Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: WEGO the best way

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: WEGO the best way Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEGO the best way - 3/20/2004 7:21:51 PM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I prefer new designs that apply new technology. "Ports" of boardgames seldom seem to be all that satisfying, and, besides, if you want to play that game, pull 'er out and set 'em up.


I am interested in CWiF mainly due to the space and time issues involved in setting up and playing the game - I don't have much of either. I literally have nowhere I can set up a game that is going to take hours to days to play, and could take hours to simply set up. The last time I played WiF, I was at a friend's house from which all the furniture had been removed, and even then there was a shortage of space. OTOH, I have plenty of hard drive space on my three PCs and a home network, so that and CWiF would solve the issue of space. Proper computerised bookkeeping would go a long way toward solving the time problem of moving pieces and checking rules, and the seemingly inevitable "Did I move that piece already?" problems.

I never purchased WiF for myself due to all these space and time problems. I would purchase CWiF as long as it handles all the rules properly, even without an AI (though I would prefer that one exists) for the sake of the saving in space and bookkeeping.

I just hope CWiF will be readily available in Australia - I haven't seen many Matrix Games products on the shelves here.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 121
RE: WEGO the best way - 3/21/2004 8:28:18 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		A friend of mine built a wall in a spare beadroom covered it with cork. Then we pinned the map and the stacks of units to the wall. It made the board game much easier.

But he was single and a computer tech. With the time, space, and money to do this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

I just hope CWiF will be readily available in Australia


Check the E-store at the top of the screen.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/21/2004 6:35:28 AM >

(in reply to amwild)
Post #: 122
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/28/2004 2:11:35 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		I would like the game to be true to the boardgame. If houserules are to be included, theese should be possible to chose away.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 123
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2004 10:39:07 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		Most of all, IT SHOULD BE WIF! not the-ultimate-cover-it-all-ww2-game-of-all-times.....

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 124
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2004 10:46:41 PM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		Yes, once a game designer gets rolling it is very hard to resist legitimate requests to add this or that pet feature. Games never finish when you start doing that! Make WIF and release it and then worry about all the addons and extensions....

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 125
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/2/2004 1:15:06 AM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline 		To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to IronManBeta)
Post #: 126
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/2/2004 5:25:34 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.


I feel that a straight port of WiF would be great. That's how I feel. I don't really care if FoW is in it or not, it seems to me that most of the people who are always begging to have FoW put in a ported game have never played the original boardgame. The same discussion about FoW has already happened over at the EiA forum, and the only people who think it's a good idea are the ones who have never or rarely played the boardgame EiA.

FoW as an option doesn't bother me, simply because, it's an option and not a standard, however, if Matrix was to implement it as a standard I don't think I would enjoy the game as much.

What Matrix and Everyone has to remember about these old boardgames is this:

- The devout followers of these games include people who not only love to play the game, but also have a
sense of nostalgia about the game. I for one haven't played either in awhile seeing as how all my old
gaming partners have grown up and moved away. I attempted to participate in PBEM games, however
most of them became very cumbersome on my time and space. So being able to play EiA or WiF at my
leisure on my computer is certainly raising my excitement level and bringing back good times,
nostalgically speaking.

This is just my opinion.

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 127
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/2/2004 11:15:06 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Well here's what sells me on a game:

Quality AI feature, ahistorical outcomes by the AI do not bother me and if cheats must be programmed to make it challenging then so beit. I'd rather deal with cheats on the hardest level, than to be able to defeat it easily.

Personally I like "random" games, every game. I like ahistorical events, things that happen that did not happen just exactly so during the time period or war. We already know the history of the actual war, we know the outcome. I see no reason to play the same repeat of the same war. The setup situation is all that needs to be historical, from there the player and the events lead to what happens. HOI C.O.R.E does this almost to perfection now. I have computer Third Reich and I find it boring, because it is so repetitive with pretty much the same actions, and the same outcome every game.

I like turn based/hex based wargames.

I also like lots of units, so I go with the divisional unit sizes, but, would accept an option for this, but, I have a feeling that might be too much programming to make two games in one. One for divisional and one for corp. play. Low priority here.

Research can be simple or complicated as per the HOI game. I can adapt to either one. I prefer the complex, but, it's not a major.

Unit models would be my preference, detailed unit models even better.

I like sometimes playing minors, but, have no idea how this game works with minors or even if minors are allowed as a playable possibility. A request, not a necessity.

