Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

 
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: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/11/2012 5:29:19 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Checking with the editor, it is a blank device in the scenario. Nothing to do with code.

Suggest adding it to the Land OOB forum.


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7379/screenshot221a.jpg
Scenario 6


http://www.mediafire.com/?krwc1dbaqyyl62x






oops.... maybe I should have read everything first before I commented.....

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1621
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/11/2012 7:37:59 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
My windows installation is so old that when i am try to launch latest r9 official patch, installer crashes and windows stop responding.

I know i need to reinstall windows but for next days i will have no time to do that.
I have already r9 beta installed.

I have question.

Do r9 beta=r9 official, and if yes, can i use it in PBEM if my opponent will have official patch or we both need stay with beta until i fix my system?


(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 1622
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/11/2012 10:30:55 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13086
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I vaguely recall some similar issue being reported earlier, but can not find it. Latest beta.


Sorting Ground Reinforcements by arrival date, when restriction level is applied shows realy strange results.
But when no filter is applied it works as it should.

It behaves the same for both sides.




The filter is only acting as a filter for what is being shown from the full list. Whereas the date sort is actually sorting the full list.

The filter needs to be moved so that it filters the full list (that is the 'full' list is only the LCUs that satisfy the filter). Then the sort will work properly.

This also applies to the Ground Withdraw list sorted by date, but so much as most units are already on the map.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1623
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/11/2012 10:55:18 PM   
littleike

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
Last official patch.

As soon as i start scenario 9 the program create in the save directory an update report with many rows like this:

TOE difference in unit 5th Ind.(3068)
--> slot 4 has (0), to become Type 1 Halftack(788)
TOE difference in unit 40th(3271)
--> slot 3 has 37mm Type 94 AT Gun(734), to become 37mm Type 01 AT Gun(735)
TOE difference in unit 20th(3326)
--> slot 0 has IJA Engineer Squad(711), to become IJA Engineer Squad(267)

...........and so on.


What does it mean? Are they errors?

Many thanks

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1624
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/12/2012 12:02:28 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13086
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
There are possible data issues with the scenario. They might not be errors, but things that could be wrong.
From a player perspective, I don't think you need to worry. The scenario dev would have sorted out any real errors.

The update file is of more use when you do an in-game update of the scenario data in case it has been changed.


< Message edited by michaelm -- 2/12/2012 12:04:32 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to littleike)
Post #: 1625
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/13/2012 9:40:30 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
Do message about Burma road status in Rangoon city window is removed?
I just upgraded to r9 and massage disrepair.
I playing as japan and in last turn road was open and now there is no message.


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1626
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 2:04:09 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Not sure what this is but I looked into the "aoperationsreport_420214.txt" and found this:
***
Previous report of sinking of CL Kiso incorrect. Ship sighted and engaged at 106, 63
***
In-game that ship is now(turn 74/18th February) listed as sunk on 14th February but the tracker lists it as been sunk on 31st January.
Digging into the Combat report I found that it was bombed on 29th January at 155,94 taking 1 bomb hit and being on fire.
I loaded the autosave from 13th February and there the game also list it as being sunk on 31st January with the exact same data as what the tracker lists.

So the message in the OpsReport just changed the date(from 31st January to 14th February) and the location(from 147, 100 near Wake Island to 105,60 near Kochi) but that the sinking was wrongly reported seems to be ignored also the device(1000lb GP Bomb) is still the same.

Only explanation to me is that the SS Trout sighted the CL Kiso on 14th February:
***
Submarine attack near Kochi at 106,63

Japanese Ships
CL Kiso

Allied Ships
SS Trout



CL Kiso is sighted by SS Trout
SS Trout launches 4 torpedoes at CL Kiso
***
So what happened, did the Captain of the Trout reported the CL Kiso as sunk(again)?

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 2/14/2012 2:09:01 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1627
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 3:31:02 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Previous report of sinking of CL Kiso incorrect.


Yup. One of your subordinates fed you an incorrect action report. Such reports do happen. In time they are corrected, one method or another.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1628
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 6:12:56 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Sure and that's OK but what I don't get is why it's still being listed as sunk.
Does the paperwork take so long or is something "jammed"?

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1629
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 9:26:01 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13086
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

Do message about Burma road status in Rangoon city window is removed?
I just upgraded to r9 and massage disrepair.
I playing as japan and in last turn road was open and now there is no message.




The road being open would only apply to the Allied player. And no it hasn't been removed in r9.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1630
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 9:39:08 AM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

Do message about Burma road status in Rangoon city window is removed?
I just upgraded to r9 and massage disrepair.
I playing as japan and in last turn road was open and now there is no message.




The road being open would only apply to the Allied player. And no it hasn't been removed in r9.


So why i saw that massage at lest for 3 turns in Rangoon if i am Japanese player.
And if massage is gone is that mean that road is closed?

Also if i load new game as allies there is no massage about road. But i only check it on turn "0" so probably i will see it in next turn?

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1631
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 10:13:36 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13086
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I mean that the impact of the 'road' is only for the Allied player.

