Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Seeking an explanation

 
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 >> Seeking an explanation Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Seeking an explanation - 3/11/2018 7:23:36 PM   
Zigurat666


Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline
So I am playing July of 42 and I am trying to figure out which of three scenarios is happening to me. My opponent is either the best player ever,knows my password or glichy A.I

For six months now it doesn't appear that no matter how much I stagger or skew my TF paths I have been open ocean intercepted on almost every single task force.
As an example I offer the following

I could go back more but this task force left Koepang undetected





Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/11/2018 7:24:56 PM   
Zigurat666


Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline
then the next turn





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 2
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/11/2018 7:26:18 PM   
Zigurat666


Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline
then the third turn





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 3
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/11/2018 7:28:30 PM   
Zigurat666


Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline
I have had this type of occurrence happening over and over for months. At one point I tried changing my password and the occurences went away for a week or two but now have returned.
It seems that my opponent is especially adept and skilled at anticipating almost everything. Am I paranoid or can players really be that good?

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 4
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 4:51:21 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2210
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
How far does your naval search coverage go? Does he have any ships (BB, CA, AKE, AD, etc.) disbanded at the dot hex NE of Darwin (you should recon that hex)? Also, have you considered posting some DBs or TBs at Wyndham? Have you had your cargo TF follow a surface action group?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 5
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 6:13:09 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16703
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Can you press "Z" to show your search arcs and take another screen shot of the area north of OZ?
There are lots of reasons search aircraft do a poor job, some of which are within your control.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 6
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 8:30:23 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2675
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
Excellent naval search on the part of your opponent maybe?
Try to catch him with KB next time?

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 7
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 10:29:47 AM   
Zigurat666


Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline
I think there is one element missing. Im not as concerned about not seeing him. What my concern is is that my TF's never show any kind of detected rating from 1-10. IMO he has no clue Im even there. And even if fog of war is in play and the detection was low (1) would you send a TF that large to investigate deep in Japanese territory? That's why I think theres a bug in the patch

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 8
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 10:47:53 AM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
My guess is he is lying in wait for you at friendly dot bases, disbanded. Waits for you to show yourself, like the landing, and pounces.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 3/12/2018 11:22:10 AM >

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 9
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 11:01:14 AM   
Uncivil Engineer

 

Posts: 800
Joined: 2/22/2012
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline
Don't forget intel. He may be getting VERY lucky with what he's getting. I've been playing the Japanese side also, and don't even bother to check intel cause I know there's nothing of value there. But, the Allies get all kinds of bits and pieces; maybe enough for him to guess your coming moves.

What others have said about search and recon is also important.

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 10
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 12:07:07 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Here is an example from my present game where I chose not to interdict.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Uncivil Engineer)
Post #: 11
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 12:09:13 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7447
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online
Another important factor is where is your naval air search coverage.

If he was coming form a great distance moving full speed for two turns his ships would have shown smoke from the minor system and engine damage that would have accrued.

Also he couldn't possibly be more than 9 -10 hexes out form the target after the fight and you should be able to pounce on him with anti-shipping air.

How much search and naval strike capability do you have covering the area?

If he came from the dot base identified by Zuluhour he would make it back to the base in one turn, but would not automatically disband, even if set to do so, until the end of the turn, so air search should spot him there before disbanding.

For me, the biggest mystery isn't where is he coming form, it's why are you not spotting him on his egress route.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Uncivil Engineer)
Post #: 12
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 12:14:16 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I don't think that has been revealed yet Hans. I would have set the ambush up this way. Form the TF at the
dot base. Pick a new base, I cant see the whole map but lets say somewhere west. Set to intercept, I keep my settings
somewhat secret. Set TF to full speed and use way points.

*The short answer here for me is a lesson to be learned. Friendly dot bases are not just necessarily empty. Recon
is as important to naval operations as naval search. This instance (without seeing more of the map) was down right
brass balls as it would not be difficult to pin that nice Allied surface group against the coast and maul it.

* Another thought, and it has happened to me. No naval search even needed for this scenario. I can guess the
allied player here was waiting on a landing to spring this trap but was late to the party as it looks like they
may have unloaded most or all of the ground units. It is a special moment when you catch them inbound.

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 3/12/2018 12:21:29 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 13
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 3:01:27 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
It may be a result of his signals intelligence. Disbanding ships at dot bases, without any LCUs in the hex and near enemy territory, is a very high-risk tactic. If the dot base automatically changes, those ships will be scuttled.

