ACWGC Forums

American Civil War Game Club

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT    Union Army Forums

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:11 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 69
After gathering some play experience and thinking on it, I no longer find the isolation optional rule to be one worth using. I think this goes against the grain in the club. My reasoning:

1. Illogical implementation: I've mentioned in other posts that the way the rule is implemented is unintuitive. The game only checks isolation status for the moving side. This often results in situations where the moving player will attempt to rescue an isolated unit during their turn and lift the isolation conditions on the game map. But the unit status will remain isolated through the opponent's next turn and thus the unit often end up captured. This can occur even if an isolated unit is no "isolated"; it can be nearly surrounded by friendly units but still eliminated as a result of isolation.

This could be solved by having the game check all units of both sides for isolation every turn, rather than just for the units whose turn it is to move.

2. Illogical effects: Isolation penalizes melee but not fire combat. The game checks for a route to a supply source (as well as map edge or impassable hex) when determining isolation. Melee combat is not affected by lack of ammunition but fire combat is. A single unit, or even a whole army could be wholly surrounded yet not isolated so long as a supply unit with a single strength point is surrounded with them (only units of 10 or fewer men could ever be supplied by such a wagon). It is contradictory to have isolation be dependent on access to supply, yet the condition does not affect fire combat which is dependent upon supply.

3. Exaggerated effects: Routed and isolated units of maximum size can be captured by units of minimum size. Without a way to represent captured units on the battlefield or the need to guard the large amount of prisoners this rule generates, this can become ridiculous. It leads to gamey tactics.

4. Surrounded units already have it bad: They are cut off from supply, will take flanking fire, thereby reducing morale, thereby increasing the likelihood of routing, which already has a drastic penalty for melee. The isolation penalty doesn't seems unnecessary because letting a unit get cut off and surrounded is already disincentivized by the game.

5. Historically questionable: The recorded instances of regimental size units surrendering en masse outside of a siege or total army capitulation seem rare. 2nd Winchester is an exception, but in that case it is akin to a siege in the sense that the whole of a larger command was surrounded. In this game however, 20 minutes of isolation can lead to thousands of prisoners. Within that time frame I question whether a unit would even realize it was surrounded, thereby increasing its chance of surrendering.

My first point bothers me the most. If that were changed, I would probably overlook the other issues and choose to play with the rule. I still doubt the effects of isolation serve the purpose of accurately modeling an isolated unit's tendency to surrender more quickly. Furthermore, there are numerous historical and current events that contradict this idea.

Thoughts? Come at me, bro.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1282
I haven't used the isolation option for many years.

But here is a thread discussing it.

https://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/view ... =isolation

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 388
I always have the Isolation Rule checked. It would seem very unrealistic to me for units not to be penalised in some manner when they are completely surrounded.

In terms of the points raised in the OP I would say:
1. Agreed, a 'check' for both sides would be better. If such a thing could be implemented it would appear to be a more realistic outcome.;
2. Isolation status can not (should not) and, in my experience, does not get broken merely by having access to a supply wagon (see WDS Comments below).;
3. A surrounded unit that is also so demoralised that it is in rout should be heavily penalised and easily get captured. I think that is the most realistic outcome given the game's limitations. [In one current game I have several units isolated and routed (their comrades are on the other side of an uncrossable waterway). They will be scooped up in a turn or two and I think that outcome is logical (e.g. Ball's Bluff in October 1861 - most of the Union casualties were captured men although quite a few perished when they got shot in the river or were drowned in it).;
4. Routed or isolated units are reduced to 25% of their strength. Routed and isolated units count as zero strength so are automatically overrun by any unit meleeing with them as they are too demoralised to continue - they have had enough.; and
5. Historically there would be few examples as commanders were very cognisant of not being surrounded. In such linear warfare units always wanted to look to their left and right and see friendly units. To isolate an entire army is extremely rare and exceedingly difficult. I have only achieved it once in a game and I could not maintain it for long (the isolation was broken by a single unit of my surrounding force not 'facing' the correct way which then left a technical path out of isolation for the enemy [Weak Zone of Control was also checked]).

