Mike D

Ken, I didn't have any problems either, not sure what it could be. Mike D aka Mikester

HURRRAYYYYYYYYYY!!!! I was starting to go into withdrawl due to lack of my daily AAR fix. Mike D aka Mikester

Fionn, OK, we/I will take it easy on you from now on. Mike

HEY STEVE! Where should we send the donations of beer and raw meat???? I'm more than willing to do my part if it will speed up getting the game out. How many beers does it take to really get Charles going typing in the code like a madman anyways???? Does he prefer pork chops, or steaks????????? Mike D aka Mikester

The only "design flaw" in CC3 is that there are inaccuracies and outright errors in it to begin with. Having the database open simply allowed every hack and his brothers uncle to try and "fix" things which accomplished little IMHO other than to make a bigger mess (I know there are those out there that would take offense to this statement and or vehemently disagree with it, but hey it's my opionion and nothing more so don't get all bent out of shape any of you CC fans out there, OK? ). Bottom line is if they first of all are going to continue to have inaccurate data in the CC4 database as in the previoius games and secondly are not going to commit themselves to fixing the problems once they've been "identified", then it doesn't matter much whether the database is open/unencrypted vs. closed/encryted because the game will be WRONG either way! Personally, I don't plan on even looking at CC4 after my experiences with the first 3 games. I simply look at them as the bridge that got me to the point where a game like CM came along. Now that it will soon be out there is little point to me wasting any more of my precious gaming time, or money, on "lesser wargames". Like I've said, CM will in all liklihood be keeping me busy for quite some time after I get hold of it. Therefore, the need for any other "wannabe" tactical wargames on my computer in the near future is going to be ZERO. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-07-99).]

LOS, Thanks for the "real life" answer to the prisoner question. It's always good to have a few of you "professional" type soldiers around. Simon, Confound it, you figured it out didn't you. Damn, now my secret is out! Actually though, it's Michael von Diatribe if you don't mind. As far as picking on Fionn is concerned someone had to do it. I think he's grown a pretty thick hide over the years from the sound of things, so he can probably handle a little jab now and then, eh? Regards, Mike D(on't you wish you knew) aka Mikester