Apbarog did a very good job of intercepting several of my unescorted TFs earlier in our game with ships lurking in gaps in my patrol zones or at dot bases. In almost every case where I was a little careless, he extracted a toll. I think at least once was the result of his signals intelligence and another was a masterful job of plotting the course of my TF based on a DL 2 sighting of the TF from 2 days earlier. He was also flying some float planes out of a dot base in the Solomons that gave him some DLs on a few other TFs.

What I did was set a trap by sending a single construction unit down the Solomon chain, and then moved KB and a heavy CA TF up to ambush any SCTF that tried to ambush my construction unit.

The best advice that I can give you is when you plot a destination for your major transport and amphibious groups leaving a port, plot a destination that is an open-water hex in the general direction of where you want the TF to go. Then modify the TFs destination as it nears its target to the correct hex. This will add some confusion to allied signal intelligence and make it less reliable.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 3/12/2018 3:09:33 PM >

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 14
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/12/2018 5:22:41 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9223
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
He may be getting good SIGINT ("X unit is on xAK heading for Wyndham", etc.).

He may be getting good or lucky reactions from his SCTFs. If you are running Tracker (and you should be), check what the Max DL is of your TFs on those other turns. If it is not listed as 0/0, and is instead listed as something like 0/4 or 0/6... his surface forces know "something" is there, but not what and not exactly where (which is what a DL of 1+/xx would mean). I've had surface forces react to TFs that aren't actually spotted on my map many times. Likewise, I've had amphibious/transport TFs flee from surface threats that aren't actually spotted on my map as well - the TF "knows" something is there and is reacting appropriately.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 15
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/17/2018 5:11:56 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7016
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
OK, so I thought about this for a while. First I have to say that its your fault (to a rather large degree) if you have no air search over your TF's path. If you do have adequate air search then it could be that your opponent is 'playing the code' so to speak. What I mean by that is that he's 'hiding' that fleet of his at a dot base. My guess, if that is what he's doing, it would be at Truscott, which is just NNW of Wyndham, and right in your path of travel.

Listen, I get it, you 'hide' a seaplane carrier at a dot base with a few patrol A/C. However you can't hide the Yamato behind a palm tree!!!! So come on guys, knock it off. If I hide an entire fleet (and fifteen ships is a 'fleet') at a 'sand spit' that makes me Houdini. Again though without search A/C its the opposing players' fault.

So ask your opponent if that is what he's doing and if so ask him to stop 'hiding' such large forces in plane sight. I mean really a force that size should be spotted at any base that has air over it. Disbanded in 'port' or not. That's what I mean by 'playing the code'.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 16
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/18/2018 11:57:21 AM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
This could be a huge discussion. I to have thought long and hard on the subject. I would reiterate that recon plays
a large operational role most players I see neglect. I am prepared to argue what naval search can and cannot
achieve in and of itself. I will not argue that large task forces which would have to seek anchorage in deep water
would be the subject to prying eyes to far greater degree than destroyer divisions and cripples which may seek
to beach themselves under any available cover. But I will argue that naval search aircraft will not needlessly loiter
nor deviate from their search arcs to search atolls and islands at their discretion. I can also state with a degree of
certainty that the tactic, even with PTs, PC, and small destroyer divisions is not fool proof. I have lost more ships
than I have sunk by trying to base ships near to ports to avoid getting Pearl Harbored. I know when I am on the prowl
with the fleet carriers, particularly from late '42 onwards I have recon a/c poking around and I have something on
port attack. There are more dimensions to AE than meets the eye.

** I will book mark this to return in a couple of hundred turns as well to detail how I run with the fleet carriers. I
am not successful all the time but I have had unexpected turn of events. When I got a chance to play DEI conquest
scenario and tool around with KB in the early war I noticed it was too easy to ignore the allied OOB and fall into
complacency.The game will allow the carriers in many instances to simply move out of the way and hammer
any interlopers.

** Last note for now. I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to
to alleviate this by using your brain. I look to ambush (Don't read this Francois, LOL) the enemy using this tactic
for some easy kills when I do amphibious assaults. And in case you are reading this Francois, I do not use this with
large surface groups or carriers (at all with CVs, I got burned wholesale my first game trying to hide a couple of
Essex class in the Gilberts, losing both for no gain.) Damn, I don't want to say this here, but I feel I must. You have
a lot of patrol craft, use them. Hey, I just thought of something. Can a submarine do bombardments? It should be
able to.....hmmmm

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 3/18/2018 12:11:32 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 17
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/18/2018 2:08:39 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6541
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
In AE submarines cannot conduct a bombardment.

Alfred

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 18
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/18/2018 4:43:51 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8253
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

In AE submarines cannot conduct a bombardment.

Alfred

Which didn't stop the Japs from doing nuisance bombardments.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 19
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/18/2018 8:32:20 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20789
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
You really haven't given us enough information to make an informed decision.


