Viewing User Profile for: Grand Larceny
About Contact
Joined: Dec 31, 2011 11:57 PM
Last Post: Jan 26, 2012 10:41 PM
Last Visit: Jan 26, 2012 11:43 PM
Location: Paradise

View User Blog
Send Private Message
Post Statistics
Grand Larceny has contributed to 69 posts out of 1071 total posts (6.44%) in 2,643 days (0.03 posts per day).

20 Most recent posts:
Bugs/Errors » Attack % Jan 22, 2012 11:29 PM (Total replies: 5)

No attacks from anybody at all? And that is the figure before wine?

Start up Guides » ~ Glo Exploring Japanese ~ Jan 22, 2012 11:08 AM (Total replies: 7)

Quote: Tools is always a random thing. We all lose them at different times.

Actually, we all lose them in May and October. Yeah?

if (month is 5 or month is 10) {
toolsUsed = int(randRange(10, 20));
toolsUsed = round(numBuilders * toolsUsed / 100);
if (toolsUsed gt 0) {
message = message & "#toolsUsed# tools wore out<br>";
if (rTools gte toolsUsed) // if has enough tools supply builders with them
rTools = rTools - toolsUsed;
else rTools = 0;

Basic Strategies » Japs strategy discussion Jan 21, 2012 09:56 PM (Total replies: 6)

Quote: I think Tem should write a 1000ad novel.
--- Original message by radikaal on Jan 21, 2012 12:27 PM

Already did... Just waiting for it to be published....

Basic Strategies » Japs strategy discussion Jan 21, 2012 04:56 AM (Total replies: 6)

Just skimmed over this for now, will go over a bit more detail later. A couple of very quick points.
Your quote seemed to miss a bit. Here is the actual quote:
Quote: a Jap will have an easy 400 rls (obviously can have much more, but doesn't really need them. 150 def rls ties you over, and food rls. PM run, selling food on PM for a big efficient mage down the track to net you another 200+ rls

The cat rls come after you sell food on pm, with the fort rls also. The 400 rl Jap will be 200+ food, 150 defense, some space/markets...

The round I played against you I was a jump explorer. I can't really recall what I was planning to do when you hit me, but the thing I can be certain of is I didn't have 150 def rls, if any at all. Maybe I had 50? but the goal was jump exploring, so questionable if I had any.
What you cost me was rls mainly throughout the round. I turned it into a pretty good attack machine by the end, but against you with a full military Turk from the start, I had 500 explore rls that said at best I would be competitive against you by the end, and that includes your 3 day ban?. I think my strat half way was to get an easy time exploring small land and making bulk resources for a good run at the end so you didn't get too much easy land, then I decided was too boring so I started an attack conversion in my research plan... :)
The main reason I was going so early after pro is because I was so weak, trying to get a good resource run in off my land before getting dropped with my pissy defense.

Basic Strategies » Japs strategy discussion Jan 20, 2012 09:29 PM (Total replies: 6)

I tend to agree with most of what you say there. On paper Vikings are a little stronger and a much more efficient entity.

Where I think Japs come out in front, by a long way, is in the strategy. Vikings can spread their rls and are very versatile in economy, but military wise they are pretty predictable. Japs, economy is pretty predictable, but military wise they are much more adaptable.

Personally, if you had a round with me as Jap versus me as Viking (not going to compare players here, just the way I would play them against myself obviously with the exact same ability as myself), the Jap would come out way ahead.

So given that Vikings will pass Japs as the game goes on in regards to pure numbers, this is where I see the difference.
With a Jap, you are pretty much guaranteed a good start and will be way ahead of the Viking. Viking unlikely to go all food rls, or they are merely coming out closer to Japs in exploring, but giving away some of their economic variation to do so. So for mine, with a Viking I will always have a good spread across food/wood/mines as my econ. This covers mages, weaps making, and gives many more PM options.

So out of pro, a Jap will have an easy 400 rls (obviously can have much more, but doesn't really need them. 150 def rls ties you over, and food rls. PM run, selling food on PM for a big efficient mage down the track to net you another 200+ rls assuming you don't drop land, and since you have 150 def rls, it is unlikely that you will.
The Viking, making its own weapons, starting with less rls, coming against a 150 def rl Jap will not break him, and if he does it will be very costly, and won't have him much ahead on land. Viking needs a couple of mages before he can get the Jap enough to make it worth his while.
So the Jap, even if he gets hit a couple of times for land, is around 20 million land now, 150 def rls, 100 cat rls, 50 conq land, and some fort space thrown in. Viking pretty good on land now, but still needs to devote some rls to def rls. Can break the Jap now, but needs wine to do so. Loss rls are important also as a break or even a hit will lose plenty of units.

