-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Correct, I can not MC UK. And they are very little help - neither contributing any BEF nor even using their main fleet further than Mouth of the Thames. So I lost a ship scouting off Wilhelmshaven. And they fly all their aircraft on my limited forward bases to - basically - cause me more harm than their bombing of the enemy.
I started the game as Germany and build to best/strongest army I could for historical Fall Gelb. While I continued that game, what I did for here was reload as France just before I had launched Fall Gelb. Basically, I think I gave the (now) German AI the best opportunity to trounce me. They attacked immediately... and I was left with the mess of leaders the French AI had built, no ENG brigades to dig in deeper, and all wrong in so many ways, except I did have 200 infra everywhere - thanks to Pang's foresight.
Well, it was a tough first few months. The Maginot Line forts were reduced to nil levels so intensive were the battles there at the start. Then the Krauts tried the "thru the Ardennes" strategy and there I lost ground- losing most of the Netherlands and half of Belgium. I had MC of Belgium and Netherlands but was teetering on collapse. Finally a few Canadian divisions arrived because I did not MC anyone else until much later. So - eventually - a couple NZ cavalry and 1 Aussie also joined the fight. Much later I decided I needed the South Africans too.
But by October 1941 I had Berlin. Fortunately for Hitler, the Soviets remained peaceful all along, and it wasn't until I got into German Poland that finally - in March 1942 - Stalin intervened... and then I had to race the Red Army to [EDIT] Warsaw. Fortunately, we got there just first... and Germany got annexed.
Then came eliminating the rest of the Axis (Norway, Hungary, Bulgaria). Italy had stayed out as Paris never fell... so in 1943 we DOWed them (horrible 7.8% dissent). In 1944 we annexed N. Spain. So, now I am wondering how the next war in spring 1945 will go against the Reds. And as Japan also decided never doing Pearl Harbor would be safest, I have even a bigger challenge eventually as they have the huge puppet of [EDIT] Republic of China. But with only 216 IC for France, I haven't built a single new ship yet.
I was building a factory in Paris but had to stop it as things were so tight. But that was big mistake with having 43 already there. Pang would know exactly but I guess every new factory pays for itself immediately. Maybe I should not DOW Stalin until 1946 and build only factories for a couple years? But then the Reds would close the "tech gap" and get so many more INF upgraded that we would lose the big advantage we will enjoy Spring 1945 with us then having Semi-Modern INF-1945 (and upgraded too). This is the point meant for you!
Last edited:
Production does stop, but gearing remains as is and needs the idle fee paid or it will diminish.
Well, the sliders soviet union starts with are very disfavourable for upgrading. If you force democratization and go for free markets, than upgrading bills are paid much more easily.
It can work. Force democratization and go for the german doctrine tree. You will still be a bit inferior, but if you combine it with forts and artillery bombardement with ESE above 300%, than you are good. That requires of course to build up infrastructure quite well.
A few version back i did that without the forts and hardly any artillery bombardment(except against finland in 1939). It worked like a charm. But for this to work out you need to attack hard instead of defending.
Also i would like to point out that in case of soviet union lean and means rather means 180 Inf instead of 540. So that is really relatively speaking.
Commander666
Interesting and sounds bloody challenging but I suspect there's a typo here and you weren't racing the Red Army to Moscow to get a German surrender? Presumably somewhere like Konnigsburg or Warsaw?
A bit surprised given the military you built up for Germany they went for battering through the Maginot Line and only later through the low countries? Was this because you had set them up mainly in the south and the AI just struck at the nearest target rather than redeployed northwards?
Steve
Ho ho! "YES" that is a typo. I meant WARSAW . Fixed!
As regards how I left Germany before the AI got it, it was all tuned for an attack thru the Ardennes. Nothing but heavy infantry and GAR with ENG guarding the Siegfried Line in minimal but safe strength.
All the HQs, panzers, mots, cav, mtn and other inf were poised for rapid flanking going thru weak Belgium and sitting in the north and west. Even Fallschirmjäger which the Ai never even loaded on a plane. But the German Ai did manage to eliminate 2 of the forts (Metz was never attacked). It was close. It got worse when the Krauts switched their thrust towards Belgium. Think they could have won had they just right away followed the blitzkrieg attack which was so clearly set up to race thru Belgium and reach Paris.
