Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Playing GB

 
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.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Playing GB Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Playing GB - 2/21/2010 10:34:03 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Hi all
does anyone else find it harder to play GB during the first year in this version of the game? The problem I see is that GB can get hit badly by minor fleets during the first year. This occurs partly because:

1) in this version of the game, activated minor fleets, often controlled by France, and activated by DOW's by Spain or Russia, can attack third parties (i.e GB).
2) GB is so early in the reinforcement phase, that GB can not react to minor fleet placements by France by selecting to move first to blockade a minor fleet or last to react to a fleet placed at sea, bascially forcing GB to move last all the time (meaning its channel fleet gets destroyed every time).
3) And finally, because there are no proportional losses, France can use its minors in sucide raids on ports, or in attacks on blockading forces (i.e. the Swedes sail to a French blockaded port, join the French fleet there, and sail out and overwhelm the blockading fleet).

Do you guys find GB at a disadvantage in this game? An inexperienced GB player will be taken out easily by France and even an experienced one can be taken out with only moderate bad luck.
DB

< Message edited by Dancing Bear -- 2/21/2010 10:35:57 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Playing GB - 2/22/2010 2:42:29 AM   
bOrIuM

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 2/13/2006
Status: offline
1- I reapeat, minors SHOULDNT be considered as possession of their controler until there is a lapse of war... Its makes like 10 times I say it over this forum..
2- I always played GB in that position..
3- Never played with that, but never played with light ships either !

Oringinally GB is a little less strong acording to me, he got only 7 fleets at total, in EiANW he got 9 heavy and like 7 light.. in original russia as as much ship as France and Spain got more. Spain + russian normaly have combined the same amount of ships than GB on 6 fleets.

Light ships cost much less than Heavies, faster to produce and you can loose them first. Adv to GB.

I dont think GB is in defavor.. bad luck always hapen in this game, whatever country you play.. France may declare war at the first round to up to 6 german minors and get war declared at the same time by Austria and Prussia, giving them lot of minors and men...

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 2
RE: Playing GB - 2/22/2010 3:06:05 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Borium, I agree with your 1).

For 2), in the original game, there was a seperate naval reinforcment phase in which GB went last.

For 3) I agree that with light ships the advantage goes to GB after the first year once GB starts making lots of light ships (proportional losses would help here), but in the first year before that happens, 1) and 2) above make it tough for GB.

(in reply to bOrIuM)
Post #: 3
RE: Playing GB - 2/22/2010 3:53:57 AM   
ereiser

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 11/27/2008
Status: offline
Regarding #1 above.  Certainly an issue, but probably difficult to code.  Most games seem to use a house rule to prevent.

2)  GB must do a little extra planning.  Regardless of reinforcement order, GB will know which fleets France will control.  By moving last, GB can always react to FR moves (when France, I have always looked forward to a British player that moved before me!).  And when you know that the French have extra ships, keep the channel fleet strong, w/Nelson.

3)  I would think there would not be too many "suicide raids" because of the PP losses that will result later when the British move last.  I won't say never as there is always that "special circumstance/opportunity".

I don't think the play balance has changed too much.  Regardless of which specific rules are being used, the experienced/inexperienced dynamic can always be deadly for the inexperienced player.

ER

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 4
RE: Playing GB - 2/22/2010 10:08:05 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I am in agreement, the play balance hasn't changed that much. Having ships cost less in recent updates seems to have moved it against GB a little, but only a little (other powers can now afford to buy many ships, not just GB).

In playing this game as well as EIA I have found that it's almost impossible to win as GB. You don't have a big enough army to win land battles. You will get an early to mid game lead as you go around sinking the other powers' fleets, but once that's done you have nobody to fight, hence nobody to beat, hence nobody to gain PPs from and the other powers catch up fairly quickly. That's just my experience though, YMMV.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to ereiser)
Post #: 5
RE: Playing GB - 2/22/2010 5:47:23 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
I think the balance in EiANW is totally different than in EiA, JMO.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 6
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 2:11:54 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I think the balance in EiANW is totally different than in EiA, JMO.


Neverman, this is one of the most uninformative answers you have ever given. What do you mean, in particular with respect to playing GB? How can the balance be readdressed? (if you are talking about more than just GB, maybe we need another thread).

< Message edited by Dancing Bear -- 2/23/2010 2:12:38 AM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 7
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 2:16:28 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
How hard can it be to code who a minor is at war with? There must already be coding for lapse of war. What I'm not sure is what happens when a supporting power is already or becomes at war with the attacking major power.

By Suicide raids, I mean that the minor takes all the losses, but the major powers fleets go on to defeat the fleet in port (or at least destroy it, creating a tie).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ereiser

Regarding #1 above.  Certainly an issue, but probably difficult to code.  Most games seem to use a house rule to prevent.

