Matrix Games Forums

The fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Could this be a bug....I don't understand.

 
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] >> Conflict of Heroes Series >> Could this be a bug....I don't understand. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 3:21:38 PM   
GBS

 

Posts: 825
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline
Trying to play "Endless Step" scenario as Germany. I have about 15 or so tanks that I place on the southern end of the map. On the first turn I activate a tank and move it forward several hexes and it shows it has 5 APs left. ( I just noticed that the APs are not showing above the units) I now want to move two or three more tanks forward and I cant deactivate the original tank I moved. NONE of the other tanks on the game board will activate and I can only take (move or fire)action with the original tank. Before I began I did change the rule to "classic" APs rather than normal because I wanted to see what effect this had since there was no explanation in the manual(DUHH). Could that be causing this.
Post #: 1
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 3:25:07 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline
Not a bug. It's as you surmised due to you using Classic rules. In Classic, you would normally completely finish moving a unit before moving to the next unit. This is how the board game works. You can choose not to completely use the unit but then you sacrifice all remaining APs.

The interface action you are missing is that you have to hit the 'escape' key to deselect the unit before selecting a new one. This is so you don't accidentally move on to the next unit before you are sure you are done with the previous unit because as I mentioned, you lose all remaining APs when you move on to the next unit.

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 2
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 4:27:24 PM   
GBS

 

Posts: 825
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline
I see. Thanks. Of course none of this is in the manual.

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 3
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 4:58:37 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Only the board gamers of this game will understand right off the bat how to play with classic AP. For the most part I would steer away from using it at this time because classic AP is not fully working yet. I personally think the game is a much deeper experience under classic, but even I am still using persistent at this time until classic is fully ready.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 4
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 6:39:10 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 10684
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GBS
I see. Thanks. Of course none of this is in the manual.


I believe the Classic AP rule is described in the ReadMe file. I recommend reading the ReadMe file that accompanies our games, as it often contains small changes to the manual, game interface, or similar.

We added the Classic AP rule in response to gamer requests after the manual had been finalized. I had some reservations about adding a fundamental feature like this that would not be mentioned in the manual. Also it was late in development to be adding such a large feature (and many of the UI bugs being reported now are related to other parts of the game that were affected by this change). However, despite these reservations, it seemed that enough people wanted this feature to warrant the aforementioned risks.

_____________________________


(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 5
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/22/2012 7:54:34 PM   
hattrick1

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Eric,

What are the reasons you would give for making this game for the pc?

Is the awards that it won one of the reasons?

What set of rules won those awards?

I bought this game on account of the reputation of the board game, I have to say I'm disappointed to see that the game was released without the original rules that won the awards not fully implemented yet.

In my opinion the original rules are much more than just a feature..


< Message edited by hattrick1 -- 5/22/2012 7:58:08 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 6
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 7:33:27 PM   
VR_IronFist


Posts: 174
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline
hattrick1, I would normally agree with your reasoning but considering Uwe was involved heavily in the development of the PC game and agreed to all the changes it was making, I don't have a problem with them. Matter of fact, from various sources, it sounded like Uwe made these changes because the PC could handle the heavy lifting whereas is would have complicated playing the board game too much to include them.

So I'm wondering if the PC rules are the actual rules Uwe would have done if he could have, i.e, Persistent APs over Classic APs? Meaning could the PC game be considered the Director's Cut (to use a movie industry term) compared to the board game, which is the theatrical release?

I've played both systems but as an avid board gamer and PC war gamer (I really have no preference, they both have their strengths and weaknesses), I think I prefer the Persistent AP implementation. I like it's ebb and flow better. I also like how it doesn't seem like I have to exhaust all a squad's APs or lose them just because it might have been necessitated by a desire to slim down record keeping.

I would love to have someone ask Uwe about this. As of right now, I find most of my desire to play with Classic APs gone, although I think having the option is good.

(in reply to hattrick1)
Post #: 7
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 8:17:47 PM   
JFalk68


Posts: 222
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline
I have to agree wtih VR_Ironfist.

I know I may be committing blasphemy towards the classic AP rules set but I feel it limits gameplay tactically when compared to persistent APs because under classic rules once an opponent moves on to another unit you know that unit will not be committed again till next turn, regardless of the AP's he has left.

