Archive through January 26, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 disruptors: Archive through January 26, 2003
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I agree with all except one 2X phaser. A phaser V will be a 1-space, offensive phaser. The VI is a half-space, and would be signifigantly cheaper. (I do agree that we don't need a 2X ph-2...the 1X ph-1 will work nicely for that.) Having offensive/defensive phasers is just a part of the formula, and I don't want to totally abandon it...at least, not for everyone. I can see the Feds, Gorn, Roms and ISC using just one, but the Klingons and Kzintis would almost certainly keep the defensive phasers on their ships, I'd think. I agree with everything else, though.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:36 pm: Edit

But would there be any situation where putting one ph-5 be less effective than 2 half-space ph-6?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Sure. You can take a phaser hit and destroy the P5, but it'll take two hits to take out the same space worth of P6's. That's one reason that using them has advantages, especially if you only want them for defense.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:51 pm: Edit

What if the ph-5s could take a point of damage and still fire as a one-pulse ph-6?

If we're reinforcing the hull to absorb damage, why not reinforce the phasers?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit

How would you design/mark the SSD to note such?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:55 pm: Edit

The Ph-V will be able to fire two Ph-6 in Aegis mode only. But two separate Ph-6s can fire at ships and will probably do more damage that a Ph-V.

Ph-V max damage= 10
Ph-6 max damage= 6 (? this is what was decided...in general?)

XPh-1 still fires Ph-3s in aegis mode. Mike R. I agree except I could definatly see the Romulans continuing to employ the XPh-1 in a manner like the Klingons would (as auxillary defencive weapons, suplementing the Ph-V). It's less expencive than the Ph-V and could be mounted in places where a Ph-V might be problematical. Like on engines or in SH/FH modules. And considering the typical Romulan Economy...

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Alex, two boxes per phaser.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Bad idea. How do you distinguish between 2 side-by-side phasers and their component boxes? Also it takes up potentially excessive SSD real estate.

You do something that is easily recognizable, such as a diagonal slash or a box-within-a-box.

Also, X1/X2 has a lot of phaser mounts. I see no reason to reduce the impact of damage to phasers since we have some kind of ASIF to cusion damage.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 06:54 pm: Edit

I posted a repair cost of 6 for the Phaser-V. X2 cruisers will have a Dam Com top rating of 8 so it will be a lot easier to repair phasers. With that rating a cruiser could actually repair nearly the entire forward array.

Cruiser with 8 Damage Control
Ph-V Repair
Turn# Ph-A Ph-B Ph-C Ph-D
1 6 2 0 0
2 R 4 4 0
3 R R 2 6
4 R R R R


R=Repaired and ready for use.

That's four phasers in three turns. A cruiser can do that twice. Pretty good!

Phaser-Vs don't need double hits.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

Lazy game designer's?

MJC, if you don't think any of our ideas are worth anything, then why don't you write up the whole X2 module, playtest it, and mail it to SVC.

To everyone else:

I think the X2 design should be based on the following:

same phaser for everyone
Rapid arming phasers mean everyone can use the same type of phaser. It's flexible enough for offense and defense.

Reduced number of systems.
The X2 ships should be designed for increased cruising range. Rather than looking like the upgunned X1/BCH/CCH, the X2 ships should be similar in size to the Y140-Y165 era ships. They get more firepower from better systems, not more systems.

one turn photons - full strength
We can't turn back the clock on the photons. 12 point one-turn weapons are here to stay. I don't think it's unreasonable that 16 point one-turns would show up in the X2 era.

Faster disruptors
This is more for playability than technobabble. One turn photons vs. one turn disruptors = too close to a mirror match to be enjoyable.



As the Wiggles say;" Wake up Jeff."

Rapid pulse can grant Flexibility, but won't grant Racial Flavour. Ships shouldn't defend via the same techniques against the same threat, they should do things a little differently based on the race and what they think is worth investing money in.

