South Zone. Please adjust either map to show the correct information.

/BPRE

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 32
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/2/2004 12:19:22 AM   
Cmdrcain


Posts: 1155
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....


Their map is a projection with the axis of earth sort of "turned" it is to I'd guess to stimulate better the long ocean distance between USA and Australia plus to get all of India into the map etc so its all ROtated a bit North Isn't quite straight up nor south straight down...

Theres always compromises in any game and its a good compromise
in the Original Pac war game, running supplies from USa to Australia was pretty fast, so one could auto convoy and manual convoy lots fast
in present game with the way map is, it will take quite a while as it should to get supplies from west coast down to australia and South pacific.

As to Wake, well it seems a bit short but its still in right direction and Wake was not really that far from Midway, truth is It seems to me that Midway is a bit too close to Hawaii

_____________________________

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 33
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/2/2004 2:29:59 AM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
...not complaining, just wondering...

(in reply to Cmdrcain)
Post #: 34
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/2/2004 10:06:52 AM   
Kizsam

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/27/2004
Status: offline
Hi

City in China has the name "Changchow" printed on the map. However, the base name is "Amoy".

Regards

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 35
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/3/2004 3:32:30 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....


The real problem with the "projection" is that as Mercator discovered, you have to
stretch something (land or water) out of shape to keep the distances true for the other.
This projection has chosed to try and keep the land elements pretty much to recogniz-
able sizes while stretching or pinching the water areas in between. Unfortunately, the
War in the Pacific was primarily a Naval and Air war, and the distances between the
land bodies are far more important to the flow of play than the land areas themselves,
Australia, while still badly done in terms of interior transportation, is realtively the right
shape. Which unfortunately makes the water area between NE Australia and Papua-
New Guinea far to large..., the Coral Sea has become an ocean that can no longer be
crossed by historical means. It would have been far better to have stretched southern
Australia out of shape (not much likely to happen there, especially in the outback) and
made the Coral Sea more accurate. Another poor design choice that is and will con-
tinue to cause trouble.

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 36
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/3/2004 1:19:37 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1200
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
Minor correction.

Soviet base – Uglaharmensk, correct spelling Uglekamensk, but before 1961 this tiny village was called Severny Suchan. This is very strange choice of additional Soviet base in Primorye, population in 1940 was just slightly above 600 men, there were no strategic objects there, only two coal mines. Besides Vladivostok there are other somewhat big towns in that area, most important – port town, Soviet Pacific navy base Nakhodka and center of coal industry town of Suchan, but we see only Uglaharmensk on the map… strange!

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 37
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/11/2004 10:06:02 AM   
Pascal


Posts: 1637
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
As I've indicated before, the Society Islands are missing from the map. The US built one of its first major advanced bases there at Bora-Bora, a very important refueling stop on the way to the ANZAC area.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 38
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/11/2004 4:54:57 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Don't know if anyone mentioned it before, but I found two more typos:

TriMcomalee, shouldn't it be TriNcomalee?

Alor Star (Malay peninsula) should be Alor Setar according to my Encarta World Atlas

O.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 8/11/2004 4:41:28 PM >

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 39
map issues - 8/11/2004 8:09:17 PM   
gdpsnake

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Kempner, TX
Status: offline
It looks on the map as if a RR exists between Hue and Hanoi but troops ALWAYS march along the grey road which is slower and two hexes longer. Is this a RR or just a glitch in the terrain?

Is there a RR or road between Ominato and the hex west of Muroram?

Is there a Road or RR in hex 31,30? A japanese unit zipped right through this hex in one turn.

Troops ALWAYS go to hex 41,40 while marching (the hex is empty) instead of following the RR depiction in 41,39.

Is there a road between Takamatsu and the hex east of it?

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 40
RE: map issues - 8/12/2004 1:51:35 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Another smallish map comment... in Mongolia there are some orange "residuals" from where the border was placed before (obviously). I guess border got moved further to the SW but it wasn't completely deleted at its old place.

O.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 41
RE: map issues - 8/12/2004 3:44:37 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake

It looks on the map as if a RR exists between Hue and Hanoi but troops ALWAYS march along the grey road which is slower and two hexes longer. Is this a RR or just a glitch in the terrain?


They're curious. The "Coastal Highway" has been around for a long time, but this new
road down the Highlands dropped from the sky on 12/01/41. Maybe they are looking
for OZ or Never-Never Land.

(in reply to gdpsnake)
Post #: 42
RE: map issues - 8/12/2004 3:48:26 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
A LARGE map comment. Rabaul is totally out of B-17/B-24 range from any hex
in Australia. Apparently the Japanese Fan-boy who created this map for 2x3
thought that it would make his life easier to leave reality out of the equation...

