The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Should Capital Ships Have Slower Hyperdrives?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Should Capital Ships Have Slower Hyperdrives? Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I completely agree that hyperdrive multipliers should have more gradients, but the arithmetic is not that difficult! I try not to go all math professor on my players, but come on. Counting pips is child's play, and when calculating base travel times it is perfectly acceptable to use a calculator to quickly multiply by decimal amounts or fractions (divide by the bottom number and multiply that by the top number).

If you had enough modifiers that were close enough together, you could also throw out WEG's difficulty modifier that makes the jump 1 hour shorter for every +1 in Difficulty, and replace it with something along the lines of moving up one modifier faster for every +5 or +10 in Difficulty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
This concept still has some tactical weaknesses, but at least enemy fighters can't just fly up and blast the ring out of space.


It's also possible the rings themselves are just damn hard to find. They're what, about 3m in diameter? Powered down, just getting a trickle to receive the power-up signal and warm up the engines?

Finding the rings in space wouldn't be easy. They wouldn't look much different than random debris in scanners, until you got close enough to see them.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My main objection to that is it seems to place a lot of emphasis on the protection provided by just being hard to find. Unless the pilot is willing to take an evasive course from a jump point far outside sensor range, there will at least be a search vector. With an enemy that can field thousands of droid starfighters at a time, they could easily flood space with a web of fighters on a search pattern. And while the odds are remote, going into sensor stealth mode just makes something much more difficult to find, but not impossible.

Plus, maybe it's just me, but I like the mental image of seeing the hyperdrive ring pop in and out of realspace. It just feels like Star Wars to me.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14022
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
I've seen that first hand unfortunately. 2 Origin's ago, on the drive in, just past the I70/71 junction, traffic was backed up a little bit, but you didn't spot it till you got around one of the earlier curves. As i was in the far right lane (to get off), i was luckily not involved, but a truck came barreling in the outer left lane, and tried to skirt vehicles as he slowed down (too late), and clipped 5 straight cars.. 2 rather badly.

Happens all the time. I've seen fatal wrecks where big rig drivers didn't stop in time and plowed into the backs of cars stopped on the freeway because of heavy traffic.


The worst accident i saw involving a truck and cars, was way back in 94-95 neck of the woods.. 3 cars were trailing a Tree trunk hauler, and some of the chains holding them in snapped. 1 log went into the 2nd car in line, almost killing the driver (but the glass shrapnel did kill one of the kids), fliping THAT car into the path of the 3rd , causing it to crash into the 2nd.. the first car in line, avoided the trees, but flipped into a ditch.

That is one of the main reasons ANY time i am on a freeway, i will willfully speed to get the fark ahead of any trucks i see.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And we would prefer you do exactly that. In fact, if someone is taking too much time passing me, I will deliberately crowd the line to let them know in no uncertain terms that I don't want them there.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
IMO, any prequel era Starfighter that is equipped with an astromech droid should also be capable of using a hyperdrive ring, so as to make the fullest potential use of the astromech.

IMO you sometimes overdo requiring everything to be used to its fullest potential, ha ha.

Astromechs are extremely useful without ships being hyperdrive-rung capable. I'm not saying N-1s absolutely didn't ever use them, but I definitely think a lot of people used astromech droids without travelling through hyperspace. Astromech droids are versatile, and not everyone in the galaxy uses droids to their full potential. (Threepio was fluent in over 6 million forms of communications but he was created by Anakin "to help mom." Later in life he was twice used talk to moisture vaporators.)

CRMcNeill wrote:
As an aside, I've always wondered about the vulnerability of hyperdrive rings. Once a Starfighter disconnects and flies in system, what is to keep someone from flying up and shooting the immobile ring out of space, and thus stranding the fighter in that system? On top of that, the ring's location requires the starfighter to return to a fixed point in the system if it wants to leave, which makes the fighter much easier to intercept.

One solution I've considered is allowing hyperdrive rings to function in two modes, so that once the fighter is disconnected, the ring makes a stationary jump, then basically hovers in hyperspace, out of reach from any attack from realspace. When the pilot needs the ring again, he flies to the ring's approximate location and broadcasts a short range hypercomm code that instructs the ring to drop back into realspace to rendezvous with the fighter.

This concept still has some tactical weaknesses, but at least enemy fighters can't just fly up and blast the ring out of space.

You know I don't care for the idea of anything floating still or moving slowly in hyperspace, so that doesn't work for me. And the film's saga's single use of the ring portrays it just floating there for a bit after Obi-Wan flies away from it. It doesn't disappear into hyperspace.