Zuluhour is most likely correct except flank speed isn't needed,mission speed will suffice with an aggressive commander and good search the day the fleet sorties...


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/18/2018 8:33:18 PM >

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 20
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/19/2018 12:32:01 AM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
One last note. After a short exchange off line I was admonished to reread the manual. Insightful as usual it was sage advice. I was
correct in the assumption naval search will not discover ships in port, disbanded in port, nor disbanded at a dot base. REF:10.1 and 10.2.
Here in lies the rub, you must consider recon when seeking ships not formed in task forces. Yes, another dimension. I have no
problem at all with this as I believe it allows one to conduct operations very similar to USN destroyer missions in the Solomon Islands.
In the real campaign you can see the destroyer squadrons forming after sundown, performing bombardments, interdictions etc. and
disbanded before dawn. I have the feeling this tactic can make one see red before it is fully understood and counter measures are
found.

ps. I have played Paul aka Ziggurat and my gut tells me he gets frustrated before he should. My apologies, no harm meant. You can always
PM me if you feel something is wrong or want an explanation. I'm no expert but a lot of stuff I have learned the hard way. Thank you
Lars, mad emperor in Denmark.

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 3/19/2018 12:36:19 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 21
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/19/2018 10:49:51 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
You see this occurrence for several months now, and what exactly your fleet is doing?
You sent transport fleet, you know it will be intercepted, but where are your large ships, which would intercept enemy? Your bases north of Australia are empty. I see green dots all around Timor. You are sure, they are empty?
I see planes and ships at Darwin, while you already have troops ashore. What is Yamato doing? It should pay there visit, at least twice a week. It is July 42, not that Allies can do anything about it, unless they'll release whole CV fleet.

(in reply to Zigurat666)
Post #: 22
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/24/2018 8:09:49 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7016
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to alleviate this by using your brain.


And this is exactly what I'm saying. Even with ships in port I often see the 'anchor' symbol to show ships are in the port without recon. Not that it gives direct info as to what's there, but I know something is 'home'. Now that could be as a result of 'intel' or something else, not sure. My point is that to hid 'heavy' vessels in 'plain' site is not conducive to the type of game I seek. As I said, "its playing the code", because as you know this is the result...
quote:

naval search will not discover ships in port, disbanded in port, nor disbanded at a dot base.
I don't have trouble with the first two, but do chafe at the last when relatively large numbers, and large ships are involved. The reason for that is quite simple too. Ports are normally well defended with radar, aircraft, and AAA, therby they'll be avoided by a naval search. This is not true of an undeveloped 'dot base'. Now that's not to say as you put it that 'a nav search' aircraft will spend much time lurking around and looking at said 'dot', but I think it may notice the 600lb gorilla lurking at the location. IOW, yeah it may easily miss a ship or two at such a locale, but parking a 'fleet' there should draw notice as the search passes by.

One other thing, you say that as Japan I have a sufficient 'recon' capability. I say nay sir. I don't have near enough to check every little dot base in the SRA or anywhere else for that matter. I do consider myself vigilent in doing as much as possible and I have those little company sized units jumping all over the place taking as many 'dot bases' as possible as soon as it is 'safe' for them to do so.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 3/24/2018 8:11:21 PM >


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 23
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/24/2018 11:50:16 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5242
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I would answer respectfully, your not supposed to have enough assets, your naval search arcs are what they are, as in RL
your search a/c are not going to freewheel around avery atoll and island as this will leave holes in the patterns. If you are
afraid of running into a brace of destroyers, bring your own. This is not a new tactic nor a necessarily good one either.
Just a way of operating out of forward areas similar to the Guadalcanal actions. I have some interesting reads how the
USN handled the constant threats by air and surface forces. Dispersal is not the right term but conveys the meaning.
No offense, just a counter point.

**One last thought, all your aircraft are potential recon ships though pilot training is essential for better spotting. All the
dots are bases have people on them friendly or not to that players side. Just because there are no counters on them
does not mean they are valueless. I am playing a very meticulous Japanese player who is systematically denying me
use of them. I think its more fun as now those special comando type units are really valuable and FUN to use. I think if
the hexes were 5nm ground combat and naval bases could become far more complex but it would easier to see how
a forward installation and environs functioned.

**I reread this, it is not supposed to sound rude, I sound acerbic.

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 3/25/2018 12:11:38 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 24
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/25/2018 12:22:22 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14646
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
He has a cruiser flotilla that you are not detecting but his cruiser flotillas search planes are finding your TFs just fine. What is it you are complaining about?