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 43
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/12/2004 3:54:43 AM   
rtamesis

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline
I believe that in SPI's boardgame War in the Pacific, they accounted for the map distortion by creating different zones where movement near the equatorial area, for example, cost more in terms of movement points than in areas closer to the poles.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 44
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/12/2004 4:36:35 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

I believe that in SPI's boardgame War in the Pacific, they accounted for the map distortion by creating different zones where movement near the equatorial area, for example, cost more in terms of movement points than in areas closer to the poles.


This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant
solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they
decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator
figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map
you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched
them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors
who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no-
one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing
around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things.

WITP is primarily a naval and air struggle, which the designers seem to have for-
gotton. If Australia had been HUGE, it might have "looked funny" but at least they
could have kept the sea and air distances between it and other parts of the map
more accurate. The "Outback" is about as important to WW II as the Greenland
Ice-cap..., distorting the he11 out of it wouldn't have made any real difference
in game play at all. But significantly changing the ranges between Australia and
Papua New Guinea/the Bismarck's DOES. And that was what 2by3 chose to do!

(in reply to rtamesis)
Post #: 45
Fushun or Fushan - 8/14/2004 9:22:41 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi,

It says Fushun on the map but in case you move the mouse over the base it's shown as Fushan.
Minor but in case you're aiming for 100%....

/BPRE

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 46
Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. - 8/14/2004 9:36:59 PM   
guke

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Krung Thep is the Thai name for Bangkok (actually only the first part of a rather long name). On the map Krung Thep and Bangkok are separate locations which is wrong, I think.
Contrary to someone elses post it should be Songkhla and not Songkhia.
The base Siemrem Reap should be Siem Reap, Siem Reab or Siemreab (I've seen all three spellings)


Quoting myself here, because it hasn't been mentioned in pry's summary of previous posts

BTW, the full name of Bangkok is:

Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit

which translates to:

The city of angels, the great city, the residence of the Emerald Buddha, the impregnable city (of Ayutthaya) of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Indra and built by Vishnukarn

Source: http://www.into-asia.com/bangkok/introduction/fullname.php

regards,
Gunnar

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 47
RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. - 8/15/2004 1:34:49 AM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16655
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online
1) Maybe call "Lahaina"....simply "Maui"...as the airfield was, I believe, at Kahului on the other side of the island.

2) How about a Bay for San Francisco? It looks landlocked.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 8/14/2004 11:39:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to guke)
Post #: 48
RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. - 8/16/2004 12:58:44 AM   
Pascal


Posts: 1637
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
Ocean Island graphic is on the map at hex 77,89 but no beach/base was in the database. Should simply be a beach without base, supplies like in UV.

From my comments in the OOB:

There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel.

Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections.

Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

< Message edited by Pascal -- 8/16/2004 12:51:39 AM >


_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 49
RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. - 8/16/2004 1:00:50 AM   
Pascal


Posts: 1637
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
As to the map errors in general, all 2by3 had to do was buy the National Geographic map collection on CD or DVD and they would have had no problems with correct names, locations, etc. There are a few really nice 1930's and 1940's maps on the NG discs.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 50
Cox's Bazaar - 8/17/2004 6:46:43 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
Hi Folks apologies if this has been pointed out before but there should be a base at hex 31 26 , called Cox's Bazaar

A) its a great name.

B) its where all the offensives in the Arkan started off from and it had at least 4 airfields in it otherwise the home base for offensives in the Arkan have to start off from Dacca on the otherside of the Bramaputra

Cheers

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 51
RE: Cox's Bazaar - 8/20/2004 8:33:10 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 2819
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
Interesting Alaska Comments:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=689653&key=nome




ORIGINAL: kew

I hate to nit-pick here but I'm from Alaska and I'd like to know where this road is from Anchorage to Nome. n fact I don't think there's more than a three hundred miles of road on the Seward Penninsula (where Nome is) The info below was teken from the Nome/VC website

Highways: No road system connects Nome to any major city.
Nome-Teller: 72 miles west, Nome-Council:73 miles east
Nome-Taylor:87 miles north
Rail:None

They've talked about building one for years. I don't think there ever was one built during the war. I've flown there a few times to go hunting and I've never seen anything from the air that remotely resembles an old road.

I doubt that any Japenese player would invade the USA from here and use the roads to their advantage, but just for the sake of realism is there any way to get the roads taken out of the game in the next patch?

More Alaska discussions:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=697996

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/27/2004 1:21:12 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 52
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 3:05:02 PM   
guke

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

[This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant
solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they
decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator
figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map
you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched
them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors
who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no-
one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing
around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things.



