Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced?
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  >
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Tue 3 Apr - 20:04 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Ultimately, I think the best way to resolve this is to have option for the 2P game. 

Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Tue 3 Apr - 20:04 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Wed 4 Apr - 00:14 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Sorry as i was off, trvalling for work.

@Dr Brian

Glad to hear that you are a long-time playing wargamer. So am i and i have been playing wargames for more than 35 years now. Not really SL/ASL, i am not really fond of these kind of games (but i am really impressed by the fact you won the ASL world championship Okay ) but rather naval wargames and i think i have been playing these games tens of time, maybe hundreds... Flat Top, Midway, Carrier (this one is solitaire), etc. plus some naval wargame rules. And you can thrust me when i say that balancing this kind of games is a kind of myth. As SBD said, these games are very specific since very often you have only one of two main assets (typically carriers) and this is a kind of all-or-nothing affair.
As an example, assume one player manages to find his opponent's carrier(s) and launches a "massive" strike against it, e.g. 50 to 60 bombers/torpedo planes (which is not so massive actually but very historical in 1942). Then, as said SBD, there are only two solutions: either he knocks out the carrier (possibly sinking it or crippling it at least) or no. In the first case, he will be happy and find the game very realistic and historical and finally well balanced; but his opponent will be unhappy having his carrier knocked out at the first attack despite of his mighty CAP, thus almost ending the game from his point of view and he will find it quite unrealistic and unhistorical. On the contrary, if the attack is a failure, the first player will most probably feel very disappointed that his mighty attack group did not manage to knock out the enemy carrier and that the game is unrealistic and unhistorical and finally unbalanced; while his opponent will feel exactly the contrary, being very satisfied that his CAP managed to stop the attack... You may change/tune some parameters in order to displace the equilibrium in one sense or another i.e. more favorable to the attack or more favorable to the defense but this will not solve the problem... because, finally at the end, this is a question of luck and one may have 30 bombers/torpedo planes and fail to hit or only 3 bombers and hit and sink a carrier.. and the latter is very historical, remember Midway when Dick Best sank the Akagi with its only bomb, launched from a plane whose course was perpendicular to the ship... statistically, this should have never happened!

Now back to the range of the Japanese planes. At the moment, I am 100% against reducing it.
You say that the long range of the Japanese planes was rarely used and you seem to refer to a tactical doctrine preventing the Japanese to do so. I am sorry but i think you are totally wrong regarding this point. Indeed, the Japanese doctrine, especially the Navy doctrine, was 100% offensive and the long range of its planes was totally part of it. They designed planes with such ranges that made them act as "strategic" weapons. This is the case of the G4M bombers and of the A6M fighters. As you may know, on the 7th December 1941, these planes were able to attack the Philippines from Taiwan, causing what the US historians name the "MacArthur Pearl Harbor". On the 10th of December, they sank Repulse and Prince of Wales, just wiping out the British naval power in the area and opening the way to the invasion of Malaysia and Singapore... But this were land-based planes.
Regarding CV operations, why did the Japanese not operate at their maximum range in 1942? SBD said it: because reconnaissance/intelligence failed. The battle of Coral Sea is a very nice example of this. However, when analyzing the detailed course of events, one must admit that fog of war was at its maximum and that making decision was really very difficult. Something quite hard to simulate in a game since everybody knows the background...
So basically, there is no doctrine behind and i do not really see why we should deny the Japanese player to use this advantage just because the Japanese admirals in 1942 did not because the course of the events did not give them the opportunity to do so. If he has the information to do so... so i think the problem is more coming from the search system and especially the shadowing system, which just does not really exist at the moment... so i fully agree with you that shadowing modeling should be "improved" so that ships may be able to escape shadowing more easily...

Regarding the remark about the Japanese using their CV air assets for performing search, i am afraid i do not understand what you mean. Historically they did it. They relied heavily on the CAs-BBs seaplanes but they also used B5Ns. Why? Because of one very important parameter which is currently not taken into account at all in the game: speed. Seaplanes had long range but they were slow; B5Ns were faster: B5N cruise speed was 260 km/h while E13A cruise speed was 220 km/h which is a huge difference. So, as a Japanese admiral, if you wanted some information urgently, you sent rather B5Ns than E13As... However this aspect is not taken into account in the game at the moment and i think it is another problem.