My play style is solo or hotseat or PBEM. MP over the internet is not necessary for me.

I'm not familar with the '33 scenario, am more used to starting in '36. But, I will try/learn anything necessary as long as there are some ahistorical elements involved.

Depending on how many players can play at one time. I would like to see an AI for each of these spots. Many times playing Third Reich I wish I didn't have to play all the allies or all the Axis sides.

I also would like the option to continue the game after the finish date for whatever you decide should be a normal finish date for this war/era. Reason being, I always wanted to play out the whatif USA/Russian war had begun after the finish of Germany. Plus to continue to try to invade mainland Japan, instead of dropping the bomb. I imagine that would take some serious thought for a whatif situation, should the US decide to continue the war, having to create an ahistorical AI for each playable country, but, it would be interesting to see what you could do. It might be fun to see the allies turn upon one another as the US declines to accept peace and gives the world the impression they are continuing their own conquest of the world.

Well that's my 2 cents. I'm sure not all things are acceptable, but, you asked for ideas and suggestions and those are my own. ;)

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 128
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/2/2004 7:53:45 PM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.


In the games of WiF that I have played, fog of war has been implemented by a rule that only a perticular side's player may examine the units in a stack of counters (other than the top counter) until it becomes necessary to do so due to some event, such as combat. At that point, you would find out (for example) if you had just tried to jump an unescorted convoy of a dozen transports or a battlegroup of 11 warships that just happened to be in convoy with a single transport (which was visible at the top of the stack).

Enabling an option to show the player only the top counter and the stack size is plenty foggy enough. Your opponent can know one of what you have got, and how many other things are there, but not necessarily what they are.

Also, the sea-boxes concept automatically implements naval fog of war - even when two fleets are in the same sea-box, there is only a certain probability of them finding each-other, depending upon their movement state.

I have not played enough WiF to have an opinion on the map scales. I suppose if the board game was designed that way, the computer game should implement the maps the same way, otherwise it would not really be WiF.

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 129
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/3/2004 9:35:35 AM   
fhbgamer

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline 		Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 130
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/3/2004 1:34:54 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fhbgamer

Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred


The change of scale has been planned from the start by ADG. I really can't see a reason not to do it. The only reason why WiF had three different map scales is that in the original versions the Asian map was exactly the same size as the European one. Later on additional maps were created (Scandinavia and Africa iirc) who also used the Asian scale. Then finally with WiF FE all the maps were reworked, but the scales for auxiliary theaters of operations were maintained at the old Asian scale as few players would have enough space to set up a single scale world wide game. This problem simply disapears in a computer version of WiF, there I no need to use different scales or off map areas. Everything can be portrayed at the same scale, and a true global map created at teh same time (I don't expect you wish to play on a flat world).

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to fhbgamer)
Post #: 131
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2004 6:38:16 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		One thing nice about having wif as a computer game is that everything can be(or should be capable of being) edited! As long as there's some acceptable criteria to creating the unit values, virtually any conflict could be represented. In some ways it's maybe not as detailed as say toaw( I find the beancounting is superflous and often the OOBs inaccurate), in many more ways wif is even more realistic(at least in the way planes ,ships and subs work -besides it's a comprehensive picture of how the world works ,or worked). It's all about getting the unit values right. Even modern warfare could be easily represented in the framework of wif. The concept of the suicide unit can be used to represent everything from long range missiles to...suicide units. To me, to be able to view the globe somewhat militarily correct would be of great value.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 4/4/2004 4:58:33 AM >

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 132
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2004 7:03:44 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 5/25/2004 1:06:42 PM >

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 133
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2004 9:38:07 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		Well excuse me for thinking outside of your box.Your wrong by the way -I absolutely could make it work. Your interest appears to be primarily the subject of wif (WW2) and not the beauty of the game mechanics. Fair enough. I don't play fantasy games -including ones that give out fantasy titles and medals. If you can't see the value of a world military/industrial (albeit simplified) model using wif as a template then I guess your imagination simply wont allow it. Your loss. Perhaps you'll just have to wait 'til some REAL game designer does it -or don't. I'll tell you what: you play wif your way and if my previous request gets answered - I'll play wif my way. How's that Mr. acronym.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 4/5/2004 7:56:30 AM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 134
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2004 2:46:43 AM   
MJM2

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/21/2004
Status: offline 		If at all possible would very much like to see 2 or 3 players on a LAN be able to cooperatively play against AI.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jon Mishcon