As regards how I left Germany before the AI got it, it was all tuned for an attack thru the Ardennes. Nothing but heavy infantry and GAR with ENG guarding the Siegfried Line in minimal but safe strength.
All the HQs, panzers, mots, cav, mtn and other inf were poised for rapid flanking going thru weak Belgium and sitting in the north and west. Even Fallschirmjäger which the Ai never even loaded on a plane. But the German Ai did manage to eliminate 2 of the forts (Metz was never attacked). It was close. It got worse when the Krauts switched their thrust towards Belgium. Think they could have won had they just right away followed the blitzkrieg attack which was so clearly set up to race thru Belgium and reach Paris.
Last edited:
You could also not move slider towards Central Planning so the upgrading doesn't get worse than it already is.
To the Gulag for "re-education" because of your suggestion to change the Soviet Union from being, well, Russian, I suppose.
I mean, is it not the differences in majors that attracts players to try playing them? But if we will "homogenize" everything to the most efficient common parameters, what might we get?
To the Gulag for "re-education" because of your suggestion to change the Soviet Union from being, well, Russian, I suppose.
I mean, is it not the differences in majors that attracts players to try playing them? But if we will "homogenize" everything to the most efficient common parameters, what might we get?
DA, DA!! Well-said, Comrade!You could also not move slider towards Central Planning so the upgrading doesn't get worse than it already is.
To the Gulag for "re-education" because of your suggestion to change the Soviet Union from being, well, Russian, I suppose.
I mean, is it not the differences in majors that attracts players to try playing them? But if we will "homogenize" everything to the most efficient common parameters, what might we get?
Ho ho! "YES" that is a typo. I meant WARSAW . Fixed!
As regards how I left Germany before the AI got it, it was all tuned for an attack thru the Ardennes. Nothing but heavy infantry and GAR with ENG guarding the Siegfried Line in minimal but safe strength.
All the HQs, panzers, mots, cav, mtn and other inf were poised for rapid flanking going thru weak Belgium and sitting in the north and west. Even Fallschirmjäger which the Ai never even loaded on a plane. But the German Ai did manage to eliminate 2 of the forts (Metz was never attacked). It was close. It got worse when the Krauts switched their thrust towards Belgium. Think they could have won had they just right away followed the blitzkrieg attack which was so clearly set up to race thru Belgium and reach Paris.
Ah well, sounds like the AI was in full AS mode.
Which as you say was probably the only thing that saved you from the Germany you built.
Well, OK then:...you stated,
"I can't see doing this with subs - certainly not with 27 Heavies and the Scharnhorsts."
… and I replied "Nonsense!"
So I gave you a precise OoB so that even you can do that using subs.
36 SS IVs, 6 BC IVs, 5 CA IVs. Still a big Navy.
8 TACs 12 CASs, 16-20 INTs.
But: I lost 3 Marine divisions to a counter-attack, as I had to VorV them to hold for more arrivals. Then when dissent started, I undid that , and poof. Then I lost 3 of the 8 TACs to airport striking Dover, and not watching, while I struggled to hold Portsmouth. 2 x 6 stacks of subs held the channel corners, and airpower cleared out the enemy naval bases first (A single UK transport snuck into Plymouth. The main fleet ran away to Scapa I guess).
Only 15 TPs, so the spoiler atacks failed before the main victory. That cost me planes.
However:
BTW, my heavy convoy raiding (Naval Combat Patrol) with 36 SS IVs + 3 SS IIs sank ~100 UK convoy ships in about 2 months of trying. I "Peeked" to see they had 1500 left! That's one problem I see with subs. It would take forever to cripple them at this rate.
Last edited:
I see several mistakes including not putting your subs on priority or using forced engagement (the 2 red icons you have on the sub counters).
But you can't blame your marines not knowing how to retreat or your bad air tactics on the subs, can you?
