RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> After Action Reports



Message


s2tanker -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 11:54:42 AM)

It's fine. RedJohn used an ahistorical and unrealistic exploit in the game system to place the vast majority of his southern forces into his strategic reserve. Until the designer fixes this exploit, there's very little anyone can do. If they don't, I'll simply stop playing the game as it is no longer useful as a WWII Eastern Front simulation. It's just a game at that point.




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 11:58:52 AM)

I think the reserve works fine as it is, even if it is a bit silly- WITE1 Soviet Micro for reinforcements was agonizing - but the lack of a sufficient incentive to defend the south beyond paltry VPs that you can make up for in centre and north is pretty bad.

Equally, of course, the pace of german advance in the south is part of the issue. They'll very likely get the +6 VPs anyway, so why not save yourself 400,000 men?




vvs007 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 2:44:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: s2tanker

RedJohn used an ahistorical and unrealistic exploit... his southern forces into his strategic reserve.


what are you writing about? the transfer of Lukin's 16th army to Smolensk - here's an example of a massive maneuver by Soviet reserves. Just the beginning of the war. Later transfers to Leningrad from near Moscow and back to Moscow are common practices of the Soviet command. Comrade Stalin won the Civil war 1917-1921 in this way, by maneuvering by rail the best units of the Red Army with main artillery against the invaders of the Western powers and the White Army.

Innovations 1930-1940 on the USSR railways made it possible to transport not only a huge amount of factory equipment, but also to move hundreds of thousands of reserve along the front.

By the way, huge empty spaces in front for the German armies, this is also the practice of that war, f.e. after the defeat near Kiev, for a very long time there was no single front line east of Kiev ...

29.9.1941

in this match there was the same gap. And if the German player failed to take advantage of this, then it is his fault, not the mechanics of the game.




loki100 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 2:53:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: s2tanker

It's fine. RedJohn used an ahistorical and unrealistic exploit in the game system to place the vast majority of his southern forces into his strategic reserve. Until the designer fixes this exploit, there's very little anyone can do. If they don't, I'll simply stop playing the game as it is no longer useful as a WWII Eastern Front simulation. It's just a game at that point.


few bits:

a) if it is "ahistorical and unrealistic" then why do it?
b) why must every wierd and wonderful exploit require to be closed by a game redesign and the allocation of (very scarce) development time?

I'd rather some of the current work was the focus, plus opening up the editor etc




Jango32 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 2:53:55 PM)

Last I checked, there was no separate dimension in real life where military forces could be kept safe indefinitely like it currently works with the reserve theater box.




Stamb -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:14:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: s2tanker

It's fine. RedJohn used an ahistorical and unrealistic exploit in the game system to place the vast majority of his southern forces into his strategic reserve. Until the designer fixes this exploit, there's very little anyone can do. If they don't, I'll simply stop playing the game as it is no longer useful as a WWII Eastern Front simulation. It's just a game at that point.


few bits:

a) if it is "ahistorical and unrealistic" then why do it?

Sorry for interrupting this discussion but the question should be "why game allows to do it?"




Beethoven1 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:14:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vvs007

By the way, huge empty spaces in front for the German armies, this is also the practice of that war, f.e. after the defeat near Kiev, for a very long time there was no single front line east of Kiev ...

29.9.1941

in this match there was the same gap. And if the German player failed to take advantage of this, then it is his fault, not the mechanics of the game.


The gap in the game was like 20-30 hexes at least. The gap on that map is equivalent to like 3-4 hexes or so.




s2tanker -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:18:14 PM)

Why is it an issue? Because removing 500,000 soldiers in a week and placing them into reserve without any consideration for limited rail assets, supply, or APs, means an unrealistic "magicking" of units out of danger.

It also means that, against two evenly-matched players under the current construct, there will be no chance for the Axis - Moscow and Leningrad will always be safe, the south will fall, and industry will be rebuilt with little penalty.




s2tanker -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:20:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Last I checked, there was no separate dimension in real life where military forces could be kept safe indefinitely like it currently works with the reserve theater box.


Exactly - that and picking up 500,000 soldiers fleeing in the face of a strategic surprise attack - without any consideration to limited rail or staff planning bandwidth.

It needs to be fixed.




Beethoven1 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:29:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

a) if it is "ahistorical and unrealistic" then why do it?
b) why must every wierd and wonderful exploit require to be closed by a game redesign and the allocation of (very scarce) development time?