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 135
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2004 5:25:19 PM   
YohanTM2

 

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: fhbgamer

Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred


The change of scale has been planned from the start by ADG. I really can't see a reason not to do it. The only reason why WiF had three different map scales is that in the original versions the Asian map was exactly the same size as the European one. Later on additional maps were created (Scandinavia and Africa iirc) who also used the Asian scale. Then finally with WiF FE all the maps were reworked, but the scales for auxiliary theaters of operations were maintained at the old Asian scale as few players would have enough space to set up a single scale world wide game. This problem simply disapears in a computer version of WiF, there I no need to use different scales or off map areas. Everything can be portrayed at the same scale, and a true global map created at teh same time (I don't expect you wish to play on a flat world).

Marc aka Caran...


I agree that I would prefer everything on one scale but this also means units will need to change for the Asian Theatre as terrain has now doubled. This means play balance could be negatively affected. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 136
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/28/2004 1:01:49 AM   
stewart_king

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		The cWIF I Asian campaign played really differently than the board game because of the different scale. The China campaign was really wide open. I played several games of cWiF and every time there was a whole lot of movement in China. Either the Chinese and Russians combined to re-conquer the mainland from Japan (more or less totally screwing the Axis) or the Japanese pushed the Chinese back to Urumchi (a somewhat less serious blow to the Allies but still pretty bad news as all those ground troops were then available to invade India, Australia, etc.). This has only happened once in a board game of WiF and then only because we were playing DoDIII and the Japanese and Chinese Nationalists allied against the Chinese Communists and USSR and stomped 'em big time. Japan won that game.

There needs to be something done to slow down operations in that theater. Chinese attack weakness is artificial in my opinion and I don't use it. I'd like to see maybe expanded zones of control (exerted by divisions, maybe?) or perhaps supply constraints (which could also apply to Siberia, sub-Saharan Africa, South America, etc.) to reflect the relative absence of roads, bridges, etc. found in more developed areas.

Stewart King

(in reply to YohanTM2)
Post #: 137
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/28/2004 7:01:45 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stewart_king

The cWIF I Asian campaign played really differently than the board game because of the different scale. The China campaign was really wide open. I played several games of cWiF and every time there was a whole lot of movement in China.


What demo version were you using? I liked to do an ampibious sweep arround the southern flank of China.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/28/2004 5:05:03 AM >

(in reply to stewart_king)
Post #: 138
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/15/2004 3:36:30 PM   
justanAVGwifplayer

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/15/2004
Status: offline 		well after reading what a bunch of people had to say,,, i say that CARANORN's 1st post hits it on the head of what i would like to see in CWIF,,
as for AI i doudt ill use it,,
i just wanna know, WHEN(will it come out),WHERE(can i buy it) an HOWMUCH(will it cost)
8).


justanAVGwifplayer.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 139
Re - 5/15/2004 3:48:06 PM   
justanAVGwifplayer

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/15/2004
Status: offline 		also ive been waiting for this game to come out since 96,when it was 1st mentioned in a yearly wif mag,,, so its been a LONG wait,, when CHRIS M started the CWIF i nearly burst a bubble.(even if it was buggy like hell),,sadly now its back to waiting,,hope i dont pass on, by the time this game ever makes it to pc in a final ver.


justanAVGwifplayer.

btw this is not a reply to AMWILD.

< Message edited by justanAVGwifplayer -- 5/15/2004 1:54:16 PM >

(in reply to amwild)
Post #: 140
RE: Re - 5/16/2004 8:28:58 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		Pass on? As in die? ACK!!!!

Surely it won't take that long to release the game!

Just to let you know somone read your post

(in reply to justanAVGwifplayer)
Post #: 141
RE: Re Mziln - 5/22/2004 3:33:36 PM   
justanAVGwifplayer

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/15/2004
Status: offline 		CHEERS.!!

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 142
whither WiF? - 5/25/2004 1:06:33 PM   
Colonel Warden

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/24/2004
Status: offline 		The computer version should preserve the look and feel of the board game. But this needn't be a slavish copy as that's impossible - there are innumerable versions and editions of WiF as it is.

Good support for multiplayer play is a must. I had a lot of fun playing the board game WiF with real people and have recently been enjoying multiplayer HoI too.

And the Days of Decision module should be included as this will provide lots of replay value.