BTW, you have the right to give your opinion whose value is as high as anyone's...

@Archerfish, sorry but i am afraid i disagree with you about Japanese search system. Wink I think the Japanese seaplanes crews were very good and well trained for reconnaissance/search duties. Some of them failed, some of them had great successes... Anyway, this is detail regarding the game.

I suggest you do a list of subjects of interest with corresponding proposition and we try to add comments directly on these.
So that BR may have some ideas about implementation.
I guess your first list should be a good starting point. Okay


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Wed 4 Apr - 03:30 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Hey Larsenjp


Good post but I do disagree with you to a certain extent.  You can design the game in just the technical aspects only or you can modify the technical abilities to recreate the historical element. Both view points are valid.  Some people I think want to play it historically and others want to explore “What If” one side fully took advantage of its technical abilities. 


Then you have the game aspect.  If the game favors one side over the other, after a while people are not wanting to play one side because they know their chances of winning are low.  Eventually you will find it difficult to find an opponent and then the 2P game looses its appeal.  This is just human nature. No one wants to keep playing the loosing side.   
Let me give you an example.  I’ve played the US at Midway at least 8 times. I’ve won only 1 (tactical) 1 draw and 6 losses.  This tells me the 2P game for Midway is unbalanced.  Changes need to be made to give the US a better chance for victory. So if it means modifying some of the technical abilities a bit to achieve this then I’m for it. I want my opponents to feel he has a decent chance at winning. That make the game enjoyable for both side. And to me that is what is most important. 


Ultimately it seems the only way to resolve this is to give players options just like in the 1P game.  Then people can play as they wish. 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 4 Apr - 07:39 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Thanks to all your posts. Glad to see that motivated players want to improve the game  Okay


Radar
US radars gives you a warning of 0 to 60 minutes. 
This is often not enough to scramble any fighter (you need 40 min from the hangar) but you should plan ahead and put a lot of CAP beforehand
However, this leave you a bit of time to cancel any ongoing airstrike (clean the deck and hangar to prevent Midway-like effects)

Also a a chance to move one hex away with your carrier, to buy 20 min and hoping to sneak the airstrike
Do not forget the US have a bunch of cost watcher for early warning


Sea Planes
The AI uses seaplanes in addition to carrier scout planes but this is possible in 2P game even as Japanese
And sea planes are only performing slow searches
The 2.4 has increased the number of seaplanes for the US
And do not forget the US have Guadalcanal island 



Midway
The solo game uses strategic surprise to reduce the search capability of search planes. The AI relies only on sea planes until it has discovered to be facing a huge carrier force
The 2P is not using such mechanism but it could exceptionally
An incentive to attack Midway is also an alternative


Range
I fully agree with larsenjp. No change to the B5N and D3A
Let's put the SBD at 16 and may round any odd endurance number to the next even


Long range Bomber
Why do you want to prevent land air base to change of target ? It happens a lot historically 
In the game, it is no always doable because of radio efficiency. also if your G4M are targeting Henderson filed, they will be equipped with bomb and not with torpedoes so not perfect against CV. Also G4M are usually suffering heavy losses after each attack. That is why players prefers to other them in a huge airstrike in order to achieve decent results
But let's see if I can reduce their number considering they should be busy somewhere else
Anyway going closer to Rabaul is exposing its CV to a retaliation IJN airstrike, any US admiral should not this. Only the coming of F6F and improved AA allowed to do this


Small other things which could be tried
- Increase the VP gains by the US when sinking Japanese ships or destroying as crew salvage parties were more effective on the Allied side.
- Increase the number of VP gained by the US for destroying carrier-based Japanese air units
- Make Japanese planes harder to repair (bad logistics)
- Some pro-US options used for 1P games, could be allocated by default or selectable in a 2P game


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Wed 4 Apr - 09:16 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Well here is what I would still like to have 20 min launch for fighter at G. This is well with in historical parameters.  


Bombers, I still prefer bombers not being able to change targets but I would settle for strong restrictions such as a long delay. The farther a bomber is from base the longer the time it would take to relay new target location. Bottom line is that bombers in this game sink CV way more than historically happened. 


And as far as bombs and torpedoes goes, they are both deadly to CV.  