Looking at the code:
If the end of the 'road' (Yunan) is occupied by Japanese, then the road is closed and not reported.
Otherwise it is only reported if it can trace a supply route to the 'end of the road'. And supply can be delivered to the base.

On turn 0, no supply has been delivered so the 'road' isn't open.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 2/14/2012 10:14:33 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1632
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 2:58:41 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Sure and that's OK but what I don't get is why it's still being listed as sunk.
Does the paperwork take so long or is something "jammed"?


There is a random time delay before correction (unless the ship is sighted first). If you don't like this, turn off fog of war.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1633
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 4:54:23 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
But the ship was sighted that's the point.
Listed first as sunk on 31st January, then it was sighted again on 14th February in a sub attack but without taking any hits, now its still listed as sunk but dated on 14th February and location changed to a point close to the sub attack.


< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 2/14/2012 4:55:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1634
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 6:55:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

But the ship was sighted that's the point.
Listed first as sunk on 31st January, then it was sighted again on 14th February in a sub attack but without taking any hits, now its still listed as sunk but dated on 14th February and location changed to a point close to the sub attack.




I really do not understand the confusion.

You received an incorrect sinking report (fog of war).
You later enaged the ship reported as sunk so you know the report was false.
When engaged it was again reported as sunk (may fog of war, maybe not).

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1635
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 7:03:06 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
How many times was Enterprise reported sunk?

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1636
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 7:38:37 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

But the ship was sighted that's the point.
Listed first as sunk on 31st January, then it was sighted again on 14th February in a sub attack but without taking any hits, now its still listed as sunk but dated on 14th February and location changed to a point close to the sub attack.




I really do not understand the confusion.

You received an incorrect sinking report (fog of war).
You later enaged the ship reported as sunk so you know the report was false.
When engaged it was again reported as sunk (may fog of war, maybe not).


Confusing is whether he really reported the ship as sunk or if the sunk ship list didn't update the info correctly, I mean in the combat report he didn't even score a hit on it and it wasn't listed as sunk either in that report so how can he report it as sunk?
If only he scored at least one hit it would be understandable but the way it is now seems strange.

Simple calculation:
Reported sunk + sighted later + attacked without scoring a hit = SHIP NOT SUNK
That's what I can get out of the reports I got and I don't get how the game can pull something different out of them without giving the player a clue where that info comes from.
Any even the silliest explanation in that combat report would have solved why the ship is still listed as sunk, simply because it was reported as sunk or at least as hit.
If I get one report of a pilot telling me he hit the CL with his 1000lb bomb and is sure it sank later = Ship sunk
If I get one report of a captain telling me he attacked that ship but without hitting it = Ship not sunk
I can either believe the pilot or the captain but can't "merge" the two reports to make something out of it that doesn't make any sense like it's now with changing date & location but not the sunk by reason or that it's sunk at all.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1637
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 8:12:56 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8171
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

It's just getting too complicated. It's bloody Fog of War, it's supposed to be wrong sometimes.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1638
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/14/2012 8:53:36 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
It is an abstraction of what happened in RL.

In the pre information age, stubby pencil, world where hundreds of operational reports are transmitted through multiple HQs across the Pacific then are sorted through and analyzed by hand, the chances of getting accurate and timely information is not as good as you think.

As a guy who had to pour through literally millions (yes, millions) of operational reports while doing analysis of operations in Iraq, it was not always easy determining what actually happened in engagements at HQ level. Operational reports varied, with some being incomplete, some describing the same event in a different way (conflicting at times), some with the data being incorrect (remember geocoding one engagement based on the coordinates and it was in Iran), and a whole host of blanks/incompletes in the reports. Even today it isn't easy.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

But the ship was sighted that's the point.
Listed first as sunk on 31st January, then it was sighted again on 14th February in a sub attack but without taking any hits, now its still listed as sunk but dated on 14th February and location changed to a point close to the sub attack.




I really do not understand the confusion.

You received an incorrect sinking report (fog of war).
You later enaged the ship reported as sunk so you know the report was false.
When engaged it was again reported as sunk (may fog of war, maybe not).


Confusing is whether he really reported the ship as sunk or if the sunk ship list didn't update the info correctly, I mean in the combat report he didn't even score a hit on it and it wasn't listed as sunk either in that report so how can he report it as sunk?
If only he scored at least one hit it would be understandable but the way it is now seems strange.

Simple calculation:
Reported sunk + sighted later + attacked without scoring a hit = SHIP NOT SUNK
That's what I can get out of the reports I got and I don't get how the game can pull something different out of them without giving the player a clue where that info comes from.
Any even the silliest explanation in that combat report would have solved why the ship is still listed as sunk, simply because it was reported as sunk or at least as hit.
If I get one report of a pilot telling me he hit the CL with his 1000lb bomb and is sure it sank later = Ship sunk
If I get one report of a captain telling me he attacked that ship but without hitting it = Ship not sunk
I can either believe the pilot or the captain but can't "merge" the two reports to make something out of it that doesn't make any sense like it's now with changing date & location but not the sunk by reason or that it's sunk at all.



