Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Carrier Battle in '45

 
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 >> Carrier Battle in '45 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 8:46:21 PM   
BLurking


Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline 		Pretty sure this couldn't be accomplished in stock - but the date is March '45.
Husband your resources, JFBs, and all is not lost.

The Western Force strikes a blow for the Empire, and intelligence indicates that the Eastern Force has a juicy target identified for tomorrow...

I'll leave it to my opponent to post the counter-strike. Definitely a one-way mission for the IJN.




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:15:23 PM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline 		Damn!

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 2
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:17:04 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		Were all those carriers in the same TF ?

if so then your having a huge penalty in overstacking and hence your CAP let a lot more through than if you had several more balanced TF's.

Also no BB's ? i find them invaluable as bomb/torp magnets to save the CV's always have one or more in CV groups (where possible).

Then again if Japan doenst fritter away its good pilots as in real life, then this seems ok to me , as you say its a one way trip for the japanese regardless. doubt that'll happen again any time soon



_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 3
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:28:00 PM   
Athius

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline 		So its best to split up the KB to avoid the penalty?

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 4
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:41:52 PM   
BLurking


Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline 		That was my opponent's TF, so not sure if they were all in the same group.

My TF had about 350 A/C, which definitely ran the risk of coordination penalty - but the IJN is, ahem, rather short of escort vessels at this time. Besides, any TF that leaves the Home Islands is bound to get creamed, so you have to weigh the risks vs. the real probability of losing everything.
I prefer to keep some surface vessels available so my opponent stays honest.
The Decisive Battle has yet to be fought, after all...

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 5
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:46:07 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		 what is the restriction in 44 45? I think the game allows quit large effective tf's for allies by then

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 6
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 9:58:33 PM   
Zacktar


Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline 		Has your opponent confirmed how much of those results are real (as opposed to fog of war)?

_____________________________

Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 7
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 10:02:09 PM   
BLurking


Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline 		Definitely had carriers on fire, and LBA strikes the next day didn't find most of the heavily damaged ships as targets - so I'm assuming they went down.

Haven't gotten the turn back, but then again I've given him a little food for thought regarding future plans...

(in reply to Zacktar)
Post #: 8
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 10:31:07 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Congratulations! Good show.

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 9
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 11:12:02 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		That caught me completely off guard. Air search didn't detect his TF. Only had 2 carrier TFs and had no idea his carriers were there. Another carrier TF was refueling and on its way to meet the 2 TF so it avoided most of the strikes. 2 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CVE went down.

The allied counter strike:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Legaspi at 93,82

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 38



Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
F6F-3 Hellcat x 70
F6F-5 Hellcat x 62
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 15
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 15
SB2C-4 Helldiver x 59
TBM-3 Avenger x 90


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 10 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 6 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 9 destroyed, 63 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
CV Amagi, Bomb hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Katsuragi, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Tone, Bomb hits 3, on fire
DD Nagatakaze
DD Minegumo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Yukikaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Natsushio, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
DD Arashi, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Suzuya
DD Amatsukaze
DD Susukaze

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Legaspi at 93,82

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 5



Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 10
F6F-3 Hellcat x 22
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 15
SB2C-4 Helldiver x 26
TBM-3 Avenger x 20


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 4 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 12 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Tone, Bomb hits 7, and is sunk
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Susukaze
DD Amatsukaze, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Arashi, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Yukikaze
DD Shimakaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Minegumo


< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 4/3/2010 11:51:29 PM >

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 10
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 11:51:43 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		How have you got to 45 so quickly? Do neither of you have jobs?

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 11
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/3/2010 11:55:01 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		2 day turns, 2 turns a day and 5-7 on the weekend. I have a full time job. I don't over analyze. 

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 12
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 12:23:22 AM   
BLurking


Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

How have you got to 45 so quickly? Do neither of you have jobs?


LOL. If I spend over an hour on a turn, it's considered a 'deep thinking' move.
I just move around the map occasionally, but let events dictate where to focus.

CS convoys are your friend, and messing with production too often will lead to disaster for the Empire.

It is, after all, a Strategic wargame...

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 13
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 12:28:28 AM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline 		Congrats guys 

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 14
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 1:19:57 AM   
Zacktar


Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline 		Yeah, congrats to you both -- just making it to 1945 in this game is a real achievement for both of you!

_____________________________

Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 15
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 1:25:47 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		You can sit and stare and come up with all sorts of plans and possibilities. With 2 day turns, in the end you're never going to be 100% sure. Too much can happen and too much ground can be covered by a fleet. I agree with my opponent, keep it simple for the most part.

War ain't over yet. The Emperor has to say uncle-and that doesn't seem very close. This imay take quite a while to bring to a close.

The Allieds will spare the Emperor the humilation of bowing before their boot ;)

For some reason the Allieds believe the Emperor is going to go down with the ship. He's claming to be receiving "ridiculous" amounts of airplanes for home defense. I'm sure he's going to send them off on mass suicide attacks.

I've nearly caught up in points. Was 14,000 behind not too long ago. Now about 3000 behind.

Manila is going to fall soon-after a long and bloody siege. Don't think much will be standing. The allieds have been pounding it will several hundred aircraft a day for weeks on end. Finally got the entrenchment level down to 4 and attacks are now in the 2-1+ range.

B-29's have lit up Osaka, Toyko, Kobe and Nagoya will continue to attack.

The Home Islands are cut off from easy access to resources.

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 16
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 3:00:27 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		May be too early to tell, but if what my opponent and I experienced so far is any indication, Campaign games in AE will have to be fought to the bitter end. No more uber CAP means that my opponents threat of "receiveing ridiculous amounts of aircraft" for homeland defense has to be taken very seriously even if exxagerated.

Great game and having alot of fun. The loss of 4 carriers bites. The allieds can afford them, but I have a feeling that when all is said and done more carriers will be lost.

and yes its still possible for the allied to lose the war

All you JFB's out there you should definately stick it out till the bitter end...you have the ultimate weapon-pilots willing to die for a cause.

The end game is like the current war on terror. The United States has the advantage of superior technology, tactics and numbers-but they have to be right all the time 100% of the time. No room for errors.

Japan with its suicide card only has to be correct once...


< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 4/4/2010 3:36:51 AM >

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 17
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 11:34:22 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

That caught me completely off guard. Air search didn't detect his TF. Only had 2 carrier TFs and had no idea his carriers were there. Another carrier TF was refueling and on its way to meet the 2 TF so it avoided most of the strikes. 2 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CVE went down.

The allied counter strike:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Legaspi at 93,82

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 38



Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
F6F-3 Hellcat x 70
F6F-5 Hellcat x 62
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 15
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 15
SB2C-4 Helldiver x 59
TBM-3 Avenger x 90


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 2 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 10 damaged
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 6 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 9 destroyed, 63 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
CV Amagi, Bomb hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Katsuragi, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Tone, Bomb hits 3, on fire
DD Nagatakaze
DD Minegumo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Yukikaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Natsushio, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
DD Arashi, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Suzuya
DD Amatsukaze
DD Susukaze

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Legaspi at 93,82

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 5



Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 10
F6F-3 Hellcat x 22
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 15
SB2C-4 Helldiver x 26
TBM-3 Avenger x 20


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 4 damaged
SB2C-4 Helldiver: 12 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Tone, Bomb hits 7, and is sunk
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Susukaze
DD Amatsukaze, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Arashi, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Yukikaze
DD Shimakaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Minegumo


Owie owie owie! That's one whale of a counter strike sfbaytf! With this nice response, will you get parity in losses with this encounter?

_____________________________


(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 18
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 2:11:08 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BLurking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

How have you got to 45 so quickly? Do neither of you have jobs?


LOL. If I spend over an hour on a turn, it's considered a 'deep thinking' move.
I just move around the map occasionally, but let events dictate where to focus.

CS convoys are your friend, and messing with production too often will lead to disaster for the Empire.

It is, after all, a Strategic wargame...




wow, I spend an hour for a normal turn where nothing happened.

_____________________________


(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 19
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 3:11:55 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

You can sit and stare and come up with all sorts of plans and possibilities. With 2 day turns, in the end you're never going to be 100% sure. Too much can happen and too much ground can be covered by a fleet. I agree with my opponent, keep it simple for the most part.



Hooray for the non micro managers of the world!! I like that, in general I play pretty much the same way, as BLurking said, it is a Strategic wargame, take care of the big issues, while focusing on the big picture and 90% of the time things will work out just fine. I will say however that when I know my opponent cannot get the turn back right way, I will spend a lot of time just looking things over, and occasionally will find things I have over looked or things that need to be tweaked, but none of it is earth shattering, game changing stuff and in the long run will not make much of a difference.

< Message edited by Zemke_4 -- 4/4/2010 3:15:07 PM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 20
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/4/2010 9:51:57 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		OMG look at those losses!!! 132 Hellcats and they shoot down 7 Zekes! It's broken!!!!

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 21
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/5/2010 12:33:00 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

OMG look at those losses!!! 132 Hellcats and they shoot down 7 Zekes! It's broken!!!!



they´ve probably shot down 14 as the combat report usually underrates the losses by around 50%... if something is broken then the combat report in this case...

_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 22
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/5/2010 5:21:42 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		It was a nice counterstrike and closes the carrier loss gap, but the edge in that department still goes to the Emperor. Blasting the CA and DD's is almost as useful, in fact the last month or 2 quite a few of the killer D class escorts have been sunk and that's going to be a big help for the subs.

Yesterday Manila fell so Ive now gone ahead in points for the first time. Have some clean up work to do-take Clark Field, but most of the Phillipines are in my control. The airfields in Luzon have been functional for some time.

The question now is where to next. There are a few logical choices...

In the meantime the allieds have begun Operation Kill and Cull. Began a couple of days ago. B-29s that were flying only low level night bombing mission on cities, suddenly flew daylight missions on Japanese airbases. Initial reports indicate 485 Japanese planes were destroyed on the ground from the first 2 days of the operation. The next 2 days netted 58 more planes destroyed on the ground. P-51s are flying aggressive fighter sweeps and some have gone on low level strafing missions against airbases.

The goal is to cull the Imperial airpower to managable levels.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 23
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/5/2010 5:51:17 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Nice report guys...Im of the mind that if I know my opp is up and about I fire that turn off pretty quickly (I have one game where if we dont get three off in a day its a surprise), but when I know he is done for the nite I will spend some hours focusing on moving my units about.  I like quick games an awful lot.



_____________________________


(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 24
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/5/2010 5:53:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

2 day turns, 2 turns a day and 5-7 on the weekend. I have a full time job. I don't over analyze.



quote:

ORIGINAL: BLurking
LOL. If I spend over an hour on a turn, it's considered a 'deep thinking' move.
I just move around the map occasionally, but let events dictate where to focus.

CS convoys are your friend, and messing with production too often will lead to disaster for the Empire.

It is, after all, a Strategic wargame...


men after my own heart.


_____________________________


(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 25
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/6/2010 6:48:50 AM   
Venividivici10044


Posts: 137
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline 		Nice game, do you have any AARs up?

_____________________________

I play and post for fun...nothing stated ever carries with it the thought to irritate. If something does...privately PM and I will review.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/6/2010 3:48:49 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		No AAR. Would have been nice as we had some interesting battles-around Babeldaob there was a Jutland like surface duel. We also has a duel with superbattleships. If we did an AAR probably wouldn't have gotten this far.

Anyway there is an apparent bug in the Burma area. There have been times when I couldn't move my units to a hex and had to click on a hex further out before the computer would say it's a valid move. My opponent is having issues on a larger scale. I've now stopped all air attacks in Burma and began moving my units back. I've also offered a truce. I didn't realize it was this massive a problem for my opponent. I was pummeling his troops from mass air attacks.

We're hopefully getting close to the end. I sent my turn last night and the cats out of the bag...an Allied Army is invading Okinawa. I had a choice of playing it safe and going for Taiwan first, but the apparent success of the air attacks on Japanese airfields has worn down Imperial airpower to manageable levels. Carriers caught a fairly large transport TF off of Nago and sent a bunch of transports and escorts to the bottom of the sea. Don't know if was unloading supplies or troops I presume from China to reinforce Okinawa.

Don't expect a quick outcome. Just have to play it day by day...

(in reply to Venividivici10044)
Post #: 27
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/6/2010 4:02:24 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BLurking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

How have you got to 45 so quickly? Do neither of you have jobs?


LOL. If I spend over an hour on a turn, it's considered a 'deep thinking' move.
I just move around the map occasionally, but let events dictate where to focus.

CS convoys are your friend, and messing with production too often will lead to disaster for the Empire.

It is, after all, a Strategic wargame...


BL, I wish I could make myself crank out turns at that pace.

Congrats on what looks like a very fun game, guys.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to BLurking)
Post #: 28
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/6/2010 5:53:36 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		Opponent played a superb game and he managed to hold places longer than Japan did in real life. I'd be lying if some of the reason for invading Okinawa now instead of taking Formosa first is to have the allieds hit at least 1 place before the actual date in real life.

The carrier battle mentioned in this post had me really scared- especially when my opponent mentioned "The Eastern Fleet has another target in it's sight" I was sweating bullets as I feared he had the invasion fleet I was assembling for the invasion of Okinawa in his reach. Had he managed to torch that, it would have really changed the game. There was no protection except for a few CVEs. On board were some of my best and most experienced divisions that had battled through some of the toughest battles and had many victories under their belt. All of my other carriers were sitting in port.

My opponent came within a split hair of really causing me a lot of heartburn and headache.

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 29
RE: Carrier Battle in '45 - 4/7/2010 4:22:22 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Don't expect a quick outcome. Just have to play it day by day...


You mean two-day by two-day.....

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Carrier Battle in '45 Page: [1] 2   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

2.906