That is the big difference for mine right there. The Viking needs to devote so many turns in resource making to break the Jap and still doesn't get far enough ahead. The Jap then comes out, freelands the Viking, takes his land with horsemen, mainly TCs still so doesn't need many weaps and is taking freeland.
So now, the Jap has the Vikings land. After all those turns put in to making resources to army up, he now finds himself freeland, and losing land rapidly. Assuming he made bulk swords for his next go, he can get back up there, but once again, he needs so many more turns to be able to do so.
Now you have a Jap on top, still very hard to break him to the point where you can get him low enough to not be an issue to you.
One more mage for the Jap and it is round over, if not already.

Now the Viking has a balancing act. He has to run up to get enough land, can't really dominate the Jap yet, still needs to mage. Does he try to defend and have a go at him later, or go minimum defense and lose his strong archer bonus to protect giving his land up to the Jap?
Either way he loses out. Go strong defense knowing the Jap can't break him without any attack rls and minimum fort rls and he risks being homelessed. Put up a good mix of hunters to protect from being homelessed and he risks being freelanded. Put up bare minimum defense he loses all his land to the other players.
Meanwhile, the Jap sits happily up top (should be by now, not a huge land lead, but still a tough break.
Next mage, the Jap is maging hard attack rls, some weaps rls, fort rls, and loss rls... Now, not only can he homeless you, freeland you, but he can also take you with his army.

This strategy basically forces the Viking to go full attack minimum def research.
The cats is key, and their devastating power not only destroys another empire whilst hitting them, but sends the enemy into panic mode because there really isn't much they can do to stop it bar freelanding him.
The Jap, already has 150 def rls, and can easily get more depending on what the Viking is doing. Really, his goal is to stay as high as possible so he is always dangerous, and needs to make sure if he gets broken, he doesn't drop too much land even though by the time anybody can do that to him his attack power is good enough to get back up anyway.

So yes, I agree on paper Vikings come out on top. But play Japs right, and any efficiency advantage Vikings had is lost through the catting power of the Jap. The sheer number of turns the Viking needs to make to break the Jap in the first place, and then try to defend from him is huge compared to the turns/resources the Jap needs to destroy all that and either render the Viking freeland or homeless. Either way, wasting even more turns so he can try again. Jap is just sitting up to happily maging every day for a start and is by now that far in front he has a huge rl lead, enough attack power to break anybody in the game, enough defense to hold out everybody in the game, and power to destroy somebody if they choose to try to play outside of the rules.

The round I played, I basically winged it. I wasn't going to go cat rls, in fact I didn't really have a plan. You may remember this round was not long (maybe the round after? if not only a couple) after my hybrid jump explore/attack Jap. Was basically just doing a jump explorer but decided after 1000 rls that I could turn it into an attacker and still do well. In my head the run out of pro where you hit me about 2 hours before my mage was the difference in that round. Still would have lost to you, but would have been a very competitive finish.
Point being, I didn't have a plan, just knew that Japs were animals and you could turn them another direction at any time. The run where I decided against attack rls and went for cat rls was the biggest decision of the game, and as soon as I had them it was round over. 3 heavy army civs under me trying to hold, and me on double land of them (around that) with only 30 attack rls I believe. What was I supposed to do? Dropped on double land, to around half their score and destroyed their buildings. Pretty sure one of them was homeless in 4 hits. Japs with cats from under you are devastating. Japs with less score than you and more land? ****ing scary.

So for mine, in Blitz, Japs cats will take out any advantage a civ has over you to the point where it isn't worth playing.
On paper Vikings are an awesome civ, but in reality and practise, Japs are ****ing animals.

Frequently Asked Questions » When do I need horses when exploring ? Jan 19, 2012 10:50 PM (Total replies: 8)

Care to go through in more detail?

Obviously you are saying that you are more than 10% efficient in food making until that point to counter the loss of exploring power, but can you show that in numbers?