I'd rather some of the current work was the focus, plus opening up the editor etc


Sure, you can play with a general vague house rule like "Soviets can't transfer troops from the south in an unrealistic way," but the problem with that is there is no clear or obvious dividing line between what is and is not realistic.

Is it realistic to send 1 division from the south to the north? Seems hard to argue that would not be, after all, it is just 1 division.

What about 5?

10?

20?

But at the same time, if a Soviet player does that, can you really blame them for playing unrealistically/ahistorically, given that Germany can also achieve unrealistic/ahistorical progress in the south on turn 1 (e.g. Rovno pocket, getting to the Romanian border, etc) as well as on the next few subsequent turns? The fact that Axis can do these things on turn 1 is part of what causes the issue (which could partly be fixed even by minor changes to the scenario in the editor like e.g. making the Panzers in the south start with 40 MP rather than 50 or something).


What about, on the other hand, if Soviets don't transfer any troops from the south, but simply send 0 reinforcement units to the south until late 1941 and send 100% of their reinforcements to the north/center? In this case, you'll have a light defense of the south, and the effect will end up being close to the same as with full abandonment. And in that case, who is to say how many reserves going to the north/center is realistic? Is the Soviet player exploiting if they send 100% of their reserves to the north/center? 90%? 80%? 60%?



It would be better, ideally, if the game incentivized the Soviets to behave in a historical/reasonable fashion by giving them somewhat more of a reason to defend the south (as well as some ability to do so without getting blown away in the first few turns more than historical, and ending up losing Kiev/Odessa/ etc substantially earlier than historical even if they put in their best effort to defend it reasonably).

Drawing on my own experience with modding HOI4 for multiplayer, I found that giving players incentives is the key to game balance. In any game, players who are attempting to win will respond to a greater or lesser degree to incentives that help them to win.




Beethoven1 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:34:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: s2tanker

Exactly - that and picking up 500,000 soldiers fleeing in the face of a strategic surprise attack - without any consideration to limited rail or staff planning bandwidth.

It needs to be fixed.


I do agree that sending units to the reserve should ideally use up some railyard capacity when they are sent to reserve (in the same way that when a unit boards a train, this uses up railyard capacity from a railyard within 30 hexes for it to board the train).

However, that would not fix this issue, since Soviets can still rail out many or most units even without using the reserve mechanic at all (depending on the specifics of the Axis turn 1 opening in the south).

See my AAR from my other game against Bread, where I am abandoning the south but railing all the units out and using rail capacity, rather than using the reserve, and not having difficulty doing it.




Beethoven1 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

few bits:

a) if it is "ahistorical and unrealistic" then why do it?
b) why must every wierd and wonderful exploit require to be closed by a game redesign and the allocation of (very scarce) development time?

I'd rather some of the current work was the focus, plus opening up the editor etc


The other thing to keep in mind is that not everyone that plays the game is here on the forum. There will be more casual players who got the game on steam and who have never looked at the forum. If they play for a while, some of them will eventually notice that there is not much real incentive to defend the south, and they will start responding to incentives that the game gives them and abandoning the south and having the quality of their games lowered. This will lead some of them to not like the game and stop playing it, which means the player base will be smaller. And it is better for everyone if the player base is larger rather than smaller.




loki100 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 3:50:29 PM)

few points

1) I'm not sure this is such an 'I win' approach
2) I applaud people prepared to test out odd/extreme strategies
3) I have no idea where the line falls between 'gamey' and 'innovative'

my point is lets assume this is really game breaking and its as gamey as you can get - so we demand the 2 people who can actually code this game spend an age working out what the exploit really is, how to close it, without setting off hares all over the rest of the game? At a simple the city fort 'unit' is still generating bugs and it was introduced at least a year before the beta started.

now the original plan was for transfers to trigger a rail cost - both on exit and arrival. So that was dropped as simply being too hard to code. As ever, making the game systems yield a desired result is often harder than writing out a rule or idea.

I guess, my key point is the game community have agency here, yes some things are bugs and should be closed (& in the end probably will), but some things key off player choices (& a degree of common sense falls to us)

as above, I'd rather see Pavel have the space to work up the editor's functionality and then look at the wider air war code, I'd also like to see the really innovative ideas being developed for some proposed scenarios given full attention and then maybe incorporated back into the overall campaign.

edit - I've always run the south down as the Soviets, mostly natural attrition and decisions about where the reinforcements go but often by October end up reliant on the axis reaching the end of their supply lines as much as anything else. Now I've not played the Soviets since late in the beta so things may well be different (& there certainly is a much riched corpus of game knowledge).