Danger, danger, danger J.T.
There is a very real possibility that these vessels will become eggshells with sledgehammers.
It'ld be better to increae the size class ( without changing the MC ) and say that the increased cruising range comes from being larger rather than being more efficiently designed.

It's not like there is much exploring being done, the General war has made the far planets past by many times, so finding strange new worlds will only be dealing with the coreward worlds.

X2 vessel should have the numbers of Phasers as there X1 breatherin and those phasers should be better and the BPV should go up accordingly. It protects the ships from the Mizia which they will more easily fall prey to when fihghting equal BPV task groups of GW ships.

One turn full 16 pointers is something that could happen but if we went there then we REALLY should have a stronger two turn arming Photon cycle, this is not turning the clock back, it's moving the technology forward from the current position.

If one turn 16 pointers come to be then we'll need two turn 28 to 36 point warheads to give players a reason to choose to enter into a two turn cycle.

Tos Crawford will undoubtedly say that four 36 pointers is a game breaker even with ships having six 5 point BTTYs and a 60 Box shield.

And I fear he may be right.
It would be better to run the Photons as four turbes ( on a cruiser ) and 12 point one turn warheads and 24 pointer two turn warheads.

Let's not just uniformly speed up everthing. I think a Hyperload of Double Overload Damage for Double Overload Cost, is much more tasty, even if we start getting X2 disruptors looking like photons with respect to being shield smashers.

Something zany like a Spearfish drone faculty to diruptors or splash damage for disruptors would be more playable than rapid pulse Phasers.

I'm a Klingon X2 player and I just discovered the Mizia...don't you think we should find something better than rapid pulsing of Disruptors.

Personnaly I'ld rather just have shield smasher weapons.


Quote:

I agree with all except one 2X phaser. A phaser V will be a 1-space, offensive phaser. The VI is a half-space, and would be signifigantly cheaper. (I do agree that we don't need a 2X ph-2...the 1X ph-1 will work nicely for that.) Having offensive/defensive phasers is just a part of the formula, and I don't want to totally abandon it...at least, not for everyone. I can see the Feds, Gorn, Roms and ISC using just one, but the Klingons and Kzintis would almost certainly keep the defensive phasers on their ships, I'd think. I agree with everything else, though.



Abso-bloody-lutely


Quote:

But would there be any situation where putting one ph-5 be less effective than 2 half-space ph-6?



If the 2Ph-6s can rapid pulse as 4Ph-3s and the Ph-5 can only rapid pulse as 3 Ph-3s and you doing something where you can fire at very short ranges ( proper timing, running away fromn the drone etc ) then the Pair of Ph-6s will be advantagious.


Quote:

Sure. You can take a phaser hit and destroy the P5, but it'll take two hits to take out the same space worth of P6's. That's one reason that using them has advantages, especially if you only want them for defense.


Oh...there's that too.


Quote:

What if the ph-5s could take a point of damage and still fire as a one-pulse ph-6?

If we're reinforcing the hull to absorb damage, why not reinforce the phasers?



What's the best we can say about that...it's contrived!?!
Why not have 12 Ph-5s ( instead of 8 you insist on ) and then you can afford to let the Massive Damage, S.I.F. combo eat your phasers without leaving trhe ship toothless.

Why can't The Kzintis fire each pair of Ph-6s as a Ph-5 as the flipside of what you are saying?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:56 pm: Edit

MJC: The reason to enter the two turn arming cycle is that each turn you don't have to spend as much power. A good firing oppertunity doesn't present it's self every turn. That is an advantage of the Fed now (i.e. X1). They can fire in one turn for a high energy cost of bide their time and take two turns using less energy on the turn of firing (possibly putting it into movement of shields or what ever.) It is a great advantage that the Feds can arm as in: 2+2 (instead of 4) or 6+2 (spending only two energy during the attack run armed with full OLs).