What wrong with hyperrings being vulnerable? They should be. Fighters are preferably used in groups, and before they had their own built-in hyperdrives they were preferably brought into a system carried by a capital ship. Using hyperrings shouldn't be a first choice tactic for most. If a single fighter travels through hyperspace without having any other ships felt behind to guard the rings, that's a very bold move so there should be some risk. Maybe Jedi are the only ones bold enough to use them alone.

I agree with Mr. Nexx that the rings were probably designed to be appear to sensors as space junk without close examination. If they are discovered, oh well. That's the chance you take. May the Force be with you. Hyperrings don't have to have maximized invulnerability. Technology in Star Wars can be flawed sometimes. Thermal exhaust ports, anyone?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Astromechs are extremely useful without ships being hyperdrive-rung capable. I'm not saying N-1s absolutely didn't ever use them, but I definitely think a lot of people used astromech droids without travelling through hyperspace. Astromech droids are versatile, and not everyone in the galaxy uses droids to their full potential. (Threepio was fluent in over 6 million forms of communications but he was created by Anakin "to help mom." Later in life he was twice used talk to moisture vaporators.)

The difference there, IMO, is that Threepio was purchased as a used droid to perform a specific function, even though he had been designed to perform others. In the case of the N-1 having an astromech socket, I would argue that the Naboo designed their fighter to perform a wide variety of defense functions, and since they were already including an astromech to perform those other functions you mention, there would be minimal added expense in including the ability to interface with a hyperdrive ring (at least, relative to the overall expense of designing and building a starfighter in the first place).

Quote:
You know I don't care for the idea of anything floating still or moving slowly in hyperspace, so that doesn't work for me.

I recall. I have a great deal of respect for your opinion on many subjects in the SWU, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Over on the Interstellar Communications topic, we pretty well settled on the Holo-Net relay satellites being "anchored" in hyperspace, only dropping into realspace for maintenance and repairs. This also has the effect of rendering the relays practically untouchable unless you have the right access codes (or a Yuuzhan-Vong gravity weapon that can attack them).


Quote:
And the film's saga's single use of the ring portrays it just floating there for a bit after Obi-Wan flies away from it. It doesn't disappear into hyperspace.

Not right away, certainly.

Quote:
What wrong with hyperrings being vulnerable?

Personal preference, really. I could see my hyper-stasis concept being an interim response to just what you describe, Jedi starfighters becoming stranded because their rings got taken out. Since the only thing hyper-rings do is travel through hyperspace, and at least one other form of tech in the SWU utilizes stationary hyperspace jumps, it isn't too big of a leap. YMMV.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't the CloakShape Fighter also use an optional hyper-drive sled/ring? Or is that a permanent modification/upgrade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForbinProject wrote:
Doesn't the CloakShape Fighter also use an optional hyper-drive sled/ring? Or is that a permanent modification/upgrade.

My impression from the original stat was that it was a permanent add on.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
ForbinProject wrote:
Doesn't the CloakShape Fighter also use an optional hyper-drive sled/ring? Or is that a permanent modification/upgrade.

My impression from the original stat was that it was a permanent add on.


That was my first impression also, but every diagram I've seen of the fighter never identifies the hypersled attachment. So that's why I was wondering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kartr_Kana
Cadet
Cadet


Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree, Capital ships have far more power generation capabilities than small freighters or fighters and thus should easily be able to support high hyperdrive speeds, without difficulty. There are a number of other considerations that would be more likely to impose hyperdrive speed caps than size.

Reliability - from what we've seen in the movies, hyperdrives past x1 tend to be less reliable than x1 or slower. This is born out by RAW.

Cost - the faster the hyperdrive goes the more it costs, and if you can even find them x0.5 drives are prohibitively expensive. Scale it up to the size and power requirements for capital scale ships and it's probably worse.

Fleet Doctrine - the US battle fleet post WW1 was designed around all of the battleships having the same top speed in order for the fleet to be able to operate together more easily. A similar sort of doctrine could easily exist in Star Wars.

Need - given the cost and reliability factors (and the likely power requirements) it is unlikely for the military to need hyperdrives faster than x1 anyway. No one else is going to be using x1 or x0.5 on a large scale. In fact there are other canon sources (either the Encyclopedia or The Guide to the Star Wars Universe) that state the normal civilian hyperdrives are x3 or x4 and at best x2, while x1 and x2 are largely only found on military vessels. If this is true (if not entirely RAW for WEG) it would make more sense than x1 and x2 being standard for civilian vessels, as that would force the military to bump up to x1 and x0.5 to maintain their strategic advantage.


