View Full Version : Am I always the last to know???
CyberGeneral
18 Jun 07, 15:27
All units that are embarked at sea can land at ANY coast location regardless of it being a port or not!... I was ALWAYS under the impression that embarked units could only land at port locations!!!.....
All units that are embarked at sea can land at ANY coast location regardless of it being a port or not!... I was ALWAYS under the impression that embarked units could only land at port locations!!!.....
On the turn following embarkation, the units can disembark onto a land hex.
CyberGeneral
18 Jun 07, 15:50
I believe that was what I was implying....
In my 7 years of playing this, I have never used this method...
In my 7 years of playing this, I have never had this used against me...
In my 7 years of reading the rule book (usually on the pot), I have never seen this as being a 'staple' rule...
This (IMO) is a fix for any updated version of TOAW... It was never (again IMO) intended (by Norm [oh great one!]) for any unit to land by way of sea except at a port!...
I believe that was what I was implying....
Right, I was just...backing you up? :D
In my 7 years of playing this, I have never used this method...
In my 7 years of playing this, I have never had this used against me...
In my 7 years of reading the rule book (usually on the pot), I have never seen this as being a 'staple' rule...
This (IMO) is a fix for any updated version of TOAW... It was never (again IMO) intended (by Norm [oh great one!]) for any unit to land by way of sea except at a port!...
Actually, I believe some scenarios use the following:
Major ports are 'ports', but invasion beaches are not ports, therefore forcing a player to stay at sea for one turn to be interdicted by the defenders airforce/navy, and therefore, the 'feature' has a use.
As in EA, however, units are not meant to be able to disembark from the sea anywhere but at ports, therefore a House Rule governing that should be agreed upon before startign any game of EA (or any other scenario in which landings should only ever be accomplished at ports).
I would not take away this 'feature' for the mere reason of being able to keep the flexibility of TOAW at it's maximum, and allowing the design descisions involving this 'feature' to continue to be used.
CyberGeneral
18 Jun 07, 16:00
I don't believe in using loop holes.... I also am sickened whenever I see the term 'honor rule'... Game designers and scenario designers should NEVER have a need to use them....
I don't believe in using loop holes....
Well, I hate to have to outright disagree with you here, but
a) This may not actualyl be a 'loop-hole'
and b) Loopholes often make things that, on the face of it, seem impossible to simulate within TOAW, possible to simulate.
I also am sickened whenever I see the term 'honor rule'... Game designers and scenario designers should NEVER have a need to use them....
I totally agree with your sentiments regarding 'Honour Rules', however, until we have about 5-infinity more years of development go into a game that, by that time, will have runs its sales course, 'Honour Rules' will just have to be used.
CyberGeneral
18 Jun 07, 16:33
It IS a loop hole and one that needs to be fixed... Without the use of landing crafts (and a LOT of them) no force could land at any coastal location as all equipment would be sent to the bottom of the sea once unloaded from the 'cruise' ships...
Amphibious units and Special Forces (if it was the intended purpose) should be able to land at ANY coastal location, but should not have to have this silly WAIT period (enter elevator music) before landing... Norm did not intend this... It IS a loop hole!
It IS a loop hole and one that needs to be fixed... Without the use of landing crafts (and a LOT of them) no force could land at any coastal location as all equipment would be sent to the bottom of the sea once unloaded from the 'cruise' ships...
Amphibious units and Special Forces (if it was the intended purpose) should be able to land at ANY coastal location, but should not have to have this silly WAIT period (enter elevator music) before landing... Norm did not intend this... It IS a loop hole!
*shrug* Obviously you're convinced you're right. I won't be able to change that. However, I will point out that unless you are telapathic, you cannot know what Norm did or did not intend.
Bdr.Mallette
19 Jun 07, 17:16
it's just pretty dangerous to keep infantry or other units sitting off shore for a full turn, just as you may encounter when you fail to land at a port. Those remaining units are sunk quickly with Naval fire, shore batteries or Airpower. So most people always land at a port.
In some scenarios, you have options, I do believe. cant land on a sea supply route though.
bdr.
not a loop hole... it makes sense that it would take up to an extra turn to land on any unprepared hex. Most designers, if they wish certain beaches to be landing zones, put harbour hexes there.
I never considered a loop hole. i at first thought it was the other way around. You couldn't land directly in a port...but I started out just playing the Korea Demo.
anyhoo...