WDS Comments
I contacted WDS last month regarding isolation and also an issue with the Shenandoah campaign (campaign losses did not carry-over - still unresolved). I was wrongly advised that the isolation test "is not that detailed of a check to evaluate all possible paths, bridge strengths etc. The check is simply for enemy ZOC's." That is wrong.
The Manual says, in regards to isolation that:
"The test attempts to trace a line of hexes from the unit to one of the following hexes:
* Any hex on the edge of the map.
* Any Blocked hex. [These are completely black hexes that do not appear in may scenarios. I think only Antietam and Peninsula have Blocked hexes in some scenarios.]
* Any hex containing a Supply Source." ['Supply Source' does not mean supply wagon.]

In addition to enemy ZoCs, the line of hexes being traced can also be interrupted (in order to cause isolation) by:
A. An all water hex (e.g. wide river);
B. An uncrossable water/creek then they are isolated without a path across the water.
C. A blocked bridge. If you block the other side of the bridge the enemy is isolated.
D. A destroyed bridge. The bridge has to be completely destroyed (a value of zero).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant General
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:14 pm
Posts: 59
I have no problem with the isolation rule although I am 50/50 on the idea that it could be checked every turn twice, once for each's side movement. On the one hand, I get the logic that if a unit is safely back in a line with other regiments, then it is no longer isolated & therefore shouldn't suffer a penalty. On the other hand, in linear warfare in the black powder era, I imagine that a regiment which believed itself to be flanked or cut off (even if support had subsequently arrived) would take some time to understand that the lines had been reformed. It therefore seems reasonable to me that a short interlude would occur as the officers & NCOs of the unit in question restored order & in that interlude, the regiment would fight at a vastly reduced effectiveness.

If I go back to the OP, one example that comes to my mind is the Hornet's Nest at Shiloh. Not an expert on the battle by any means, but I imagine when the Hornet's Nest eventually fell, the Rebs captured at least a few of Prentiss' regiments en masse. Perhaps also the surrender of some hundreds of Davis' Brigade in the RR Cut at Gettysburg. I also seem to remember during the Seven Days that the Rebs captured at least two regiments of Union infantry who simply hadn't got their orders to retreat at various points.

So I guess my position is that I like the rule, while acknowledging it is a bit of a blunt instrument.

_________________
Brigadier General TW Marshall

Marshall's Brigade 'The St Andrews Greys', 2nd (Gator Alley) Division, Stewart's Corps, Army of Tennessee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
As I recommend the isolation rule I would like to note that this is again a rule that is much more there for the effect on the player and his behavior then on the actual units on the battlefield.
The player should watch his flanks and especially his back and not even take a slight chance of being surrounded, that is what this rule is there for because the players knows his units will be in deep trouble if he doesn't pay attention.
Well and if he really pay no attention and plays so ahistorical/suicidal then he doesn't deserve any better even if you argue the effects are overdone.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 214
Location: Ireland
Christian Hecht wrote:
As I recommend the isolation rule I would like to note that this is again a rule that is much more there for the effect on the player and his behavior then on the actual units on the battlefield.
The player should watch his flanks and especially his back and not even take a slight chance of being surrounded, that is what this rule is there for because the players knows his units will be in deep trouble if he doesn't pay attention.
Well and if he really pay no attention and plays so ahistorical/suicidal then he doesn't deserve any better even if you argue the effects are overdone.



That is a damn good point Sir, Ya stick your hand out you get it slapped !

_________________
Lt. Col. Karl McEntegart
Chief of Staff
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

See Profile Page for games currently owned


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 32
It is not a perfect one, but better than none. I agree with Christian. The rules work by encouraging players not to trigger these rules. Those who didn't watch out for their flanks and rear should be severely punished. In general, I think it is usually hard to be isolated in WDS if you watch out.

_________________
Lt Col Ashdoll Ren
5th Seres' Brigade
1st Division / Stewart's Corps / Army of Tennessee


JTS: Antietam, Atlanta, Chancellorsville, Forgotten, Gettysburg, Ozark, Peninsula, Shenandoah, Vicksburg

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1728
Location: USA
The rule is rather clunky, but its main purpose is to stop people from doing things that commanders in the Civil War would never do. Detaching units to wonder around the map unsupported. Isolation gives the enemy a means to cheaply kill such units. Also doing unsupported penetrations of a line. Without the rule a player can send a small cavalry unit on a raid behind enemy lines that can require an entire brigade to stop depending on which ZOC rules you are using. Isolation keeps you from having to have six units to pin the unit down and kill it.

It also makes you stop detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some flanking action. Isolation makes this a risky move. It is a way to penalize behavior that no general would attempt on a Civil War battlefield but the game with its 700 foot General has no problem with. Precise coordination of detached forces is easy. Isolation rules make it dangerous.

If you find you keep getting units isolated, you need to look at what you are doing wrong play wise. It should be very rare.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 214
Location: Ireland
KWhitehead wrote:
The rule is rather clunky, but its main purpose is to stop people from doing things that commanders in the Civil War would never do. Detaching units to wonder around the map unsupported. Isolation gives the enemy a means to cheaply kill such units. Also doing unsupported penetrations of a line. Without the rule a player can send a small cavalry unit on a raid behind enemy lines that can require an entire brigade to stop depending on which ZOC rules you are using. Isolation keeps you from having to have six units to pin the unit down and kill it.

It also makes you stop detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some flanking action. Isolation makes this a risky move. It is a way to penalize behavior that no general would attempt on a Civil War battlefield but the game with its 700 foot General has no problem with. Precise coordination of detached forces is easy. Isolation rules make it dangerous.

If you find you keep getting units isolated, you need to look at what you are doing wrong play wise. It should be very rare.



General Whitehead <salute>

A most excellent appraisal Sir. The Army of Tennessee training shines through :D

_________________
Lt. Col. Karl McEntegart
Chief of Staff
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

See Profile Page for games currently owned


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 69
mihalik wrote:
I haven't used the isolation option for many years.

But here is a thread discussing it.

https://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/view ... =isolation

I agree with you and your examples there.

Quaama wrote:
* Any hex containing a Supply Source." ['Supply Source' does not mean supply wagon.]

I did not realize this. Still links the trigger to supply though.

KWhitehead wrote:
The rule is rather clunky, but its main purpose is to stop people from doing things that commanders in the Civil War would never do. Detaching units to wonder around the map unsupported. Isolation gives the enemy a means to cheaply kill such units. Also doing unsupported penetrations of a line. Without the rule a player can send a small cavalry unit on a raid behind enemy lines that can require an entire brigade to stop depending on which ZOC rules you are using. Isolation keeps you from having to have six units to pin the unit down and kill it.

It also makes you stop detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some flanking action. Isolation makes this a risky move. It is a way to penalize behavior that no general would attempt on a Civil War battlefield but the game with its 700 foot General has no problem with. Precise coordination of detached forces is easy. Isolation rules make it dangerous.

If you find you keep getting units isolated, you need to look at what you are doing wrong play wise. It should be very rare.


I'm not attacking the rule's logical inconsistencies because I am salty about the rule. While "git gud" probably has a certain charm for those in the club who have beat me, I also tend to win as spectacularly as I lose. The isolation rule has cut both ways for me in play. I just used it to ahistorically night march on two divisions of Union soldiers within 250 yards of them and wipe out about 10K infantry for mere hundreds of my own lost. I have yet to see it be used in the ways described here to punish a player or to promote "better play". Rather I have seen it used on single cav scouts, the odd regiment that pushes one hex too far ahead from the rest of the line in an attack, or to wipe out a large number of troops in a gamey manner.

I also don't buy the arguments that historical commanders were supernaturally aware of their flanks and would never risk isolation. Quite the opposite. Grant risked Hancock's corps as bait to draw out Lee at North Anna; Sheridan could have gotten his cavalry wiped on his Overland raid; the Light Brigade was knowingly sent to attack without support at the Battle of Balaclava: the aforementioned loss of soldiers at 2nd Winchester.