As to fighters, we see them having internal hyperdrives as far back as the Knights of the Old Republic. Hyperdrive equipped fighters have been around "forever," but military strategy seems to be somewhat cyclic in nature.
Stage 1: Capital Ships are the mainstay and fighters are rare, or weak against capital ships. Capital ship shields and weapons are oriented to fight less maneuverable, but more heavily armed and shielded vessels.

Stage 2: Someone makes larger fighters with torpedoes and hyperdrives that exploit the deflectors designed to resist capital ship weapons. As capital ship shields are angled (implying flat planes) to repel against other capital ship fighters, this leaves seams in the shield coverage that the more nimble fighters can exploit to deliver torpedoes to vulnerable systems. Fighters/bombers become as important as capital ships in doctrine.

Stage 3: Fighters have become so important to doctrine that all powers begin to develop the perfect "bomber killer" interceptors to protect capital ships and installations. These fighter/interceptors become smaller and smaller, always seeking an edge in speed and agility over their prey. Eventually these fighters make "bombing" capital ships impossible, but lack the firepower to damage capitalships themselves, bringing us back around to stage 1.


We see this happen through the movie trilogies. With the N-1 being hyperdrive and torpedo equipped, the last design in a balanced doctrine. The N-1 goes up against a massive swarm of droid interceptors and is thoroughly beaten except for a fluke that destroys the droids network. However that fluke, which destroyed a capital ship, and the success of the interceptors before the fluke, leads strategist to believe that swarms of small light fighters is the key. They can stop the older torpedo armed fighters, and with human pilots, they aren't susceptible to having their control center knocked out. Enter the Delta-7 Aethersprite and later V-19 Torrent and Eta-2 Actis interceptors. The success of these vessels, particularly the "Jedi" ones and abysmal survival and success rates of the heavier ARC-17 design leads to the "V-wing" which leads to the TIE Fighter. Stripping out as much as possible, so that the resulting fighter is little more than an absurdly fast, absurdly maneuverable gun.

Capital ships are no longer expected to protect themselves against fighters, as they have parasite craft designed to do that. Suddenly we start to see flaws such as, lack of anti-starfighter armament, unshielded exhaust ports, etc. Meanwhile, incremental advances in propulsion, shielding, etc., leads to a new "heavy fighter" (the X-wing) that retains the speed and agility of the previous generation of "interceptors" but without sacrificing the flexibility of a hyperdrive, or the threat of torpedoes. Paradigm shifts back to the fighter being an important offensive weapon, at a much more affordable cost. We see the Empire try to hang on to the Stage 1 paradigm with the TIE Interceptor and TIE Droid, only to eventually start moving towards the Stage 2 paradigm with the TIE Avenger and TIE Defender.

During the Stage 3 paradigm we see during the Clone Wars, the "interceptors" are too small to carry their own hyperdrives. So in order to be used in the scouting role (far cheaper to send a flight of fighters than a frigate or corvette), or for the Jedi missions, they need to have a way to travel through Hyperspace. The external hyperdrive is designed and marketed as a way to allow the interceptors to fight as doctrine calls for, while also being able to fulfill scouting and other auxiliary roles and thus the hyperdrive "sled" and "ring" come in to existence.


TL:DR, no capital ships should not have an artificial cap placed on their multiplier because they provide enough space and power for any hyperdrive. Thus only cost and reliability can reasonably constrain their hyperdrive speeds. Fighters are either "interceptors" that are too small to carry and power hyperdrives, or "heavy/multi-role" which are larger and carry hyperdrives and torpedoes, with the primary type (interceptor vs multi-role) being determined by the current technological limits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course a 1,6 km ship have more power than a space transport, but are also much more massive.

Also, given the more strategical role of ISD:s for example, a question is if the empire would invest in heavy dreadnaughts as fast as a really fast normal ships. And with normal ships, I mean 'non capital'. Even compared to small capital (even without the smallest, blas boat) ships the ISD is massive.

But my main beef is with the Space ratings of capital ships. An ISD accelerating 1,5 times faster than a Space Transport?
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
Of course a 1,6 km ship have more power than a space transport, but are also much more massive.

Also, given the more strategical role of ISD:s for example, a question is if the empire would invest in heavy dreadnaughts as fast as a really fast normal ships. And with normal ships, I mean 'non capital'. Even compared to small capital (even without the smallest, blas boat) ships the ISD is massive.

But my main beef is with the Space ratings of capital ships. An ISD accelerating 1,5 times faster than a Space Transport?
For what it's worth, a comparisons with the speeds of ocean vessels says, YES.