Erik Nygaard
20 Jun 07, 08:45
*shrug* Obviously you're convinced you're right. I won't be able to change that. However, I will point out that unless you are telapathic, you cannot know what Norm did or did not intend.
Someone actually asked Norm back in the Talonsoft days, and it is not a bug... I use it my own scenarios to force units to stay at sea for 1 turn while air/naval/coastal art may intervene.
But it could be an option in the editor.
Bob Cross
20 Jun 07, 10:22
Someone actually asked Norm back in the Talonsoft days, and it is not a bug... I use it my own scenarios to force units to stay at sea for 1 turn while air/naval/coastal art may intervene.
But it could be an option in the editor.
Never saw that response, but it makes sense because the PO uses the feature.
Nevertheless, I'd like to be able to prevent it by designer choice. Technically, the designer can prevent it now, by copious use of "major escarpments" at all coast hexes. But I'd prefer something less blunt.
I'd even like the ablility to prevent it for most units but still allow it for special forces.
Someone actually asked Norm back in the Talonsoft days, and it is not a bug... I use it my own scenarios to force units to stay at sea for 1 turn while air/naval/coastal art may intervene.
But it could be an option in the editor.
Yeah, I was pretty sure someone used it in this fashion; just couldn't remember who or with which scenario.
Nevertheless, I'd like to be able to prevent it by designer choice. Technically, the designer can prevent it now, by copious use of "major escarpments" at all coast hexes. But I'd prefer something less blunt.
Agreed.
I'd even like the ablility to prevent it for most units but still allow it for special forces.
This would be handy as well.
There are several reasons that I do not like it, as it is currently implemented. These have to do both with "realism" issues, as well as program consistency, which is why if Norm "intended" the feature, he actually did a rather poor job of implementing it.
Specifically, embarked units that debark from adjacent sea hexes use no naval transport points. This lands them on the hex - any hex - with full movement points still available. Units that are in an adjacent hex, and move into a port to debark, use movement points, and sea transport points. This, for what, in real life, is the easier and more expeditious method of transportation. Returning to the issue of debarking in any type of terrain, this is rather silly when you can debark a armored division into a mountain hex, with no debarkation penalty.
It would be more consistent and realistic to allow units the ability to make landings into any non-anchorage hex, as if they were moving into anchorage hexes, based on an icon choice (simpler) or an editor set flag for the particular unit(more coding involved).
Not a loophole. the units have to stay embarked for a turn before being disembarked thus open to interdiction by naval or air units. They can then disembark on the following turn provided they havnt beem sunk
Not a loop hole either as if you consider Normandy and many landings in the Pacific, these were carried out over open beaches and not defended ports, read Dieppe for the latter.
Cybergeneral i aonly found this out after 3 years of gaming and have use it once when i knew there was no chance of interdiciton. I also think the units have a reorg penalty, though not sure about this
Technically, the designer can prevent it now, by copious use of "major escarpments" at all coast hexes. But I'd prefer something less blunt.
Depending on the scale involved, the use of shallow water hexes accomplishes the same thing. Given that shore bombardment was rarely used in situations where the areas themselves were not being actively invaded, this wouldn't overly restrict the use of naval assets, either.
I'd even like the ablility to prevent it for most units but still allow it for special forces.
See my above post, regarding icon choice. Commando units should have this ability.
*puts on devil's advocate suit*:devil:
Specifically, embarked units that debark from adjacent sea hexes use no naval transport points. This lands them on the hex - any hex - with full movement points still available. Units that are in an adjacent hex, and move into a port to debark, use movement points, and sea transport points. This, for what, in real life, is the easier and more expeditious method of transportation.
Well, units disembakring onto areas other than ports have already spent the turn occupying those naval transports. Why shoudl they be further penalized?
Units disembarking onto Ports are doing so on the same turn as they left their home port (assuming this is true), so they've already spent considerable time in the water. Of course they'll use up some of that turn's MP allowance. Of course, arbitrarily setting this at 'hafl', in my opinion, was a poor choice. Why isn't this correlated to the amount of time 'MP Points' that they spent in the water, making the trip?
*puts on devil's advocate suit*:devil:
Well, units disembakring onto areas other than ports have already spent the turn occupying those naval transports. Why shoudl they be further penalized?
Units disembarking onto Ports are doing so on the same turn as they left their home port (assuming this is true), so they've already spent considerable time in the water.
I was not clear enough in my examples, or you may have misread what I intended. Let me try again...
