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: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 Page: <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:46:24 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Have seen the same thing a couple of times already. Despite more than 500 Hellcats on Cap and pre warning times of more than an hour, when the enemy then shows up you start with a couple of dozen fighters, never really getting beyond 150. Recently, when I whiped the floor with KB I had roughly 1200 fighters (Hellcats and British Corsairs), the enemy not even brought halve of them to the fight and the enemy shot down as many of my fighters as we did with a 3:1 or higher numerical superiority during the engagements. Then on the other hand, CVE TFs with some 150 fighters took out strike after strike. It can go both ways and sometimes it´s rather weird, no matter what you say as there´s just so much randomness in an engagement of hundreds of Hellcats meeting a strike with ample pre warning time but the fighters then do nothing. That seems weirder than what could happen in real life IMO.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/5/2011 10:50:49 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1381
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:49:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Zekes have been easy meat so far so KB didnt really have me worried against a straight concentrated USN Carrier fleet with Hellcats and Corsairs I expected to crucify Japanese strikes

Part of the issue is I hate detail stuff like pilot training bores me to tears never mind everything else - need to work out next steps after the next turn I expect to get gutted tomorrow as well

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1382
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:52:11 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
ps I blame the AI for my poor play - to much time spent on that not enough practicing

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1383
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:52:40 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
pilot training wouldn´t have helped you here, I´m only fielding fully trained pilots but that doesn´t mean you actually see your fighters go after the enemy, it only means those that attack do better.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1384
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:53:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
oh dont get me wrong all pilots in all sqns were 70+ exp/70+A2A and 70+ Air defence I aint totally stupid I may hate it but I made myself do it

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1385
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 10:55:06 PM   
ADB123

 

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline
Andy -

I have some questions about how your CAP and CV TFs were set up:

1 - What altitude was you CAP at? Did you go for maximum altitude or some different altitude?

2 - Were any Fighter groups on CAP at different altitudes?

3 - What percentage CAP did you have set? Did it vary from ship to ship?

4 - Were all of your CV TFs in the same hex or different/adjacent hexes?

5 - Did your Search planes find the KB? If so, when?

6 - Did your CV TFs attempt to move into range of the KB?

7 - How many carriers did you have per TF, and how big were your CV TFs?

Thx -

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1386
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 11:01:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

Andy -

I have some questions about how your CAP and CV TFs were set up:

1 - What altitude was you CAP at? Did you go for maximum altitude or some different altitude?

12 - 16k - Martlets at 12k hellcats 14k or 16k

2 - Were any Fighter groups on CAP at different altitudes?

Yes

3 - What percentage CAP did you have set? Did it vary from ship to ship?

50% acrosas the board

4 - Were all of your CV TFs in the same hex or different/adjacent hexes?

Same Hex

5 - Did your Search planes find the KB? If so, when?

No not in the turn some from Warangai did find them

6 - Did your CV TFs attempt to move into range of the KB?

No

7 - How many carriers did you have per TF, and how big were your CV TFs?

3 TF's were 2 x USN CV's and 1 x USN CVL
others were in one TF (3x RN, 1 x USN and 1 x CVL)
All CVE's in 1 TF each TF 17 - 18 ships

Thx -


(in reply to ADB123)
Post #: 1387
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 11:12:37 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Is there a particular reason for the 8 v 7 hex thing? Seeing it used systematically does kinda strain credibility a bit (purely from an 'audience' perspective)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1388
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 11:18:23 PM   
ADB123

 

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline
Andy -

Thanks for the answers. They're useful, and they lead to a few more questions:

1 - Did you have any of your Avengers set to some percentage "search"? If so, how many squadrons?

2 - How many hexes did you more your CV TFs between the previous turn and this turn? Were your CV TFs continuing along the same route as in the previous turn?

3 - Were your CV TFs spotted at night by any Japanese subs or surface TFs?

4 - Was the KB spotted at night by any Allied subs.

Once again, thanks for your answers. I'm trying to learn from all of this.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1389
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/5/2011 11:21:32 PM   
ADB123

 

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

All CVE's in 1 TF each TF 17 - 18 ships


Oops - I should have asked this before - what do you mean by this? Did you have all of your CVEs in 1 big TF, or each CVE in an individual TF with 17 or 18 ships total in each CVE TF?