2)  GB must do a little extra planning.  Regardless of reinforcement order, GB will know which fleets France will control.  By moving last, GB can always react to FR moves (when France, I have always looked forward to a British player that moved before me!).  And when you know that the French have extra ships, keep the channel fleet strong, w/Nelson.

3)  I would think there would not be too many "suicide raids" because of the PP losses that will result later when the British move last.  I won't say never as there is always that "special circumstance/opportunity".

I don't think the play balance has changed too much.  Regardless of which specific rules are being used, the experienced/inexperienced dynamic can always be deadly for the inexperienced player.

ER


(in reply to ereiser)
Post #: 8
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 2:31:11 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I agree that winning with Britain is very hard. You have to hope that the Russian is experienced enough to see your role as blocking a French naval attack against St Petersburg, so has an interest in keeping you alive. Spain too might not be that interesting in being surrounded by French fleets. It is a tightrope. I am concerned that in this version of the game that with only moderate luck and a minor nation fleet or two, France can take GB down single handedly.

One advantage Britain does have, that you did not mention, is that it can also win if nobody does. This is likely the only way Britain can ever win, assuming it is not annhilated in the opening months of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I am in agreement, the play balance hasn't changed that much. Having ships cost less in recent updates seems to have moved it against GB a little, but only a little (other powers can now afford to buy many ships, not just GB).

In playing this game as well as EIA I have found that it's almost impossible to win as GB. You don't have a big enough army to win land battles. You will get an early to mid game lead as you go around sinking the other powers' fleets, but once that's done you have nobody to fight, hence nobody to beat, hence nobody to gain PPs from and the other powers catch up fairly quickly. That's just my experience though, YMMV.


(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 9
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 2:59:13 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2836
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

Regarding #1 above. Certainly an issue, but probably difficult to code. Most games seem to use a house rule to prevent.


With the computer opponent available, it should not be difficult to code AI control of minors until there is a lapse of war, or if the minor is Influenced and/or Allied with the controlling MP.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 10
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 5:47:39 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I think the balance in EiANW is totally different than in EiA, JMO.


Neverman, this is one of the most uninformative answers you have ever given. What do you mean, in particular with respect to playing GB? How can the balance be readdressed? (if you are talking about more than just GB, maybe we need another thread).


Sorry, it was an opinion piece.

It would not only require another thread but much much more than that.

To try and put it simply:

EiANW is it's own game and therefore has it's own balance which is not the same as EiA.

Why would you expect EiANW to have the same game balance as EiA when EiANW is nothing like EiA??? That's just silly.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 11
RE: Playing GB - 2/23/2010 10:51:08 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
I already won a pbem EIANW game with 7 players as GB. Or to be more precise, my opponents decided any hope was lost and they conceeded after 3 years. So it is indeed possible to win.

Indeed GB had some advantages:
i) the lack of naval evasion (now fixed) helps surprise attacks,
ii)fleets automatically pass from the blockade box to the port when that city is taken,
so quick port raids are particularly effective (with some luck you can disembark,
take the port, destroy the enely fleet you bottled there and leave by next month).
iii) There are more fleets w.r.t EIA (approximately two times more) but political points
per fleets in naval battles is still one. More political points change hands in naval
battles, and this is a huge advantage for GB.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 12
RE: Playing GB - 2/24/2010 2:52:11 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Ok, Neverman, now I get your point.

Ashtar, these are very solid points.

I think it is the first year and the abuse of minors that most concerns me.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 13
RE: Playing GB - 2/24/2010 3:26:10 PM   
Ashtar

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/6/2007
Status: offline
quote:

3) And finally, because there are no proportional losses, France can use its minors in sucide raids on ports, or in attacks on blockading forces (i.e. the Swedes sail to a French blockaded port, join the French fleet there, and sail out and overwhelm the blockading fleet).

Is this allowed by the game engine? I do not think a France controlled Swedish fleet can pass the GB fleet to enter a blockaded port.

In general, it is true that GB lies in a critical position and inexperienced player may face disaster: is played well is virtually impregnable
to nothing less then a France-Spain-Russia coalition, but a single mistake can end up in London being taken by France alone. Some hints:

1. Be political. Prussia and Austria are your natural allies. Form strong bonds with them and never let them down against France. Remember that your word and your money are your best assets.

2. Be political (II). Your nightmare is a France-Spain-Russian coalition. Work hard to prevent that by offering trade, alliances, anti-France support and key minors like Portugal Sweden and even Norway (Denmark you should try to keep it for yourself, since its capital is on an island). Remember them that you are the banker of the free (that means non-French) world and that without you France will surely dominate the game.

3. Block all the French navy and keep a small force (1 light is enough) in the channel if you are playing with the Lille crossing arrow on.