This is not entirely correct. In Mercator Projections not only land areas but also
the sea is shown much larger near the poles. Thus, even if a Mercator project-
ion was used in WitP, Sea areas near Australia would be larger than in reality and
all distances except right on the equator would be wrong.
What Mercator did was to "stretch" his map towards the poles in order to keep
the angles right (which is indeed very helpful for navigation).

It is impossible to create a correct map on a two-dimensional surface.

regards,
Gunnar

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 53
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 3:38:06 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
Guke,

Not true on a smaller scale - I do it every day - but at the WitP scale, yes, your statement is true in the fact that distance distortion must be accounted for by applying a scale factor based on the earth's ellipsoid shape...

Brad

(in reply to guke)
Post #: 54
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 4:26:24 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Gunnar. You are correct in that I was over-simplifying Mercator's solution...,
but if you will look at the map 2by3 has foisted off on us you will see that they
made NO use of Mercator's methods. All of the "stretching" and "twisting" oc-
curs in the sea areas (where the air/naval war was actually fought) instead of
putting as much of the necessary distortion in the interior of places like Australia
or New Guinea (where little or no action takes place). Mercator made his adjust-
ments with specific goals in mind, whereas 2by3 seems to have given little or
no thought to the "purpose" for which their map was created.

(in reply to guke)
Post #: 55
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 6:28:27 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16655
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online
There appears to be a canal across the island containing Puerto Princessa in the PI (TF's plot a route right through the island)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 6:59:31 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16655
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: guke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

[This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant
solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they
decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator
figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map
you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched
them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors
who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no-
one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing
around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things.



This is not entirely correct. In Mercator Projections not only land areas but also
the sea is shown much larger near the poles. Thus, even if a Mercator project-
ion was used in WitP, Sea areas near Australia would be larger than in reality and
all distances except right on the equator would be wrong.
What Mercator did was to "stretch" his map towards the poles in order to keep
the angles right (which is indeed very helpful for navigation).

It is impossible to create a correct map on a two-dimensional surface.

regards,
Gunnar


Well there is always 3d ...ultimately the hexagon is a 2-d shape and any 2-d map will have distortions, even on a small scale.

Here is NASA's way cool "J-track 3d" Java applet to plot satellites in orbit. You can click and drag from SF to Sri Lanka presto change-o. Imagine if the satellite plots were on the surface and were instead TF's...which were clickable (or had mouseover data)

"Shift-click" to zoom in
"Ctrl-click" to zoom out
Left-click and drag to rotate the globe


http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3d.html

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 8/21/2004 5:05:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to guke)
Post #: 57
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 7:38:37 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Hi all,

I do not remember where i saw this but i remember a boardgame that tried to solve the same map problem.

Their solution was to have map sections or slices that were each quite accurate and then had connection points to the next slice. You didn't miss anything, there were no transit zones, it just had a seperation between each slice.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 58
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 7:55:35 PM   
guke

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Gunnar. You are correct in that I was over-simplifying Mercator's solution...,
but if you will look at the map 2by3 has foisted off on us you will see that they
made NO use of Mercator's methods. All of the "stretching" and "twisting" oc-
curs in the sea areas (where the air/naval war was actually fought) instead of
putting as much of the necessary distortion in the interior of places like Australia
or New Guinea (where little or no action takes place). Mercator made his adjust-
ments with specific goals in mind, whereas 2by3 seems to have given little or
no thought to the "purpose" for which their map was created.


Mike,

If you compare the size of Australia with the size of East Asia for example,
Australia is much too large already.

But I actually agree with you in principle, the map is indeed very strange.
the distance distortion seems much too large even for a Mercator projection
around Australia while the distance distortion in the far north looks much little.
Maybe instead of picking a standard projection 2by3 simply drew the map the
way felt it would best for playing?

regards,
Gunnar

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 59
RE: USFEE or USAFFE - 8/21/2004 8:09:57 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Gunnar. Unfortunately I've been coming to the same conclusion that the map was
drawn "the way... it would be best for playing"... the Japanese. Virtually all the
"too short" portions seem to occur in areas of the initial Japanese expansion like
SE Asia, while almost all of the "too long" distances seem to occur in areas where
Allied resistance jelled like the Coral Sea.

I've often wondered why they didn't chose to make the whole map "hexagonal shaped"
with a flat at the top and bottom and a bulge in the middle (sort of building in the global
spread at the Equator). I don't think there is any law that says a map has to be rec-
tangular, and it would have certainly eased the need to stretch or twist things.

(in reply to guke)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: USFEE or USAFFE Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.297