Thanks again -

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1390
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 12:31:17 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hi Andy,

I sympathise. I personally think it's a total BS combat result. PzB did well but then it's down to the engine. I'd be fuming if I was you. Not sure what to advise. I think you're right though W had had it. Get out remnants of what you can and wait 9 months! Sheesh. Bummer to say the least....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to ADB123)
Post #: 1391
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 3:22:34 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Cannot even post combat replay basically KB nailed me with another 8 hex attack


What was the reaction setting on your CV TFs?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1392
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 4:00:27 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
0

Just watched next turn - carnage does not even describe it Hellcats just dont seem able to get the job done at least they tried today but it wasnt enough.

Have lost lots of good ships and am going to lose a lot more.

Not going to say much if you want to read what happened go read PZB's side I am sure he has posted it.

I shouldnt have done the last turn while still raw from the fiasco of the previous turn.

My fleet is now in tatters

No idea what to do next.

I attack in the line islands - fail
I attack in SEA - fail

Not a good report card

I never quit so we go on but with little hope at present as this was a total fiasco

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 1393
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 11:12:22 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Just finished the turn losses were excrucuating 2 CV's dead and 3 CVE's more crippled and more to follow today.

Lastgame v PZB I got all the luck looks like the tables have turned

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1394
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 12:24:09 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
Finally managed to recall my forum login \o/

But it was painful to read the last few turns Andy. It seems like you've had terrible luck against both me and PzB in the AE PBEM's. Hopefully it'll get better in the future.


_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1395
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 1:02:49 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
It's a shocking combat result. IMO the worst I've seen. Would feel very pissed

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to String)
Post #: 1396
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 1:24:58 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Cannot even post combat replay basically KB nailed me with another 8 hex attack that killed mutliple carriers in my fleet and totally screwed me despite over 400 aircraft on CAP the jap bombers waltzed through my CAP.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Despite my aircraft ranging to 10 - Hellcats, Avengers and SBD's are restricted to max 7 hex range
japan gets to hits to 8 anyone who says this game is an AFB's wet dream has never played it.


You didn't upgrade with the data patch that limits D4Y range to 6/7, did you?
That strike from 8 hexes away, not even saying about 500-kilo bombs would be impossible if you did.



_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1397
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 1:37:44 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I thought we did t be honest.

Even when I was in range and got literally hundreds of strike aircraft through the KB CAP they didnt hit a damned thing compared to PZB guided missiles.

I dont abandon games so I will keep going but the last two turns are totally 100% nuts.

I feel really screwed

Strategically I had made the mistake of hitting Warangai and not following through and I knew that mistake would cost me but I was 2 turns away from fixing that with 5 Divs at sea to land at Koeplang and 2 at Roti which would have transformed position

My frustrations of the last few turns

1. Helen II's on ASW killing every sub I put to sea
2. 24/7 round the clock bombardment TF's 5 days in a row that nuke my base
3. Allied SCTF's that achieve nothing despite being better ships witht he best leaders I have
4. Useless PT Boats
5. 8 Hex v 7 Hex strike range that a Japanese player can try to manipulate to force a decisisve result.
6. Allied CAP that achieves ZERO
7. Allied Strikes that achieve nothing

This whole campaign has left a seriously bad taste in my mouth - a lot of the above I cannot mention to John because it would appear as sour grapes when he has played magnificiently but I have no idea why my ships have and air groups have performed so miserably.


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 1398
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 1:50:32 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
FWIW I agree on the CV battle stuff. Crazy results and your attack doing diddly squat. You've made strategy errors but this tactical part and what does or doesn't hit or does or doesn't intercept you have little say in....even I'm annoyed for you!

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1399
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 2:08:47 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
p.s. if you want a list of my strategic mistakes to go with my gripes above well here it is.

1. To much distance between TF W and TF K and E this was a real killer I should have taken the extra week and went in intact only sprinting with the fast TF when spotted that was the plan and would have left me all TF's hitting at the same point probably a week later
2. Kicked off my diversion to early one of the reasons I rushed 1. was that I though the TF's loading at PH story was starting to get old and PZB would smell a rat.
3. Allowing PZB to get inside my deciison loop when I reinforced Warangai rather than invding Roti witht he 2nd wave
4. Trying to invade omn the run (albeit with 100% prepped troops) I should have taken a few weeks to get North Australia sorted out before I attacked i now have 1000 auircraft how much easier would it have been to close the big AF's When PZB wasnt ready
5. Delay in Indian Ocean attacks - I am ready to hit objectives inIndian Ocean and Sumatra but am waiitng on a few ships

Basically overall I got buck fever and rushed the offensive without needing to and everything flows from that.

If I had hit Warangai in force then two days later captured Endeh and Roti.

7 days after that hit Koepang and Andaman Islands PZB would have probably had to back off.

Instead utimately it was faulty strategic execution thats got me where i am today

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 1400
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 2:10:48 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
Andy,

I think you could have done thing better, especially in the initial landings.
I also think the CV battle outcome was very unexpected and you were the victim of a series of very bad die rolls.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1401
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 2:38:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
.... and you were the victim of a series of very bad die rolls.



+1

I think you had about 80% of this working out for you as you played it ... 60% would have been an even swap of CV's which you could take and still proceed with your landings. This result, unfortunately, fell into that remainder 20%.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much here. Everyone can look back on their last 20 turns and ALWAYS see things that they overlooked and could have "tightened up".

I think your result here proves several things:
1. How great a job you guys have done with WitPAE.
2. Why Nimitz moved so carefully, and he had the benefit of a Midway.

I think in general, we as players take far greater risks than a RL commander ever would. Grigsby's designs are always about taking us "players" down a notch due to his randomness in outcomes. We know that historically Nimitz never went into an operation (after Guadacanal which reinforced his opinions of the Midway outcome) with anything less than overwhelming power. He didn't just bring the hammer ... he brought a whole pallet of hammers. I beleive that WitPAE proves the validity of that strategy.

This is a great AAR. I know it isn't the result you were looking for, but I have learned a great deal from reading it and hope to continue to learn more. Hang in there.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 1402
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 2:41:50 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Hurry up !!! We are sure you will be find any way to re-open your offensive

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 1403
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 3:50:08 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. if you want a list of my strategic mistakes to go with my gripes above well here it is.

1. To much distance between TF W and TF K and E this was a real killer I should have taken the extra week and went in intact only sprinting with the fast TF when spotted that was the plan and would have left me all TF's hitting at the same point probably a week later
2. Kicked off my diversion to early one of the reasons I rushed 1. was that I though the TF's loading at PH story was starting to get old and PZB would smell a rat.
3. Allowing PZB to get inside my deciison loop when I reinforced Warangai rather than invding Roti witht he 2nd wave
4. Trying to invade omn the run (albeit with 100% prepped troops) I should have taken a few weeks to get North Australia sorted out before I attacked i now have 1000 auircraft how much easier would it have been to close the big AF's When PZB wasnt ready
5. Delay in Indian Ocean attacks - I am ready to hit objectives inIndian Ocean and Sumatra but am waiitng on a few ships

Basically overall I got buck fever and rushed the offensive without needing to and everything flows from that.

If I had hit Warangai in force then two days later captured Endeh and Roti.

7 days after that hit Koepang and Andaman Islands PZB would have probably had to back off.

Instead utimately it was faulty strategic execution thats got me where i am today



+2 to Pat & Pax. This is a "teachable moment" for us all.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1404
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 5:39:35 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
A few thoughts in a different color...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My frustrations of the last few turns

1. Helen II's on ASW killing every sub I put to sea
Without commenting on the specific aircraft model, I've strong suspicion that certain air missions get too much benefit from very high pilot skill. In my PBM with cap_and_gown his highly trained ASW pilots kill subs like they have 1980's radar and homing torpedoes. A metaphor but you get the idea.

2. 24/7 round the clock bombardment TF's 5 days in a row that nuke my base
He's doing a good job at that. IIRC a bunch of bombardments achieved nothing against the airbase so that's not all one way.

3. Allied SCTF's that achieve nothing despite being better ships witht he best leaders I have
I hear this a fair amount in AAR's. The one thing that does seem to be amiss is the lack of a way for ships to acquire experience other than in combat.

4. Useless PT Boats
Before the last time they were patched, PT boats were too powerful. Right now they feel pretty close to the mark to me. In other words, they are a danger and an impediment, but don't really achieve too much unless they penetrate an escort screen and get in amongst weaklings like xAK's. They still do get some occasional hits on warships and so are a danger for enemy TF's to deal with.

5. 8 Hex v 7 Hex strike range that a Japanese player can try to manipulate to force a decisisve result.
This was realistic in that it was a factor IRL, yes?

6. Allied CAP that achieves ZERO
I had an October 1943 2-day battle with cap_and_gown near Ponape with the Range-8 factor. My fleet's CAP (Hellcat plus Wildcats on CVE) did quite well, although plenty of raiders got through. I have forgotten the numbers, but they killed at least 750 planes. Or maybe it was 750 attack planes and over 1,000 planes total, I just forget. The point is that the CAP can do well and I don't know why yours did less well. Still, in my case lots of raiders got through and killed a total of 10 CV/CVL/CVE plus some other ships and damage to lots. Highly skilled pilots will often press on through the carnage, which also seems realistic to me.

Flak seemed to perform similar to what you saw, which in my view is significantly too low to be realistic. As I recall that was even the case in the pre-release AAR's that the AE team ran for the community in the months leading up to AE's release. If shipboard flak were appropriate, there would have been somewhat less damage to your ships but I can't say how much and it still would have been a beating, although the cost to the raiding planes would have been higher with more shot down + ops losses. Attackers of an up to date USN fleet at this point should see flak very deadly to them. Later, when proximity fuses become available it should be even worse for them. JWE has recalculated shipboard flak for DBB using the IJN 25mm as a value of "1" and based on the ratios of the physical parameters like shell weight, bursting charge, etc. (I don't recall each of them). I don't know if that will make it into the official scenarios or not.


7. Allied Strikes that achieve nothing
Chances are good that PzB's strike pilots were highly skilled. I'm sure your fleet had some such but they were likely less skilled than his were overall. Plus, he did significant damage without a return strike the first day. So, your strike planes were at a disadvantage after the first day. Very frustrating but I'm not certain if there is an identifiable problem there. In the second day of my battle with cap_and_gown some modestly skilled torpedo planes got through and did some damage to IJN carriers, so it might be that randomness is the difference.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1405
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/6/2011 5:54:42 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Andy, after I wrote the above it occurred to me that both you and I had good reason to run the carrier TF's with "Max React = 0", namely escorting troops, etc., but maybe we should re-think that if a "React" would have closed the range and generated a counter-strike.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1406
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 12:38:08 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline
With leaky CAP a feature now I'd tend to agree. It appears, especially as allied players, it is far more important to try to get into range to at least get a chance to riposte than be struck at range 8 with no chance to return the favour.

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1407
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 12:56:02 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
Also thinking about this react=0 thing, if you have a CV TF or two or three near the troops ships but not in the same hex, the odds are any strikes are going to be against the CV TFs. My leaning has been to have a few CVEs moving with the amphibious TFs and have the AC TFs ranging in front of them and thereby screening them from the worst of the incoming air strikes.

_____________________________


(in reply to aprezto)
Post #: 1408
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 2:08:39 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
10 lost Hellcats and my fleet gets nuked with 400 fighter on CAP - maybe they all launched with no ammo....

React yes and no PZB has single ships in most ports int he area with massive fighter traps over them no way to stop my CAG's getting crippled if I leave react on.

I am now more convinced that its better to keep Carrier TF's in different mutually supporting hexes i.e. if you have 3 TF's have them in a triangle so that leaky CAP helps each other but keep them seperate to avoid all TF's getting crucified.

Anyway enough is enough I have lost and lost badly but I am not out of the fight totally yet.

Andy

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1409
RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 2:13:21 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
With the loss of so many good ships and so many good men (yet to come) a new plan will be called for.

Being brutally honest I have no way of knowing what that plan will be or how it wil look - its to early for that but I know I will need one and it will be my last throw of the dice......

I also know that I LOVE the Illustrious class - all three carriers were hit hard but are still flying and fighting today - unless they are hit by a torpedo they just keep on going.

Personally (in game) I would really like another 5 Illustrious class they are tough tough ships

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1410
Page:   <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 Page: <<   < prev  45 46 [47] 48 49   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

0.891