Frequently Asked Questions » When do I need horses when exploring ? Jan 18, 2012 04:10 AM (Total replies: 8)

In reality, you have to make them earlier than suggested?

Turk makes 2 horses as a +1 bonus. Standard civ is 300 food SEND horses with explorers. So a Turk must send horses at 150? Why 175? Where does that maths come into it.

Legitimate question here, something I really haven't put any thought into as by then you are growing that quickly that you hit those levels in a few turns.

Interesting to hear the maths on this, basically because well, maths intrigues me. Radikaal has made a statement that I haven't heard before so would be interested to hear the reasoning behind it. Has proven himself over time so would be worthwhile to get some average players thinking in more detail about the game.

Apart from that, I think just the terminology is a bit off.

Basics of exploring:
No horses, 6 months exploring. 1 horse 8, 2horses 10 months, and 3 horses sends your explorers for 12 months.
The reasoning here, is that since it takes you 100 food to make a horse, the basic maths suggests that to send your explorers for twice the time means that explorers get sent for 300 food for 6 months, or with 3 horses for 12 months which costs exactly double the food.

Turks have a +1 bonus, meaning it costs half as much to produce a horse. Meaning that it costs 150 food to make 3 horses, meaning at 150 food per explorer, you hit your efficiency target of double at 150 so you should be sending 3 horses per at that point. Of course, you need them to send, so you need to be making them before that.

Japs have -25 food, so costs 75 food per horse. Simple maths says 3* 75 = 225 food per explorer is the point where you are sending 3 horses per.

Very minimal point there as I suggested so not many people delve too much deeper than that. So would be interested to hear the maths Radikaal for 330 food per for Franks, since Admin suggested maybe send them earlier? Sure I could figure it out by myself if I put the time in, but why bother with Radikaal here.

Changes/Suggestions » Weapon cost rebalancing Jan 12, 2012 11:22 PM (Total replies: 44)

Quote: they can't do anything without a mongol unless they explore all round.

No, you said they CAN'T. If you can't, then it is impossible. Nothing difficult about can't, it either can or it can't. It is either possible or it is impossible.

Nobodies fault but your own if you only have food rls. No point complaining about Vikings lack of ability to make weapons when in reality it is just your poor strategies that determines the lack of ability.

For the record, it is much cheaper to use archers than horsemen. Swords and horses? Swords and bows.

I do get the point though, if a player such as yourself can't make weapons with a strategy that makes it non efficient, then the code should be changed. Let's give Vikings archers a boost because you don't know what you are doing... Hmmmmm...

Here is a thought, play a real strat.

Empire Builder » This is Retarded Jan 12, 2012 11:14 PM (Total replies: 15)

Would have, would have, wouldn't have...

Didn't. Simple as that.

Empire Builder » This is Retarded Jan 12, 2012 03:22 AM (Total replies: 15)

Quote: Well another problem.... I am still new to this game, so power is still the key word to me. I wasted too many turns making wine to be able to attack Chaos, as well as I had to go towers, I started with only 230-250 turns. If I was at full turns, going towers would have been fine, but I had to make wine, and I knew also that I would run out of swords...which as GL likes to point out, I could have used up even more turns to make more swords, with the little turns I did have.

I tried, I took the initiative, jumped the gun, just because I felt like attacking instead of maging.... and messed up, but I have learned a lot this round, so hopefully that will transfer into future rounds.

--- Original message by Mighty Mouse on Jan 12, 2012 01:16 AM
So you stuffed up. What is retarded about that? People stuff up all the time. The "retarded" thing about that, is you claim you knew you didn't have enough weapons to do the job, and still wasted all your resources anyway.

Changes/Suggestions » Weapon cost rebalancing Jan 12, 2012 03:18 AM (Total replies: 44)

Quote: In regards to my stories, they were purely because some muppet? was in here suggesting that everything should be changed because they didn't know how to make weapons with any civ that wasn't a Mongol.