Christian Hecht wrote:
As I recommend the isolation rule I would like to note that this is again a rule that is much more there for the effect on the player and his behavior then on the actual units on the battlefield.
The player should watch his flanks and especially his back and not even take a slight chance of being surrounded, that is what this rule is there for because the players knows his units will be in deep trouble if he doesn't pay attention.
Well and if he really pay no attention and plays so ahistorical/suicidal then he doesn't deserve any better even if you argue the effects are overdone.

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
It is not a perfect one, but better than none. I agree with Christian. The rules work by encouraging players not to trigger these rules. Those who didn't watch out for their flanks and rear should be severely punished. In general, I think it is usually hard to be isolated in WDS if you watch out.

These are just "Totschlagargument". What is this crazy player behavior you are talking about when the isolation rule is not in effect? On the other hand I have been victim and perpetrator of ridiculously gamey moves to take advantage of the isolation rule. Without the isolation rule there are already hefty penalties for flanked and surrounded units in melee and fire combat. What benefit is there to disregard your flanks without the isolation rule in effect? Other than that your cut off units are overrun a few turns later?

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Can't really follow your arguments too.
First I wonder if you do phases or turns, that is a big difference and while blitz tactics are not so much a problem here as in the Nappy engine they are if you do pure turn gameplay.

Now, if Grant risked Hancock's corps as bait that is an intentional move or not? Troubles resulting out of it would been his own fault, or rather Hancock's as he would have been the one to act if he sees trouble developing. And I think such instances were the exception and not the rule.
Raids are a bad example, a raid is usually a small forces always in the risk of meeting a larger force that finishes it off.

The behavior we talk about is just the disregard for your flanks because you can give a f... if your unit or even a whole formation gets cut off. You might think that the engine punishes already enough in such situations, but again it's not about the punishment but the clear knowledge of the fact that you are alone by the isolation rule in deep trouble unless you act with care for you units. Acting with at least some care is unfortunately a seldom case in many tiller games, people have already fought till all but leaders where left on the map.

In the end, if the isolation rule doesn't work for you or works too good for you, then your gameplay seems erratic if not extreme, neither the ORs nor my recommendations to them are made for that. They are basically to shift gameplay and player behavior to a more historical way.
I do not see this getting achieved better if turning the isolation rule off.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 388
Logrus Pattern wrote:

Quaama wrote:
* Any hex containing a Supply Source." ['Supply Source' does not mean supply wagon.]

I did not realize this. Still links the trigger to supply though.


No, not supply. You can not trace your way out of isolation to a supply wagon. It must be 'Supply Source', which are not present in most scenarios. Supply Sources generally appear at or near the edge of a battle map although rarely they will appear elsewhere.

A Supply Source will not provide ammunition for your units. It solely exists to provide another way for units to avoid isolation although sometimes they are also Objective Hexes.

As General Whitehead says, isolation "should be very rare". Adoption of the principles of linear warfare should ensure that it is so. Conversely, "detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some [unrealistic] flanking action" will increase your chances of having units isolated.
The most common instance of isolation I've encountered is when a unit can not retreat backwards (due to terrain or over-stacking factors) so 'routs the wrong way'. Stuck behind enemy lines it is then easier for the enemy to surround them and once isolated and routed they give up which seems logical to me.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant General
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 214
Location: Ireland
"Acting with at least some care is unfortunately a seldom case in many tiller games, people have already fought till all but leaders where left on the map.

In the end, if the isolation rule doesn't work for you or works too good for you, then your gameplay seems erratic if not extreme, neither the ORs nor my recommendations to them are made for that. They are basically to shift gameplay and player behavior to a more historical way. I do not see this getting achieved better if turning the isolation rule off."