By the way, what the heck are you doing in northern Oz? Are you hunting for oil? Do you need more resources? Are you going to press gang some aborigines into your navy?

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 25
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/25/2018 12:42:02 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20789
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to alleviate this by using your brain.


And this is exactly what I'm saying. Even with ships in port I often see the 'anchor' symbol to show ships are in the port without recon. Not that it gives direct info as to what's there, but I know something is 'home'. Now that could be as a result of 'intel' or something else, not sure. My point is that to hid 'heavy' vessels in 'plain' site is not conducive to the type of game I seek. As I said, "its playing the code", because as you know this is the result...
quote:

naval search will not discover ships in port, disbanded in port, nor disbanded at a dot base.
I don't have trouble with the first two, but do chafe at the last when relatively large numbers, and large ships are involved. The reason for that is quite simple too. Ports are normally well defended with radar, aircraft, and AAA, therby they'll be avoided by a naval search. This is not true of an undeveloped 'dot base'. Now that's not to say as you put it that 'a nav search' aircraft will spend much time lurking around and looking at said 'dot', but I think it may notice the 600lb gorilla lurking at the location. IOW, yeah it may easily miss a ship or two at such a locale, but parking a 'fleet' there should draw notice as the search passes by.

One other thing, you say that as Japan I have a sufficient 'recon' capability. I say nay sir. I don't have near enough to check every little dot base in the SRA or anywhere else for that matter. I do consider myself vigilent in doing as much as possible and I have those little company sized units jumping all over the place taking as many 'dot bases' as possible as soon as it is 'safe' for them to do so.


To tell you the truth, hiding ships in dot bases is an art Japan needs to learn if you hope to have any large ships survive into 1945. The timing of the disband to port is hideously important as movement, refueling, ops point burn and the phases of the turn become super important. Good night naval search can spot the task force before it disappears and sometimes for whatever reason the task force doesn't disband before the daytime air strikes can savage the fleet....

It is a super valid tactic and not gamey at all...but one you need to think about and plan for.

One counter is to have a group of bombers set to port strike low, commanders discretion with 10-20 percent on search. You can easily break a group of bombers/floats into thirds and cover quite a few bases. When the bombers come in low against ships disbanded into a dot base the results are exceptionally gratifying and damaging.

It is also easy to sweep several bases the same way and still provide local CAP using the settings.

Also have Iboats patrol across dot bases is effective against disbanded ships.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 26
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/26/2018 11:03:24 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

It is a super valid tactic and not gamey at all...but one you need to think about and plan for.


How is it not gamey? There's no "attack ships at sea OR port" setting for aircraft so a player has to guess which setting they should use. Guess wrong and suddenly a task force becomes, in a sense, invincible. Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with people making use of quirks of the game engine if both players agree with it. I don't blame anyone for using this tactic however it is still gamey as it relies on the binary nature of air group orders.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 27
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/27/2018 12:02:17 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16703
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

quote:

It is a super valid tactic and not gamey at all...but one you need to think about and plan for.


How is it not gamey? There's no "attack ships at sea OR port" setting for aircraft so a player has to guess which setting they should use. Guess wrong and suddenly a task force becomes, in a sense, invincible. Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with people making use of quirks of the game engine if both players agree with it. I don't blame anyone for using this tactic however it is still gamey as it relies on the binary nature of air group orders.

Anything that can be done by either side pretty much equally should not be considered gamey. As you said, it is just a game quirk.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 28
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/27/2018 12:14:52 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20789
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

There's no "attack ships at sea OR port" setting for aircraft


, Sure there is.

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 29
RE: Seeking an explanation - 3/27/2018 12:40:38 AM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Anything that can be done by either side pretty much equally should not be considered gamey. As you said, it is just a game quirk.

Okay, I would define gamey as something that relies on game mechanics to be possible and which wouldn't be a valid tactic in real life. I want to emphasize again that just because I think it's gamey doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong to make use of it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

, Sure there is.

Ah, yes, the way I phrased it was a bit flawed and naturally interpreted in a way I didn't mean. Sorry about being unclear. What I meant is that if you are, say, at the Gilbert Islands you can sweep the area with naval search and just use naval attack to hit shipping in the area. You can't efficiently do that and have recon plus port attacks against ships at the small atolls at the same time. In a real world scenario anchoring at one of these small islands would hardly hide them from the naval search, right?
Clearing out ships disbanded like that seems more of a hassle than it ought to be. You can, in theory, naval attack + naval search + port attack with a single group. To recon a base to find disbanded ships you need an entirely separate group though which won't participate in the port attacks. Or have I been doing something wrong/overlooking something?

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/27/2018 12:42:36 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Seeking an explanation 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

0.270