****************** Warning this is a mini-Diatribe Those w/ week stomachs or an affinty for physics should probably not proceed. The rest of you, go grab a beer and enjoy........... ****************** Here's my "professional" engineering opinion. Note that I'm no ballistics expert by any means, so take this for what it's worth. (i.e. probably not much ) I think they would behave different just because of the fact that the tank gun is a lot higher off the ground. Take a main tank gun that is 2-3 meters off the ground vs. an infantryman w/ a rifle about 1 m. of the ground. Assuming both fire level w/ the ground and neglecting air resistance they are both going to follow a perfect parabolic path away and downward from the firing gun. However, since the tank cannon starts at a higher elevation it is going to be pointed more downward into the ground when it strikes than the rifle bullet. It's tendency to skip, therefore, is going to be markedly less than the rifle bullet. As many have said, it would probably require a hard asphalt/concrete surface to make a tank cannon round skip and even then depending on the circumstances it might not do much due to deformation from impacting the ground affecting the shape of the projectile to the point that the aerodynamic characteristics are largely ruined. In other words it wouldn't fly as far or straight as compared to if it hadn't hit the ground. Furthermore, any change in shape of the projectile tip could likely affect it's ability to penetrate the enemy tanks armor even if it did manage to fly straight enough after skipping off the ground to hit the enemy tank. Next, grazing the ground will also reduce the total kinetic energy of the projectile which will also reduce it's armor penetration capability. Finally, striking the ground might just set the round off prematurely. Also, I believe if the gun is fired at anything but a position level w/ the ground (again neglecting air resistance) that the angle of impact with the ground simply gets worse. If the enemy tank was closer than would be required to skip a round off the ground to strike it with the firing gun being level, then the firing tanks barrel would have to be depressed in order to score a hit. This simply adds to the downward angle at which the projectile strikes the pavement and makes it that much more likely that it will dig into it vs. skip off of it. Same holds true if the enemy tank is farther away and the tank barrel has to be elevated to fly far enough to strike the pavement in front of the enemy tank and skip off of it. The projectile will once again follow a parabolic path from exiting the gun to striking the ground. Only this time it will actually go upward, arc across the battlefield to a high point somewhere in the middle, then begin arcing downward toward the ground. The mere fact that it is following this kind of trajectory means that it too will strike the ground at a steeper angle than if it had been fired from a cannon level with the ground. End result in both cases is that such a round is more likely to burrow its way into the ground, pre-detonate, and will lose more kinetic energy and be more deformed than if it had struck the ground at a shallower angle (i.e fired from a horizontal gun). Lastly all of the above assumes a perfectly level battlefield. If the ground in front of the enemy tank were sloped back toward the firing tank then the likelihood the shell would burrow into the ground would be proportionately greater with the degree of slope of the ground. If the ground sloped away from the firing tank the exact reverse would be expected. Finally, all in all I think this kind of thing would be a pretty far fetched thing to pull off in real life. I'm not doubting that it did happen, just that a lot of variables have to be just right for it to work. So much so that in most situations it would probably be a pretty dumb thing to attempt to do. For one thing the probability of scoring a kill was probably pretty small. My guess would be less than 1%. The probability of damaging the enemy tank would probably be slightly higher, but you still have to hit it and skipping rounds off of pavement isn't the easiest way to do this. Just aiming straight at the enemy tank would probably provide a much higher probability of scoring a hit and also ensure that the full kinetic energy of the shell was available to do real damage to the enemy tank. Bottom line in my view is trying to do this can only accomplish 1 of 3 things: 1) Least likely scenario: Firing tank gets extremely lucky and skips a round off the pavement just right and manages to damage, or if extremely lucky, kill the enemy tank. 2) More likely scenario is firing tank wastes precious ammo trying this and accomplishes absolutely nothing. 3) Along with 2), while messing around trying to skip rounds off the ground to hit the enemy tank the enemy tank being fired at, or other nearby enemy tank whacks your a** and your dead. All in all doesn't sound like a very wise tactic to me if you want my opinion. In any event I don't think BTS needs to bother modeling this sort of thing in the game since in the overall scheme of things the number of times this kind of thing was probably attempted is next to zero and the actual number of enemy tanks killed using such a tactic was probably even less. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester PS: "Someone (maybe you?) mentioned this a few months back." Charles, Maybe you are recalling what I brought up some time ago regarding a show I'd seen on the Discovery or the Learning Channel. A P-47 pilot they were interviewing said that they knocked out many vehicles, including tanks (not sure how heavy a tank he was talking about) on paved roads back when he was stationed in the ETO. He described how they used the tactic of diving in at the necessary angle and aiming directly in front of the tank and letting go with all 8 .50 cal machine guns. The result was that the bullets richocheted off the pavement in front of the tank and easily penetrated the relatively soft under carriage armor of the tank. Apparently from what he claimed they killed quite a few tanks / other armoured vehicles in this manner. I suppose the fact that the plane probably came screaming in at a couple of hundred miles per hour in the dive adding some amount to the kinetic energy of the bullets made matters all the easier. [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-07-99).] [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-07-99).]

Fionn, Looks like I was one of the final jabs in the ribs that touched a tender nerve, my appoligies. And, BTW, welcome to the diatribe club. It was starting to get pretty lonely over here don't you know. What, me, misinterpret something???? Yeah, only happens a couple of times a day actually. As far as my misconceptions go, yes I most definitely have them just like probably 90% of the rest of the folks here on the board and I'll even freely admit to it. But then that's what makes this board so great. (1) Mike (or other person) opens big mouth on subject he knows little if anything about. (2) Many others throw in their 2 cents worth and a clearer picture starts to form. (3) Someone like yourself, Steve, Charles, etc. comes along with some real hard facts and finally sets us straight. (4) All of us that didn't know any better actaully learn something! On to the issue at hand........ Apparently, I had led myself to believe, or simply lost track, that the prisoners in the clearing had been moved up. Obviously, as you've corrected me, this is not the case. As far as branding you, or Moon, a war criminal for your actions goes, I don't think I did this. But if I came across that way please understand that was not my intent. Next, it appears that having combat units being forced to guard / escort prisoners is indeed realistic as you have so emphatically pointed out. Thanks for doing so BTW, as that is exactly what I'd asked someone to do in one of my follow on posts in order to help clear matters up (I just got a little more than what I'd bargained for is all ). That being the case I guess we'll have to live with it since Steve and Charles apparently wish to model this aspect of dealing w/ prisoners. As for the rest of it, I think the main thing that I was driving at is this: While granted the way CM handles prisoners does appear now to indeed be realisitic, I still question whether such realism is really indeed needed, or for that matter wanted, in a game like CM. I guess I'd still prefer to have the prisoner thing handled in a more abstract way (ala Close Combat or the like) and be able to concentrate on playing the game, combat tactics, etc. However, if dealing with the prisoners is relatively easy as you and Moon have pointed out, then I guess I can most certainly live with the way BTS has decided to handle prisoners in the game and just shut by big yapper. However, what I was trying to avoid was 1) using the prisoners as a "human shield" type of tactics (not saying either one of you did this or intended to do so), and 2) taking up a lot of my time as a player of the game dealing with such matters vs. playing the game itself, which is what really counts. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-06-99).]

Moon, Thanks for "enlightening" us. That sounds much better. Do they have to have guard units escorting them to the rear? I guess if worse came to worse a squad could be split with one half sent packing w/ the prisoners to the rear and the second half available for combat duties (maybe a scouting party), or to await the capture of future prisoners that might be taken and need to be similarly dealt with. Mike "A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears."

Doug, I agree w/ you for the most part. But I'd much rather be playing the game than worrying about what to do with the prisoners. Also, I apparently missed the part somewhere (guess I need to read up) where Steve told both sides that they get VP's for exiting the troops from the field of battle. That at least sounds like one way to motivate players to get them moved to the rear instead of marching them all over the place, using them as human shields, etc. I'd also agree that captured troops just marching themselves to the rear and exiting all on their own (or supposedly guarded by unseen other friendly units) is an abstraction, but at least it is an abstraction which doesn't detract from the play of the game IMHO. I guess my question is how were prisoners handled in real life? It probably depended on a number of factors I'd imagine, but I would like some enlightenment from someone as to how they are typically handled/processed from the time they were captured till they left the battle area. Also, how high up in an armies organizational structure did you have to go till you got to MP (military police) units? Seems to me like it really would be up to these guys to take the prisoners off the front line units hands so they could get on with fighting. But again, I would imagine that it depended in some part on each unique situation, availability of MP's in the area at any given time, etc. Kevin/Pat, I also thought about the idea of having some extra "policing units" given to both sides to help herd up prisoners and moving them to the rear. One solution might be to just lightly arm these guys (or maybe not even at all) and give them this task alone. If you don't ever capture any prisoners, you simply keep them to the rear and never use them. As far as using them as scouts, etc., I'd think if you put in a 3x penalty for their loss, or the like, that that together with the fact that they are not very well armed (if at all) would deter players from using them as scouts. Dave, "Conversely, I don't believe that prisioners in WWII were used as human shields very often. It would make them very disinclined to surrender in the first place." Yes, I agree with you completely here. In fact I'd go so far as to say that perhaps a penalty (instead of a bonus) should be handed out to a player that doesn't get his captured units to the rear and off the battlefield, but instead keeps them up toward the front, and/or even tries to use them as human shields and gets them killed in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Mike "A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears."

Gentlemen, First, I promise (I really do) that I'll try to not turn this into a diatribe. The prisoner thing is really starting to bother me. Mind you, I'm fine with the way the game has guys surrender and the taking of the prisoners in general. My problem has to do with what the capturing player does with them afterwards. I'm watching this battle between Fionn and Martin and prisoners have been taken on both sides. Apparently the game forces you to guard these guys which I guess makes sense, although it causes the capturing player to use otherwise "good" combat units to stand around guarding them, marshall them around, etc. Next, to have to be marching them all over the map to keep them guarded seems not only rediculous, but quite unrealistic in my mind. I mean look at the guys Fionn captured clear back at the start of the game in the clearing in the woods in the south. If I'm not mistaken he's now marched them along w/ his advancing troops forward toward the town probably several hundred meters. Is this realistic? If at all possible weren't prisoners generally sent under guard back to the rear once they were captured? And wasn't this the job of the military police or other such units to do, not the front line combat troops? I can see if there was nowhere to send them as in the case of the surrounded German units in the town at the beginning of the game that captured the US mg. team that they would have to stay somewhere near the front lines since there is nowhere else to send them. But where there was a clear path back to the rear areas I would think the prisoners would be sent almost immediately packing under guard to the rear, or at least held where they were captured until someone came to get them. In any event, marshalling them around all over the place (even towards the front lines no less) and/or holding them in the town (like Martin is now doing w/ the captured Germans there) when there is a clear line back to the rear areas just doesn't make any sense to me. What is Fionn going to do with the gagle of prisoners he has now resting down in that low area with his front line troops, just keep marching them together with his guys towards the town??? This just doesn't make any sense to me since I can't see this going on in real life. Furthermore, it seems like the players are spending way too much valuable game play time and combat infantry resources managing prisoners. Is CM supposed to be a combat simulation, or a simulation of prisoner management???? FWIW I think the abstract way Close Combat handled prisoners was a whole lot better than what I'm seeing here (God I thought I'd never say that something was better in CC than in CM, but there I've done it ). The guys simply put up their hands and marched themseleves to the rear until they exited the map. As part of the abstraction I assume they were under guard by MP or other such units as they marched to the rear to be interned even though the guarding units were not even shown on the map. What you didn't see were precious combat troops being relegated to prisoner detail (perhaps unrealistic, but then it also avoided detracting from the game too), prisoners being herded up and marshalled all over the battle area (totally unrealistic in my view), etc. The only draw back to the Close Combat model (other than it was probably not totally realistic in terms of guard duties) was that it allowed the opponent to gather sighting data and intel from his capured units as the marched back through they enemies rear! Fortunately, CM doesn't have this problem. In any event, I think the way CM handles the prisoners after they've been captured needs some serious review. I don't want to be stuck wasting what appears to be a fair amount of game time and units messing with prisoners vs. playing the actual game. IMHO, CM is supposed to be about simulating real combat vs. all the intricacies and inuendo of simulating how prisoners should be handled after they've been captured. Regards, Mike D Aka Mikester PS: Ok, ok, so I admit it was a short diatribe. [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-06-99).]

Kevin, Thanks for the info. The complexity of the firing procedure is interesting in that in one of the books I'm currently reading it describes how one of the crack shot gunners in the Liebstandarte's Tiger I company in Russia simply set his sights at 500m range at all times and left it there. He had apparantly trained himself so well that together with his experience he simply gauged the distance to the target (with use of sighting equipment of course) as compared to the 500m ref. point and then automatically compensated for the difference in his head, quickly made the necessary adjustments to aim, and fired. Sounds like it was a highly effective method as well, for if I am remembering correctly this guy was the gunner for tanker ace Michael Wittman. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Hey Fionn, First of all thanks for this little demo. It's really insightful and goes a long way to illustrate CM's strengths in a number of areas. Next, I've got another of my dumb questions. In several of the screen shots showing the unit info for an 88mm AT gun down at the bottom there is a "T-2", or "T-3" followed by a red circle w/ a slash through it. What does this mean? Also, under the ammo listing for these guns there are a couple of rounds of "S" type ammo listed. I assume this is smoke? Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Kristian, To the best of my knowledge Kevin is correct. The MG's used in German tanks, and halftracks for that matter, were the same air cooled versions used by the infantry. I imagine the only differences were that the tank versions had some type of adapater for the MG to be placed into the swivel mount in the tank. I also think Kevin is correct in that the crews would be smart enough to not fire the weapons continuously so overheating probably wasn't a problem unless there were hordes of enemy infantry nearby. And even then, if they kept to short bursts with a small rest period every minute or so, I doubt overheating would become an issue. Kevin, Where did you find that Tiger I manual? Do you still have it? Do you know where I could get one?? Would be a really interesting thing to take a look at. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-05-99).]

Dar, You might be right. I'd tried to remember that qoute from long ago and likely might have messed it up. I know Hemmingway, or one of those writer dudes said somehting to this effect, but I may have gotten that mixed up with Edison's quote. Oh well, I'm just a dummy Engineer so what do I know, right? Guess we'll have to wait for an English major out there to straighten me out. Mike

Pixman, As far as length goes I think that has a lot to do with the fact that often times I don't have all the time I'd like to have to edit my messages where a lot of stuff would probably be either taken out and/or condensed down to a more succinct form. In fact with school, work, and everything else I've got going on I can bearly keep up with all the message traffic here on the board anymore, let alone find time to make any posts here. In any case, what usually happens when I commence to writing, is the thoughts just pour forth from my little pea brain in which all the little wheels and cogs are just spinning like mad. So that I capture as much of it as I can I just type like mad (surprised my fingers don't turn into bloody stumps myself sometimes ) while at the same time trying to give some thought to organizing all of it as it goes down on the "page". In any event, I think I will lay low with the long posts here for awhile. A) I really don't have the time to be writing them and if I don't have the time to spend to proproperly edit them, I am in some sense, wasting a lot of other peoples time. Most importantly that of Steve and Charles who really should be concentrating on getting the game done vs. reading my "diatribes" as you call them. I believe it was Hemmingway that once said, "good writing is one part inspiration and nine parts perspiration." Meaning, coming up with the idea and writing it down is the easy part while editing the work to turn it into something of real worth is the hard part. An excellent quote from a great writer which rings quite true. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester "A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears." [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-04-99).]

Fionn, The idea of being able to download the movies from somewhere of others games and watch them sounds really interesting and probably quite fun. However, if one were doing it in order to see a future opponents playing style, tactics, etc., I wonder if that is really a "good" thing. Isn't another element of the FOW in playing a wargame to play someone that you've never played before and NOT have any previous knowledge of their playing style, tendencies, etc.????? To me, the FOW and excitement of not knowing what to expect from my opponent actually sounds like a more engaging gaming experience vs. having any sort of prior knowledge of these things. In general, out on the real battlefield did either of the two commanders facing-off really know much about the style and tactics of the other commander?, probably not. Anyway, just some food for thought. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-04-99).]

The feature creep thing can be a big problem. I hope it doesn't get to be here. Steve already well knows (and anyone else that can remember) that long ago I'd written a number of post regarding the evil that lurks in the shadows. I'm sure these guys know better than most what they are doing though. However, like I told Steve back then, at some point you have to lock down the configuration of the game (i.e. no more changes), play test it, fix what needs to be fixed, and then get it out the door. You can't keep fiddling w/ it forever, making this little change, then that one, and so on, and so on, and so on. It will kill you in terms of ever getting a release out the door. I have a feeling that we are very quickly approaching the point where Steve and Charles will decide to do this (i.e. Beta is coming up real soon). So I'm not too worried about the progress of the game and imagine they will get it done and in our hot little hands soon enough (God, did I really say that???). Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

What Fionn? You are not looking forward to that allied carpet bombing run across your sector by 50 B-17's that Steve forgot to tell you was coming along on turn 30? Can you say bye bye Kampfgruppen von Kelly? I'm sure at least one of your guys should survive to surrender to Martin's forces in the town. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).]

Pixman, And I see you didn't waste much time either when the call to battle rang forth once again in the great crusade to get WP into the game. Actually, I have no problem with this whatsoever. In fact I'm in support of it being in the game if it makes sense to do so from a historical and realism stand point. And I think one idea that came up in the past was to allow the scenario designer to give it the allies on a case by case basis so that it might be used in some areas where it was historically employed, like the hedgerows of Normandy, etc. (hint, hint, Steve) I just find it extremely interesting (even entertaining in some ways) that the topic just keeps on coming up is all As far as strategies go, the "pepper 'em to death" one you guys have been trying here on the WP issue obviously doesn't seem to be working out too well Whereas the "anvil over the noggin" approach is a highly effective and deadly approach to getting things done. Assuming of course, that you don't miss Steve's head and have it land on your own foot (Ouch!!!!!) Now if you want, I can be hired out for a small fee (payable in cash or beer) to write some good diatribes on the WP issue for you guys to finally break Steve and Charles on the subject so that they cave in and succumb to your wishes. My guess is that since you guys have already worn them down it will only take 1, or possibly 2, anvils to finish them off. Let's see, I'd be looking for something along the lines of say 2 cases of good beer, that ought to do nicely. Just let me know if my services are needed. (Mmmmmmm, beer....) As far as the "yelling" goes I assume you are referring to the ALL CAPS stuff??? Or was it the !!!!!! The all caps stuff is because I'm sitting here at work on my HP workstation doing CAD designs / drawings and engineers do all their drawing notations, etc., in all caps. So I just left the caps lock key on when I came over here because it gets to be a pain changing it back and forth all the time. Otherwise, as far as the rest of it goes, I was just having fun with ya!!! Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).] [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).]

I thought the infamous quote of the guy in Bastogne was the one you'd go for Moon. "NUTS" I assume bananas means something along the same lines???? Mike D aka Mikester

Moon, I'm not offended at all by any of your comments. I was simply puzzled by that one is all. And it probably had as much to do with my interpretation of what I thought you meant as anything else. In any event, now that you've explained in a little more detail what you meant I understand perfectly. Thanks. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).]

Dar, As you say to each his own. Great, if you want to not be able to guarantee a given set of reinforcements to show up just set the probabilities to never have a turn w/ 100%. As for me, in a given scenario design I might want to do what you propose, but then in another one, I might want to be able to guarantee that certain units would show up by turn x if they hadn't previously come in. What we are looking for here is some additional flexability to the system. If you don't want to use it, then fine, you don't have to. But for myself, and at least several others, I think we would like to have these kind of tools available to decide for ourselves how we are going to control the reinforcements. If I'm going to play "God" as the scenario designer then gosh darnit I want more power! The game would be fine "as is" without this, I just think it would be nice to have the capability is all. Mike

IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EEEAAAAACKKKKKK, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, THE TOPIC THAT JUST KEEPS ON GIVING, AND GIVING, AND GIVING. AND, JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE RUN IT'S COURSE, STARTS GIVING AGAIN. MIKE D AKA MIKESTER [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).]

Dar, I agree w/ you on your probability anaylsis. However, I think what I and the others are looking for is some better control on what I'll call the "ramping factor" of the probability of the reinforcements showing up as the game progresses. For example. Say starting turn 10 I want to give a 5% chance on that turn and the following turns through turn 15 of a given set of reinforcements showing up. For turns 16 and 17 I want it to change to 15%. On turns 18 - 20 I want to go up to 40%. On every turn thereafter I want to increase it by 10% each turn so that if they still havn't shown up by turn 26 I'm guaranteed that they will show up by that turn since the probability is then 100%. This allows for two things that the current system won't. It gives the scenario designer the ability to have probabilities for the guys showing up, but it also provides the ability to be able to guarantee that they actaully will show up by a certain turn as well. Secondly, it gives the designer a greater degree of control of the cumulative probability of the guys showing up on any given turn vs. the existing system. If you run the numbers on the example I gave and then compare them to just assigning a single probability value of say, 5% for turns 10-26, I think you will agree you are going to get some different results doing it one way vs. the other. Such a system would give you the ability to set the probability really low over a period of turns to "keep them guessing as you say", but then be able to ramp the probabilities up to ensure that the poor bloke will more than likely actually get the reinforcements eventually; just a little later than he would have otherwise unless he got lucky and hit one of the low probabilities on one of the earlier turns and they came in. Such a system would also allow you to do some other interesting things like actually decrease the percentages of the guys showing up if they didn't make it in earlier. Not sure why one would want to do this, but it might be an interesting thing to try out. Regards, Mike D Aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-03-99).]