Hold on ego, I never said I dont know how to make is simple, you put up weaponsmiths... simple enough. Stop being a dumb

--- Original message by Mighty Mouse on Jan 12, 2012 01:08 AM
Quote: Mighty Mouse
-G.I. Joe-
Posts: 31
Joined: Nov 24, 2010

Here I come to save the day

Posted: Jan 2, 2012 12:37 AM Msg. 3 of 38
I love playing as a Viking, but if I don't have a mongol, and already put research into army, I am screwed. It is too hard as a viking to make swords, I mean yeah, I can spend the 80 turns, to convert tons of plains to forest into woodcutters, and make the proper amount of bows....BUT due to the lack of mountains, because of the lack of players, it is a waste to do an Iron Viking, therefore already making it that much harder to get iron, and dare to make swords. As an avid Viking player in standard, unless you give vikings a bonus on archers with 8 attack and 6 land grab, they can't do anything without a mongol unless they explore all round.

Hmmmm... Doesn't work well commenting when previous comments are still in the system sometimes.....

Changes/Suggestions » Weapon cost rebalancing Jan 7, 2012 03:07 AM (Total replies: 44)

Wasn't referring to you with my comment if that is how you took it.

Changes/Suggestions » Online combat, Acceptance rather than fix. Jan 7, 2012 01:30 AM (Total replies: 38)

They already get a minus on attacking below.

As far as the asterisk, I really don't care either way. I am merely pointing out the main tools to camp and things in the game that work the opposite way to what it is designed to do, such as time restrictions.

In regards to the social aspect of the game if the forums are linked in with the game, then I assume that everybody logged into the game, will also be logged into the forums as well. Can easily have a tied in chat option maybe in the forums where every online player will be logged in anyway.
Personally I think the main problem is players are lazy and this game has turned into a simple mage game. If it isn't a war game, then take that away. But while it is, then people have to accept people also attacking them.
The problem with all these "solutions" that keep cropping up to curb "defensive camping" is they take away from the point of the game. The message being sent out, is if somebody wants to take your land, it is bad form if you don't go away and let them. Sharing is caring. All these people sharing each others land, feeding each other goods, are having their opinions justified on what is wrong with the game. It is ok to share land and feed each other goods, but if you try to defend your land we will run you away from the game? If you take out any advantage of actually putting effort into getting to the top and trying to hold, then why will anybody even bother with defending? The game will turn into a freeland, mage scenario, which maybe fun for a day or so, but where is the challenge?

If it is not ok to attack people online, then the whole game needs a rethink. Trained Peasants, horsemen, etc etc need to be revamped from their current stats because that is their point, to be able to attack and defend at the same time in times of war.
Online bounce counter reset on page load is all you need to counter most of the benefits of defensive camping. Simple as that.

Changes/Suggestions » PM Changes Jan 7, 2012 12:57 AM (Total replies: 13)

I still think that a pure supply/demand formula is the way to go. Apart from the fact that people abuse it, it is a real pain in the ass chasing best price on your goods.

But, in saying that, I think this is a very good alternative, and pretty easy to implement (not sure how the database will feel about that comment though?). It also has some pretty interesting spinoffs.

Some things that spring to mind:
If batch sizes aren't shown, how do you know if there are enough goods there to buy? Small issue, I think if you can enter a price to buy up to, you can hoover everything in order on the way up to your max price.

How is it displayed to you as a player? User input will always dictate that they can point out their goods to buy to their friends. The main reason I would like to remove that ability.
If there is a way to limit player involvement, then that is best and then creates other potential scenarios to work off tangent ideas which we can get to.

What about this. You have the ability to enter your lowest price you are prepared to go to. This way you don't need to keep checking. The game will then compete prices based on what prices the players entered, probably keeping a certain number of batches at the same price. This way players can't determine which batch is theirs, just what they have out there and the price it is listed at.
Problem on a first in first served basis, is how does that work? If I put one good out and I am first on the market, and then add to that to the point where I have never sold all my goods, am I always first to get matched?

Now assuming this all works, and you can't pinpoint your batches looking on PM:
Trade embargo. If players choose to bypass your goods, you should get a bonus on attacking them. This goes with the whole declaring war thing in game that doesn't actually do anything but turn their names red (which actually is easier to not see them meaning less chance of attacking them). You can obviously choose to not sell to certain players, and choose to sell to others, and also have your goods to be bought up at random.
So if you actively seek somebodies goods out, you should have a restriction on attacking them. Actually, you shouldn't be able to do this at all unless you are in their alliance. Everybody not allies is at war, just some more than others. Well, should be anyway.

So if somebody has blocked PM transactions with you, there should be war declared, bonuses on attacking them, and you should also know who has blocked sales etc. Should also be a % limit that you can have in each of your PM batches.