But what are you talking about? You show us that you landed at Plymouth successfully and in huge numbers. So what really happened with the spoiler attacks at Plymouth? Did you not cancel them immediately upon seizing Plymouth? They're not supposed to run to their inevitable doom. They should start 1 1/2 day after main amphib starts (with 6 hour delay = 42 hours that main amphib has been running) and cancel immediately upon marines landing. They are the first reinforcements (but not if you will deliver them with zero org remaining). In that case they need go back to Cherbourg and get fresh units instead. But with a "good attack" on Plymouth, my spoiler units are only slightly used when I transfer them to land at Portsmouth right after the marines land. Of course, I would always have a PAR available that immediately seizes Portsmouth right after MAR win the first battle. That way the PAR then holds Portsmouth open and nothing can interfere with the marines completing their landing, or any spoiler units transferring to there. If you check history you should realize that Fallschirmjäger were paramount to Germany's successes in Fall Gelb, and were especially planned to assist any Sea Lion. But no, I don't ever "exploit" them to land on an undefended UK province that doesn't even have a beach. That is too gamey. But using them right after the marines won the first battle seems very appropriate to me.
But fortunately, 27 SS-4 organized into 3 wolfpacks is still the most efficient way to sink major enemy fleets which is what I use them for. Battles begin at ~1km range, I fire during day and night, I get very little damage, the enemy tends to stick around and so more gets sunk, and this U-boat force is cheaper to build than any other fleet capable of doing same. So I have no problem with them.
However, with "early conquest games" like you usually do I also found (and reported) that there is not enough time allotted for the subs to win their war. The early conquest scenario is OK for subs to sink much of the RN, but the USN AI tends to not want to play his ships against my subs. So then my subs need search out the USN in the Pacific... and that is much more difficult.
EDIT: Oh, one more thing regarding those lost marines. They should have had offensive supply because once they land and must defend, they are on poor infra initially. In fact all amphibs and airborne I give OS as they will all be defending on reduced infra. It can be a difficult defense at Portsmouth until the reserve troops are transported in. But a lone para will hold the Brits at bay long enough until marines and spoilers arrive. But even then it can be tough fight waiting for reinforcements as UK probably has 3 angles of attack by then. So some panzers and HQ are always the next to get transported in first. They will not have OS as too much OS is noticeably bad for TC. Instead Portsmouth (and all further) gets 100% repair.
There is very little point in using VoV if you are unwilling to pay off the dissent. Of course you will lose them "poof" if you cancel the VoV. You should have left your transports that they amphibed from in place (don't move the TPs) and the marines could have retreated back to them. Or you should have used your TPs far faster to bring in reinforcements. BTW, there is huge difference in time depending on how one missions the TPs to travel from Western English Channel (location of one spoiler attack) to Cherbourg. You should never use one mission but micro-manage it in "direct segments" so it happens in about half the time. Basically, you tied up 3 TPs (or maybe 6) moving out-of-org spoiler units. And why is TP#4 coming into Portsmouth but delivering nothing?
Airport strike is the most damaging mission possible for the tiniest of gains. Never use it - problem solved.
So the subs did their job just fine. Better than fine. UK SAGs did not barricade themselves in the Channel Ports (I told you so). In fact, the RN ran away from the subs. My experience too - RN often doesn't even interfere with subs blocking ends of English Channel.
But you can't blame your marines not knowing how to retreat or your bad air tactics on the subs, can you?
Did you start the spoiler attacks too early? As regards spoiler on Plymouth, it is safe to delay almost 2 days as a UK MOT-1/ART needs 45 hours to travel Plymouth>Portsmouth. BTW, you had 3 more TPs than I did .
But what are you talking about? You show us that you landed at Plymouth successfully and in huge numbers. So what really happened with the spoiler attacks at Plymouth? Did you not cancel them immediately upon seizing Plymouth? They're not supposed to run to their inevitable doom. They should start 1 1/2 day after main amphib starts (with 6 hour delay = 42 hours that main amphib has been running) and cancel immediately upon marines landing. They are the first reinforcements (but not if you will deliver them with zero org remaining). In that case they need go back to Cherbourg and get fresh units instead. But with a "good attack" on Plymouth, my spoiler units are only slightly used when I transfer them to land at Portsmouth right after the marines land. Of course, I would always have a PAR available that immediately seizes Portsmouth right after MAR win the first battle. That way the PAR then holds Portsmouth open and nothing can interfere with the marines completing their landing, or any spoiler units transferring to there. If you check history you should realize that Fallschirmjäger were paramount to Germany's successes in Fall Gelb, and were especially planned to assist any Sea Lion. But no, I don't ever "exploit" them to land on an undefended UK province that doesn't even have a beach. That is too gamey. But using them right after the marines won the first battle seems very appropriate to me.