Some excellent points above I have to agree, fighting to the last man and playing in a more historical way, really excellent points. There are however at least two camps within our overarching desire to win, and we all want to win, don't we ? That which will employ any means or tactic to win, historical or otherwise, and that which will attempt, within game constraints, to win within historical parameters. One could be, I suggest, playing any game, Chess, Draughts, Risk, Snake & Ladders or Tiller and as long as a win is achieved, it doesn't matter. The other plays for the historicity, the maps, the forces, the spectacle and a win is more than just that, it's a recreation and achievement of what may or may not have transpired historically and that is the true yardstick of a win or even a loss.....IMHO :shock:

_________________
Lt. Col. Karl McEntegart
Chief of Staff
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

See Profile Page for games currently owned


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1105
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
That is a topic worth a new discussion, all I say here now is that a mechanic, be it in the engine or as house rule, may help.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 69
Quaama wrote:
A Supply Source will not provide ammunition for your units. It solely exists to provide another way for units to avoid isolation although sometimes they are also Objective Hexes.

Roger. I went back to the manual to read up on this. It is an unfortunately named game mechanic.
Quaama wrote:
As General Whitehead says, isolation "should be very rare". Adoption of the principles of linear warfare should ensure that it is so. Conversely, "detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some [unrealistic] flanking action" will increase your chances of having units isolated.
The most common instance of isolation I've encountered is when a unit can not retreat backwards (due to terrain or over-stacking factors) so 'routs the wrong way'. Stuck behind enemy lines it is then easier for the enemy to surround them and once isolated and routed they give up which seems logical to me.

Then our experiences are vastly different because isolation is no rarity in my games. It's almost always at or near the main fight and often decides the local fight if not the battle for one side or the other. The best player I played against in the club actively used isolation and zone of control to exploit any advantage in my front line. This person was frighteningly good, ruthless and made no mistakes.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Can't really follow your arguments too.
First I wonder if you do phases or turns, that is a big difference and while blitz tactics are not so much a problem here as in the Nappy engine they are if you do pure turn gameplay.

[...]

The behavior we talk about is just the disregard for your flanks because you can give a f... if your unit or even a whole formation gets cut off. You might think that the engine punishes already enough in such situations, but again it's not about the punishment but the clear knowledge of the fact that you are alone by the isolation rule in deep trouble unless you act with care for you units. Acting with at least some care is unfortunately a seldom case in many tiller games, people have already fought till all but leaders where left on the map.

In the end, if the isolation rule doesn't work for you or works too good for you, then your gameplay seems erratic if not extreme, neither the ORs nor my recommendations to them are made for that. They are basically to shift gameplay and player behavior to a more historical way.
I do not see this getting achieved better if turning the isolation rule off.

I play turns with the additional melee phase.

Again, I haven't seen the behavior you all are talking about. The examples are so outrageous it comes off as a strawman argument to me. I have played against players who are excellent; I have played against players who I can beat fairly soundly. No one I have played thus far has done anything remotely outrageous tactically, for better or worse, except perhaps to exploit the isolation rule.

I see isolation often being used against a single regiment salient in the main line in the course of normal play. These quickly become focal points as one side focuses on getting a quick kill while the other side attempts to prevent it. Except a player with some experience will recognize that it's nearly impossible to save a routed unit in such a position, even if it is surrounded on 5 sides with friendly units, because of when the game checks for isolation.

Alternately, I see it used in a gamey manner. In one game I isolated a 900-man regiment with a handful of cavalry and caused a lucky rout with offensive fire on the same turn. I mopped up on the next turn with a 75-man regiment. My opponent was not taking any unreasonable risks. Yet isolation swung the battle back in my favor.

I am not sure I can more clearly express my skepticism that this rule leads to better or more historical gameplay, or is justified by historical fact or good game design. The rule is strongly non-diegetic; a unit can be isolated without having LOS to an enemy. The unit will thus suffer the effects of isolation without the battlefield commander knowing the enemy is even around. The player is then alerted to the presence of the enemy through the turn report. The enemy is oddly alerted to the successful isolation when viewing the affected unit, even when extreme FOW is selected. There is also no diegetic explanation for an isolated unit to suffer a 75% melee penalty. Removing that penalty but still allowing routed, isolated units to be overrun makes much more sense particularly in regards your argument that a cut off unit would surrender more quickly. This seems plausible (even if there are numerous documented exceptions); but first they should have to realize their situation is hopeless before they suffer a penalty.

I doubt I will convince the die-hard fans of this rule that it is a bad one but maybe some other players or even the game designers will look at it in another light.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group