Given two units stacked together, embarked in a sea hex at the start of their turn, possessing full MP's, adjacent to two land hexes, one of which is an anchorage hex, and the other any non-anchorage hex:
Let A be the unit that moves into the Anchorage hex and debarks automatically, in the "normal" fashion.
Let B be the unit that debarks at sea by use of the menu option and moves onto the imaginary Beach.
Examine the three cases.
Case 1. If the Anchorage hex is enemy controlled at the time of movement, unit A performs a perfunctory "amphibious assault" on the hex, using half of its movement points to enter the hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are used, and not available for reuse in this turn.
Case 2. If the Anchorage hex is friendly controlled at the time of movement, unit A moves into the hex, but expends 30% of its movement points in entering the hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are used, and not available for reuse in this turn.
Case 3. If unit B debarks at sea, and moves into an adjacent hex, then it expends only the movement points necessary to enter the hex using normal movement. The sea hex acts as an adjacent land hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are NOT used, and are available for reuse in this turn. (As an aside, this leads to the exploit in recycling movement points that you pointed out in the Matrix Games forum.)
In most situations, the cost for moving in Case 3 will be significantly less than moving in either of the other two. This flies in the face of reason, as the favorable conditions assumed to be present where an anchorage, or port, is available, is treated as less favorable than debarking into the side of a mountain, dense jungle, etc. It is neither realistic, nor consistent with the engine behavior regarding the "normal" method of moving directly into the port hex.
Likewise, the reusability of the sea transport points in Case 3 is not consistent with the engine behavior in the other cases.
Admittedly, it is somewhat consistent with the engine behavior with respect to rail movement, as units that are embarked can be debarked and embarked repeatedly in the same hex without using the capacity, so long as they don't move in between embarking/debarking. However, I see this engine behavior, as in when a unit is in an anchorage hex embarking/debarking, as a legitimate behavior to allow a player to decide by trial and error, or mathematically, which unit mix will best fill his available transport capacity.
Of course they'll use up some of that turn's MP allowance. Of course, arbitrarily setting this at 'hafl', in my opinion, was a poor choice. Why isn't this correlated to the amount of time 'MP Points' that they spent in the water, making the trip?
I believe the reasoning is that even at best case, it takes some time to get off the ships, and into a deployable state. This would be true if making the trip to the beach in landing craft, or unloading equipment and supplies out of cargo ships. Again, this penalty is negated when choosing the menu option of debarking into an adjacent hex, rather than moving the transported unit into an anchorage. An unrealistic and inconsistent variance with normal engine behavior.
I was not clear enough in my examples, or you may have misread what I intended. Let me try again...
I'm sure it was my fault, and I appoligise.
Given two units stacked together, embarked in a sea hex at the start of their turn, possessing full MP's, adjacent to two land hexes, one of which is an anchorage hex, and the other any non-anchorage hex:
Let A be the unit that moves into the Anchorage hex and debarks automatically, in the "normal" fashion.
Let B be the unit that debarks at sea by use of the menu option and moves onto the imaginary Beach.
Examine the three cases.
Case 1. If the Anchorage hex is enemy controlled at the time of movement, unit A performs a perfunctory "amphibious assault" on the hex, using half of its movement points to enter the hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are used, and not available for reuse in this turn.
Case 2. If the Anchorage hex is friendly controlled at the time of movement, unit A moves into the hex, but expends 30% of its movement points in entering the hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are used, and not available for reuse in this turn.
Case 3. If unit B debarks at sea, and moves into an adjacent hex, then it expends only the movement points necessary to enter the hex using normal movement. The sea hex acts as an adjacent land hex. Sea transport points that were allocated to the embarked unit are NOT used, and are available for reuse in this turn. (As an aside, this leads to the exploit in recycling movement points that you pointed out in the Matrix Games forum.)
In most situations, the cost for moving in Case 3 will be significantly less than moving in either of the other two. This flies in the face of reason, as the favorable conditions assumed to be present where an anchorage, or port, is available, is treated as less favorable than debarking into the side of a mountain, dense jungle, etc. It is neither realistic, nor consistent with the engine behavior regarding the "normal" method of moving directly into the port hex.
Likewise, the reusability of the sea transport points in Case 3 is not consistent with the engine behavior in the other cases.
Admittedly, it is somewhat consistent with the engine behavior with respect to rail movement, as units that are embarked can be debarked and embarked repeatedly in the same hex without using the capacity, so long as they don't move in between embarking/debarking. However, I see this engine behavior, as in when a unit is in an anchorage hex embarking/debarking, as a legitimate behavior to allow a player to decide by trial and error, or mathematically, which unit mix will best fill his available transport capacity.
