Questions on QB scoring and Buddy Aid

[Erwin]

Yes, what is this fetish with making the CM2 manuals so opaque and useless about so many rather important gameplay issues? I presume this was thought about and discussed. Am just curious.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm with Baneman on this. It should be in the manual.

Here's an example of someone attempting to make a QB map and not being able to make sense of the objective values. Even the beta tester who tries to help him out is flummoxed.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108449&highlight=points&page=7

[womble]

It's not a fetish about making manuals opaque. BFC are just rubbish at manuals. There are errors in the latest versions that have been in the thing since SF. Errors that have been pointed out. It's just not what the miniscule development house is interested in; they do the absolute minimum to keep the manual up to date.

What is it with trying to make every flaw (and there are many, as we all know) in BFC's product to be some kind of deliberate slap in the face of the user?

[dieseltaylor]

Nope. I hardly play any solo at all, though I do only have time for one H2H game at a time, currently.

The answer to that should be self evident. Unless you're of the opinion that BFC have a bunch of "secret insiders" who shill for them on the forums. Just so you don't think I'm evading the question: the self-evident, and accurate answer is that I have no association whatsoever with BFC other than as a customer.

My turn:

Do you play the game at all?

Do you have some sort of grievance against BFC?

I am not suggesting that BF are engaged in anything underhand however their are beta-testers who do post who do not indicate they are beta-testers. One is left in the unfortunate situation that some people post opinion as fact and some post fact as fact and without background it is difficult to see who is believable.

Having said that the game is vast and not everyone who was/is a beta-tester would necessarily be accurate on all things. There is also in my mind the impression that some beta-testers are also not kept very much in touch with current events.

Do I play?

Not this year and not last year. Last year I was away a lot and with promised improvements with V2.00 I saw no point in learning deeply a system that was being substantially altered. I may play this year but never to the level of the CMx1 series where eleven games at once and several hundred games in all.

Do you have some sort of grievance against BFC?

Grievance would be the wrong word. I am exasperated by BF.

Exasperated because IMO they brought the game out before it was ready, which I could forgive them if they were upfront with the reason why. I have twice quoted Vauxhall who when sending out the first Churchill tanks apologised for the problems caused by launching in a short time frame and stated they would put them right subsequently.

If that were the only example of customer handling it would not be so bad but the way that various issues like - what the Manual does not tell you, the void into which peoples gripes disappear until possibly, eventually a fix arrives.

I can look at my early e-mails to GAJ about the need for a PBEMHelper replacement which was launched as h2h. I forsaw it would be a great help to players. GAJ runs a great mod forum also which took up the slack from previous repositories. This is customer aiming service to make the CM of more use to gamers. Happy gamers make better customers and spread the word.

I do not contribute much to the Wiki mentioned below but it is function of the opacity of the rules and the difficulty of finding things in these forums which lead to its creation.

* As I no longer read every post CM related on the forums I may be wrong on apologies and lists - I hope I am.

[Baneman]

...

What is it with trying to make every flaw (and there are many, as we all know) in BFC's product to be some kind of deliberate slap in the face of the user?

Not even close to trying to imply that.

Simply thought that since the scoring method is not WYSIWYG ie. 500 on that VL does not necessarily translate to 500 points in the bag if you take it, that we, the gamers, should be made aware of the algorithm - officially - not deduced by trial and error and repeated tests.

And even then, if you miss the forum post by the guy who did all that ( as, it seems almost everybody here did ), you still wont know.

[dieseltaylor]

It's not a fetish about making manuals opaque. BFC are just rubbish at manuals. There are errors in the latest versions that have been in the thing since SF. Errors that have been pointed out. It's just not what the miniscule development house is interested in; they do the absolute minimum to keep the manual up to date.

What is it with trying to make every flaw (and there are many, as we all know) in BFC's product to be some kind of deliberate slap in the face of the user?

Thank you for another example of customer handling. I want BF to remain in business. I also know that if you do not provide a good experience you lose incrementally customers until a viable mass is gone.

This is what is so galling is the huge amount of goodwill that exists for game designers. I copy read for free the manuals for Les Grogs. Thanks and a mention no fee required. And I was a happy bunny. Someone in the US surely could volunteer to be keeper of the manual and re-writer!

As for flaws and slap in the face that is the art of dealing with your market so that the impression you do not care is erased. Continually repeating errors in the manual when advised is a tough one to explain away.

PS I see that a reader has reported a change in Manual V2. I thing it is a masterful way of making everything clearer.

With regard to the oddity with the terrain objectives points value, I suspect it has something to do with the following the last couple of lines in the V2 manual - page 103

Quote:

Victory conditions

Only terrain objectives are considered for determining victory conditions in a QB.

All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are

converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically. The code automatically adds an

enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side, which is lowest for meeting

engagements, and highest for assaults.

It looks like the game is switching an element of the total points you allocate to an unit objective, in this case 33%. So this is a problem specific to QBs, which is why Jon and I haven't seen it before.

