Hello dear community, I will try to share my views on all things regarding combat is Stellaris is a quick and efficient matter. Likely doomed to fail.
Ship Defense:
Shields vs Hull Plating vs Capacitators - the maths
Weapons and accuracy:
Weapon classes:
Combat computers
Ship hulls
Ship Defense:
Ships in Stellaris rely on a 4-layered form of Defense:
Evasion comes first - all ships can evade, but each tier after Corvette suffers a 25% penalty to its evasion value.
Shields - if a ship is hit and has shields those will absorb the damage. Damage to shields is NOT reduced by armor. Ships don't have innate shield value, but can equip shield components to get one.
Armor - all ships have some innate armor and more can be equipped. Heavier ships, however, start with more "base" armor to compensate for their lack of evasion. Armor reduces damage to Hull as a percentage. Lower values of armor are more effective, per point, in reducing overall damage.
Hull - the final defense. When hull reaches 0 the ship is destroyed. Hull can be increased with a special component obtained from killing Elite Crystaline Entities.
What it means in-game?
Evasion is the god stat of survivability in Stellaris and you can read about that in the part about weapon accuracy below. Evasion can also be stacked with shields, armor and hull. Thankfully the most evasive ships have the fewest slots to do that.
Shields are the worse version of hull. Shields can be penetrated, but that is not such a big drawback unless most of the enemy guns penetrate shields. Shields also require heavy investment in the Shielding and Reactor technologies in order to be effective, as they drain power. Shields DO NOT regenerate in combat, despite what the description may lead you to believe.
Armor works like a hull multiplier and tends to be more effective on heavier ships, but is not enough to compensate for the loss of evasion.
Hull (and the hull update component) is overall the best defense, since no weapon is inherently better vs hull - only raw DPS matters.
In practical terms the most defensive ship comp involves corvettes build around every evasion bonus available and having as high hull, or failing that, shield as possible. This doesn't mean that you should be building 100% corvette fleet, it just means that corvettes last the longest under fire and as best suited as a screening unit due to how easy they are to replenish.
Heavy ship-only fleets are simply not feasible. Heavy ship's overall reliance on armor for suitability is easily countered by using Energy Weapons (which are the best weapon type even if we ignore that). A fleet that relies on an evasion screen will always trump over heavies-only fleet of the same size. Evasion is a straight negative multiplier to incoming damage and the only counter to that - missiles - get shot down by PD and don't really work.
Evasion comes first - all ships can evade, but each tier after Corvette suffers a 25% penalty to its evasion value.
Shields - if a ship is hit and has shields those will absorb the damage. Damage to shields is NOT reduced by armor. Ships don't have innate shield value, but can equip shield components to get one.
Armor - all ships have some innate armor and more can be equipped. Heavier ships, however, start with more "base" armor to compensate for their lack of evasion. Armor reduces damage to Hull as a percentage. Lower values of armor are more effective, per point, in reducing overall damage.
Hull - the final defense. When hull reaches 0 the ship is destroyed. Hull can be increased with a special component obtained from killing Elite Crystaline Entities.
What it means in-game?
Evasion is the god stat of survivability in Stellaris and you can read about that in the part about weapon accuracy below. Evasion can also be stacked with shields, armor and hull. Thankfully the most evasive ships have the fewest slots to do that.
Shields are the worse version of hull. Shields can be penetrated, but that is not such a big drawback unless most of the enemy guns penetrate shields. Shields also require heavy investment in the Shielding and Reactor technologies in order to be effective, as they drain power. Shields DO NOT regenerate in combat, despite what the description may lead you to believe.
Armor works like a hull multiplier and tends to be more effective on heavier ships, but is not enough to compensate for the loss of evasion.
Hull (and the hull update component) is overall the best defense, since no weapon is inherently better vs hull - only raw DPS matters.
In practical terms the most defensive ship comp involves corvettes build around every evasion bonus available and having as high hull, or failing that, shield as possible. This doesn't mean that you should be building 100% corvette fleet, it just means that corvettes last the longest under fire and as best suited as a screening unit due to how easy they are to replenish.
Heavy ship-only fleets are simply not feasible. Heavy ship's overall reliance on armor for suitability is easily countered by using Energy Weapons (which are the best weapon type even if we ignore that). A fleet that relies on an evasion screen will always trump over heavies-only fleet of the same size. Evasion is a straight negative multiplier to incoming damage and the only counter to that - missiles - get shot down by PD and don't really work.