You don't need a bigger war head to induce a player to use the two turn arming cycle.

Klingons gain this advantage as well now that they can hold their Disruptors. Arm on the off turn the hold them, freeing up power on the attack run.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC: The reason to enter the two turn arming cycle is that each turn you don't have to spend as much power. A good firing oppertunity doesn't present it's self every turn. That is an advantage of the Fed now (i.e. X1). They can fire in one turn for a high energy cost of bide their time and take two turns using less energy on the turn of firing (possibly putting it into movement of shields or what ever.) It is a great advantage that the Feds can arm as in: 2+2 (instead of 4) or 6+2 (spending only two energy during the attack run armed with full OLs).



That and you recharge your Caps and Recharge your BTTYs on the OFF turn, of and dump massive power in the Off turn for devistating effect ( the 6+2 ).

Quote:

You don't need a bigger war head to induce a player to use the two turn arming cycle.



That really depends, if you have a 12 point one turn and a 16 point two you are creating an inducement to fire single turn fire.
If the Klingons get Double overload damage ( 12 points at R8 ) then the two ships will be hurling 12 pointers at each other each turn and relying on their Phaser suites and UIM to make the difference.
Personnaly I'ld like to a see an inducement that actually was worth the efforst, say 12 point one turns and 24 point two turn.

Quote:

Klingons gain this advantage as well now that they can hold their Disruptors. Arm on the off turn the hold them, freeing up power on the attack run.



Yeah, great for the primary attack runs but it's just going to boil down to trading blows every turn unless we make the two turn photon inducement strong enough to make players want to move to the two turn method.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Quote:

There is a very real possibility that these vessels will become eggshells with sledgehammers.



That's what my 2-box phasers are for, as well as the SIF. It stiffens up the eggshell while reducing the sledgehammer's power. 8 ph-5 at 2 boxes/phaser, or 12 ph-5 at 1 box/phaser. My idea has less firepower, but more survivability.

Quote:

It'ld be better to increae the size class ( without changing the MC ) and say that the increased cruising range comes from being larger rather than being more efficiently designed.



I don't like increasing the MC. From a game perspective, MC = ship class. MC 1 has always been a heavy cruiser.


Quote:

One turn full 16 pointers is something that could happen but if we went there then we REALLY should have a stronger two turn arming Photon cycle, this is not turning the clock back, it's moving the technology forward from the current position.



And you're worried about eggshells with sledgehammers NOW? Wait till the Feds get 4x24 point torpedos against 30-40 point shields and a cruiser hull. You won't even need to hit with all 4. 3 x 24 would do more than 4 x 16, and it's a lot easier to hit with three torps than four torps. So how can you balance that against X1? 16 points a turn and increased range is less of a game breaker. Remember, with the Feds, the enemy is more maneuverable, and thus more able to pick the range.

Maybe making the photon a true one-turn weapon loses a lot of flexibility. What if "one turn arming" or "two turn arming" were declared at EA.

Quote:

I'm a Klingon X2 player and I just discovered the Mizia...don't you think we should find something better than rapid pulsing of Disruptors.

Personnaly I'ld rather just have shield smasher weapons



Look at my disruptor proposal.
It gives the disruptors the flexibility to Mizia or Smash.
With the 8 impulse delay between shots, you can still fire one shot every 2 impulses for the Mizia.
With the lower to-hits for the more powerful shots, the best average damage is still scored with a bunch of small shots. But you can still smash if you want to, and if you get to range 2, it doesn't matter.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Quote:

Quote:

It'ld be better to increae the size class ( without changing the MC ) and say that the increased cruising range comes from being larger rather than being more efficiently designed.



I don't like increasing the MC. From a game perspective, MC = ship class. MC 1 has always been a heavy cruiser.


What exactly does WITHOUT CHANGING THE MC mean to you???