[GerryCMBB]

I just don't understand how they feel they can leave things like this out of the manual. It is poor customer service. And people are paying $50+ for each game with modules around $35. It seems to me that the customers deserve better service. It is unfair to have customers have to set up tests to figure out something that someone in the company obviously knows.

Gerry

[Battlefront.com]

Grievance would be the wrong word. I am exasperated by BF. Exasperated because IMO they brought the game out before it was ready, which I could forgive them if they were upfront with the reason why.

So let me get this straight. We've made a total of 11 Combat Mission games over the last 13 years. Including games that you said you played almost a dozen head to head battles concurrently. Six years ago you had a bad experience with one of the games we released. A game which, admittedly, was released before it was ready. A game which we steadily improved over 2 years for no charge to the customer. A game which many think is now one of the best games we ever made. A game that cost you less than a couple of meals out on the town.

We then took this game and made it even better, bringing it to WW2. Adding content and features to it through direct customer interaction. Features which most agree have made the game better and better with each release. Not only that, but then we instituted a very inexpensive upgrade policy so people don't have their game investments languish into obscurity as is the usual case in gaming. Better still, we continue to be actively engaged with our customers and incorporate even more of their suggestions for more offerings in the future.

And it is doing this while just about nobody else is even remotely interested in making serious tactical wargames. At any price, not to mention for less than 2 weeks worth of cable TV or a couple of pizzas.

And yet you're exasperated with us. Imagine how we feel about you.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

As for the actual topic here...

Yes, it is regrettable that the manual is not as clear as you guys either want or reasonably expect. Unfortunately complex pieces of software do not lend themselves to easy, or accurate, documentation. Even more unfortunately this is not specific to just us. Anybody here tried to program for anything on Windows or MacOS? Anybody try to use a 3D authoring program that costs $1000 a pop? How about $10,000 pieces of software? I can assure you that we feel your pain because we do use these other products and have found their documentation lacking in respect to completeness and accuracy.

This is not an excuse for our own failings, merely an appeal to keep criticism in perspective. We're not slapping anybody in the face, we're not deliberately keeping things from you. It's just that documentation is VERY difficult to do. And yes... we have even had free aide in proof reading and copy editing. But our manuals are as large as they are technically detailed. And the game doesn't stay static.

We do try to incorporate fixes to the manuals as they are brought to our attention. An imperfect process, but it's an imperfect world. I'm sure most players would rather have the use of a feature they don't completely understand than to not have the feature at all.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Diesel tends to compare CM to a hypothetical ideal that does not exist and will never exist rather than to anything else out there. It's hard to take him seriously when I see him singling out features for being unrealistic that were just as unrealistic in the CMx1 games but which did not bother him then. He now exists in a perpetual state of outrage that is not going to be assuaged by anything short of perfection.

As for the manual, other than the information in this thread regarding QB scoring, there are two areas that really could use more detail:

C2 and leadership. We need more detail as to exactly what effects leadership has and how C2 works, particularly in relation to calling indirect fire. I feel it's especially important in cases where the game has fudges or engine limitations that cause behavior that appears to be illogical. For example, that all HQs can call in off-map fire even when not in C2, and that infantry squads not in the same chain of command cannot share ammo. This should be spelled out if for no other reason than so people seeing that behavior don't think it's a bug.

The interface. Knowing that you can click your way up and down the chain of command by clicking on various parts of the interface is a huge time saver. I've banged on this subject before, but the fact is that if I did not read the forum there is a good chance I would still not know this was part of the interface functionality.

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, Steve, do you happen to know how QB scoring handles points for units destroyed? More specifically, are points awarded based purely on casualty numbers or on purchase point value? So if I destroy an enemy tank but the entire crew survives does that count for anything?

[Battlefront.com]

Diesel tends to compare CM to a hypothetical ideal that does not exist and will never exist rather than to anything else out there. It's hard to take him seriously when I see him singling out features for being unrealistic that were just as unrealistic in the CMx1 games but which did not bother him then. He now exists in a perpetual state of outrage that is not going to be assuaged by anything short of perfection.

So I've noticed Though I bet even if we made something imperfect, there would still be outrage at something. I don't know, maybe our choice of fonts?

C2 and leadership. We need more detail as to exactly what effects leadership has and how C2 works, particularly in relation to calling indirect fire. I feel it's especially important in cases where the game has fudges or engine limitations that cause behavior that appears to be illogical. For example, that all HQs can call in off-map fire even when not in C2,

Looking into that. It's been reported as a BUG but Charles hasn't got to it yet.

...and that infantry squads not in the same chain of command cannot share ammo. This should be spelled out if for no other reason than so people seeing that behavior don't think it's a bug.

Yeah, this could stand to be cleared up. Noted. The logic here is that ammo sharing within a formation would be fairly routine in real life. Ammo sharing between formations not so much on the fly as rear consolidation. Obviously this is a bit of an abstraction, but one that is intended to not contribute to the already unrealistic ease with which players' keep extended forces in action despite running them ragged.