I am tired of this Shield Capacitator obsession. Yes, shield capacitators do enable shield regeneration during combat. This doesn't mean that they are good. Lets see the maths between Shields, Capacitators and Hull Plating. We'll use S sized components, larger components are equivalent in efficiency anyway.
One best tech S-sized best-tech shield component gives 125 shield at the cost of 15 power and regenerates at a rate of 3.6/day
One S-sized best-tech reactor component generates 3 power.
For a total cost of 3 S components slots you get 250 shield with a shield regeneration of 7.2 per day.
For the same total cost of 3 S components slots you get 300 hull.
Now, from my observation the natural shield regeneration doesn't work in combat. I may be wrong. This doesn't change a thing about shield. As you can see even if shields do regenerate one ship has to survive for 7 days in combat for the regeneration to even break even with Hull Plating. The way ship combat in Stellaris works usually 3-4 ships are focus fired until they die. A ship under fire, especially the small ones that get shot at the most, do not have the survival time (under fire) to make any use of the regeneration.
Further - shields can be bypassed. Disruptors deals bonus damage to shields. Armor does not multiply shield strength. Shields require a total of 5 technology researches PLUS the technology researches for the reactors. Hull plating requires only one (Expensive) technology, but 3 stacks of crystaline entities will get you at least 50% of that technology for free.
Hull plating is strictly better than shields, period.
Now lets take a look at Shield Capacitators. They work in combat - that is an absolutely confirmed fact. The question is how good they actually are?
An S-sized shield capacitator gives you 5 regen/day at the cost of 12.5 power. For the sake of taking the lower power consumption I will compare them to T4 Shields for the sake of fairness.
An S-sized T4 shield component gives you 100 shield strength at the cost of 12.5 power.
This means that a shield capacitator has to regenerate non-stop a non-full shield for 20 straight days before it breaks even in efficiency compared to a regular shield component you could have put in it's place. Every day after that the capacitator get better and better. Needless to say - no ship in Stellaris will survive for 20 days under enemy fire for the Shield Capacitator to become better than a flat shield component.
Shield Capacitators are strictly worse than shield components and should be ignored.
One best tech S-sized best-tech shield component gives 125 shield at the cost of 15 power and regenerates at a rate of 3.6/day
One S-sized best-tech reactor component generates 3 power.
For a total cost of 3 S components slots you get 250 shield with a shield regeneration of 7.2 per day.
For the same total cost of 3 S components slots you get 300 hull.
Now, from my observation the natural shield regeneration doesn't work in combat. I may be wrong. This doesn't change a thing about shield. As you can see even if shields do regenerate one ship has to survive for 7 days in combat for the regeneration to even break even with Hull Plating. The way ship combat in Stellaris works usually 3-4 ships are focus fired until they die. A ship under fire, especially the small ones that get shot at the most, do not have the survival time (under fire) to make any use of the regeneration.
Further - shields can be bypassed. Disruptors deals bonus damage to shields. Armor does not multiply shield strength. Shields require a total of 5 technology researches PLUS the technology researches for the reactors. Hull plating requires only one (Expensive) technology, but 3 stacks of crystaline entities will get you at least 50% of that technology for free.
Hull plating is strictly better than shields, period.
Now lets take a look at Shield Capacitators. They work in combat - that is an absolutely confirmed fact. The question is how good they actually are?
An S-sized shield capacitator gives you 5 regen/day at the cost of 12.5 power. For the sake of taking the lower power consumption I will compare them to T4 Shields for the sake of fairness.
An S-sized T4 shield component gives you 100 shield strength at the cost of 12.5 power.
This means that a shield capacitator has to regenerate non-stop a non-full shield for 20 straight days before it breaks even in efficiency compared to a regular shield component you could have put in it's place. Every day after that the capacitator get better and better. Needless to say - no ship in Stellaris will survive for 20 days under enemy fire for the Shield Capacitator to become better than a flat shield component.
Shield Capacitators are strictly worse than shield components and should be ignored.
Every weapon in Stellaris has its own accuracy value with the exception of Missile weapon types, which can never miss. The chance to hit formula is rather simple - Chance to hit = Weapon Accuracy - Enemy Evasion. This may be a bit deceptive, since evasion is listed as a % chance to dodge, but this formula was confirmed by the game devs to be the only correct now. Lets see how it translates in-game.
All weapon DPS displayed is calculated based on their current damage divided by its rate and fire and multiplied by it's accuracy. This means that weapons with high natural accuracy tend to have lower damage, while less accurate weapons pack more punch per shot. And this is precisely why evasion is so deceptively powerful.
Hypotetical Weapon A has 90% accuracy, 100 damage and refire rate of 1 second giving it a DPS of 90
Hypotetical Weapon B has 60% accuracy, 150 damage and refire rate of 1 second giving it a DPS of 90
Both weapons are shooting at a target with 30% evasion
Hypotetical Weapon A has 90-30=60 final accuracy, giving it a final DPS of 60
Hypotetical Weapon B has 60-30=30 final accuracy, giving it a final DPS of 45
This simple example clearly illustrates why weapons with high accuracy are ALWAYS the better pick when their DPS values are equal. When looking at in-game DPS value take a note of the weapon's accuracy as well. The lower the base accuracy of a weapon the bigger the damage loss when attacking targets with high evasion - and that's what you'll be shooting at for most of the time.
Weapons can also be mounted in 3 slot types - S, M and L. As a rule of the thumb weapons retain their DPS parity between tiers - one M weapon is worth 2 S weapons of the same type and an 1 L weapon is worth 2 M weapons. So 4S = 2M = 1L in terms of DPS alone. As you can see with every size increase range increases, accuracy decreases and damage is accordingly increased to maintain the DPS parity.
Equipping your fleet with the biggest guns doesn't mean it will do more DPS - actually its the opposite, since accuracy decreases and as we saw accuracy is king - but it will definitely be able to shoot from further away, thus start to do damage sooner. Weapon ranges is Stellaris appear to be forgiving to short ranged weapons since ships tend to clump over one another into firing range. Still - high range weapons with high accuracy are to be preferred.
All weapon DPS displayed is calculated based on their current damage divided by its rate and fire and multiplied by it's accuracy. This means that weapons with high natural accuracy tend to have lower damage, while less accurate weapons pack more punch per shot. And this is precisely why evasion is so deceptively powerful.
Hypotetical Weapon A has 90% accuracy, 100 damage and refire rate of 1 second giving it a DPS of 90
Hypotetical Weapon B has 60% accuracy, 150 damage and refire rate of 1 second giving it a DPS of 90
Both weapons are shooting at a target with 30% evasion
Hypotetical Weapon A has 90-30=60 final accuracy, giving it a final DPS of 60
Hypotetical Weapon B has 60-30=30 final accuracy, giving it a final DPS of 45
This simple example clearly illustrates why weapons with high accuracy are ALWAYS the better pick when their DPS values are equal. When looking at in-game DPS value take a note of the weapon's accuracy as well. The lower the base accuracy of a weapon the bigger the damage loss when attacking targets with high evasion - and that's what you'll be shooting at for most of the time.
Weapons can also be mounted in 3 slot types - S, M and L. As a rule of the thumb weapons retain their DPS parity between tiers - one M weapon is worth 2 S weapons of the same type and an 1 L weapon is worth 2 M weapons. So 4S = 2M = 1L in terms of DPS alone. As you can see with every size increase range increases, accuracy decreases and damage is accordingly increased to maintain the DPS parity.
Equipping your fleet with the biggest guns doesn't mean it will do more DPS - actually its the opposite, since accuracy decreases and as we saw accuracy is king - but it will definitely be able to shoot from further away, thus start to do damage sooner. Weapon ranges is Stellaris appear to be forgiving to short ranged weapons since ships tend to clump over one another into firing range. Still - high range weapons with high accuracy are to be preferred.
There are 4 weapon classes in Stellaris - Energy, Kinetic, Missile, PD and Strike Craft.
Energy Weapons were clearly designed first and have the best options. We have the following sub-options:
Kinetic Weapons are incredibly good in the early game where all ship defense is non-existent and pure DPS is king, but a terrible late game solution due to their lack of countering defense
Missiles - missiles in Stellaris have the unique mechanics of 100% accuracy (their DPS is what you get for real), but they get shot down by PD. On average a late game corvette screen has between 30% and 40% evasion, which means that you can afford to lose some missiles to PD and still break even in terms of DPS.
Aganst targets, which have no PD at all missiles are completely broken!
Now the question is how much you can afford to lose to PD and how effective PD really is. And sadly PD is hellishly effective. Just by looking at PD accuracy and cooldown a PD that is constantly shooting will bring down 2.5 missiles or 3.7 torpedos in the time an enemy launcer can spawn 1 and that is without factoring in possible accuracy bonuses, which can increase that ratio by up to 25% in favor of the PD.
In prolonged late game fights there is a constant stream of missiles to shoot at, so every PD will counter at least 2 enemy launchers. The biggest issue why that happens is because ships in Stellaris clump together and PD from backside ships are actually able to protect ships in front of them even with PD's pitiful range. The end result is that if you know the enemy uses missiles you simply build a mix of PDs and other weapons and the missile guy is doomed to lose. To make matters worse the game appears to make no difference between missiles fired from S, M and L sized weapons. So a single S-sized PD slot will occasionally render an L-sized missle weapon slot completely ineffective.
With that said lets talk about missile sub-weapons:
PD and strike craft
Small craft
Small craft are a class of their own. They appear to have 0% evasion, but can only ever be shot at by PD or fighter type small craft. They launch from the hangars of the ship and operate on their own.
Energy Weapons were clearly designed first and have the best options. We have the following sub-options:
- Basic Laser line - Red Laser is the worst starting weapon, but over time the line improves, especially into late game where we start to see some decent DPS, decent-ish range and the armor penetration actually starts to matter a bit mmore.
- Disruptors - lose armor penetration in favor of massive Shield damage boost. More range than Laser, but less DPS overall. Disruptors are best in slot against any fleet that relies on shields. And that's most of them.
- Energy Torpedos. These are the L exclusive version of the Disruptor, but it is for the most part a downgrade. The problem is that while they ignore shields other weapons in your arsenal don't and Energy Torpedos can only be fitted in L slots. At least they are accurate.
- Plasma - plasma trades a little bit of DPS for more range and better armor penetration compared to the Laser line. Overall, in most situations, this is an OK trade
- Lances - the god-weapons of Stellaris and the natural update of the Plasma line into the L slot. Lances have the best range, the best accuracy and the best DPS in the game. They also ignore armor completely.
- Arc Emitters - the only useless weapon in the energy family. Arc emitters have one glaring problem and that is the fact that they do 50% damage against shields. They also penetrate 50% of shields, but this means that whenever they shoot against a shielded target 25% of their damage is lost completely.
Kinetic Weapons are incredibly good in the early game where all ship defense is non-existent and pure DPS is king, but a terrible late game solution due to their lack of countering defense
- Mass Driver - the mass driver appears to be an excellent compromise between decent damage and OK range, until the moment you realize it has 6 less accuracy than the Laser line. It's better than lasers in the early game, but quickly starts to fall behind with every update as Laser starts to get closer in terms of DPS, but accuracy doesn't improve for the Driver line. At tier 5 the Mass Driver has less DPS than the Laser, marginally more range and no armor penetration.
- Autocannons - autocannons are the absolute kings of the early game. They cannon be countered by PD, they have the best DPS in the game and their lower range hardly matters for combat between a small number of ships. They also have Laser level accuracy. Late game Autocannons start to suffer, especially their S version, but they remain the only viable weapon in the Kinetic camp.
- Kinetic artillery - less DPS than lances, 20% less accuracy and no damage penetration mechanics. Absolutely worthless. Stick to Mass Driver line instead.
Missiles - missiles in Stellaris have the unique mechanics of 100% accuracy (their DPS is what you get for real), but they get shot down by PD. On average a late game corvette screen has between 30% and 40% evasion, which means that you can afford to lose some missiles to PD and still break even in terms of DPS.
Aganst targets, which have no PD at all missiles are completely broken!
Now the question is how much you can afford to lose to PD and how effective PD really is. And sadly PD is hellishly effective. Just by looking at PD accuracy and cooldown a PD that is constantly shooting will bring down 2.5 missiles or 3.7 torpedos in the time an enemy launcer can spawn 1 and that is without factoring in possible accuracy bonuses, which can increase that ratio by up to 25% in favor of the PD.
In prolonged late game fights there is a constant stream of missiles to shoot at, so every PD will counter at least 2 enemy launchers. The biggest issue why that happens is because ships in Stellaris clump together and PD from backside ships are actually able to protect ships in front of them even with PD's pitiful range. The end result is that if you know the enemy uses missiles you simply build a mix of PDs and other weapons and the missile guy is doomed to lose. To make matters worse the game appears to make no difference between missiles fired from S, M and L sized weapons. So a single S-sized PD slot will occasionally render an L-sized missle weapon slot completely ineffective.
With that said lets talk about missile sub-weapons:
- Fusion missile line - decent cooldown, incredible range and accuracy. Best early game weapon by far, but becomes obsolete as soon as the enemy unlocks PD. Will remain decently effective against the AI for the whole game, because the AI doesn't like to build too much PD.
- Torpedo line - completely ignores shields and has more DPS and range than missiles, but launch and move slower (more vulnerable to PD). Well... if the enemy has PD you are fucked anyway and if he doesn't the torpedo is a decent update over the missile due to more range, DPS and shield penetration.
- Swarm Missiles (L size exclusive) - the worst weapon slot in the game clearly designed by someone who has no idea how combat works. Swarm Missiles simply DO NOT work. An L slot weapon is an equivalent to 4 S slot weapons, but those 4 S slots will do a much better work at overwhelming the enemy PD. Hell, even 2 M-sized missile weapon will be better.
PD and strike craft
Small craft
Small craft are a class of their own. They appear to have 0% evasion, but can only ever be shot at by PD or fighter type small craft. They launch from the hangars of the ship and operate on their own.
- Fighter small craft essentially work as mobile PD units - they can shoot at other small craft, enemy missiles and capital ships.
- Bombers can only target enemy big ships, but completely ignore shields and penetrate 50% of enemy armor.
- S-sized PD weapons. These come in very short range and their damage is weak, but they are able to bring down any incomming missile in 1 hit. The only thing they get from updates is a damage bump, which in turn is only ever useful against strike craft. Only every update PD if the enemy has strike craft.
- L-sized Flak Battery - these are supposed to be the designated anti-small craft weapons, but considering the awful state of small craft atm they are completely useless and unnecessary. They can also shoot at missiles, but considering you are using an L-sized slot to do what an S-sized slot weapon already does better... avoid this useless tech.
This is going to be a short one. Currently the aggressive combat computer damage bonuses are bugged and none of its bonuses actually apply in combat. This also applies to the offensive bonuses of the Default computer. It has been confirmed as a bug and computers are getting a rework for 1.2. With that said...
In addition to giving bonuses to your ships combat computers also control how your ships move in combat.
As you can see the whole combat computer module section is very illogical and counter intuitive - you want the evasion bonus on ships that close the distance and the damage bonus (if it wasn't bugged) on ships that shoot from afar. Whoever designed combat computers clearly put very little thought in the process.
In practical terms you are best off using the highest range weapon you can mount on your corvettes and use defensive computers on everything. If you don't have access to high range weapons use the Default/Balanced computer instead to be able to close the range and still get a big of bonuses out of it.
In addition to giving bonuses to your ships combat computers also control how your ships move in combat.
- The aggressive computer will make the ship move forward towards the enemy until the ship gets into knife range and keep it there.
- The defensive computer will make your ships move as little as possible - they will try to maintain maximum firing range and shoot from there.
- The default/balanced computer is a mixture of the two - it will try to close the range, but it will not allow your ships to go as close as aggressive computers will. Once it tries to get into its preferred range it will try to maintain it similar to a defensive computer.
As you can see the whole combat computer module section is very illogical and counter intuitive - you want the evasion bonus on ships that close the distance and the damage bonus (if it wasn't bugged) on ships that shoot from afar. Whoever designed combat computers clearly put very little thought in the process.
In practical terms you are best off using the highest range weapon you can mount on your corvettes and use defensive computers on everything. If you don't have access to high range weapons use the Default/Balanced computer instead to be able to close the range and still get a big of bonuses out of it.
I've left ship hulls last, since the knowledge on how to select ship hulls is entirely dependent on the information listed above.
Please keep in mind that in terms of raw DPS 4S=2M=1L sized weapon slot. Since range increases, but accuracy decreases with slot size here are the following "rules" I've created for myself.
Corvettes
For the most part cruisers can be ignored. Battleships are just one tech away and cruisers have a weird mix of weapons. Still, there can be a huge gap of time between getting battleships AND lance class weapons that make the best use of battleship's many L slots.
Please note that since battleships tend to be slow and fire from the backside Range is the single most important offensive stat for their weapons. On battleships you should be using the 6L weapon design even if you don't have access to lances yet. Equip your longest range weapon there. Otherwise you run the risk of your highest dmg platforms not firing for a good half of the actual fight.
Battleship auras:
Battleship auras don't stack. You can have at best one negative aura affecting enemies and one of each positive auras affecting your own ships. Also, battleship aura components require a lot of energy. For most fleet comps you want one FTL-suck-in module battleship, plus one of each positive aura. If you don't use shields naturally you don't need the shield boosting aura. This is PER FLEET. All other battleships in the same fleet should be without aura module. Put defensive modules in those slots.
Please keep in mind that in terms of raw DPS 4S=2M=1L sized weapon slot. Since range increases, but accuracy decreases with slot size here are the following "rules" I've created for myself.
- For most non-missile weapons M>S. You get at least a 50% range increase (flat +10) at the cost of only 2 accuracy. That's a good trade off
- M>L for weapon types in which L loses accuracy, since this time you trade the same 10 range increase at the cost of 5 accuracy, but once you reach the end-game L-only weapons L-slot is the best.
- Missiles are completely worthless against human opponents. Against AI you can rely on overwhelming enemy PD. For missiles its always S>M>L.
- H-slots are completely worthless against human opponents. Against the AI all L-slots on a missile-heavy fleet should be turned into H slots.
- Crystal forged plating is the best in slot for every single hull type. I generally avoid researching shields until i scout all close systems and don't discover any elite crystalline entities.
- If you don't have CFP stacking shields is your 2nd best option.
- Shield capacitors are trash unless you are running a fleet without screening units (bad idea). It takes 20+ days of regeneration for the capacitator to break even with installing an ordinary shield component in its place. Only battleships have any chance of surviving 20+ days of sustained enemy fire for the capacitator to be better than ordinary shield component.
- Armor works as a hull multiplier and is thus best utilized on bigger ships and ships already using CFP. Armor becomes less and less effective the more you stack it.
Corvettes
- 1S corvette hull is best for screening unit. Put defensive computer, all defensive modules and install PD in the slot. Works as a damage sponge and nothing else, but is freakishly good at it.
- 1S 1M corvette hull is best combat hull for corvettee, can also work as a screening unit with one real weapon is M slot plus a PD in the S slot.
- 3S corvette works best for missiles or if you want heavy PD fire against someone stupid enough to rely on missile weapons.
- 1L + 2S makes for a freakishly good late game combat unit. Equip Lance + 2PD
- 3S hull is actually a bargain, since you trade 1 S slot gun for 1 M slot defensive slot. The corvette hull trades 2S slots for a single M slot in comparison.
- 3S + 2S are best torpedo boat destroyers (moar missiles)
- 2 S + 2M make for the best early game gun platform
For the most part cruisers can be ignored. Battleships are just one tech away and cruisers have a weird mix of weapons. Still, there can be a huge gap of time between getting battleships AND lance class weapons that make the best use of battleship's many L slots.
- 6M slots on a cruiser is an incredibly powerful mid-game gun platform
- 6L Battleship design is undeniably the best firepower platform in the game, at least once you unlock the Lance/Energy torpedos technologies.
- (2S +1M+1H) + (4S + 2H)+(4S) is the best platform for missile-heavy fleets
Please note that since battleships tend to be slow and fire from the backside Range is the single most important offensive stat for their weapons. On battleships you should be using the 6L weapon design even if you don't have access to lances yet. Equip your longest range weapon there. Otherwise you run the risk of your highest dmg platforms not firing for a good half of the actual fight.
Battleship auras:
Battleship auras don't stack. You can have at best one negative aura affecting enemies and one of each positive auras affecting your own ships. Also, battleship aura components require a lot of energy. For most fleet comps you want one FTL-suck-in module battleship, plus one of each positive aura. If you don't use shields naturally you don't need the shield boosting aura. This is PER FLEET. All other battleships in the same fleet should be without aura module. Put defensive modules in those slots.
Last edited:
- 44
- 8
- 7