For the ones in holding, you are taking a straight out 15% loss? Then you move them and take a further 25% loss if you withdraw them? I think a must, since your goods are visible to nobody, they just really disappear from the game, much like they are in queue.

All in all, I think this is a very workable system that would be a huge positive on the game. A couple of little tweaks, and ranges to work out, but a lot could be done with this. Not sure if the database would allow this system? but I like a lot, at least the image I have of it in my head. Ideally something where you didn't need to input prices manually would be the best, but maybe that can work in here somewhere as overall I really think this is a good thing. Well played sir......

Changes/Suggestions » score/landScore ratio -> thoughts Jan 7, 2012 12:15 AM (Total replies: 18)

The "," after Franks, was an end comma to include with the Viking, not grouped with the last 3 civs. If you concentrate on reading it as a sloppy full stop, not how it is technically written it is all good..

Changes/Suggestions » score/landScore ratio -> thoughts Jan 7, 2012 12:13 AM (Total replies: 18)

But that doesn't help people camped from above either. Would make camping from above so much more effective. Mage bulk defense so they have to go full attack army to have any chance at all meaning their defense is small and you take more land off them. You get a bonus to do so rather than a neg as my current idea would give.

The other problem, is some empires just have crappier defense than others. The problem with all these "camping army" issues, is that civs were created to do just that. Zulu and Turks were the latest civs right? Chinese? Zulu bought in, with a bonus on pikes, which has an equal att/def score. They were designed to have a smaller defense because when they were defending they were able to also attack. Horsemen, Trained Peasants, Xbows. All these are "camping" armies. So if you are to base anything on defense ratios you are targetting certain civs for negatives and others for positives. Such as Viking gets a boost, Franks, Zulus, Chinese, Turks all get a negative.

Changes/Suggestions » Forum/game ID Combination - pro saving Jan 6, 2012 11:55 PM (Total replies: 11)

Days? ****ing months.... I think this idea was always well received and should be implemented without question.
The whole name change debate was always linked in with this too. League points (irrelevant as they are) should be based on your main account.

On account creation you should get this scenario:

Create New Account:
Please enter forum name and password................... If no forum account please visit this site to create your account
Would you like forum name to be your empire name?
Yes... Move on
No... Please enter your round empire name......
Would you like your forum name linked to league this round?
Yes? Link it
No? No league points for that empire (or yes, whichever)

Or another option, maybe every forum account has an account automatically created on round creation. To activate it you simply have to login and check that you wish to be associated with league for this round so you can still just log in and be a part of it without having to worry about dodgy unplayed test server accounts being associated with your league profile .
You could also enter your name after login and activation to have it changed. League would then represent your forum account, and the scores after round end could show empire name, and forum name.
Not sure what that would do to the database though with all those accounts created? Guess they would all be allocated memory so site would be sluggish? Either way, an email would be sent out saying empire created hope to see you soon or something. I know it doesn't take much to create an account, but doing that, then waiting for the email, then logging in to validate, then logging in again, too much hassle for some... :) Probably take out the need for validation too if their forum account has been validated?

As for pro saves, not really sure. I mean I could give up a round just doing pros and picking out the best to use all the time. My best ever pro run would be my new average pro run. Autopro may be the better option.

Changes/Suggestions » Online combat, Acceptance rather than fix. Jan 6, 2012 11:34 PM (Total replies: 38)

The problem with time limitiations though, and login limitations (I know you aren't directly talking about such things here but in a roundabout way), is that some people simply take longer to do things as others. Some people like to play an hour here, an hour there, play a couple of turns, have something to eat, root the mrs, play a few more while she is having a smoke and not moaning at you (for the wrong reasons)...

Who is it up to to decide how long it will take you to play your turns, and then punish you if you are legitimately too slow? Playing on wifi, cutouts, slow downloads, slow thought process, etc etc. I know Merc? used to be nearly blind? or at least there was talk of something along those lines.
By restricting productivity by being too slow while fixing some problems, has the potential to simply make better players further ahead of the pack because they can do things faster, camp other players, and still have played less time on the server.
I just don't think it is a good idea to punish people that want to be involved in the game.