Quote:

And you're worried about eggshells with sledgehammers NOW? Wait till the Feds get 4x24 point torpedos against 30-40 point shields and a cruiser hull. You won't even need to hit with all 4. 3 x 24 would do more than 4 x 16, and it's a lot easier to hit with three torps than four torps. So how can you balance that against X1? 16 points a turn and increased range is less of a game breaker. Remember, with the Feds, the enemy is more maneuverable, and thus more able to pick the range.



Oh sure, but if we run around with Uber-phasers and don't have matching Uber-weapons then we run the risk of exactly the thing that happened with X1 that made it unfun.
The dominance of the the phaser at R5, except in this case it all be R8 Phaser shots.

It's better to have sheild smashing Photons AND have racial flavour then to have photons that ain't game breakers BUT work as second rate disruptors ( look at through put )...Id rather have a fed hitting 5/6 of the time for 12 damage ( a double damage Hyper-overload ) for 8 points of power ( and have 6 of them ) than to have four 16 point warheads every turn hitting at R8 3/6 of the time. 60 damage Vs 32...wouldn't you, even with 4 disruptors it'ld be 40 damage Vs 32 for a power cost of 32 points ( 48 points if there are 6 ) Vs the Photons 32 points.
Less output for the same power!?!
If the Feds were smart with their X2 ships, they'ld refit them all to Disruptors.

Quote:

Look at my disruptor proposal.
It gives the disruptors the flexibility to Mizia or Smash.
With the 8 impulse delay between shots, you can still fire one shot every 2 impulses for the Mizia.



Regular Overload Damage from disruptor split up by 8 impulses is going to harder to hit with then the Overloaded PPD and her R8 limit and Miopic Zone.

Sure it won't mizia the gut out of the enemy but think about all the Feds can can get to R4 whilst you're still waiting for your weapon to cycle.
Think of the all the wasted power that was placed into the disruptors and then the ship did her R8 shot and turned off.

Much better to give the Disruptors something special like splash damage than go with a rapid pulse disruptor.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Quote:

One turn full 16 pointers is something that could happen but if we went there then we REALLY should have a stronger two turn arming Photon cycle, this is not turning the clock back, it's moving the technology forward from the current position.

If one turn 16 pointers come to be then we'll need two turn 28 to 36 point warheads to give players a reason to choose to enter into a two turn cycle.



I'm lost. Why does allowing the 2X ship to fast-load a photon to the it's normal "high" of 16 points necessitate giving them the ability to do 36 points over a two turn arming cycle? It's a decent improvement, with nothing to break the game, IMHO. And I can think of one reason to not do it in one turn; it's expensive! Figure 8 points per tube, at four tubes...that's 32 points, out of what, fifty or so for an XCC? That only leaves 18 points for movement, and at 2X, 18 is way, way to slow. I doubt I'd fast load full overloads in one turn, except maybe at the beginning when I had the time. In the middle of the battle, I don't think I'd want to slow down to do it unless I had too. It's a great option, though, and workable for 2X. I just don't see the need for a 24+ point photon warhead...but maybe that's just me.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:41 pm: Edit

24 total is about the limit from my perspective.

Fast-load for 16 sounds OK too.

Even if you're assuming a warp power in the 60's with 10 other power, the high end of X2, 32 is almost half the ship's power.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Quote:

I'm lost. Why does allowing the 2X ship to fast-load a photon to the it's normal "high" of 16 points necessitate giving them the ability to do 36 points over a two turn arming cycle? It's a decent improvement, with nothing to break the game, IMHO. And I can think of one reason to not do it in one turn; it's expensive! Figure 8 points per tube, at four tubes...that's 32 points, out of what, fifty or so for an XCC? That only leaves 18 points for movement, and at 2X, 18 is way, way to slow. I doubt I'd fast load full overloads in one turn, except maybe at the beginning when I had the time. In the middle of the battle, I don't think I'd want to slow down to do it unless I had too. It's a great option, though, and workable for 2X. I just don't see the need for a 24+ point photon warhead...but maybe that's just me.



It's the "use it or loose it" principal.
With the ability to fire every turn, you would fire every turn to avoid the "oops it got shot out of my ships while I was still arming it" fear, that players will fall into.
If players can fire every turn ( say the Klingons Vs one turn arming Feds ) then both ships will fall more easily into Knief fighting, choosing to go slow ( why is 18 slow, so long as the other guy is going slow to, it's not like you speed 37 ship can really outrun a speed 40 drone.
Do Orions use Orion Warp Engine Doubling when they knief fight!?!
And yet the Orion Knief fights are fought at very slow speeds???

If we have a single turn arming Photon that has the same damage as it's two turn arming brother, and you are fighting against single turn arming ships, it just becomes to easy to say "screw the speed" I'm firing everything I've got today.
If we have a somewhat larger warhead on the two turn model then we get a reason greater then GOOD POWER MANAGEMENT to encourage players into the two turn fire.


• Now here's an idea.
What if we have the single turn turn and two trun arming sequences with different consequences.

Here's the technobable.
The Federation scientist found a way of improving the matter-antimatter reation such that it had an increased warhead, but the mechanisms with in the warhead required a longer period of time to deal with the mixing process and thus the fast loaded photon was unable to capitalise on the warhead.

The warhead must be armed over two turns to capitalise on the improove damage output, but it must be arming, holding does not initiate the mixing process and thus does not cause the greater output.

When the improove mixing proceed is performed the Photon shall inflict 3 points of damage per point of warp power added to it.

So the table below is used to determine the warhead strength of the photon.

Fastload Power Fastload Warhead Improved Power Improved Mix Warhead
4 8 2+2 12
4.5 9 2.5+2 or 2+2.5 13
5 10 3+3 or 2.5+2.5 or 2+3 15
5.5 11 3.5+2 or others 16
6 12 4+2 or others 18
6.5 13 4.5+2 or others 19
7 14 5+2 or others 21
7.5 15 5.5+2 or others 22
8 16 6+2 or others 24


In this way a ship could arm 16 now for 8 power or it could arm 12 now ( for 6 power ) and the finish it off for 2 power as a 24 point warhead.

Even if it's limited so that the max power of 7 ( and warhead of 8 is availible, arming an 8 pointer today and converting it to an 21 pointer tomorrow ) may just be what the ships need to go to a two tun arming process.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

MJC, how can you increase the size class without increasing the movement cost? That makes even less sense than what I thought you said the first time.


Quote:

Oh sure, but if we run around with Uber-phasers and don't have matching Uber-weapons then we run the risk of exactly the thing that happened with X1 that made it unfun.
The dominance of the the phaser at R5, except in this case it all be R8 Phaser shots.



I think we've abandoned the ph-4 type ph-5s.
I, for one, put Loren's ph-5s on my ship proposal.
At range 6-8, the damage is 5-5-4-3-2-2, or an average of 3.5 per phaser.

That's another reason why I cut back on the number of phasers on the ships.
My Fed XCA has 10 ph-5.
2 FH, 2 LS, 2 RS, 2 360, 2 RH.
There are 6 ph-5 pointing at the enemy.
The average damage at range 6-8 is 21 points.

The CX has 4 FH, 3 LS, 3 RS, 2 360.
In the FH arc, there are 9 ph-1 pointing at the enemy.
At range 6-8, 9 ph-1 averages 19.5 points damage.

I don't see how that extra point and a half is a game breaker.


Quote:

Regular Overload Damage from disruptor split up by 8 impulses is going to harder to hit with then the Overloaded PPD and her R8 limit and Miopic Zone.

Sure it won't mizia the gut out of the enemy but think about all the Feds can can get to R4 whilst you're still waiting for your weapon to cycle.



Now I'm positive you haven't even read my disruptor rifle proposal.

The small shot (2 points power) is identical to a standard range 40 disruptor. Each rifle can get 4 shots a turn, if it can line up the shots (which, with an FH arc, isn't that difficult).

The medium shot (4 points power) is identical to an overload w/UIM inside range 8, is 1-3 for 6 at 9-15, and 1-2 for 4 at 16-22. What saber-dancing Klingon can't line up 2 range 22 shots?

The large shot (6 points power) is for when you only want one shot, but can't afford 8 power. At 9-15, 1-2 for 9 is a decent shot.

The mega shot (8 ponts power) is for knife-fighting range.

Plus, the weapon has flexibility.

If
Then you have plenty of options.


Quote:

I'm lost. Why does allowing the 2X ship to fast-load a photon to the it's normal "high" of 16 points necessitate giving them the ability to do 36 points over a two turn arming cycle?



I'm lost too. Is it my imagination, or is MJC getting hysterical in his posts?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Quote:

24 total is about the limit from my perspective.

Fast-load for 16 sounds OK too.

Even if you're assuming a warp power in the 60's with 10 other power, the high end of X2, 32 is almost half the ship's power.



Okay, how's this for an idea.
20 point maximum warheads and 16 point fastloads, BUT, the Fed scientists found a way through which they bleed-back some of the power dumped into the Photons in the perious period and use that power to repower the Photon.

The bleed back power in limited to two points max and must be less than or equal to the power being applied in the seocnd turn and must be less than ( not less than or equal to but rather less than ) the power applied on the first turn.

In this way you build you photons as follows...

Standards could be armed with 2 points of the first turn ( assuming one doesn't go for fast loads ) and then bleed back 1 point and add it to 1 point of second turn arming for an 8 point warhead that only costs 3 points of power to build.

If you want to build a 20 point warhead, you could put in 6 points ( so that you could Fastload Fire if you have to ) and then bleed back 2 and add it to 2 to generate a 20 point warhead but for only 8 power.


The big question is...
Would the lower arming costs and slightly improved warhead strength and large ammount of availible power be enticement enough to cause players to seruiously consider the two turn arming method dispite the slightly tougher math?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Huh?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Quote:

MJC, how can you increase the size class without increasing the movement cost? That makes even less sense than what I thought you said the first time.



See the Tholian DN for details.

Quote:

I'm lost too. Is it my imagination, or is MJC getting hysterical in his posts?



Yeah, I'm a regular Laugh Riot...but I won't be if you stay away from the attempts to start a flamewar.

Quote:

Huh?



You'll have to be a little more specific if you want an answer.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I'd prefer the Tholisn D be the only exception to the rule.

The other exception is the Old X2 cruisers who were all SC 2 and had a MC of 1.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Quote:

You'll have to be a little more specific if you want an answer



OK, could you spell out how to do the math for what you're proposing?

BTW, I have no desire to get in a flamewar.
It'll distract too much from the topic.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Quote:

That's what my 2-box phasers are for, as well as the SIF. It stiffens up the eggshell while reducing the sledgehammer's power. 8 ph-5 at 2 boxes/phaser, or 12 ph-5 at 1 box/phaser. My idea has less firepower, but more survivability.



Here's an idea.
The first hit to any X2 phaser ( not including the X2Ph-1s ) has a die roll.
1 Cap only
2 Cap only
3 Cap only
4 Cap only
5 Phaser and Cap
6 Phaser and Cap


The phasers that take a hit just to their Caps will loose all three points of Capasitor ( although they can still utlise the ship's cap to fire ). If the phaser has already lost it's cap, then it is simply destroyed.
Any phaser that is in arc of a new volley that has lost it's cap will be prioritised for damage purposes.
Phasers that have lost their Caps are marked with a C for cap-less.

In this way we don't loose the phasers too quickly but we don't use up space on the SSD.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:57 pm: Edit

MJC,

KISS problems.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation