(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Paul Vebber -> (6/30/2000 2:37:00 AM)

POint costs, like armor ratings, are subjective and can be an infinite time sump of argument:-) The key points for now to remember: The system is new to everybody (even we who designed it) so the 'value" of given units will shake out considerably over time. THe current values were "guestimates" of value that will indeed change as everyone gains familiarity with the system. Point cost will NOT reflect rarity. It is meant to be a "value" within the game. Are some of them "wrong" that depends! ALL the tanks could be "wrong", if the basic relationship to infantry is skewed! The maturation of point values will take a long time, and these discussion will help. I personally don't think "head to head" will tell you much. Its to situationally dependant. 20 IS-3s in some situations may well be a match for 20 King Tigers. Entrench them on hiltops and force the KT's to advance over open ground and I think they will prove quite sufficient. There is no way divorce the tactical situation. Who would take 20 King tigers against half the points of engineers in a city? Do points need ajustment? YES...but there is no "scientific" way to judge what it should be, there are too many uncontrolled variables. AS it becomes clear from play that certain unit clases need to be adjusted relative to other unit clases, they will be. Similarly individual units costs will be sid around as familiarity with the game suggests. The "OOB group" will be the place where changes like that will ultimately be made, and inputs in the forum here will be considerd in teh process. But it will take a while and a lot of 'bracketeing and halving' to get to improvement.



Mike Wood -> (6/30/2000 2:38:00 AM)

Hello...
quote:

Originally posted by Omar.N.Bradley: ...i have also seen some more stuff that is way of the mark. Like M10 Wolverine coming September 1942 when it should come March 1943.
There have been some questions about the Wolverine and also about the entry date of Bazookas. A battery of 10 M-10 Wolverines and a company 17 of M-3 Stuarts fought a battalion of French 52 H-39 tanks on November 9th of 1942, according to "The US Army in World War II", the official US Army history, during Operation Torch in Morocco. The source also said that troops of the 1st Infantry Division also used Bazookas during Operation Torch. Bye... Michael Wood



Greybear -> (6/30/2000 3:05:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber: [B]POint costs, like armor ratings, are subjective and can be an infinite time sump of argument:-) Paul, Possibly changeing the subject, but has any one used a fort type unit to simulate a field telephone. This would be used in defend type only setups and allow high contact rates with offboard art. Thanks, Glenn



Tombstone -> (6/30/2000 4:01:00 AM)

I like the idea of being able to 'buy' better contact with your artillery or units in general. I think HQ tents should provide that to some degree.. but proximity to a 'field telephone' unit sounds good too. Tomo



Fabio Prado -> (6/30/2000 5:59:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Isn't this figure actually correct? 100mm for the real turret front plus another 100mm for the gun mantle, which happens to be just about the same size than turret front.
YES! This value is absolutely correct! Turret Front: Like the Panther, the gun mantlet of the Tiger covered most of the turret front. Unlike the Panther, however, it was near-vertical. The thickness of the mantlet was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had a heavy plate of turret armor in back of the mantlet (100 mm thick), making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. The revised values for the Tiger II also are also very reasonable, and appear to adequately represent the KT's armor. As far as Tigers are concerned, the new OOB introduced with version 2.0 is vastly superior to the version 1.0 OOB. It's not perfect, but perfect modeling of armor is very difficult to achieve, IMHO. For more info about the Tigers, see also: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm#tiger2 http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm You guys at Matrix are doing a GREAT job on every aspect of this game. You have my deepest respect for your work. Fabio Prado



Fabio Prado -> (6/30/2000 6:10:00 AM)

Paul, I have a great respect for your work on the SPWAW databases. As a vicious member of the infamous TLS*, I was most satisfied when I saw the changer done in version 2.0/2.1. Now SPWAW is the wargame that most accurately represent the Tiger, ever. The Tiger's armor (especially the Tiger I) has been historically underestimated by almost all computer tactical wargames. Please include me in your OOB update mailing list, and let me konw if I can be of any help. Keep up the good work! FAP *Oh! TLS stands for "Tiger Lovers Society" [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]



victorhauser -> (6/30/2000 8:09:00 AM)

Way back in Wargame Design 101 I learned that some means of "rating" or "quantifying" units is fundamental to wargame design. SPWAW and many other wargames use a "point-cost" method of doing so. This is a time-proven and effective way of giving players a rough estimate of a unit's value. If one unit has a cost of 100 and another has a cost of 50, then that is an indicator of those units' relative worth. However, SPWAW also ties those costs directly to victory points (another time-proven methodology). So if a Tiger I costs 117 points and a T-34/85 costs 120 points, then what does that mean? It means that 20 Tiger Is are cheaper to buy (in a campaign or head-to-head) than 20 T-34/85s. And that is an indication of relative worth--that is, on average, 20 T-34/85s are considered more valuable than 20 Tiger Is. And this is not a "theoretical" value--it is a real value since every T-34/85 lost counts against that player's victory total. So when I ask the question, "Does anybody want to take their 20 T-34/85s (2400 points) against my 20 Tiger Is (2340 points)?", it is not a rhetorical question or a "thought experiment". It is a very real question put to gamers (i.e., how many players would choose to buy 20 T-34/85s for 2400 points when they could buy 20 Tiger Is for 2340 points)? I'm not saying that SP3 had it right or that SPWAW has it wrong, but when one game values a T-34/85 at 30 points and a Tiger I at 75 points (which is what SP3 does) and another game values a T-34/85 at 120 points and a Tiger I at 117 points (which is what SPWAW does), then clearly this is a big difference. I appreciate Paul's (and Matrix's) position. I've been rating units for wargames (both published and unpublished) for years and I agree that it is more art than science. And that a LOT of subjective reasoning and trial-and-error are involved. My only goal here is to bring what I see as OOB issues to the attention of the Matrix Staff in this OOB topic. I don't have any big axes to grind and no major complaints. Indeed, as somebody pointed out to me weeks ago, that if I don't like something I can just go into my own OOB editor and alter values and costs to my heart's content. SPWAW is the best wargame I've ever played. Period. And that's why I mention these issues rather than just keep my mouth shut and fiddle with my OOB in private. I don't post without thinking. I spend time thinking about how relevant or important an issue is before taking up Matrix Forum bandwidth. I chose Tigers and T-34s and ISs because these are important AFVs to the people who play this game. And I believe it's important to provide feedback regarding these "benchmark" AFVs to the Matrix Staff. (I have a bad headache right now, so if the tone of this post sounds too shrill or strident, please forgive me. I'm not upset or angry, just in pain.)



Drake666 -> (6/30/2000 8:49:00 AM)

The T-43 and the T34 M43 are listed with the same price but the T-43 has a lot more armour and it was a flop. It would like to see its price uped by a lot.



Skandranon -> (6/30/2000 10:05:00 AM)

Before I have time to really go bug hunting in the OOB's again, here's one I just noticed... some (at least in the scenario I was just playing 'A Tragic Stand' - absolutely fantastic playing the desperate role of the Americans) crews spawn without even a pistol to defend themselves with... now if that isn't bad by itself, by having no weapon to fire, they also can't drop smoke to cover themselves! I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug... or just that the crews wet themselves so badly getting out of the tank they forgot to grab the grenades. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Franko -> (6/30/2000 10:05:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by talon: Good work on the new Version . One Question on the number of Poles in one group . Are 19 men correct ? This would mean a platoon had 76 men . And I noticed that the German Spec Ops still has the LMG 42 in 1938 . I still say this is wrong because parts of this MG were copies from things captured in poland the year after ! The polish 75mm AA gun still needs to be changed . Range by far to high for direct fire and cost to low if considered the poles only had 156 of these .
The data I have from books by Ian Hogg, Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander show a maximum range (against ground targets) of 16,202 yards for the 88 L/56 and virtually identical range for the Soviet 76.2mm L/55 AA gun. The U.S. 3" M3, only used in action in the first months of the war, could top 15,400 yards. This shouldn't be surprising, as the Soviet 76.2mm Model 36 field gun with a somewhat shorter barrel could top 15,000 yards. The Polish 75mm wz.36 L/50 should have been at least as good. The obsolescent British 3" 20 cwt L/46 AA gun could reach 12,200 yards. The real trouble with the 75mm wz. 36 is that of 406 guns on order, only 44 were delivered before the war! The remainder of the 154 Polish 75mm AA guns were variations of the French 75 modele 1897 - 12 of them the 75mm wz. 14 self-propelled AA gun mounted on the Polski-Fiat 621L truck. Zaloga gives this a maximum range of 6500 meters. Maximum ceiling was 21,300' for the L/33 gun. Against high-altitude bombers (not really a factor in Steel Panthers) I have a maximum ceiling of 32,482' and effective ceiling of 26,248' for the 88 L/56; 31,200/28,000' for the U.S. 3" M3; 30,500'/26,000' for the Soviet 76.2mm L/55; 25,200'/23,500'(?) for the UK 3" 20cwt L/46; and 31,170' max. ceiling for the Polish 75mm wz. 36. The Luftwaffe figured 1100 yards effective AA horizontal range for the 20mm, 1600 yards for 37mm, and 10,000 yards for 88mm FlaK 18/36/37. ("Luftwaffe Data Book", Dr. Alfred Price). This would be for aircraft at about 26,000' in the case of the 88. Sights for direct fire were only marked to 4000 meters at the most for the 88mm L/56, and normal anti-tank range 2500 meters. Other data from Janes & Macdonalds WW2 Fact Files on "Anti-Aircraft Guns", Peter Chamberlain & Terry Gander 1975; Ian Hogg's "History of Anti-aircraft Guns", "German Artillery of World War II" & "British & American Artillery of WWII"; and Steven Zaloga's "The Polish Campaign 1939".



Alastair Anderson -> (6/30/2000 3:59:00 PM)

Folks, Just to add a little to the T34/Tiger debate and relative costs I think it is very important to include the speed of these units when looking at their relative abilities. I have always found that the principal asset of the T34 is its speed around the battlefield. It can keep up with HTs when attacking at speed [unlike much of the lendlease soviet equipment] and in a long battle with an ebb and flow about it the T34 is an excellent machine. Head to head I would never take on 20 tigers with 20 T34/85s, but I would try to outmanouevre them and destroy them using different tactics. Paul is right - it is very difficult to get an exact comparison and I do not think that an examination of armour and gun tells the whole story. From another perspective though the radio situation has also been left out here. I have only had time to play 2 pbem v1 games, but in both I was the Russians and found that well over 90% of my T34s did not have radios. This is a REAL problem when trying tactical alterations although I like the fact that the lendlease tanks almost all have radios. Very realistic. If you play with c+c ON [and in my opinion this is the only way to go [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ] then this is a big factor. To summarise then the T34 has excellent speed and should indeed pay for it. Contact via radio is extremely problematic though and for this reason they are not quite what they might be unless you keep them in a very tight formation. I guess what I am trying to say is that a comparison must take into account so many factors that we must be careful not to make it sound like a simple "my 20 could take your 20 head on and therefore are better tanks and should be more expensive." In very hilly terrain I would take the T34s any day - in a flat desert the tigers. Buy what you need for the tactics you are going to employ. Complicated this, but a good discussion. Anyone else got a view? Cheers Al



Charles22 -> (6/30/2000 8:24:00 PM)

I agree with the last poster that speed is part of a machine's expense (better engine and/or suspension), which certainly "might" make for a more staunch AI opponent than the Tiger, because the T34 could engulf you much quicker in the familiar "banzai" charge we get so often. Due to the discussion with Victor, I looked into a few things and was quite shocked. Some of our memories of previous games remain and we think it to be the same here. I think we've seen enough data that reflects what we knew from before, that we think it's that way across the board and it isn't, or maybe it's just me. I looked over the IS2 and T34/85 and was quite shocked. I remember the T34/85 as being inferior to the Tiger, but something of the same class (same relative gun size anyway), however, I wasn't prepared for the only "45" front hull armor. I was also quite shocked at how inadequate the IS2 armor was, though not as bad, but for it's class I'm not as shocked as for the T34/85 hull armor, but a bit shocked nonetheless. 45? I mean the first T34 had that. I don't recall previous SP type games I've had, having such pathetic armor for it. On the other hand, I thought about what previous games were using. Well, I don't know the stability of a 45mm armor, combined with that 60 degree slope, but old systems never used the slope, at least outwardly. Perhaps old systems accomodated covertly for the slope and instead of listing "actual" armor, instead listed "effective" armor. But then again I'm quite confused because a lot of the old game systems seemed to actually state "actual" armor in very many instances. I'm also quite shocked that the IS2 122mm either has a range of 40 or 50. Really? I know a shorter range greatly affects accuracy, but this gets me back to another subject I've seen recently, and that is, the "neutral zone" issue. As you can imagine, people who campaign with Gerry, like myself, would like to actually employ their equipment as it often was used for (long-range firing of the KT's, 88 flaks, etc.), but with so little horizontal area, particularly because there aren't very many open territories, a Gerry player will often have to fight in the same manner as everyone else.



Paul Vebber -> (6/30/2000 9:56:00 PM)

Several sources including Glanz's books and teh excellent "Russian Military Zone" confirm that only the trurret was changed on the T-34/85. The hull was the same old hull. 45 at 60 which depending on the T/D ratio can be anywhere from about 75-135 equivalent mm. Plus the 60 degree slope is very prone to ricochet smaller caliber rounds. "Old games" (miniature rules) typically used "geometric" rather than effective thickness of the armor, so what system they used to equate a base armor at a slope to some number for penetation comparison was usually pretty simple. The IS-2 122mm gun range of 40-48 (2000-2400m)was certainly within its effectiveness limits. The range finder values may be 1 too high (I have to check as I may have added one to the range finder values and an additional one is added in the code making all the range finder values 1 too high...) The reason I kept the initial IS-2 as having the earlier gun was a significant problem with the initial batches of projectiles not being particulaly effective. It was a D-25 but the performance was closer to the M30. The Front Turret of the IS-3 represents the Mantle, which does have a bit of a shot trap on the underside, which why I didn't rate it quite the full slope benefit it might have. I did the same with the Panther. AS to the start lines, there is nothing that says you have to start on teh start line! I usually set up my heavy overwatcing tanks a good way behind the start line on hills where they can get good long range coverage.



Nikademus -> (6/30/2000 10:34:00 PM)

point values for equipment purchase (in earlier SP versions at least) seemed to favor economic factors more so than capability factors, which although not totally accurate in all situations, seems a better solution given that a unit's "effectiveness" is going to be influenced by so many other external factors (crew quality...terain, time, deployment etc) SP-1 seemed to work good with it as one could easily buy far larger quantities of heavily available and cheaply built T-34 or Sherman M4 vs the much rarer (and very expensive economically) Panther. Given one can directly influence how many points one has to purchase units i honestly dont see what all the hoopla is about. Players who are interested in fighting a 'historical' type battle can easily set such conditions before the game is started. Against the computer...far trickier. Dont see how the Matrix gang is going to be able to address it (or even if they should try!) If one sets artifical contraints on the AI purchase routine, while allowing the player to purchase to suit his/her personal tastes then the challange factor will be even more skewed than a normal when fighting an AI. an option i would like to see though that could help address this for campaigns would be to allow the human player to choose the AI's forces for him. (but allow the AI to deploy it). it would take away some for the surprise element but at least would eliminate ahistorical situations like hundreds of French S-35's attacking, or in my case waves of Greek L5 tanks (how many did the whole Greek army have??) on the Tiger front turret issue; quandry. Definately have seen some situations where its appropriate to add mantle armor to turret armor (some Pz-III models come to mind) But i dont think this is appropriate for the Tiger I. I've seen photos of Tigers with the gun/mantlet removed and for much of the area normally occupied here the front turret is cut away. So having 200mm armor for the *whole* area covered in the game by 'front' facing seems ahistorical. I also believe the IS-3 might be a tad bit underarmored (which scares me given how tough the beast is already) Have several sources which claim the frontal turret area was as thick as 210-250mm! (Russian Military Zone...a very credible sight says 250mm)



Nikademus -> (6/30/2000 10:36:00 PM)

point values for equipment purchase (in earlier SP versions at least) seemed to favor economic factors more so than capability factors, which although not totally accurate in all situations, seems a better solution given that a unit's "effectiveness" is going to be influenced by so many other external factors (crew quality...terain, time, deployment etc) SP-1 seemed to work good with it as one could easily buy far larger quantities of heavily available and cheaply built T-34 or Sherman M4 vs the much rarer (and very expensive economically) Panther. Given one can directly influence how many points one has to purchase units i honestly dont see what all the hoopla is about. Players who are interested in fighting a 'historical' type battle can easily set such conditions before the game is started. Against the computer...far trickier. Dont see how the Matrix gang is going to be able to address it (or even if they should try!) If one sets artifical contraints on the AI purchase routine, while allowing the player to purchase to suit his/her personal tastes then the challange factor will be even more skewed than a normal when fighting an AI. an option i would like to see though that could help address this for campaigns would be to allow the human player to choose the AI's forces for him. (but allow the AI to deploy it). it would take away some for the surprise element but at least would eliminate ahistorical situations like hundreds of French S-35's attacking, or in my case waves of Greek L5 tanks (how many did the whole Greek army have??) on the Tiger front turret issue; quandry. Definately have seen some situations where its appropriate to add mantle armor to turret armor (some Pz-III models come to mind) But i dont think this is appropriate for the Tiger I. I've seen photos of Tigers with the gun/mantlet removed and for much of the area normally occupied here the front turret is cut away. So having 200mm armor for the *whole* area covered in the game by 'front' facing seems ahistorical. I also believe the IS-3 might be a tad bit underarmored (which scares me given how tough the beast is already) Have several sources which claim the frontal turret area was as thick as 210-250mm! (Russian Military Zone...a very credible sight says 250mm)



victorhauser -> (6/30/2000 11:14:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: ... Due to the discussion with Victor, I looked into a few things and was quite shocked... I looked over the IS2 and T34/85 and was quite shocked. I remember the T34/85 as being inferior to the Tiger, but something of the same class (same relative gun size anyway), however, I wasn't prepared for the only "45" front hull armor. I was also quite shocked at how inadequate the IS2 armor was, though not as bad, but for it's class I'm not as shocked as for the T34/85 hull armor, but a bit shocked nonetheless. 45? I mean the first T34 had that. I don't recall previous SP type games I've had, having such pathetic armor for it...
Does this mean that you now believe as I do, that the T-34/85 and IS series are overpriced compared to the Tigers, Charles?



Charles22 -> (7/1/2000 2:14:00 AM)

Victor: No, but the ratings for the T34/85 armor value may need looking into. If they're accurate, no wonder the T34 was so mass-produced, because it may have not used that much material. So it would seem that when comparing Germany and the USSR, that either you punish Germany's superior quality or the USSR's superior numbers. While with the scope of this game, we can run into any given force the other side can muster up. It's not like you had a formation of King Tigers, and they saw the same number of IS2's and said to themselves, "Oh no, we better withdraw 80% of the KT's, for we have to reflect the strategic situation in all of our skirmishes". Part of the entire East Front startegy for Gerry, involved, I'm talking later in the war, where they would use mobile attacks on Soviet attacks which had become too thin, instead of fighting to the last man as people tend to think. Actually given the usual superiority of long-range German guns, compared to shorter ranges combined with the quicker speed of the Soviets, the way the maps are made out, takes quite a lot of wind out of the German sails, as they are often forced to fight at ranges of 20-30 anyway, as far as I've seen. The Germans may had in any conflict made the odds even, or in their favor, in numbers, as I explained mobile warfare, in many instances, but lack of any sizeable open terrain certainly takes away a lot of their advantage. In essence, if a Tiger with 80mm armor, even at the relative beginning of the battle must expose it's sides to short-range battles, then the performance advantages you're set upon curbing, is negated anyway. The Soviets certainly weren't slackers as far as side armor was concerned. So the lack of range useage takes away a lot of German advantage, so we can quibble about cost, but nothing short of more range can give the less-produced, but more qualitive German unit it's full worth (if Germany was restricted to fighting in limited areas, wouldn't they have produced more SGIIIG's than they did?). What's the point of having the ability of knocking out a Sherman at 2000 yards, if you never had terrain that allowed it? Given the limited scope of the horizontal map, the ability of the game to one day make higher heights, particularly if located in rear areas, would go a long way towards alleviating the lack of ranged shot (or if there were more level 5 and under terrain in the mid areas, with more level 20 on the extremes). I've read lots of books about the frustration of German opponents, particularly America, with trying to dent the Tiger for example, and it setting itself up rather well for commanding an entire area (in Western Europe), in advance, just as I described, but we cannot do that here. Anyway, that aside, is there ever such a thing here as visibility over 40? I've played some clear September games and have yet to see it (in WWII campaign), regardless of whether the terrain allows long-range shooting. I certainly don't think all battles in Europe must involve long-range visibility/terrain, but none?



Paul Vebber -> (7/1/2000 3:26:00 AM)

Russian Military Zone does cite "up to 250mm" for the turret, but its own schematic lower on teh page shows that is only at the extreme bottom, and generally on the sides. The front is listed as 110, and sloped rather heavily on the top, but creating a shot trap on the bottom. Also Cast armor tends not to be as unifromly resiliant as RHA, so I dicounted it a bit becasue of that. The Tiger front is problemic as well. It has no shot trap and there is a rather large void in teh front turret but the gun fills a lot of that. Given the ability of front turret hits to take out the gun, that eventuality seems to take out the case where you hit the spot where the mantle is you only protection. At those spots close to the gun where there is no front trurret, the mantle is considerably thicker. It also tended to be face hardened, making it possibly tougher than even the 200mm suggests. There is give and take in the results. The goal is to be "better" than before, not necesarily aboslutely accurate. Without much more detail in the basic model, there is only so much that can be done. We will keep trying to improve it and if that means tweaking it back down abit, then we may, but for now, let's see how things go with teh 200mm front turret, and see how many F-kills are observed.



G Van Horne -> (7/1/2000 1:02:00 PM)

Paul... About the Canadian OoB.. I just wanted to mention that the Airborne troopies are a little late. The 1st Canadian Parachute Battion was formed in July 1st 1942, trained at Fort Benning then moved to Shilo, Man. They joined the 6th British Airborne Div in Jul 43. They jumped with the 6th on D day.(w/other battle honours) The other unit, 1st Special Service Force, was formed on 10 Jul 42 as a joint United States-Canadian formation for special ops in Europe. (1700 US-700 Can) It was later known as the "Devil's Brigade". You probably knew all that anyway, I just wanted to mention the dates. Also the Staghound started recieving their 75mm guns in April 45. (12th Manitoba Dragoons war diary). As a note.. the unit tested the firing of typhoon rockets from the Staghound. Sometimes the rocket came really, really close to the target. Needless to say , it was turned down. As was the Dec 2nd demo of the Staghound AA. It had 4 x 20mm AA guns on an open turret. Tivia.. "THANK YOU" ...to everyone involved in making this excellent game.



Nikademus -> (7/1/2000 9:06:00 PM)

Paul: would then having 200mm for the front turret (of the Tiger I) greatly preclude the possibility of the gun taking at least a damaging hit? (and on a side note; i've noticed that even very damaging turret penetrations do not seem to be knocking out weapons, even when the msg says it does. Although one tank that gave the msg coaxil MG destroyed did not appear to fire it again. (but right clicking on it showed that the weapon was still there) No question that one on one, unless in close terrain, a Tiger I is a more than a match for a single T-34/85 but having the 200mm front turret armor would seem to make the (at this point) aging Tiger I's boxy armor sceme seem more battleworthy than history would dictate. The 85mm weapon was much more effective than the old 76.2 of earlier Soviet tanks but given Victor's test results the current ratings would seem to make the T34/85 as helpless against a Tiger as earlier models



talon -> (7/6/2000 8:16:00 PM)

I still think the yugoslavien lmg in infantry squads the zb30j is still represented as a heavy mg but it is not



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.703125