Allow US BBs and CAs attached to CV TF to launch scouts. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Wed 4 Apr - 21:45 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Hi Archer,

I agree no one likes playing and losing all the time and i understand what you say about a balance between history and gameplay. However, i think that modifying some important parameters of the game out of historical settings just for favoring balance is not so easy because of complexity of the game that will create "side effects" that may finally go against initial aims. That's why i support the idea of keeping history as much as possible (especially regarding complexity) and trying to balance through VP conditions, typically giving some rewards or incentives to players for achieving one particular objective (and of course this should be different depending on the side you play). However i agree this is still quite difficult to achieve...

Midway scenario
I think this one is most probably the worst regarding balance. In the case of 1P, I only played it a few times and i always won... because the IA is tied to attack Midway and vulnerable to the ambush mounted by the US. Of course, against a human opponent, this will never happen and the US side will lose most probably 9 out of 10 games. I experienced this quite a lot when playing boardgames. I came to thinking that Midway is almost impossible to design as a game because you cannot reproduce the fog of war of the battle: there is only one target, one mission and everybody knows what's going to happen.
Giving a strong reward to the Japanese for attacking Midway and even more for knocking out Midway should be a good idea.

Radar and CAPs
I agree with BR about radar and time delay given for the US to react. However, it requires some careful management of the moves of the carriers which is not very comfortable.
I agree that it takes some time in order to spot the planes from the hangars to the deck and to launch. However, they were very often planes already spotted on the deck, ready to launch and waiting. This was typically the case for CAPs fighters. This is not possible currently in the game since everything goes as if the CAPs planes are spotted and launched immediately.
Therefore, i would suggest to add an intermediate step, for CAPs fighters only: spotted on the deck, waiting to take off. In this case, the planes could take off with very short delay, 0 or 20 minutes (depending on we take into account the time needed for reaching operational status). But i would introduce a limitation in number for this option: only a few air units, typically no more than two i.e. 8 planes. Of course, this may disturb air operations... everything has a price...
Well my 2 cents of course... Wink

Seaplanes
Regarding seaplanes, honestly i do not really see why players do not have full control on them, either 1P or 2P. I think this would be quite easy to achieve, just adding corresponding ships and land bases, while adding much more fun and tactical options in the game e.g. bombing such airbases in order to reduce the enemy searching capability. I think this would be interesting especially for the US side while being very historical.

Long Range bombers
As long as New Guinea allied bases (typically PM) are not in the game for the Guadalcanal scenarios, i fully support the idea of reducing the number of Japanese bombers allowed in Rabaul.
Furthermore, i would introduce a limitation about the number of air units allowed to participate in air raids; i am going to try to find out some statistics about the size of Japanese air raids during this period but i think the maximum should be in the range 48-60 bombers i.e. no more between 12 and 15 air units.
Finally i suggest to prohibit mixing bombers from the Army and bombers from the Navy within the same strike as generally they did not flow together.
I think all of this would greatly limit the capability of land-based Japanese bombers... but we will need to check we do not limit it too much. Wink


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Thu 5 Apr - 04:43 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Alright Larsenjp. We are making progress.


For fast launch of the CAP you have to treat land base and carriers differently. 


CVs - Now if you have catapults, you can essentially launch 4 planes immediately.  However, I don’t know if any of the CVs had catapults this early in the war.   Still if there has been no activity for at least an hour, the CV should be able to launch at least all their fighters in 20 min. So in the game mechanics a CV should easily be able to launch 8 fighter counters in 20 min.  When I was on the USS Midway we could launch 50 planes in 30 mins. Once the deck is in motion it should go back to normal operations.  So in game mechanics CV can get a fast launch of 8 aircraft counters in 20 mins only if there has been do flight deck activity in 60 min.  Now as for a fast turn around it’s not really feasible due to space restrictions and having a straight deck.


For airfields it’s different.  Since there is pleanty of space there should be less restriction.  I would allow 8 aircraft fighters to do a fast launch per airfield if there There has been no activity in the last 40 min.  As for turn around time you can potentially do 20 mins but 40 would be average. But for the early Guadalcanal such as Santa Cruz they only had hand cranks to pump the fuel. They got resourceful and took small motors from what ever they could get their hand on and created their own fuel pump. 


I thought about 0 min but I think 20 is best.  A single airfield could potentially launch 40 planes in 10 mins but you also need time to reach altitude. So 32 planes taking off and reaching altitudes is very doable. 


As for the bomber I would be happy with any restrictions that would make it difficult to change targets especially at long range. Bombers are just way too deadly in the game compared to history. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 406

PostPosted: Thu 5 Apr - 18:52 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Archerfish,

Regarding CVs, there was no catapult in 1942. I think they appeared at the end of the war but not sure about it... but 100% sure there was none in 1942.
I think emergency launching capability was probably low and limited to planes already on the deck, on the aft part (since the front part should be dedicated to landings?).
But i guess you should know carriers air operations process much better than me . Wink

For airfields, i agree it's different. Plenty of space as you said. Limitations should come from air track and staff capabilities. Honestly i do not have clear ideas about what could be achieved.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Fri 6 Apr - 01:04 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

I think catapults came out with the Essex class CV. They were top secret at the time. 

Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Fri 6 Apr - 04:41 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

For land based airfields I would cap fast/emergency CAP launch to no more that two runways. Beyond that you run into taxi issues. 

Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Fri 6 Apr - 22:44 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Guys, keep in mind that this post in about balancing the game not adding extra features (on le)  Very Happy


When a CAP fighters lands for refueling, it takes only 40 min to get back on patrol
This is valid for all airfields and UScarriers
It takes 80 min for a Jap carrier because planes are lowered to the hangar instead of being serviced on deck


Having CAP ready is a nice to have. 
Placing enough fighters on CAP should do the job
Also detecting an air strike 3 hexes from your base gives you 40 min so enough time to launch extra CAP


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Fri 6 Apr - 23:11 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Adding features are for balancing😋


Is the 40 min just for the fighters or for all planes?


This extra info would be great to have in the advance rules. 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,134
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 7 Apr - 18:47 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Actually, you can see it directly on the air Op screen
In the help pages, it is explained that CAP air units are constantly landing , refuelling and taking off


Adding features for BOTH sides is not balancing, or :-)


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 51
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Wed 18 Apr - 12:44 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Hi Dr Brian


I hope the subsequent posts to your comments have been useful?


May I say that ASL and CB4G seem to be gaming opposites; the former being very granular, having a long pedigree and a small battle area, whilst CB4G has a 2-4 large entities and realistic searches have only really been possible with computerisation.


I have been playing since early 70s SPI Napoleon at Waterloo and AH's Panzerblitz, and find carrier games fascinating. No where else could you loose an ocean or a Theatre of Operations in minutes, do I put my resources in defence, search or attack?
I suspect a real time naval game is difficult to balance, as chance can play a significant part
..on a re-run the Swordfish could easily miss the Bismarck in the N Atlantic weather, and her rudder would continue to work perfectly.........
....The IJN second wave at Eastern Solomons on 24th could have finished off the helpless Enterprise if it had found her........


Surely Brian if the 2P is an 'unbalanced dog' then our not insignificant experience can help change that?
All games have been unbalanced at some part of their development, 2P has not been out long, and solo? Bladerunner does not have face to face feedback as boardgamers did/do.






Here are my thoughts on balancing, and associated issues.


AA FIRE-from USN CV,BB,and CAs


At Santa Cruz BB South Dakota alone shot down 25-30+ IJN aircraft.
Just this fact alone balances all combat from autumn 42?


At the earlier E Solomons in August, USN AA was more (potentially) effective than at Midway






IJN CREW QUALITY / AIRCRAFT EMPLOYED


I don't think this has ever been mentioned, or rarely, in any post.
The IJN gradually lost its very hard to replace elite crews at Pearl, and the four carrier battles of '42, their replacements were less effective.
At Eastern Solomons the potent Kate torpedo bombers were not employed, probably? because of earlier losses.
IJN air crew losses over the USN should be reflected in the VPs, all the books make the point of how significant the losses are?




PRE DAWN LAUNCHES (Archerfish)


There is no evidence in either Lundstrom First Team books of any difference in USN/IJN carrier dawn launch times, or that of seaplanes. 

Other factors such a wind direction, weather, and situation appear just as important.
Therefore each navy should be able to launch CAP and searches pre dawn?


Coral Sea: 07&08 May Both navies take off within 25 mins of each other, after dawn
Midway: 0431 Yorktown fighters, and PBYs from Midway; 0430 IJN
E Solomons: Saratoga 0555 CAP and SBD search         0615 19x Type 97s search


Please note day lengths are longer in June at Midway 28 degrees north, than Coral Sea 12 degrees S, and Solomons in August or October.