Lets says I have a Panzer IIIe left with 1 AP left, not enough to do anything so I move onto another unit, but I am secretly guarding my CAPS because I want to create the illusion this unit is "spent" for the turn.  Now an oppurtunity presents itself and under persistent rules I go back to a unit previously activted , in this example a Pz IIIe is ready to exploit the enemy.  I pump CAPS into the unit and allow it to manuver and/or fire to take advantage of situation, maybe even cause a breakthrough in the enemy lines!  This can be done in the "persistent" ruleset, no in "classic"

I think persistent AP's are just an evolution of the classic ruleset because the PC can do all the AP accounting whereas in a board game setting trying to implement persistent would have taken away from the flow of the game and weighed it down with AP accounting.  I read at boardgamegeek.com  players trying to do persistent AP's in a boardgame setting using 12mm dice next to the unit to keep track of AP's but in my opinion your taking this game a step closer to Star Fleet Battles with that much accounting in a boardgame setting  ( I know its a reach to SFB but I couldn't resist haha )

Just my opinion, people can enjoy the game however they like! We do have both sets of rules for that :)

< Message edited by JFalk68 -- 5/24/2012 8:50:42 PM >

(in reply to VR_IronFist)
Post #: 8
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 8:58:33 PM   
ioticus

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

I have to agree wtih VR_Ironfist.

I know I may be committing blasphemy towards the classic AP rules set but I feel it limits gameplay tactically when compared to persistent APs because under classic rules once an opponent moves on to another unit you know that unit will not be committed again till next turn, regardless of the AP's he has left.




That's not true in the board game because you have command actions which can activate a spent unit. The PC version does not have that feature.

(in reply to JFalk68)
Post #: 9
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 9:01:16 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Well true and not true. It's not as bad as JFalk makes it sound, but yes you can use a CAP points or a command action card to fire with a spent unit. That has not changed between Persistent and Classic.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to ioticus)
Post #: 10
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 9:06:28 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
I like Persistent for when it's late and I'm tired. To be able to play without thinking to much about the order of execution can be nice at times. It makes for a more relaxed game. However, when I really want to see some advanced and clever usage of units and cards I turn to classic. Nothing can replace it for tournament level play. Classic can separate the really good players from the pack. Persistent not so much.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 11
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 9:16:53 PM   
hattrick1

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VR_IronFist

hattrick1, I would normally agree with your reasoning but considering Uwe was involved heavily in the development of the PC game and agreed to all the changes it was making, I don't have a problem with them. Matter of fact, from various sources, it sounded like Uwe made these changes because the PC could handle the heavy lifting whereas is would have complicated playing the board game too much to include them.

So I'm wondering if the PC rules are the actual rules Uwe would have done if he could have, i.e, Persistent APs over Classic APs? Meaning could the PC game be considered the Director's Cut (to use a movie industry term) compared to the board game, which is the theatrical release?

I've played both systems but as an avid board gamer and PC war gamer (I really have no preference, they both have their strengths and weaknesses), I think I prefer the Persistent AP implementation. I like it's ebb and flow better. I also like how it doesn't seem like I have to exhaust all a squad's APs or lose them just because it might have been necessitated by a desire to slim down record keeping.

I would love to have someone ask Uwe about this. As of right now, I find most of my desire to play with Classic APs gone, although I think having the option is good.



VR_IRon_Fist-

Where do you see that I have any problems with the changes they made to the game?

Did I comment at all regarding persistent AP's?

Like I said previously, I bought the game based on the reputation of the board game. The board game won a number of awards, this is how I heard of it. I will say that after reading Eric's comments above, I was a bit dismayed to find out they didnt plan on including the ORIGINAL RULES upon release of the game. I have heard that the developers wanted to create the game exactly like the board game. Now me reading what was said from Eric had me confused. Why leave out the original game rules if your intent was to get it as close as possible to the original board game?

I was hoping that from buying the game, I would be able to experience the reasons of why this board game won those awards. That is all...

< Message edited by hattrick1 -- 5/24/2012 9:46:37 PM >

(in reply to VR_IronFist)
Post #: 12
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 9:33:27 PM   
hattrick1

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

I have to agree wtih VR_Ironfist.

I know I may be committing blasphemy towards the classic AP rules set but I feel it limits gameplay tactically when compared to persistent APs because under classic rules once an opponent moves on to another unit you know that unit will not be committed again till next turn, regardless of the AP's he has left.

Lets says I have a Panzer IIIe left with 1 AP left, not enough to do anything so I move onto another unit, but I am secretly guarding my CAPS because I want to create the illusion this unit is "spent" for the turn.  Now an oppurtunity presents itself and under persistent rules I go back to a unit previously activted , in this example a Pz IIIe is ready to exploit the enemy.  I pump CAPS into the unit and allow it to manuver and/or fire to take advantage of situation, maybe even cause a breakthrough in the enemy lines!  This can be done in the "persistent" ruleset, no in "classic"

I think persistent AP's are just an evolution of the classic ruleset because the PC can do all the AP accounting whereas in a board game setting trying to implement persistent would have taken away from the flow of the game and weighed it down with AP accounting.  I read at boardgamegeek.com  players trying to do persistent AP's in a boardgame setting using 12mm dice next to the unit to keep track of AP's but in my opinion your taking this game a step closer to Star Fleet Battles with that much accounting in a boardgame setting  ( I know its a reach to SFB but I couldn't resist haha )

Just my opinion, people can enjoy the game however they like! We do have both sets of rules for that :)



JFalk68, you said "people can enjoy the game however they like!"

Do you really really mean that? Whats the point of the comments then?

It seems to me that you might be criticizing the way I might want to play the game..

Just my opinion..

(in reply to JFalk68)
Post #: 13
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 9:46:55 PM   
JFalk68


Posts: 222
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi hattrick1, I honestly can I say I was not trying to criticize you or antagonize you.  I threw that comment in there at the end because I feared I myself might antagonize people with "my comments" about peristent/classic AP's and I wanted to soften my post by saying however people play the game is up to them...it's not my place to tell someone how to enjoy Conflict of Heroes.  I really do respect that people may enjoy a different ruleset.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it really was not my intention and upon further reading this thread I can appreciate the classic AP's ruleset.  As usual Lebatron makes some good points about the classic rules.  I am not an experienced COH player and I am new to the series. I do have a passion for the game since playing the PC version so please forgive me, I am looking at it rather in a rather narrow way.  Jesse made some good points about tournament play.

I think it's great that people are just enjoying the game , again sorry if I offended you!

< Message edited by JFalk68 -- 5/24/2012 9:50:08 PM >

(in reply to hattrick1)
Post #: 14
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 10:10:17 PM   
hattrick1

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

Hi hattrick1, I honestly can I say I was not trying to criticize you or antagonize you.  I threw that comment in there at the end because I feared I myself might antagonize people with "my comments" about peristent/classic AP's and I wanted to soften my post by saying however people play the game is up to them...it's not my place to tell someone how to enjoy Conflict of Heroes.  I really do respect that people may enjoy a different ruleset.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it really was not my intention and upon further reading this thread I can appreciate the classic AP's ruleset.  As usual Lebatron makes some good points about the classic rules.  I am not an experienced COH player and I am new to the series. I do have a passion for the game since playing the PC version so please forgive me, I am looking at it rather in a rather narrow way.  Jesse made some good points about tournament play.

I think it's great that people are just enjoying the game , again sorry if I offended you!


Hi JFalk68,

No need to apologize.

I wouldnt say I was exactly offended, but I did defend my position. Its a war gamer habit I think..




(in reply to JFalk68)
Post #: 15
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 10:31:29 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hattrick1
I was hoping that from buying the game, I would be able to experience the reasons of why this board game won those awards. That is all...


The game won those awards because it was recognized to have some very interesting play mechanics that obviously only come into play when units are actually activated. It did not receive such recognition IMO because it has action points you use to 'buy' actions with. That idea is not new. If it somehow did come to market with only that idea alone, ie. Persistent AP, using little dice or a larger track sheet to keep tract of all units AP it would not have been recognized as great. Fortunately for Uwe he did not go down that route and created the activation system and probably latter tacked on group actions as well to offer greater choice and flexibility. It was this decision, I believe, that saved this game from mediocrity. This great depth was probably an accidental invention! For it is a fact that he did not set out to go down that route at first. He even said so. It was a compromise for him. Fortunately for him, and the game system, something great emerged from this compromise. I'm sure he did not really realize at first the depth of play that activation provided players seeking to pull off some clever orders of executions. For that is what classic AP provides. Persistent AP does not require much thought on the order of execution since you can switch units on the fly without penalties. In classic AP it is this second layer of depth where one has to decide his best order of execution and when to do it that made the system shine and won it it's awards. Only classic has this second layer of decision making. Persistent only has one layer. In other words, it's much more shallow if you will. A shallow system where all you do is spend action points to take actions would not have made it stand out. That's to simple for any game judges to award game of the year to. Granted the board game had stand out artwork. Way better than the rest of the field. But without activation limits on units I don't see how this game could have won that award. It couldn't have won on artwork alone. There must have been something else. And that something else is what I have been trying so hard to get newbies to the system to see. And also to get WCS to put back into the game.


_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to hattrick1)
Post #: 16
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 10:40:14 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline
The differences in play remind me of the differences between chess and checkers - but with firepower!

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 17
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/24/2012 11:27:13 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 10684
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
I'm not sure of the dates offhand, but I believe the original ATB release won awards with the original rules for the phase structure, which involve interrupts and players taking an entire turn with one unit at a time. My understanding is that Uwe changed this rule for SOS and retroactively changed the rules for ATB after SOS was released. So I think the rules for which most people are clamoring are not the actual original rules at all. Is anyone troubled that we don't have the actual original rules that were printed with the first release of the board game (involving interrupts and one unit activated at a time)?



< Message edited by ericbabe -- 5/25/2012 12:03:05 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 18
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 1:09:49 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32966
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hi Hattrick,

You may want to read the interview with Uwe Eickert at The Wargamer if you haven't already. Question #5 should be particularly of interest:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3186/interview-uwe-eickert-founder-of-academy-games

We've already written both before and after release that we plan to fully implement the Classic AP system as well in Storms of Steel, the first expansion, and then make it available to owners of Awakening the Bear in an update. We felt the Persistent AP system was the best one for the initial release, but we agree that both systems should be in the game and we've committed to make that happen.

The Persistent AP system makes for a very good game and while I agree that the non-persistent AP system, once fully implemented, does add some new strategies to the game, there is still plenty of strategy and challenge with Persistent APs as well. We'll be supporting both playstyles going forward and making sure that players who are COH veterans can play the game exactly the way they want as well.

Regards,

- Erik


< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 5/25/2012 1:24:21 AM >


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 19
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 3:47:39 AM   
VR_IronFist


Posts: 174
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline
Erik, sounds very reasonable, logical, and fair to me. I look forward to being able to play both styles, depending on what I'm in the mood for. But most of all, I look forward to you guys/gals adapting all the expansions to the PC. Which brings me to one question: is there any plans to support up to 4 players like the board game? Specifically, the ability to play co-op with a friend against 2 AIs? I have a lot of friends that are PC leaning and would purchase the game with the ability to play with me against two AI opponents but wouldn't if they had to face me 1v1 (something about me being too into wargames). :)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 20
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 4:11:15 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2146
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Exactly. It depends on what I'm in the mood for as well. I wanted classic for the depth it gave the game and it's nice to have persistent AP as well for when I want it to be a bit lighter. It will be very nice to someday have both styles of play available.


Co-op would be fun. Hopefully some day. Even the 4 player.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to VR_IronFist)
Post #: 21
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 4:29:32 AM   
hattrick1

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi Hattrick,

You may want to read the interview with Uwe Eickert at The Wargamer if you haven't already. Question #5 should be particularly of interest:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3186/interview-uwe-eickert-founder-of-academy-games

We've already written both before and after release that we plan to fully implement the Classic AP system as well in Storms of Steel, the first expansion, and then make it available to owners of Awakening the Bear in an update. We felt the Persistent AP system was the best one for the initial release, but we agree that both systems should be in the game and we've committed to make that happen.

The Persistent AP system makes for a very good game and while I agree that the non-persistent AP system, once fully implemented, does add some new strategies to the game, there is still plenty of strategy and challenge with Persistent APs as well. We'll be supporting both playstyles going forward and making sure that players who are COH veterans can play the game exactly the way they want as well.

Regards,

- Erik



Hi Erik,

I overlooked this, thank you. Im glad to see that they plan on doing this, I hope it gets fully implemented like they say. I guess for my needs I bought the game too early.

One question though, was I wrong to assume that the rules from the board game would be in this game when I bought it?

Here is the advertisement on the matrix page..

This exciting new release is a faithful adaptation of the renowned Conflict of Heroes board game that won the Origins Historical Game of the Year, Charles Roberts Wargame of the Year and the James F. Dunnigan Design Elegance Award, as well as many others! Designed and developed in cooperation with Uwe Eickert, the original designer of Conflict of Heroes, no effort has been spared to bring the outstanding Conflict of Heroes gameplay to the computer.

I wish no ill will upon Matrix Games or anybody, they are good for the war gaming community. I dont want or expect anything, I just would like things to be right.

You dont have to answer the question, I said what I needed to say. Im done.


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 22
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 2:47:38 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32966
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hi Hattrick,

In working directly with Uwe throughout the process and involving many COH players (and we play the boardgame as well) we felt that we did create a very faithful adaptation for the computer. The most significant divergence is the AP system and that's mentioned as the first point in the list of differences on the product/store page. I understand that if the full implementation of the original AP system is the most important issue for you, you may be disappointed. The only thing I can say in that case is that we have heard the requests from you and other players for whom this system is very important and we will be fully implementing it in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to hattrick1)
Post #: 23
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 2:49:31 PM   
VR_IronFist


Posts: 174
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline
Erik, anything you can say about my question in a previous reply? "Which brings me to one question: is there any plans to support up to 4 players like the board game? Specifically, the ability to play co-op with a friend against 2 AIs?"

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 24
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 3:47:42 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 10684
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
Adding additional multiplayer support is something we'd like to do, but it will probably have to wait for a sequel. It's a fairly big feature addition.

_____________________________


(in reply to VR_IronFist)
Post #: 25
RE: Could this be a bug....I don't understand. - 5/25/2012 3:52:24 PM   
VR_IronFist


Posts: 174
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline
Thanks for the reply and makes perfect sense. I just think it would enhance sales since I know a lot of gamers who only do co-op, and I mean a lot.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series >> Could this be a bug....I don't understand. Page: [1]
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

0.297