< Message edited by denisonh -- 2/14/2012 8:58:18 PM >


_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1639
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/15/2012 11:37:22 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 5915
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
On the TF creation screen there is a button that says 'Surpress ships not due upgradel'. This filter does not seem to do anything usefull? And yes I do have ships both due and set for upgrade but clicking the button removes all ships in port.

To my mind this filter is wrong anyway you should be surpressing ships due an upgrade thus hiding them from selection.

Right clicking on a ship during the select is no use either as this info does not appear on the ship data.


< Message edited by Chris H -- 2/15/2012 11:38:25 AM >

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1640
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/15/2012 1:05:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
... It's bloody Fog of War, it's supposed to be wrong sometimes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh
It is an abstraction of what happened in RL.

In the pre information age, stubby pencil, world where hundreds of operational reports are transmitted through multiple HQs across the Pacific then are sorted through and analyzed by hand, the chances of getting accurate and timely information is not as good as you think. ...


+1

In this era, particularly if a battle went poorly, it could take weeks (as in when the ships got back to port .. literally) before quasi accurate information was available to upper command levels and even then it was less than complete. Wounded ships in sub infested waters tend to observe rather strict radio procedures.

People now are far too used to getting their info via CNN within seconds of the occurence. You need to dial back your expectations quite a bit.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1641
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/16/2012 8:32:12 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1970
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
... It's bloody Fog of War, it's supposed to be wrong sometimes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh
It is an abstraction of what happened in RL.

In the pre information age, stubby pencil, world where hundreds of operational reports are transmitted through multiple HQs across the Pacific then are sorted through and analyzed by hand, the chances of getting accurate and timely information is not as good as you think. ...


+1

In this era, particularly if a battle went poorly, it could take weeks (as in when the ships got back to port .. literally) before quasi accurate information was available to upper command levels and even then it was less than complete. Wounded ships in sub infested waters tend to observe rather strict radio procedures.

People now are far too used to getting their info via CNN within seconds of the occurence. You need to dial back your expectations quite a bit.


++1 Reality check


_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1642
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/16/2012 8:57:48 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10389
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The USN has published the biweekly squadron location and strength reports to the web. If you look through the reports for the carrier squadrons in 1942, you'll find things like air group 2 still aboard the Lexington in the first week of June 1942 and the Lexington. The information compiled during the war is usually very inaccurate compared to what was compiled via careful study years after the fact.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 1643
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/16/2012 2:03:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25057
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
... It's bloody Fog of War, it's supposed to be wrong sometimes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh
It is an abstraction of what happened in RL.

In the pre information age, stubby pencil, world where hundreds of operational reports are transmitted through multiple HQs across the Pacific then are sorted through and analyzed by hand, the chances of getting accurate and timely information is not as good as you think. ...


+1

In this era, particularly if a battle went poorly, it could take weeks (as in when the ships got back to port .. literally) before quasi accurate information was available to upper command levels and even then it was less than complete. Wounded ships in sub infested waters tend to observe rather strict radio procedures.

People now are far too used to getting their info via CNN within seconds of the occurence. You need to dial back your expectations quite a bit.


++1 Reality check



Quite so! Now people get the wrong information faster and believe they are 'informed'.

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 1644
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/16/2012 7:48:07 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Quite so! Now people get the wrong information faster and believe they are 'informed'.

Touche!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1645
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/16/2012 8:33:56 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2559
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

On the TF creation screen there is a button that says 'Surpress ships not due upgradel'. This filter does not seem to do anything usefull? And yes I do have ships both due and set for upgrade but clicking the button removes all ships in port.

To my mind this filter is wrong anyway you should be surpressing ships due an upgrade thus hiding them from selection.

Right clicking on a ship during the select is no use either as this info does not appear on the ship data.




Actually I just used it and it was incredibly helpful!

I had a number of TFs sitting at a major port between operations but a few ships spread across over ten TFs were overdue for upgrade. So I created a TF, selected "suppress ships not due uprade", selected everyone of the ones still displayed, disbanded the TF and the next turn all the overdue ships went into upgrade.

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 1646
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/17/2012 1:29:00 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1904
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Not sure if it's been asked before or not but if it only takes a few weeks for a land unit to be bought out of the destroyed units shouldn't an air unit take the same or less? IIRC it takes months or a year for an airunit to come back in right now & it seems much easier to build an air unit than a land unit as far as personnel & TOE stuff.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 1647
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/17/2012 1:35:21 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
But it takes a very long time for LCUs to obtain all of their devices.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1648
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/17/2012 1:43:10 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10389
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Yes, once an air unit returns, it takes only a short time to bring it up to full strength and it can be filled out with pilots from the reserve pool who are trained. Unless the LCU is very small, it will probably take months to rebuild on map, if not longer if there is a shortage of something the unit needs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 1649
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 2/17/2012 2:25:54 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6352
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Previous report of sinking of CL Kiso incorrect.


Yup. One of your subordinates fed you an incorrect action report. Such reports do happen. In time they are corrected, one method or another.



Just like the numerous claims that the Ark Royal had been sunk.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1650
Page:   <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   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

0.188