Large Warship (Nimitz-class Carrier): maximum speed 30+ knots (56+ km/h).

Tramp Freighter (modern vessel): 15 knots (28 km/h). Nimitz is 2.0 x faster.
Quote:
A typical modern tramp vessel is a multi-purpose ship. She normally has a crew of 30, a speed of 15 knots and has ‘tween deck accommodation. The ship is of 9,100 G.T., with a N.T. of 6,100 and loaded mean draft of 8.84 metres. The vessel length is 140 metres and she has a beam of 21 metres. Five holds are provided. The accommodation is placed amidships aft. Each hold is served .by derricks and her total grain cubic capacity exceeds 764,000 cu. ft. The total cargo dead weight tonnage is approximately 14,000.


Oil Tanker (T-1 class supertanker ): 16.5 knots (30.6 km/h; 19.0 mph) (laden). Nimitz is 1.8 x faster.

Bulk Carrier (Container Ships): 20-25 knots or 18-20 knots depends on design and sailing optimization. Nimitz is 1.2 to 1.7 x faster and for the listed 20 knots it is exactly 1.5 times faster.
Quote:
• Normal (20-25 knots; 37.0 - 46.3 km/hr). Represents the optimal cruising speed a containership and its engine have been designed to travel at. It also reflects the hydrodynamic limits of the hull to perform within acceptable fuel consumption levels. Most containerships are designed to travel at speeds around 24 knots.
• Slow steaming (18-20 knots; 33.3 - 37.0 km/hr). Running ship engines below capacity to save fuel consumption, but at the expense a additional travel time, particularly over long distances (compounding effect). This is likely to become the dominant operational speed as more than 50% of the global container shipping capacity was operating under such conditions as of 2011.
• Extra slow steaming (15-18 knots; 27.8 - 33.3 km/hr). Also known as super slow steaming or economical speed. A substantial decline in speed for the purpose of achieving a minimal level of fuel consumption while still maintaining a commercial service. Can be applied on specific short distance routes.
• Minimal cost (12-15 knots; 22.2 - 27.8 km/hr). The lowest speed technically possible, since lower speeds do not lead to any significant additional fuel economy. The level of service is however commercially unacceptable, so it is unlikely that maritime shipping companies would adopt such speeds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD wrote:
But my main beef is with the Space ratings of capital ships. An ISD accelerating 1,5 times faster than a Space Transport?

I've been playing around with a couple House Rules that take relative size into account...

1). Applying Scale Modifiers as a temporary penalty to Maneuverability. Say a Light Freighter is being chased by an ISD and makes a 90 degree turn. The ISD suffers a -6D penalty to attempt to duplicate that maneuver. However, the penalty rolls off at a rate of 2D per round, so the ISD can wait 3 rounds to make a 90 degree turn.

2). Using different Accel/Decel rates based on Scale. For every 2D of Scale difference, increase the relative acceleration rate by 1 round. So, using the above example, a Light Freighter can accelerate from Cruise to Full in one round, while the pursuing ISD must wait three rounds (and an additional three rounds if it wishes to speed up to All-Out).

This also helps explain why larger ships like cruisers and ISDs carry fighters and gunboats, as the smaller craft are able to match the acceleration and maneuverability of starfighter-scale vessels, which their mother ships can not.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
ZzaphodD wrote:
But my main beef is with the Space ratings of capital ships. An ISD accelerating 1,5 times faster than a Space Transport?

I've been playing around with a couple House Rules that take relative size into account...

1). Applying Scale Modifiers as a temporary penalty to Maneuverability. Say a Light Freighter is being chased by an ISD and makes a 90 degree turn. The ISD suffers a -6D penalty to attempt to duplicate that maneuver. However, the penalty rolls off at a rate of 2D per round, so the ISD can wait 3 rounds to make a 90 degree turn.

2). Using different Accel/Decel rates based on Scale. For every 2D of Scale difference, increase the relative acceleration rate by 1 round. So, using the above example, a Light Freighter can accelerate from Cruise to Full in one round, while the pursuing ISD must wait three rounds (and an additional three rounds if it wishes to speed up to All-Out).

This also helps explain why larger ships like cruisers and ISDs carry fighters and gunboats, as the smaller craft are able to match the acceleration and maneuverability of starfighter-scale vessels, which their mother ships can not.
I like the concept.

In virtually all TV and Movie Sci-Fi (not just Star Wars) we see small ships moving towards and away from big ships as if they were faster. Replicating that would be nice. Also some rationale for why big giant ships carry tiny little fighters that travel not much (and sometimes not at all) faster than do the big giant ships is a nice feature.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0