I still come back to an argument a well balanced game has 2/3 natural end pts, an axis win late 42/early 43, an axis win vs the HWM or the Berlin rules to sort out something not resolved.

so the real question is how does this approach interact with those criteria?




Beethoven1 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 4:24:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

few points

1) I'm not sure this is such an 'I win' approach


Fair enough. I think we need enough games where Soviets are doing this to show it one way or another. If it is actually a bad strategy for Soviets and I am wrong about it, then that would be great IMO. But we need to see some sort of game where Soviets do this and are actually punished for it somehow.

quote:

so we demand the 2 people who can actually code this game spend an age working out what the exploit really is, how to close it, without setting off hares all over the rest of the game?

now the original plan was for transfers to trigger a rail cost - both on exit and arrival.


Point one - the transferring to reserves part is not really the "exploit." As I mentioned, in my other AAR I am doing the same thing, but without transferring units to reserve and instead railing them north normally. The "exploit" is instead the Soviet player looking at the costs they pay by defending the south as compared to the rewards they get by it, and making a calculated decision that the benefits don't outweigh the costs (also including the opportunity cost of having a weaker defense in the north/center if they defend the south). So I wouldn't get too focused on the reserve/rail issue. Yes, that is an issue and in a perfect world with unlimited programming resources it would be nice for that to be adjusted, but it is not really at the core of the matter here.

Point two - I certainly agree it is a fair question how much programming time should be put towards any one thing. However, at least some possible adjustments that could be made which may not require programming time at all. I mentioned for example that maybe Axis Panzers/motorized. Similarly, there is some possibility to change things like VPs in the editor, which does not require programming. I would also presume that, hypothetically, buffing defense in clear terrain slightly while nerfing it slightly in heavy forest/swamp terrain would not require programming per se, but rather would be a matter of simply adjusting terrain modifiers which change CV for elements in different types of terrain.

There may be other things that could be adjusted that require programming (e.g. changing how industry evacuation works) which in principle might be better solutions, but just because some things like that would require programming and also a design decision doesn't mean that there are no other things that can be done which would not require programming or which might be simpler and easier to do.




Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 4:58:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1


Sure, you can play with a general vague house rule like "Soviets can't transfer troops from the south in an unrealistic way," but the problem with that is there is no clear or obvious dividing line between what is and is not realistic.

Is it realistic to send 1 division from the south to the north? Seems hard to argue that would not be, after all, it is just 1 division.

What about 5?

10?

20?

But at the same time, if a Soviet player does that, can you really blame them for playing unrealistically/ahistorically, given that Germany can also achieve unrealistic/ahistorical progress in the south on turn 1 (e.g. Rovno pocket, getting to the Romanian border, etc) as well as on the next few subsequent turns? The fact that Axis can do these things on turn 1 is part of what causes the issue (which could partly be fixed even by minor changes to the scenario in the editor like e.g. making the Panzers in the south start with 40 MP rather than 50 or something).


What about, on the other hand, if Soviets don't transfer any troops from the south, but simply send 0 reinforcement units to the south until late 1941 and send 100% of their reinforcements to the north/center? In this case, you'll have a light defense of the south, and the effect will end up being close to the same as with full abandonment. And in that case, who is to say how many reserves going to the north/center is realistic? Is the Soviet player exploiting if they send 100% of their reserves to the north/center? 90%? 80%? 60%?



It would be better, ideally, if the game incentivized the Soviets to behave in a historical/reasonable fashion by giving them somewhat more of a reason to defend the south (as well as some ability to do so without getting blown away in the first few turns more than historical, and ending up losing Kiev/Odessa/ etc substantially earlier than historical even if they put in their best effort to defend it reasonably).

Drawing on my own experience with modding HOI4 for multiplayer, I found that giving players incentives is the key to game balance. In any game, players who are attempting to win will respond to a greater or lesser degree to incentives that help them to win.