4. Unless you need to surprise-strike an enemy fleet in open sea, you have no need to have your naval move in any other position than the last. This way you will always have the control of the channel (preventing crossings) and be able to attack any naval force trying to invade you by sea.

5. Do not worry too much about minor fleets. Of the ones with fleets, Holland is already French and its fleet should be already blockaded by you. Naples has an extremely small fleet. We are left with Sweden, Denmark and Portugal. The worst a controlling France player can do is to attack your channel fleet, but this is a stupid move: you will loose one light factor, then you will move in force and obliterate the offending fleets. Next month, you will exceptionally move before France and recover the blockade. You will probably gain a couple of political points and France will loose one, plus the number of ships around will decrease, which are always good news for GB.

6. Your long term goal is to have more ships then all the other powers combined. Best way to get it, is to sink enemy fleets, starting from that blockaded France fleet. Plan a port raid. If you use winter movement, winter is the best moment, since reinforcing France corps will be slower in coming for help. If France is at war with Austria and Prussia, offer them a fortune to concentrate their military efforts towards a port hosting French ships.

7. When the continent is at peace, consider getting some African colonies. They have a lot of manpower (that you badly need) and are out of reach from France. Discuss them with Spain (you want to stay friends) but do not care too much about Turkey: they almost have no fleet and are the only natural allied of France.

< Message edited by Ashtar -- 2/24/2010 3:29:38 PM >

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 14
RE: Playing GB - 2/25/2010 2:05:07 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

3) And finally, because there are no proportional losses, France can use its minors in sucide raids on ports, or in attacks on blockading forces (i.e. the Swedes sail to a French blockaded port, join the French fleet there, and sail out and overwhelm the blockading fleet).

Is this allowed by the game engine? I do not think a France controlled Swedish fleet can pass the GB fleet to enter a blockaded port.



Hi Ashtar,
a French controlled Swedish fleet can enter a French port (without fighting the blokcade on the way in), combine with the French fleet in the port, and then sail out. This just happened to me in my game, and led me to start this thread. The French won the battle, took all the losses from the Swedes and then went back into port. I was moving last (to hit back if I lost my one ship channel fleet), so could not stop the Swedes. This is why I would like proportional losses so at least France would take some losses from his ships when this happened.


Otherwise, your suggestions are excellent.

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 15
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 2:40:15 AM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline
quote:

Hi Ashtar,
a French controlled Swedish fleet can enter a French port (without fighting the blokcade on the way in)


Isn´t it true that any fleet can enter a port without being stoped from a fleet in a blockade-box ?
No proportional losses must be a core-function... of course silly not to include it.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 16
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 3:31:00 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
StCyr, i in both the original and Matrix games, fleets can bypass a blockading fleet to enter a port without fighting a battle.

Proporitonal losses was always an optional rule in the original game, but takes on more importance when there are light and heavy fleets and different nations.
quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr

quote:

Hi Ashtar,
a French controlled Swedish fleet can enter a French port (without fighting the blokcade on the way in)


Isn´t it true that any fleet can enter a port without being stoped from a fleet in a blockade-box ?
No proportional losses must be a core-function... of course silly not to include it.


(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 17
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 4:47:07 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

in both the original and Matrix games, fleets can bypass a blockading fleet to enter a port without fighting a battle.


This is supposed to be the case, but I don't think the game is currently doing this. If you try to enter a blockaded port with fleets from outside, it asks you if you want to lift the blockade. If you say yes, you fight; if you don't, it cancels the move. I don't see a way to sail into port past the blockade. Am I missing something?

If I'm correct about that, then if the game is allowing this in the case of controlled minor fleets, it would be a deviation from a deviation yielding a correct result.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 18
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 3:50:15 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
The whole light, heavy, transport fleet crap is just nonsense, it's not even worth addressing. This game was NEVER intended to have complex naval rules.

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 19
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 5:01:47 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2836
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

This game was NEVER intended to have complex naval rules.


Not true. Avalon Hill published official advanced naval rules in The General for the board game. Were the official errata and optional rules never intended to be used by players??

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 20
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 6:50:56 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I'm 100% with Neverman with this one, but think this needs a little explanation.

In the original game a fleet was a collection of ships of the line, frigates, and sloops. A one strenght fleet in the orignal game likely had a competent admiral, one battle ship for fighting, several frigates to scout, and several sloops to carry the mail. This is stated in the first paragraph of original EIA rule book (actually it is the second sentence). The placement of this sentance in the first paragraph of the rule book shows how important and fundamental this concept is to the game. Somewhere between the board game and the Matrix game, this seems to have gotten lost.