LANDING-FETTLING-TAKE OFF CYCLE



NB Both navies could spot OR launch OR recover aircraft.  
Once spotted, the IJN was much more efficient at taking off, and coordinating multiple CV flights to and on the target, assisted by the similar speeds of F, DB and TBs, in sharp contrast to USN for most of '42



Bladerunner post 6th April  CAP turnover USN - 40 mins, IJN - 80 mins 
What does these figures relate to? Time per plane, per a group of ? aircraft
The details below support the USN 's superior turnaround, but where do the precise figures originate please?
Can anyone provide more information/timings on the re-arming/refuelling cycles of both navies, particularly CAP


NB a few pointers (mainly Parshall)


The Zero's guns had limited ammo and punch against the tough USN planes so had to land and re-arm more than the equivalent USN situation  A balance factor? 


IJN planes could be landed every 25-45 seconds


I understand, though difficult to find precise details in the books, that the USN started re-fuelling and re-arming as soon as a plane landed, beyond the barrier at the bow, then spotted for launch in the stern.
Having planes on deck seems a recipe for disaster, but as CSea and Midway showed, a few planes on Lexington's deck were rather less damaging than the planes in the enclosed IJN hangers.
(Cold) USN planes were warmed up in the open hangers and elevators, saving much valuable time. IJN aircraft were warmed up, 15-20 mins, on deck


As soon as they landed IJN fighters could be elevated down to their storage area near the bow, a relatively quick procedure, so 80 mins for IJN CAP?
Movement of Kates and Vals had to wait until all aircraft had been recovered, and then stored further aft, nearer where they would take off, so pushing them on deck to the rear elevator OR?? via the forward elevator then through the cluttered hangers sounds very time consuming. 
The cycle was determined by the elevator speed.
IJN torpedo bombers took 30 mins to re-arm a chutai (3) planes (3 chutai per CV); then 45 mins to lift, spot,warm up and launch an attack group
Any information please on the time for a typical IJN bomber, or fighter, to wait for the deck to clear and to be taken to its hangar position?







UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES RADAR RANGE/SPEED INC TO TWO HEXES (Archerfish)


Certain parameters should be deliberated on at the birth of a game, and only changed under very exceptional circumstances..
To double? the speed of aircraft is a major step, this is surely affecting more than radar.
Am I missing something? I cannot find a release note that states that the speed has been doubled, ex Archerfish's post


It was not just the range of the radar but the effectiveness of the CV to vector its CAP onto the bogies; 

communication problems, limitations of the aircraft identification, capabilities of the radar, primitive control procedures, and effective screening of the Japanese dive bombers by their escorting Zero fighters, prevented all but a few of the U.S. fighters from engaging IJN aircraft before they began their attacks on the U.S. carriers.

I understand if the CAP was warmed up and spotted USN fighters could intercept the torpedo bombers, if not the dive bombers.




SHADOWING / SCOUTS (larsenjp 01/04...Radar... a significant IJN advantage)


I haven't found any instance where multiple scouts maintained continual shadowing so contact could not be broken.
It was impractical as the Pacific is so vast and was ahistorical. 
That is not to say multiple scouts could not be sent from other adjacent search sectors over time. eg USN at E Solomons and Santa Cruz 


I suggest we should have not individual planes, but abstract them, it would be a micro management nightmare otherwise? 
Perhaps a BOGEYS:CAP ratio would determine the effectiveness of continued  shadowing  




Posts have requested longer ranges for carrier scouts, please note the longer the range, the longer the base carrier has to stay in an area to wait for the scout to return.
The CV is then more prone to torpedo attack, and will not be able to persue other tasks elsewhere. eg Fletcher joining Spruance at Midway. 




Hope this helps, pls shout if anything is not clear
Please excuse the text size variation, I much prefer the keyboard of other devices, not a tablet,
so I copy over from mail.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 51
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Wed 18 Apr - 12:57 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

PS Clarification re my last paragraph re shadowing and scouting.


If I am understanding larsenjp’s post re IJN continual scouting correctly, the ‘continual’ IJN scouting is an ahistorical advantage and should be removed to restore some balance.


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 01:15 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced?

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  >
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group