I think all this is fair. The way I see it at the moment is that (making the assumption that the players are of broadly similar standard) the 'abandon the South' strategy essentially prevents either side from getting a 'Winter 1941/42' auto victory. I think that it may well make it very difficult if not impossible for the Axis player to hit the later 750+ autovictory checks assuming that the Soviet player does not make a big blunder that leads to their 5M+ army getting trashed in big pockets.

But my suspicion is that with evenly matched players the strategy also makes it very difficult for the Soviet player to slow their opponent down enough to prevent them from hitting the 525/575 sudden loss marks.

So really it comes down to whether by avoiding the historical heavy losses in 1941 the Soviet player is able to put themselves in a position in 1943/1944 where their army is so large that the Axis player is unable to do anything to resist. From the later game AARs we have at the moment it seems to me that whilst a large Soviet army will stop the Axis from moving forwards with any real effect, a well managed and maintained Axis Army can make it very difficult for even a large Soviet army to get momentum going.

So potentially where we are at is a situation where the cautious Soviet player retreats in the South and builds up a larger army than historically, the cautious Axis player takes less risks and does just enough to avoid the sudden loss thresholds but preserves their army and then you get a 'cat and mouse' game through 1943/44 where the Soviet player starts from an advantageous position in terms of territory compared to historical but a disadvantageous one in terms of the strength of the Axis army.

So I guess the 'incentive' for both sides depends on the attitude of the player towards the game and what they are trying to achieve. If you are a Soviet player and think that you have a significant skill advantage over your opponent you can only leverage that advantage in terms of gaining victory in the first couple of years if you contest the South. Similarly if you are an Axis player faced with the 'run-away strategy' by an opponent you feel you are better than you will likely be faced with a situation in mid 1942 where you have a strong army that you can either continue to preserve in the hope of winning 'on points' or risk in ambitious offensives in the South in the hope of outmaneuvering your opponent to the extent that their losses snowball and the large army that they start 1942 with gets dislocated and worn down.




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 5:28:30 PM)

The biggest advantages offered by the abandon the south strategy are:

1. First and foremost, you're preserving up to 500,000 troops and potentially thousands of AFVs. Of course you're not guaranteed to lose these units if you're defending the south, but you are putting them at risk given the terrain.
2. You are giving up land that for the most part you are absolutely going to lose anyway. The target turn for Kiev is 13. There is absolutely no way, assuming relative competence on the axis side, Kiev holds out until turn 13. Same with Odessa, same with Kharkov, same with Orel, same with Kursk. Dnepropetrovsk could possibly hold out if you have an active defence, but the axis can surround it easily - so it very likely falls earlier than historical too. Stalino and Rostov is where it gets dicier, given you're reaching axis 41 logistical extent. Crimea also often collapses in 41. So, why not just abandon things until Moscow and Leningrad are secured and leave a token defence at rivers?
3. The Axis are faced with a catch-22. If they advance cautiously in the south, they are just giving you more turns of manpower generation and production. If they advance wildly in the south, they risk armored counterattacks, their spearheads getting cut off, and their logistics taking a nosedive.
4. Defence in depth is extremely effective at blunting offensives to Moscow and Leningrad.
It's not like they can match the soviet withdrawal either, and move the majority of PZG1 to AGC or AGN. Logistical difficulties aside, there's simply too much land that needs to be taken that cannot be left solely to infantry. It is trivial for the soviet to cut off advancing axis units unless there's interlocking ZOC.




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 5:29:08 PM)

The end result is an OOB like this in 42.

[image]local://upfiles/68404/79046A0626364502896BD7AA7D71DF39.png[/image]




AlbertN -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 6:56:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

The biggest advantages offered by the abandon the south strategy are:

1. First and foremost, you're preserving up to 500,000 troops and potentially thousands of AFVs. Of course you're not guaranteed to lose these units if you're defending the south, but you are putting them at risk given the terrain.
2. You are giving up land that for the most part you are absolutely going to lose anyway. The target turn for Kiev is 13. There is absolutely no way, assuming relative competence on the axis side, Kiev holds out until turn 13. Same with Odessa, same with Kharkov, same with Orel, same with Kursk. Dnepropetrovsk could possibly hold out if you have an active defence, but the axis can surround it easily - so it very likely falls earlier than historical too. Stalino and Rostov is where it gets dicier, given you're reaching axis 41 logistical extent. Crimea also often collapses in 41. So, why not just abandon things until Moscow and Leningrad are secured and leave a token defence at rivers?
3. The Axis are faced with a catch-22. If they advance cautiously in the south, they are just giving you more turns of manpower generation and production. If they advance wildly in the south, they risk armored counterattacks, their spearheads getting cut off, and their logistics taking a nosedive.
4. Defence in depth is extremely effective at blunting offensives to Moscow and Leningrad.
It's not like they can match the soviet withdrawal either, and move the majority of PZG1 to AGC or AGN. Logistical difficulties aside, there's simply too much land that needs to be taken that cannot be left solely to infantry. It is trivial for the soviet to cut off advancing axis units unless there's interlocking ZOC.