Well, as I said earlier, you should probably stick with what works best for you. Obviously using subs is just creating blame how your marines and air tactics failed... something the subs are not even responsible for.
Again, this is not the fault of the subs but the fault of recent version changes. It has been long stated that U-boat strategy can no longer get UK out of convoys as used to be possible back on v1.07.
But fortunately, 27 SS-4 organized into 3 wolfpacks is still the most efficient way to sink major enemy fleets which is what I use them for. Battles begin at ~1km range, I fire during day and night, I get very little damage, the enemy tends to stick around and so more gets sunk, and this U-boat force is cheaper to build than any other fleet capable of doing same. So I have no problem with them.
However, with "early conquest games" like you usually do I also found (and reported) that there is not enough time allotted for the subs to win their war. The early conquest scenario is OK for subs to sink much of the RN, but the USN AI tends to not want to play his ships against my subs. So then my subs need search out the USN in the Pacific... and that is much more difficult.
EDIT: Oh, one more thing regarding those lost marines. They should have had offensive supply because once they land and must defend, they are on poor infra initially. In fact all amphibs and airborne I give OS as they will all be defending on reduced infra. It can be a difficult defense at Portsmouth until the reserve troops are transported in. But a lone para will hold the Brits at bay long enough until marines and spoilers arrive. But even then it can be tough fight waiting for reinforcements as UK probably has 3 angles of attack by then. So some panzers and HQ are always the next to get transported in first. They will not have OS as too much OS is noticeably bad for TC. Instead Portsmouth (and all further) gets 100% repair.
Last edited:
As usual, the "agressive-attacking" strategy has upgrades lacking. Therefore, Luftwaffe, mobiles (LA & MOTs) and upgradable Navy brigades are prioritized. I've experimented with forced engagement with subs before, with mixed results. Earlier, my subs retreated from major UK battles, and sank no capital ships - none, and that was with 9-stacks and no under-promotion.
Forced engagement, and circulating 9-stacks in & out of combat, as I believe you've written before, has to be the only way to sink caps. I'm thinking of now using 3 stacks of 12 each....
Units don't retreat to TPs in port, strangely enough - only to TPs offshore. That was unacceptable, as I had to cycle reinforcements in ASAP. I don't want dissent while doing a major amphibious adventure - the biggest one of the game, at that. Those 3 divisions probably bought success.
If by this you mean that I should've had a fresh 3-stack of INF in Rennes, Maybe. Would that have made much of any difference? it is 2-steps to go from Cherborg - Portsmouth as it is.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
Now you tell me.
They never showed up. I doubt my subs would have not retreated had the 3 CVs arrived. Your "Forced Engagement" would have had to've be tested.
See my airport strike comment above!
Well now, there's a strong argument for PARs, but that would cost me my marines, and maybe some Navy builds, I think. Transport planes are so pricey, and slow to regain org.
Besides, how many PAR divisions? Wouldn't they be immediately counter-attacked? Would they "Hold out" long enough to issue move or rebase commands to the attacking TPs, to get in there quickly enough?
I don't believe that exploit works anymore. Cardiff always has 1 GAR unit, so the PARs do not get instant victory, and the counter-attacks/defensive moves from neighboring provinces would crush that attempt.
I believe my post is basically validating your strategy, but now that you brought it up, did the subs pop the hatch and signal the marines to start swimming out to them? No! Did they hold out amyway? Maybe, but they probably surrendered. Whimps. It's b/c Student was in charge - a PAR commander. Germany doesn't even have any real marine commanders, do they? Where's Skorzeny when you need him???
That is exactly what I used, except for FE. The subs took damage and retreated. No cap ship UK losses. Only my 6 BC IVs damaged their Caps, and they got hit somewhat by CV/BB encounters, but, as usual, no losses - just repairs needed.
My CVs can't win that war early either, but they fare better sinking the UK Cap's - or chasing them off. I either win vs UK by (Older games) waiting to fight them until after USA and even USSR is annexed, or (Lately) running into them "hiding" in Scapa Flow and Luftwaffe-bombing them into the history feed. Base Strike with my CVs is useless -- sadly.
Vs USA the CVs do better, but if engaging near the coastline, USA bombers exact a toll. "Gamey" Luftwaffe airstrikes at Norfolk, just like at Scapa, win the day -- if they can be pulled off before USA retreats its ships.
Good ideas, except why Panzers? Infantry has much higher defensive ratings?
Last edited:
3 stacks of 12 each would be a huge mistake. You would be over stacked by 1/2 a stack much of the time.
Firstly, it isn't my Forced Engagement but the game's; and all smart navy players know when to use it or not. Secondly, it has been tested very well (except by you perhaps). Reading on about your sub problems, it is so evident why you are failing to succeed using subs.
I disagree. You are not validating my strategy because you are not even following my strategy. Rather you are doing some sort of "your sub strategy full of deviations". Read below.
1) "Except for FE" (forced engagement) is a HUGE MISTAKE. It must be forced engagement.
2) The only bigger mistake you could make is to also include capital ships. You've ruined the engagement distance. Are you even checking that you are well within torpedo firing distance? You say "only your BCs hit their capitals". So your subs did nothing except worsen your battle because of extra useless stacking penalty of a bunch of subs probably outside their firing range. They must have been outside torpedo range or they would have damaged the enemy. You need to watch the battle - hour by hour. See who can fire. See who is firing. See who is targeted. I even write firing distance on the stack name so I instantly can see what the limit is for all fleets. Glancing at the sunk ships list is useless - except to celebrate with a beer - because who got the sinking can be meaningless to who first seriously damaged that ship.
3) As regards your other priority error, the subs do not get involved in upgrading (as you have no brigades for them). To be succinct, they must be prioritized. Never take them out of port if even 1% damage exists.
My PAR never cost me my marines. I always have both, so your problem is elsewhere (too many factories, too many CVs, who knows?)
Build them at TRA-1. They are cheaper that way. You only need one but 2 is the minimum recommended so they can take on complex "free- rebasing and retrieval of vey damaged aircraft" once "Air Supply Mission" tech is achieved (at TRA-2).
No, they are extremely fast to regain org. In fact, much faster than any other air unit because they only have 1/2 to 1/3 the max org of other units. They go from zero org to fully orged in just 7-8 days. Are you insuring that they are not on an over stacked base?
One PAR and 1 TRA for Sea Lion. One PAR and 2 TRA is the sensible minimum. 3 PAR and 5 TRA is the sensible maximum. But SeaLion only needs 1 PAR and 1 TRA.
Yes, they are; and they easily withstand that for several hours against big counter-attack.
In my case no problem. In your case I don't know because I already sense danger in your question which includes mention of "rebase commands to the attacking TPs". That might be setting up for a Sea Transport mission instead of the needed "Move To" mission and so result in landing reinforcements with seriously reduced org. That could lead to you losing the PAR and et al. I hate to be blamed for that so again say. "Best you just stick with what is working well for you". The subs experiment has shown that you don't follow the precise requirements but do your own variation which, not surprisingly, doesn't work very well. If I didn't prioritize my subs, didn't set them to forced engagement, and had capital ships in the battles my sub strategy would also fail.
True, but I want to be immediately ready to blitz up Britain. Besides, I have no problem with UK cancelling its 3 angle counter-attack the moment my HQ and two ARM arrive. But to answer the question fully, defensiveness isn't the only thing that matters. Soft Attack or Hard Attack values also matter. So it matters that the UK has very little Hard Attack value against my ARM-2/SpArt which have softness value of 29%. Vice versa, the UK has abundant Soft Attack value against your 100% softness INF-39/ART. Maybe it is INF-1936 for you. Still, all in all, I like the ARM better but then I am thinking ahead of what happens in next 24 hours knowing that my beachhead will not fail because I would have in it already 1 PAR, 3 MAR, 9 INF from 2 spoilers and 2nd angle of attack, 2 ARM, 1 HQ (all brigaded). Adding more INF at Portsmouth instead of mobiles would only hurt my coming blitz.
Armoured divisions donnot do well under attack. Armoured divisions are for attacking, infantry is for being attacked. So if you know you will be attacked and cannot stop that for some time, than use infantry to reinforce the position. This can of course also be motorized infantry. Mot1941 excels at that and is also decent at attack.
The point of going for the cheap submarines is to not spend valuable icd on a surface fleet. You may finish the Graf Spee, but that is is. So you have 2 old BC, 3 CA, a few screens for them and around 15 TP. The rest is to be submarines. The point is to save valuable icd for what you will need. Many Mot1941-SpArt1940 supported by quite some CAS-Esc are expected to be needed. Both of them are quite icd-efficient if the strategy is optimized for their use.
The point of going for the cheap submarines is to not spend valuable icd on a surface fleet. You may finish the Graf Spee, but that is is. So you have 2 old BC, 3 CA, a few screens for them and around 15 TP. The rest is to be submarines. The point is to save valuable icd for what you will need. Many Mot1941-SpArt1940 supported by quite some CAS-Esc are expected to be needed. Both of them are quite icd-efficient if the strategy is optimized for their use.
But I had written, "... UK cancelling its 3 angle counter-attack the moment my HQ and two ARM arrive". So I know I can stop the attack immediately upon adding the ARM and HQ. So it is the right choice given a blitz will follow next.
Anyway, why you even criticizing my strategy when very recently you just wrote in other thread you don't want to debate with me? Well, I don't mind... just asking as it seems so …. curious I guess.
Last edited:
You are assuming I had both subs & SAGs fighting in the same zone at the same time. I did not say that. I am aware of firing distances. Something like that would only happen if one group was "moving through" and the lot gets ambushed. This has occasionally happened, including this game. There was some sub damage then IIRC. When/if this happens, I then retreat the caps, if facing their caps, or the subs if facing their ASWs.
No, the subs alone sank no enemy capital ships -- so far. Separate BC engagements were more effective, but the 6-stack BCs take damage. I rarely lose a BC IV. Damaged CVs, subs of all types, TPs and scouts - yes. BCs I just don't lose, somehow.
As I review my Sunk Ships stats 8/3/1940 of the 23 enemy ships sunk by other ships of mine, 2 were from subs -- a UK DD and a Spanish sub(!). The Luftwaffe obliterated 101 ships, about 60 at Scapa Flow. So gamey, but what're ya gonna do...?
I use Naval Combat Patrol most times now, as regular combat and convoy raiding seem to result. The convoy situation has improved:
That's a high standard. Not even 1%?
Maybe next time
I do like the Air Supply feature, esp during USSR Pt 2 in 1942, for sure.
I see.
I have had better luck during Sealion with "Rebase" vs any other command. Rebasing seems to get them there whether enemy ships show up, or not. Perhaps now I have solved that problem, but on this timetable, I still will have to launch Sealion ASAP, whether at Portsmouth, Norwich, Dover, or wherever else they are weak.
BTW, with each pass I'm getting disgustingly better:
My last game, I launched Barbarossa on August 3, 1940.
So, contrary to the way AH used to think, more/bigger isn't always better.
I usually funnel in Infantry first, until I'm sure the UK counter-attacks are failing. Then the power arrives, and starts their blitz!
Last edited:
My thinking exactly, although at this point my corps consist of 1 ARM/SP art (LA III or ARM III) and 2 MOT/Art units. Occasionally a 3-stack of MOTs may be there, only b/c I don't have the armor ready yet.
SP Art is so overrated in HOI II. If I designed a mod, one element would be to compel players to diversify their corps/army's brigades. I believe that's what HOI III did. TDs, Heavy Tanks, AT, AA brigades, Nebelwerfers, even AGs now should all have a place, and forcing their research would make the game both more realistic, and challenging...
Probably right, but "Old habits die hard," as those BC IVs have served me well. I seldom keep the Great War BCs now, as after Poland, their use is, what?
I have a 6 x 6 stack of BC IVs/escorts and a 5 x 6 stack of "Panzerschiffes" and escorts now. Also 2 ASW fleets of 2 CL IIIs and 3 DD IVs, My CL IVs in SAG fleets have FC (or RA) & AA, wherever possible. Always AA on CLs in SAGs or CTFs. The ASW fleets can keep their SPs and FCs. The DD/ASWs take care of the subs, and can even do a little convoy raiding.
After Barbarossa I'm planning on splitting my (by then) 6 CA IVs up into 6 little convoy raiding fleets, and sending them to the South Atlantic choke-point. I will use my (crapload of) SS IVs, with the SAG/BC IVs and ASW fleets as support, against Canada/USA.
Last edited: