RE: First impressions here please (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 5:50:41 AM)

Jarhead,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarhead0331
Understood, but really...I think he started it with the "grow up" comment...I know it looks like he is a vet here and I'm new, but I don't take kindly to someone telling me not to express my opinion...besides...my post complaining about the lack of infantry was more of a joke...I didn't mean for it to offend anybody...


No hard feelings on anyone's part I hope, the reason you got the talking to was because of the language. Everyone just keep it clean and calm please. Regarding infantry - yes, we hear you! [;)]

Regards,

- Erik



Siljanus -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 6:56:57 AM)

In regards to future additions to the game, is it possible to have a list of kills made by each unit? You can probably decipher a bit of it in the post-battle diary but it would be interesting to see by a quick glance which platoon was the baddest of the bunch after the battle is finished.

Thanks!



Kelm -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 8:24:16 AM)

A last post, with this. Ok i have already done my opinion about the 'missing'dismounted infantry in the game, i will not restart another post with that, but it's true that when i bought the game, i have not thought that there would be this problem, and i think it was also a strange choice to focus only with mechanized and armored units in combat. But, despite this, the game is very pleasant to play, and after finishing the three first scenarios, i like the the diversity of the situations which they propose.

And just one last opinion, the only little other missing things, but it's maybe more a strutural problem, there is no real link between each scenarios. I have only played the three first scenarios, but after the first one, even if you have won with NATO your first encounter and loose only a few units, the second is considered that the britih armor was defeated in the first, and you must follow only the link that the designer have choosed for the game.
A great addition will be the fact to have a core unit like in steel panthers, or maybe more closest with a megacampaign and have a campaign with scenarios with multiple junctions.

I know that i'am new here, and my intentions are not to criticize free, but just to give my opinion.



Marc von Martial -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 9:01:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Just got a decisive victory as WP in Scenario 1 and i don't think the two sides are unbalanced, they just play differently. NATO has better equipment and on defense, and having stealth, they are quite formidable. With the WP they have more units which call for more "movement", i crushed the defending NATO forces with a classic pincer movement. One thing some of you might have overlooked, "the WP have no chance", is the bridging/amphibious movement capabilities your units have. As per the manual, engineers are not represented "per se", but their abilities are there and accounted for.
Played the right way either force can be deadly...damn good game[8D]


It shows you have read your doctrine book very well.

NATO rocks when on defense and using itīs stealht tactics well.

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics. In the 1970s and 1980s the WP moved over to a similiar tactic and doctrine (and adjusted it equipment accordingly), allready "developed" in 1937. However, Stalin choosed to get rid of the officers that developed this plans in his cleansing days, but thatīs a different story ...........

Be keen, donīt think about possible losses and strike hard. Thatīs how you must play WP forces. Most probably thatīs how WP Generals would have played too.



CoffeeMug -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 10:04:15 AM)

Heya guys,

yesterday I bought the game and revved up my tanks for two nice tutorial 1, me as NATO, of course. [;)]

I just had had one hour, so if I did not find all the switches and complain further down, please dont shoot me.

First impression is nice! Well done, gentlemen!
The interface gives a nice feeling, though I would like a more accessible hardware inspector. Fog of war comes along nicely. You hear some thread noises and then they come.
Reactions delay is cruel as always [8D] (I have to anticipate enemy reaction more).

Now WP tactics [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics.


Marc, you are perfectly spot on! What the Tutorial 1 lacks, with purpose I assume, is the tremendous superiority the WP forces had in artillery. I cannot remember the ratio precisely, but AFAIK it was higher than 1:5. So, a NATO victory is very probable when defending. In every training I took part in, the evasion of RED artillery fire was very important!

In the larger scenarios, if you are the WP player, PLAN and USE artillery fire missions to DESTROY, HARASS and BLIND the blue forces in their dug-in defending positions.

Cheers,

CoffeeMug



Jarhead0331 -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 1:54:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kelm

A last post, with this. Ok i have already done my opinion about the 'missing'dismounted infantry in the game, i will not restart another post with that, but it's true that when i bought the game, i have not thought that there would be this problem, and i think it was also a strange choice to focus only with mechanized and armored units in combat. But, despite this, the game is very pleasant to play, and after finishing the three first scenarios, i like the the diversity of the situations which they propose.

And just one last opinion, the only little other missing things, but it's maybe more a strutural problem, there is no real link between each scenarios. I have only played the three first scenarios, but after the first one, even if you have won with NATO your first encounter and loose only a few units, the second is considered that the britih armor was defeated in the first, and you must follow only the link that the designer have choosed for the game.
A great addition will be the fact to have a core unit like in steel panthers, or maybe more closest with a megacampaign and have a campaign with scenarios with multiple junctions.

I know that i'am new here, and my intentions are not to criticize free, but just to give my opinion.


Nobody here will be surprised when I say I know exactly what you mean...As far as linking the scenarios, maybe someday they can add a feature somewhat like the campaign feature in Tiller's Tour of Duty...You are assigned a unit and the men gain experience and stick with you across a series of loosely linked scenarios...Its really not a campaign, just "very loosely" linked scenarios...but the key feature is that the units stay with you and grow in terms of experience...this single feature makes the player grow attached to his units and adds a lot to immersion...



Tbird3 -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 4:25:53 PM)

Okay folks, my 2 cents worth on first impressions. I have played about 6 games now, both WP and NATO. All of the games have been against the AI. This is a truly elegant game system! I absolutely love the "feel" of the game. It is one of the few games that gives a pretty good sense of the "fog of war" at this level. I have been able to conduct several delays in a manner that closely mirrors my experience from actual operations. The reason I mention this is that most grand tactical games are way too sterile or bland to realistically portray the difficulty and risk involved in trying to delay, maintain contact, and NOT TO BECOME DECISIVELY ENGAGED. This game models these challenges very well! Great Job Rob and Matrix. The information flow is pretty close to what one actually experiences in a brigade or battalion tactical operations center (TOC). I am generally very impressed.

The mechanics of the manipulating information and units have been very easy and initutiative so far in my playing of the game. Lots of flexibility and very stable. The presentation of the game, ie. maps, units, sounds, etc. is clear and simple. That being said, I am the type of person that likes clarity over bells and whistles.

The game system seems to have true depth. There appears to have been a tremendous amount of both research and testing on the system. Upon review of Rob Crandalls' many posting on specifics of his programing I am very impressed. Most of all the "action" that happens during the game makes sense to me. The effects of losses on morale, the fog of war reference both friendly and enemy forces, all ring true. Overall the game seems to have a nice balance between micromanagement vs no control over the games parameters and actual game play.

On the negative side, my initial reactions are as follows: The AI appears to be relatively weak. This shouldn't come as any surprise to veteran computer wargamers. I have handily beat the AI in both offense, defense, and as both WP and NATO. However, the AI should provide enough challenge to get a player trained to go after live opponents. I truly believe this where the game will excel! The ability to either PBEM or play through the internet will make this a fun and challenging game to play.

The lack of separate dismounted infantry units is a negative. This has been addressed in other threads. All I can say here is that Rob and Matrix are aware of this issue and hope to address it.

The other negative that I have is the lack of engineer units with their unique capabilities on map. Rob has built into the "system" this support but I believe this is a weakness. The holy trinity in defensive operations are direct fire, indirect fire, and obstacles. The ability to synchronize these three features are the direct responsibility of both the battalion commander and the brigade commander. The challenge that the commander has reference this in the defense is that there is never enough engineers! The commander must weigh his priorities and work accordingly. I think the game tends to gloss over this challenge.

In the offense, mobility operations are crucial to the success of mission accomplishment. For example, breaching operations are ususally one of the major tasks to accomplish in order to seize the objective. The current game system does not take into account the engineer assest required to do this. SOSR (Suppress the far side, Obscure the obstacle, Secure the far side of the obstacle, and Reduce the obstacle) operations are key tenants that a battalion and brigade commander must plan and execute in the offense. Additionally, bridging and fording operations are major challenges for the battalion and brigade commander. Once again precious and usually scarce engineer units are the key to success. I hope that engineers will be further developed and incorporated in the future game system.

Okay, enough of the negatives. This is great game so far. I think I will be spending a lot of my future free time playing this game. Additionally, the very reasonable pricing of the game shouldn't frighten anyone from giving it a spin. I highly recommend it so far.

Lastly, my experience reference support of this game has been great. All of my questions and issues have been rapidily responded to on the forums. This has not been a paid political announcement! This is a great game system that I think with some tweaks could be an all time great.

Regards and see you on the battlefield!

Tbird3



hank -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 7:58:45 PM)

"I've been looking for this info in the threads but can't find it; and I don't want to get almost all the way through buying it before I realize I won't be able to download it all on my already crowded HD.

How large is the downloaded file?

and does it really require 400 meg of Hard Drive space as the FPG website indicates?

thanks " by Hank

"400 megs is very small compared to most games these days." by wodin

Crap.

OK ... my point did not sink in.

I would like to know what the downloaded file size is ... SO I CAN BUY IT!! ??

AND .... I wasn't complaining at all about the HD space requirements. 400 megs is fine, I just need to know if the final product actually requires the estimated 400 megs of hard drive space posted on the web site.

I may have to move other MATRIX games to another computer before I buy this one.



CoffeeMug -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 8:08:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank


I would like to know what the downloaded file size is ... SO I CAN BUY IT!! ??

I may have to move other MATRIX games to another computer before I buy this one.


To get to the point [;)], the file size of the download is 272 MB.

Cheers,

CM



BravoZulu -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 8:08:46 PM)

The store shows dowload sizes for the digital downloads. From the FPG purchase page:

File/Download Stats: v1.00 272 MB = 10h 29m @ 56k / 55m on 640kbps DSL, Satellite or Cable / 23m on 1.5mbps DSL or Cable

272MB looks like the tally.



hank -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 8:19:41 PM)

Thanks!!

I'm now off to delete stuff and get the gaming puter cleaned and ready.

hank



JudgeDredd -> RE: First impressions here please (1/27/2005 10:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank
AND .... I wasn't complaining at all about the HD space requirements. 400 megs is fine, I just need to know if the final product actually requires the estimated 400 megs of hard drive space posted on the web site.


The game is s few MB shy of 400 on my computer.



Nils -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 12:22:07 AM)

FPG is my first Matrixgame ever (and this is my first post in this forum, too...).

Being a big fan of the old school SimCan MBT games, I was eagerly awaiting the release of FPG. Bought it the very first day and, overall, I am impressed! The graphics are cool, the game play is challenging, and the cold war is one of my favourite wargaming subjects, making FPG a perfect computer game for me. A great new edition of a classic wargame!

Still, I was wondering why some of the features of the original MBT were dropped in the new edititon:
1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).
2. The order menu was simplified. Why did orders like advance, fall back and such get dropped? I always felt that they added a lot of tactical nuances to the game. Or are these choices modeled via stealth???
3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders in FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.

Lastly, is there a way to print out the scenario maps? Pre-planning your battle is a big part of FPG and a hardcopy might help in this task.

Cheers,
Nils



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 12:29:38 AM)

quote:

1. The original MBT had engineers that could lay bridges and especially minefields. They are gone now as individual units and I can't see how those are designed into other units (like dismounted infantry).


They're in the game but abstracted. Engineers will make a bridge whenever you order your units to cross a river. As for the minefields, you can lay ad-hoc minefields with your artillery (if you play as NATO [;)]), and there are some scenarios where you can place minefields at the start of the scenario just like you'd place any of your units.

quote:

3. It seems the logic of formation orders has changed. I haven't played FPG enough yet to really make a comparison, but judging from the documentation, group orders n FPG helps units arriving in same location at the same time, without any regard whatsoever to tactical disposition of the individual units. Moreover, after giving a group order, you are not able to modify the waypoints of the individual units of the groups. I think that makes the coordination of large forces a lot more complicated.


But you can modify waypoints and arrival times for individual units (and individual waypoints). Without it coordinated attacks would not be possible.

O.



JudgeDredd -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 12:31:47 AM)

The short answer is (and this isn't the official line...I'm answering as a programmer) most likely that the project outgrew itself in other departments.

This could be complexity of code, graphical demands, interface issues etc, etc.

These kind of prolems always show up for developers of projects...and they are a royal pain in the ass for the developer as well as the recipient of the software.

No-one, apart from Rob, really knows what goes on under the hood and, as such, we have no idea how long it took.

I know I've started many a project only to see it grow in features all the time...if it's commercial software, there has to be a point where you say "That's enough for this version. Now the brick work is laid, it's time to do some rendering".

I'm not sucking anyones butt, here. I just know how the programming world goes. Anyone else in the business will tell you exactly the same thing.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 1:20:57 AM)

Yes, you order your units across, what may appear to be a large body of water/river/stream etc., and they will take "x" amount of time to construct a bridge...the bigger the bridge the longer it takes. I think i works well enough and eliminates some of the minutia of wargaming[:)].
quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
I'm not sucking anyones butt, here.
Pssst, you got something on your lip...shhhhhh![X(][;)][:D]



JudgeDredd -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 1:27:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
Pssst, you got something on your lip...shhhhhh![X(][;)][:D]


Ooops! [:o]



z1812 -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 1:31:34 AM)

Hi All,

I have just bought FPG.

The digital download ( my first ) went very smoothly without problems.

Installation and backup to CD was effortless.

As first impressions I am mentioning this as others may wonder about it. Perhaps those uncomfortable with the idea of a digital download may be re-assured by the ease with which it is accomplished.

I will add that through reading the forums I am impressed with the quick responses and action taken to remedy any problems. Reading those posts convinced me to buy digitally.

After I try the tutorial I will post my impressions of it.

Regards John



Col.Bucky -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 3:23:33 AM)

Being an advid wargamer,I'm very impressed with Flashpoint Germany.I hope new map options or add-on wars such as Iraq can be added in the near future.To the developers.....GREAT JOB!!!!!!!



Poliorcetes -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 3:42:28 AM)

+aving played the first scenario (WP Tank rush) I'm a little worried about the AI. Playing the British I was able to crush the tank rush fairly easily. First turn I laid down a 12 square Minelet tripwire to locate where the attack was coming from, and then just let my dug in challengers demolish the 4 WP thrusts.
So I figured that's how the scenario was supposed to go.
Then I played as the WP. Turn 2 I've just gotten my forces into Assault mode and moving when suddenly the entire British force comes charging up the valley at me in Move mode. By the end of the turn their are 25 challengers gone and my forces are at their start point to "begin" their advance. I haven't finished turn 3 yet but this scenario is basically over as there are only a few NATO tank units left. This could have been a brutal town assault, with both a river crossing and wide plains for me to cross. I hope the AI doesn't just charge at the nearest victory point location in every scenario.

Anyone found a way to change SOP for groups of units rather than each individual one at a time?

Poliorcetes



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 6:25:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Since I only play against the AI I wonder how that is in attack and defense ?


Ey Cat!
Finally could get an additional half and hour of time with my FPG. Man, life if hectic if you have kids ...
I decided to make a custom scenario setted up a WP with a tank and a mounted infantry Btn (AI) vs NATO (a tank Co and a mounted infantry Co, all these under my command). Objective was a urbanized sector near NATO deployment area. I used the no-fog of war option for myself to see the AI moves.
The WP AI moved with their infantry in front, neatly spaced units to provide a screen, I guess. To my entire satisfaction, it used their infantry to enter into the urbanized area (objective sector) and then rolled up the tanks into the fight. It was very cool.
Then, (to my amusement) having all the objective sector controlled, the AI rolled into the adjacent sector (my deployment area) to basically clean it up. Good stuff! My NATO forces were not there anymore. It looked like the AI has some kind of knowledge system, which basically told it I should be there. Is this possible?
Main conclusion: AI is aggressive.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 7:05:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Just got a decisive victory as WP in Scenario 1 and i don't think the two sides are unbalanced, they just play differently. NATO has better equipment and on defense, and having stealth, they are quite formidable. With the WP they have more units which call for more "movement", i crushed the defending NATO forces with a classic pincer movement. One thing some of you might have overlooked, "the WP have no chance", is the bridging/amphibious movement capabilities your units have. As per the manual, engineers are not represented "per se", but their abilities are there and accounted for.
Played the right way either force can be deadly...damn good game[8D]


It shows you have read your doctrine book very well.

NATO rocks when on defense and using itīs stealht tactics well.

WP has the equipment for the so called "bold strike" tactic. In fact most of the WP euipment of this era is built just for this tactics. Rush in, break the lines, kill rear assets (command, arty and logistic) and let the 2nd and 3rd wave wave doing the mopping up. Think Blitzkrieg tactics. In the 1970s and 1980s the WP moved over to a similiar tactic and doctrine (and adjusted it equipment accordingly), allready "developed" in 1937. However, Stalin choosed to get rid of the officers that developed this plans in his cleansing days, but thatīs a different story ...........

Be keen, donīt think about possible losses and strike hard. Thatīs how you must play WP forces. Most probably thatīs how WP Generals would have played too.


Now that you guys talked about grand-tactics, help an ignorant grunt here. Ignorance is both from lack of previous reading on warfare in the Cold War and from very little time playing FPG.
In many scenarios I played, the NATO forces have a very lethal anti-tank weapon: TOW. It is a long range weapon. The WP forces have RPGs instead, which have a very low range.
This means that NATOs best game is to keep distance and NEVER allow mounted WP infantry to get close? It looks like close combat is almost undesirable for NATO forces (?).
Your feedback is appreciated.



Marc von Martial -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 7:13:39 PM)

Yes true, NATO weapons shine at long distances, same for the MBT cannons. The russians btw have also ATGMs, mounted on the BMPS, and on wheeled vehicles. Iīm not 100% sure if itīs implemented in FPG but the T-80 (at least some versions) of it also had ATGMs mounted. Once WP forces manage to get their mech inf close it will get dirty. The BMPs cannon can be quite lethal at close ranges.


With regards to reading, itīs almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". Itīs out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.



D_ploy -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 8:18:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

With regards to reading, itīs almost a "classic" companion to playing FPG, I can recommend "Team Yankee". Itīs out of print, but you can grab a copy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace / Z-Shops once in ahwile.


I also had a lot of luck with our local public library. Not only was I able to finally read "Team Yankee" but also its "big brother": Hacketts "Third World War" and also David Isbys "Armies of the NATO Central Front" (if I remember correctly). They all give some insight into this conflict.
I never thought a german public library would have those titles readily available but, as I found out in my case, I have to thank America for this since they donated the "Amerika Gedenkbibliothek" to the Berliners.

Cheers
Oliver



Marc von Martial -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 8:28:16 PM)

Oh, I read Hacketts book when I was 14 or so, in a german library, in german even [;)]. Hacketts book is great, I read it again during the development of FPG, it has a nice mix of action and "boring" politics.



Erik Rutins -> RE: First impressions here please (1/28/2005 8:40:28 PM)

Also read Ralph Peters' "Red Army" for an excellent and slightly different perspective (written from the WP point of view).

Regards,

- Erik



Fulcrum -> RE: First impressions here please (1/29/2005 2:26:10 AM)

A few quick questions:

1. What does the second number mean when you select "Historic Unit Tags" for the counter information? It doesn't seem to be spelled out in the manual. Such as 2-7, 3-7, 4-7. I've figured out the first number represents the number of runners left in the unit, but for the life of me I can't extrapolate what the second number represents.

2. Is there counterbattery fire for artillery? You can detect enemy HQ's by their radio traffic, but it doesn't seem to detect on-map artillery units that are firing.

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.

Other than that, great game guys.



sabre100 -> RE: First impressions here please (1/29/2005 2:54:54 AM)

quote:

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.


Yes I have noticed that as well, playing scen 1 as Nato. My HQ kept getting bombarded by WP Artillery. No matter where I moved WP seemed to know my exact HQ location even though there were no enemy units nearby to spot and radio in the location of my HQ unit as I took care of those pesky WP tanks coming in. My HQ Unit did get major bombardement however it did manage to survive and I won by a decisive victory for that scenario.

I just found it strange that they knew my location it seems at all times and were always dead on hitting that location with their shells.



Siljanus -> RE: First impressions here please (1/29/2005 3:04:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sabre100

quote:

3. Finally, is it me, or does it seem like the enemy locks onto your HQ? My HQ's position was blown and the enemy started raining down arty on it. But no matter where it moved, artillery fire shifted just as quickly.


Yes I have noticed that as well, playing scen 1 as Nato. My HQ kept getting bombarded by WP Artillery. No matter where I moved WP seemed to know my exact HQ location even though there were no enemy units nearby to spot and radio in the location of my HQ unit as I took care of those pesky WP tanks coming in. My HQ Unit did get major bombardement however it did manage to survive and I won by a decisive victory for that scenario.

I just found it strange that they knew my location it seems at all times and were always dead on hitting that location with their shells.


I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. But only for the first scn playing as the Brits. The first two US (non-tutorial) scenarios didn't seem to have as much shelling of my HQ's. Perhaps I moved them around more after my experience with the Brit scn. But I thought that I was moving my British HQ often enough. It was the Regimental HQ that got the tar beat out of it going from a "happy" HQ to battered remnants by the end. Even so, like Sabre100 I did pull out the win.

Probably the Russians had a spy inserted in the HQ, crafty bastards that they are...[;)]



pahom -> RE: First impressions here please (1/29/2005 4:17:35 AM)

They are picking up your HQ from the radio traffic. Reduce the amount of reports being sent and they will not be able to track you. If your message traffic levels are in the yellow, you have nowhere to hide.

Hope this helps,

Pahom



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75