I quite agree there on the whole ordeal here.

A single, understaffed cavalry division can easily flip an amount of hex and cut a lot mobile units if they race forth.

If Axis regiments down there can be 30+ moving mobile Soviet forces coming from afar to crack a regiment down and scoot away fast thanks to the admin movement.

So pratically the advance in the south goes almost at infantry pacing anyhow or better, German mobile forces are there just to provide 'admin movement' to the infanteries the turn after but it's pretty much how it is.




EwaldvonKleist -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 10:16:11 PM)

quote:

my point is lets assume this is really game breaking and its as gamey as you can get - so we demand the 2 people who can actually code this game spend an age working out what the exploit really is, how to close it, without setting off hares all over the rest of the game?



If NR deployment causing rail cost is too much effort, stricter rules for transfer to/from the reserve would do the trick as well. Say 25 hexagons from an enemy controlled hexagon for transfer to/from national reserve. That wpuld male the national reserve less useful for tramsfer exploits.




EwaldvonKleist -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 10:21:20 PM)

The "run in the south, rail to the North strategy" has been useful since WitE1. Most of the strongest Soviet players used this strategy and there is strong theoretical support for it.




ImperatorAugustus -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 10:31:45 PM)

Or just make it to where you can only enter or leave the reserve from an NSS




HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/8/2022 10:48:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The "run in the south, rail to the North strategy" has been useful since WitE1. Most of the strongest Soviet players used this strategy and there is strong theoretical support for it.


Yes, have to say everything that was old is new again in WITE2 as EwaldvonKleist said. Love seeing it play out again though :-).




s2tanker -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 12:07:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The "run in the south, rail to the North strategy" has been useful since WitE1. Most of the strongest Soviet players used this strategy and there is strong theoretical support for it.


I'd be fine with "running in the south" - the thing is, he didn't run, he magicked everything into national reserve in the South. Running would have been alright - at least I could have maintained contact with some of his forces and caused losses.




AlbertN -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 12:16:33 AM)

I believe even if it is just running most of the stuff gets away due to administrative movement. Where 1 hex costs 1, vs 1 hex costs 3 (or 2 with road AND mighty morale) the Soviets just have way more mobility than Germans.

It can surely help to shrink the T1 SMP of Soviets so they can rail less around.
It can surely help to make Transfer to Reserve something checked at the start of the turn and not after moving away from the front.

But in the end of the day via admin movement a lot of things the Soviets have just weasel away. Maybe Panzers catch up with something but that's it.




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 2:06:12 AM)

Turn 33. We experience some nasty counterattacks during the axis turn, especially at Smolensk.

We continue to fail at taking the hexes east of Smolensk. We are pushing from the north, at least.

[image]local://upfiles/68404/602F4A70A39E478595C320D7200E10B9.jpg[/image]




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 2:06:54 AM)

Holds are very painful.

[image]local://upfiles/68404/8CCE40E3F43D4479B0FBC136A4BDBC15.jpg[/image]




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 2:07:40 AM)

Kursk is isolated. Likely will not hold.

[image]local://upfiles/68404/4AA78B3D317A414A8FA6E25FF41928C8.jpg[/image]




RedJohn -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 2:08:27 AM)

Our rifle divisions arrive. They begin manning rivers. May or may not move them up.

[image]local://upfiles/68404/2552524535534805BEEBE8552ABD431F.jpg[/image]




s2tanker -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 2:43:20 AM)

Bravo.




ToxicThug11 -> RE: The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar (2/9/2022 3:26:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The "run in the south, rail to the North strategy" has been useful since WitE1. Most of the strongest Soviet players used this strategy and there is strong theoretical support for it.


The main difference being of course that the Soviets had a cost to railing divisions in WITE1.
In WITE2, you can teleport divisions from the reserve and have them be 100% safe.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.155273