So, why not
A) make disembarking at a regular land hex cost a proportinate ammount of MPs, such as disembarking at a port.
B) Make an engine fix so that a unit can only disembark/embark while in an anchorage, with full MP, and be unable to at sea.
This would require 'fixing' the way units currenlty 'disembark' in the sea and then walk onto the land. Instead, one should simply be able to drag one's mouse over the land (much like over a port) and, with the MP overlay, see it will take, for example, 8 out of 10 MPs to move there and then choose to move there, having used the 8 out of 10 MPs.
This would still keep the plus of the 'feature' (being that a unit would still, generally have to wait one turn at sea, because of the very high MP cost to 'disembark' at a difficult place), while eliminating the 'bug' side of things.
I believe the reasoning is that even at best case, it takes some time to get off the ships, and into a deployable state. This would be true if making the trip to the beach in landing craft, or unloading equipment and supplies out of cargo ships. Again, this penalty is negated when choosing the menu option of debarking into an adjacent hex, rather than moving the transported unit into an anchorage. An unrealistic and inconsistent variance with normal engine behavior.
Allright, fine. However, if I
a) Travel between Malta to Gela, Sicily (Port in EA) using my transport points and land, I use up half of my transport points (not to mention combat rounds), having travelled only 100km by sea.
b) Travel between Gibraltar and Gela, Sicily (Port in EA) using my transport points and land, I use up half of my transport points (not to mention combat rounds), having travelled, well it would take me a while to count, but sufice it to say, many more kilometres.
Should not the reasoning be as you mentioned above, as well as scaled to the actual distance travelled in water/time used to do that?
Should not the reasoning be as you mentioned above, as well as scaled to the actual distance travelled in water/time used to do that?
In a perfect world, we would have deployable transportation assets that are required to...transport...units over the sea. It would take time to load, time to move, and time to unload - all of which are accurately depicted in movement point costs.
In a perfect world, we would have deployable transportation assets that are required to...transport...units over the sea. It would take time to load, time to move, and time to unload - all of which are accurately depicted in movement point costs.
Yes that would be great! A feature for TOAW IV? ;)
Personally I like this "feature" for the reasons already explained here although I can certainly see the arguments against it. I use it in my scenarios.
CyberGeneral
20 Jun 07, 17:08
Nevertheless, I'd like to be able to prevent it by designer choice. Technically, the designer can prevent it now, by copious use of "major escarpments" at all coast hexes. But I'd prefer something less blunt.
I'd even like the ablility to prevent it for most units but still allow it for special forces.
Yes!!!... The designer can also use shallow water, and I too would like something that sets in stone what units can, and what units can not land on NON-Port locations... Special Forces should, and Armored Divisions should NOT...as an example.
CyberGeneral
20 Jun 07, 17:20
Not a loophole. the units have to stay embarked for a turn before being disembarked thus open to interdiction by naval or air units. They can then disembark on the following turn provided they havnt beem sunk
Not a loop hole either as if you consider Normandy and many landings in the Pacific, these were carried out over open beaches and not defended ports, read Dieppe for the latter.
Cybergeneral i aonly found this out after 3 years of gaming and have use it once when i knew there was no chance of interdiciton. I also think the units have a reorg penalty, though not sure about this
Though I can see your point, not all scenarios have air units or ship units to BLOW UNITS! to smithereens while the units wait at one location (in some case scenarios) up to a week before disembarking (as in... one full turn)...
And too, Normandy landings were made by landing troops at NON port locations, but NOT without the use of millions of $ worth of landing crafts... (the main shipping was left well off-shore)... Not all scenarios had forces with unlimited landing crafts... In fact, few scenarios could even use such instances of a single landing craft....
As for finding out... I would have found it out sooner myself if Norm put in scriptures:
"...and low unto the night, should one leave thine unit adift in the sea for one full nights' turn, thee unit may land unto thine land at any location..."
But he did not.
CyberGeneral
20 Jun 07, 17:38
As a side note:
... I would like to see NO port being used in an amphibious attack at all... Friendly ports ONLY should be used to transfer friendly units ONLY...
... Units designated at having landing crafts, should be able to land at enemy controlled locations... (or as in Normandy [2 weeks in Norm...as example], just place reinforcements at beaches that were assaulted)...
...These units should NOT be limited to attacking port locations only, but should be able to land at any shore location...
... This goes for small Special forces units as well...
PORTS should only be for friendly unit transfer... IMO... unless special circumstances dictate
In a perfect world, we would have deployable transportation assets that are required to...transport...units over the sea. It would take time to load, time to move, and time to unload - all of which are accurately depicted in movement point costs.
That would be very cool.
What is the plan until then?
That would be very cool.
What is the plan until then?
Plan? Plan? I thought we were just making this all up, as we went along?:laugh:
The short range plan is to fix the exploit of recycling sea transport points. No sense in upsetting the apple cart, for now, in changing the way that the game works in the fashion it has been documented and understood to work for the last 8-10 years. Especially since such changes would destroy intended uses in existing scenarios, and likely would be undone by more revolutionary changes in future releases. Ralph has enough work to do, without having to work in circles by doing things twice.
That would be very cool.
What is the plan until then?Plan? Plan? I thought we were just making this all up, as we went along?:laugh:
Well, kinda. But you're the brass, you're supposed to be on top of things. :laugh:
The short range plan is to fix the exploit of recycling sea transport points. No sense in upsetting the apple cart, for now, in changing the way that the game works in the fashion it has been documented and understood to work for the last 8-10 years. Especially since such changes would destroy intended uses in existing scenarios, and likely would be undone by more revolutionary changes in future releases. Ralph has enough work to do, without having to work in circles by doing things twice.
Excellent.
Erik Nygaard
21 Jun 07, 08:34
B) Make an engine fix so that a unit can only disembark/embark while in an anchorage, with full MP, and be unable to at sea.
This would require 'fixing' the way units currenlty 'disembark' in the sea and then walk onto the land. Instead, one should simply be able to drag one's mouse over the land (much like over a port) and, with the MP overlay, see it will take, for example, 8 out of 10 MPs to move there and then choose to move there, having used the 8 out of 10 MPs.
This would still keep the plus of the 'feature' (being that a unit would still, generally have to wait one turn at sea, because of the very high MP cost to 'disembark' at a difficult place), while eliminating the 'bug' side of things.
But then we would need a Naval/Port attack similar to the Airfield attack.
Otherwise attacks would function as land attack and the embarked units would probably not suffer the effects of being at sea.
(A port attack would be nice anyway since ships currently are safer in port than at sea)
But then we would need a Naval/Port attack similar to the Airfield attack.
Otherwise attacks would function as land attack and the embarked units would probably not suffer the effects of being at sea.
(A port attack would be nice anyway since ships currently are safer in port than at sea)
True.00000
Bob Cross
21 Jun 07, 12:04
Depending on the scale involved, the use of shallow water hexes accomplishes the same thing. Given that shore bombardment was rarely used in situations where the areas themselves were not being actively invaded, this wouldn't overly restrict the use of naval assets, either.
There's a bit of an issue with shallow water because units with "amphibious" icons can move over it. So, you could have amphibious tank units & etc. traipsing all around the coast line.
Bob Cross
21 Jun 07, 12:08
Plan? Plan? I thought we were just making this all up, as we went along?:laugh:
The short range plan is to fix the exploit of recycling sea transport points. No sense in upsetting the apple cart, for now, in changing the way that the game works in the fashion it has been documented and understood to work for the last 8-10 years. Especially since such changes would destroy intended uses in existing scenarios, and likely would be undone by more revolutionary changes in future releases. Ralph has enough work to do, without having to work in circles by doing things twice.
Even in that item, I hope we don't break either my "Okinawa 1945" or "France 1944 D-Day" scenarios. If you recall, the Allied forces start deployed in deep water next to the beach hexes.
Even in that item, I hope we don't break either my "Okinawa 1945" or "France 1944 D-Day" scenarios. If you recall, the Allied forces start deployed in deep water next to the beach hexes.
Those shouldn't be affected, Bob. For now, we just want to fix the transport point incrementing bug for land units at sea.
There's a bit of an issue with shallow water because units with "amphibious" icons can move over it. So, you could have amphibious tank units & etc. traipsing all around the coast line.
True, but as this is going to remain (at least for the near future) a designer solvable issue, that behavior is something that can be weighed by the individual designer.
A scenario designer can state the honor rule ahead of time, if they wish to either restrict or encourage the landing of units on non-anchorage hexes. They can use shallow water to shield hexes from shore-bombardment, reduce flanking possibilities, or restrict non-anchorage debarkations on specific hexes, et cetera. Of course, for those 95% of scenarios that don't have any amphibious units in them, the issue is moot, but for the larger portion of scenarios which have naval transportation and seaborne assaults as integral parts, then the designer should take more care to prevent "gamey" tactics, unless they are intended.
Secadegas
21 Jun 07, 13:37
I'm sure it was my fault, and I appoligise.
So, why not
A) make disembarking at a regular land hex cost a proportinate ammount of MPs, such as disembarking at a port.
B) Make an engine fix so that a unit can only disembark/embark while in an anchorage, with full MP, and be unable to at sea.
This would require 'fixing' the way units currenlty 'disembark' in the sea and then walk onto the land. Instead, one should simply be able to drag one's mouse over the land (much like over a port) and, with the MP overlay, see it will take, for example, 8 out of 10 MPs to move there and then choose to move there, having used the 8 out of 10 MPs.
This would still keep the plus of the 'feature' (being that a unit would still, generally have to wait one turn at sea, because of the very high MP cost to 'disembark' at a difficult place), while eliminating the 'bug' side of things.
Allright, fine. However, if I
a) Travel between Malta to Gela, Sicily (Port in EA) using my transport points and land, I use up half of my transport points (not to mention combat rounds), having travelled only 100km by sea.
b) Travel between Gibraltar and Gela, Sicily (Port in EA) using my transport points and land, I use up half of my transport points (not to mention combat rounds), having travelled, well it would take me a while to count, but sufice it to say, many more kilometres.
Should not the reasoning be as you mentioned above, as well as scaled to the actual distance travelled in water/time used to do that?
Could you, please, make smaller texts...?
Could you, please, make smaller texts...?
Oh, come on, that wasn't half as long as James' :laugh:
Erik Nygaard
21 Jun 07, 16:07
There's a bit of an issue with shallow water because units with "amphibious" icons can move over it. So, you could have amphibious tank units & etc. traipsing all around the coast line.
I reported a bug earlier where ships were able to traverse frozen shallow water. Don't know if this will be fixed in the upcoming patch. Of course this may not be a problem in most scenarios.
CyberGeneral
21 Jun 07, 16:21
Those shouldn't be affected, Bob. For now, we just want to fix the transport point incrementing bug for land units at sea.
JAMiAM, what is the full corrected fix of this?... I have seen suggestions... I have seen debates... I also believe you got the only power to get this right...
JAMiAM, what is the full corrected fix of this?... I have seen suggestions... I have seen debates... I also believe you got the only power to get this right...
In a perfect world, we would have deployable transportation assets that are required to...transport...units over the sea. It would take time to load, time to move, and time to unload - all of which are accurately depicted in movement point costs.
Hopefully, eventually, this.
CyberGeneral
21 Jun 07, 16:29
So what does this have to do with ports?... Are ports now not needed as long as the enemy has no air units and you have an extra turn to wait at sea?
Could you, please, make smaller texts...?
:clown: Veers would only make Three times his present psts if he had to make them shorter, eh? :laugh:
Be happy your not getting all psts on your cell phone, LOL! :cheeky:
So what does this have to do with ports?... Are ports now not needed as long as the enemy has no air units and you have an extra turn to wait at sea?
*shrug*000
:clown: Veers would only make Three times his present psts if he had to make them shorter, eh? :laugh:
Be happy your not getting all psts on your cell phone, LOL! :cheeky:
You're talkin' about the guy that invented the 000 ending so super short posts can be made without having to add anything. Give a guy a break. :laugh: :clown:
You're talkin' about the guy that invented the 000 ending so super short posts can be made without having to add anything. Give a guy a break. :laugh: :clown:
Always wondered about those, nice idea! Mind explaining how it works?
Got the number of the Spam-Beast? :clown:
No probs, Wyatt...! Were it not for you, some days there would be nothing to read on either ToaW forum, eh? :halo:
Get some! LOL!
Always wondered about those, nice idea! Mind explaining how it works?
Got the number of the Spam-Beast? :clown:
Umm...add a number of 0s until you reach the ten char minimum...:laugh:
No probs, Wyatt...! Were it not for you, some days there would be nothing to read on either ToaW forum, eh? :halo:
Get some! LOL!
Well, I hope at least some of it is constructive...:clown:
Well, I hope at least some of it is constructive...:clown:
Wyatt, your avatar is constructive, LOL! Your psts often turn instructive, as they seem to get the 'big guns' out into the board.....
Carry on, Wayward Son, ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.