According the the board game rules "each "ship" ..is..equivalent to one ship of the line or a number of smaller ships pf approximately equal force." (from the first paragraph of section 1.0 of the rules). Notice that the strength of a fleet is described as "ship equivalents", not individual ships.

With this arrangement of ship types, it was possible for one fleet to cover a sea area of several thousand square miles. I'm not not sure why so many people have a problem with this concept for ships, but can accept that one infantry strength does not represent a fixed number of men, but might be anywhere from 1000 to 2,000 soliders per strenght point, depending on nationality.

The leap with the Matrix game, is that one ship is exactly that, one ship.

The "complex" general rules for combat are completely consistent with the most basic premise of the game. The use of light, heavy and transport ships is not.

An official "matrix" scenario with just the original board game "ship equivalents" (no light, heavy or transport ships), even no other changes were made, would really help here. It would also be easy to do.


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 21
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 11:11:23 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2836
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

An official "matrix" scenario with just the original board game "ship equivalents" (no light, heavy or transport ships), even no other changes were made, would really help here. It would also be easy to do.


No disagreement from me on this point; give you guys the lackluster naval game you want. Others still want a game OPTION for more interesting advanced naval combat comparable to land combat, and the official optional rules developed by Avalon Hill and ADG is a good place to start.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 22
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 11:43:38 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

[
7. When the continent is at peace, consider getting some African colonies. They have a lot of manpower (that you badly need) and are out of reach from France. Discuss them with Spain (you want to stay friends) but do not care too much about Turkey: they almost have no fleet and are the only natural allied of France.


Hello Ashtar: You might want to think about GB working with Turkey, as if he has a large Ottoman Empire you can use this force (with a higher Morale than if you created it) to go after the Frenchman. Later on, if the Turk has this empire, he is in your pocket as he is vulnerable to your aggressions. You will get enough of an army in time anyway. But if you can stack with such a Turk you can have over 100 Cav and another 150 infantry stacked with your army.

I have seen it done to success. It is unstoppable. No other power other than Turkey offers this option.

best
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Ashtar)
Post #: 23
RE: Playing GB - 2/27/2010 11:47:12 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The whole light, heavy, transport fleet crap is just nonsense, it's not even worth addressing. This game was NEVER intended to have complex naval rules.


Neverman: The current system is, indeed, less desirable than the original system but your second line about the game as never being intended to have complex naval rules is mistaken. Otherwise, there would have been no new naval rules generated in the General. I am confident that a rather simple naval system based around the chit system combat engine could be encorporated at some point.

regards,
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 24
RE: Playing GB - 2/28/2010 11:20:37 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

This game was NEVER intended to have complex naval rules.


Not true. Avalon Hill published official advanced naval rules in The General for the board game. Were the official errata and optional rules never intended to be used by players??


We always played with those rules.... and guess what? They were NOT complex, nor that "advanced" (only by comparison to the orig naval rules could they be considered so).

Mardonius: Again, my groups always played with the naval "chits" that were published in The General.... which were STILL VERY SIMPLE and not complex. Still simple, not complex. Still simple, not complex.

Oh, and btw, The General naval rules did not include all these little crappy naval forces.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 2/28/2010 11:22:30 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 25
RE: Playing GB - 3/1/2010 2:08:21 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Neverman:

I generally agree with your comments. Appears that the murky area is where does the border of simple and complex lie. And that, I reckon, is in the perspective of the beholder.

best
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 26
RE: Playing GB - 3/1/2010 3:07:19 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Neverman:

I generally agree with your comments. Appears that the murky area is where does the border of simple and complex lie. And that, I reckon, is in the perspective of the beholder.

best
Mardonius


This is true, absolutely. I guess for me, even the Advanced rules (considering I believe there were only 3 chits) weren't really that complex, but I am probably comparing them to a game designed specifically for naval combat.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 27
RE: Playing GB - 3/2/2010 12:59:37 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I think the EiH3.0 naval combat rules were better, no?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 28
RE: Playing GB - 3/2/2010 2:20:27 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Marshall:

I can not claim great familiarity with the EiH 3.0 Naval Rules but I think that they had 5 chit choices. Although I am a great fan of naval chit choices, I think that this may be a bit more complex than needed. Moreover, Naval forces (away from the coast) would typically know for several hours what the enemy line of battle intended so some of the surprises associated with military (as opposed to nautical) battles and therefore the limit on chit choices to probably 3 would be a good idea.

But I'd say that is a place to start. If you would like me to review them and give recommendations as to what should be included at an option for players keen on a bit more naval dynamism.

sincere regards,
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 29
RE: Playing GB - 3/2/2010 10:32:05 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I'd like to see a chit based naval combat. I have played with the General rules and liked those, but don't know about the EIH3.0 rules. I don't like the split into light and heavy ships.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Playing GB Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.495