Andrew

(in reply to justanAVGwifplayer)
Post #: 143
RE: whither WiF? - 5/27/2004 5:54:04 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Colonel Warden

(1) The computer version should preserve the look and feel of the board game. But this needn't be a slavish copy as that's impossible - there are innumerable versions and editions of WiF as it is.

(2) Good support for multiplayer play is a must. I had a lot of fun playing the board game WiF with real people and have recently been enjoying multiplayer HoI too.

(3) And the Days of Decision module should be included as this will provide lots of replay value.

Andrew



(1) I was wondering if a zoom (+, -) mode could be used for the map instead of the multi-window maps as in the demo. If this would decrease performance or slow the release of the game forget I even mentioned it!

(2) I agree customer support is very importaint. Lack of support caused me return my copy of HoI.

(3) The Days of Decision? What did this module contain? Sorry, the group that I played the board WiF went on to other games and I am not current on all the upgrades.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 5/27/2004 3:55:11 PM >

(in reply to Colonel Warden)
Post #: 144
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/28/2004 7:32:31 AM   
doctormm


Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline 		Try to keep the game reasonably "true to its roots" -

Hex based
Corps level (mostly)
Alternate play (not RTS)
Primarily about the 1939-1945 historical situation.

That being said, there are places that the computer medium can allow improvement over the original -

Unit experience (especially pilots). German soldiers in 1942 were better than American soldiers. The same cannot be so easily stated of the situation in 1945. SOME German troops were still better Americans, but some American units were quite good. Similarly, bad pilots are targets, no matter what they're flying.

Improvement over the basic "gearing" concept of WiF. Switching production lines turning out Bf109s over to producing He111s is not an easy task. Grigsby's Pacific War handled this very nicely. Plants would suffer from reduced efficiency for a period after they switched to a new production target.

Unit upgrades over time. Ground units got newer equipment. Naval units got new AA batteries.

More things can be tracked in the computer version - location of ships being built/refit/repaired being a good example. One of the oddities of Board WiF was the abstract location of the repair and construction pools. Had the Japanese followed up the air raid on Pearl with a successful landing (unlikely, bit humor me for the moment), the ships in the mud at Pearl would have been lost to the US. But they were instead (in some cases) raised from the mud, moved to shipyards on the west coast, and rebuilt.

Fog of War - on the operational and strategic level. During the North Africa campaign, the US kept several divisions in Morocco because they thought it was possible that either the Germans would move through Spain, or Spain would join the war on the Axis side. Maybe the game should make things like this extremely unlikely, but possible. Similarly, it should not be a given that the turn Germany attacks Russia, the Rumanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, et al will join the Axis.

Step losses. Pretty obvious that whole corps generally didn't get wiped out, while others remained untouched.

Just a few things that I feel would help make the computer version of the best board wargame ever the best computer wargame ever.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 145
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/28/2004 10:30:50 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		1. Be able to turn off the Pact rules. They destroy the game balance.
2. Fix the resource routing algorithm. It's broken.
3. Fix the bug associated with trying to save BPs in Dakar for the Free French.
4. Fix the random number generator. It flunks the randomness tests in Knuth.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 146
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/28/2004 10:34:46 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		If you're thinking about realism, have some limited intelligence rules. This is particularly important for naval operations, which really revolve around intelligence and search.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 147
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/29/2004 3:54:02 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		Version 0.7.66 (Debug)

In land combat the game somtimes locks up durring removal of losses. This occurs when the attacker takes multiple losses and the defender must take a loss.


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

4. Fix the random number generator. It flunks the randomness tests in Knuth.


You can always use the option that allows you to enter the die roll you want

I'm Just Kidding, but the option does exist. I would like a more random number also.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 148
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/29/2004 4:12:18 AM   
Count Bobby

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/25/2004
Status: offline 		To answer the original question:

1) A strong Ai.
2) No changes from the boardgame; not leaving any small things/special rules out. A decade of experience went into the boardgame. I´d prefer a 1:1 conversion without any 'improvements'.
3) Fat, printed manual with strategy tips and gameplay excamples.

< Message edited by Count Bobby -- 5/29/2004 2:15:05 AM >

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 149
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/29/2004 6:28:41 AM   
SeaMonkey

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		The only mode in which the AI may be a viable opponent, is if it (AI) is not subject to FoW, while the human player(s) is/are.

(in reply to Count Bobby)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: WEGO the best way Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.594