I understand that camping is seen as a big issue in this game, whether legitimately or not, but the simple fact is that the best way to limit people camping you all the time, is to make sure they have to.
I know that autorefresh has been argued about here when there was no time limit, but once again, I think the arguments were all flawed. Now I know nobody appreciates me talking about my rounds, but simple fact is I have direct experience so rather that than hypotheticals, so here goes.
Autorefresh, with online bounce hit reset. Everybody in the game moaned and complained about me using autorefresh because they couldn't take me down because they didn't know if I was there or not. Is that just? No, because they have a free shot at me at 100% for as long as I have it running. Oracle tried to use it against me, and my Chin destroyed him. He let me take his land (not willingly or directly, but end result) BECAUSE he was using autorefresh.
Now picture this scenario. Oracle is up top camping me because he knows that if I give up, he wins. How do I beat him? Easy as turning my autorefresh on. As much as people below are scared about people above them with an * next to their name, so are the players up top. Well, in a decent round obviously with decent players that know what is going on.
Point being, that the best way to beat somebody camping you from above (most efficient way anyway, there are others that are more exciting), is to make sure they camp you for as long as possible. To have an account that is dangerous from close to them, where you can come at any time of the day and don't need max turns to do it. They think you are about to come at them, they give up their time to try to stop you. I can log in, put on autorefresh, go to the pub, and I have some goose staying by his computer waiting for me to run at them whereas in reality I am chatting to the bar staff at the pub throwing down a few pints not even thinking about the game.
Moral to that story, is that the biggest threat to somebody camping you, is them not knowing when you are coming for them. Online time works both ways. Now if you take that ability away from both the player up top, and the player coming from beneath, then you aren't restricting the camper up top, you are dictacting that the player underneath can't use time against them.
Time restrictions generally work for the person on top, because the players underneath have to give up a big chunk of their time just getting to where they already are. Yes, there fault for playing such a strategy in the first place, but time restrictions hurt full run players more than holders up top because holders up top have already done their attack run, they have the land already. They can spend extra time online camping, because they don't need the time to attack up hoping for a free ride. Best thing for camping, is to take time out of the equation. Shouldn't be a thing. This is an online war game. People should be allowed to be online if they choose to be, whether it be attacking runners, attacking explorers, or trying to bore a holder to tears by outwaiting them.

In regards to the asterisk, the only time that should be an option, is if this 5 minutes til attacking allowed idea persists, otherwise, there should be no time limit, and you should be allowed to use whatever means you like to stay logged into the game. There are very legitimate reasons to use autorefresh so it shouldn't be against any rules. Last time I was banned here was for just that. I logged out freeland after my run (well, as it turns out my method for logging out was to rely on the autologout after inactivity, but forgot I had the scores refreshing for my run so as it turns out I was still logged in). I had an asterisk next to my name, was freeland, and Barabas and co complained about me being online and to ban me. For what reason? Because obviously I was using autorefresh to camp the game since their argument was "look I can mage in front of him and he doesn't attack me so ban him" WTF...

Moral of the story: People should be allowed to be online 24 hours a day if they choose, whether they are sitting at their computer or not. * shouldn't be a part of the game because the 5 minute attack wait shouldn't be a part of the game. If you choose to be vulnerable, then that is your call. You want to enhance your run by being freeland, or full attack, then that is your strategy, others shouldn't be penalised for it. Time limit is a campers friend, no time limit, their enemy. When you get to the point where people will try to run you over a certain time by getting themself banned just to try to get you banned, then that is no good for the game. Want a war, fight without the admins. Fight all day, all night, that is what this game should be about.

People want to complain that campers ruined their run? But what did they want to do? Attack up, take out their army, mage on their land, produce on their land, then give their land away to their friends to do the same? Campers don't limit somebodys ability to do that at all. They actually make sure these players don't make a joke of the game by doing it all the way to the top.

Anyway, sidetracked. What was the point? Hmmmmm

Empire Builder » This is Retarded Jan 6, 2012 04:20 AM (Total replies: 15)

I think I have worked it out. You are showing your support for my landscore:score code change that protects the land of those that choose to put the effort into defending it.

Thank you....

Empire Builder » This is Retarded Jan 6, 2012 04:10 AM (Total replies: 15)

I am merely trying to work out what the game issue is from your initial post. No need to get personal.

Time: Tue March 26, 2019 5:23 PM CFBB v1.4.0 38 ms.
© AderSoftware 2002-2007