The interface. Knowing that you can click your way up and down the chain of command by clicking on various parts of the interface is a huge time saver. I've banged on this subject before, but the fact is that if I did not read the forum there is a good chance I would still not know this was part of the interface functionality.

Noted.

BTW, Steve, do you happen to know how QB scoring handles points for units destroyed? More specifically, are points awarded based purely on casualty numbers or on purchase point value? So if I destroy an enemy tank but the entire crew survives does that count for anything?

It's been too long and I don't remember how it works in detail. I doubt even Charles remembers. I'll see if I can get this clarified.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Follow up. I double checked and on Page 56 I see this:

Besides the Acquire command, soldiers on the battlefield are also capable of auto- matically sharing ammunition to some extent with those around them. Soldiers can automatically share ammo with other nearby infantry units that belong to their formation, as well as with nearby vehicles (provided that the vehicles carry anything to share). So it is not always necessary to embark on a vehicle to access stored ammunition, although it still gives the player more direct control than auto-sharing.

The bolded part does address the point you raised above. Also, remember that C2 isn't exactly the same as formational links. You can have two units who are in the same Formation but have no direct C2 connection with each other. In fact, that's the norm.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ok, you kinda got me on that one. I was going off a list in my head and its was probably something else related. Anyways...

Looking into that. It's been reported as a BUG but Charles hasn't got to it yet.

That's interesting. It's been that way for so long I'd just assumed it was intentional. But if that is changed/fixed I wonder what will happen if your on-map battalion HQ gets wiped out. If the platoon HQs, for example, are not supposed to be in contact directly with off-map assets then what level of the C2 chain is? I would think that may vary depending on whether the asset was company, battalion or division+ level.

[Michael Emrys]

BFC are just rubbish at manuals. There are errors in the latest versions that have been in the thing since SF. Errors that have been pointed out. It's just not what the miniscule development house is interested in; they do the absolute minimum to keep the manual up to date.

This, I suspect, is the result of manual writing and updating strictly being an incidental activity for the team. It probably gets done when somebody has a moment of spare (hah!) time. I long for the day when BFC can afford to hire somebody whose primary job it is to write, update, and proofread manuals. Ideally it should be someone who has command of the language the manuals are written in and is somebody that the other members of the team are comfortable communicating with so that he/she is kept fully abreast of what the games actually do and don't do. Defined in that way, it should be obvious that manual production is very nearly a full-time job for one person.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

That's interesting. It's been that way for so long I'd just assumed it was intentional. But if that is changed/fixed I wonder what will happen if your on-map battalion HQ gets wiped out. If the platoon HQs, for example, are not supposed to be in contact directly with off-map assets then what level of the C2 chain is? I would think that may vary depending on whether the asset was company, battalion or division+ level.

A "BUG" is defined as anything that isn't working as expected, not necessarily as intended. Meaning, the code can be working exactly as it was intended to work, but it's not optimal for some reason and therefore the end behavior is not what is expected.

This is one of those features. I'll see what can be done about it.

This, I suspect, is the result of manual writing and updating strictly being an incidental activity for the team. It probably gets done when somebody has a moment of spare (hah!) time.

Mostly correct. Unfortunately it is like that even at bigger game companies. And, as I said in a previous post, companies that charge $10,000 for a single license. Hell, I bought something for $10,000 and it didn't even include a manual at all!!! When I called them up they said "oh, we're working on it. It should be ready in a few months". They instead provided the manual for the older version. Think about using a CMBO manual for CMBN and you'll understand how utterly useless that was. And no, I am not making this up.

My point of bringing this up is we're held to some sort of fantasy standard. Something that doesn't exist in the real world, yet we're supposed to live up to that standard even if we only charge $50 for our products.

I long for the day when BFC can afford to hire somebody whose primary job it is to write, update, and proofread manuals... Defined in that way, it should be obvious that manual production is very nearly a full-time job for one person.

It certainly is a full time job for a game of this depth and complexity. However, even if we hired someone to work 40 hours a week on the manuals (we do have more than one) there would still be errors, omissions, and vague statements peppering an otherwise solid manual. When I worked at Impressions we had TWO full time manual writers and they were quite good. But there were plenty of issues with the manuals they worked on. For three reasons:

1. Ultimately the programmers are responsible for the fine details. They often have to make adjustments/compromises as they code features. Sometimes these adjustments are subtle, sometimes major. Due to the sheer volume of work for programmers, not all these changes get communicated to others. By others I mean other programmers, the designer/s, the testers, etc. Usually the programmer is making the best call there is to make, but if nobody is aware of the fine details then things can be miscommunicated.

2. The game design and it's code are always changing even beyond the day of release. Usually under tremendous time pressure. What might be true when the manual writer starts may change a half dozen times before the game is out and then again after. For a simple game it is fairly easy to keep track of these issues and to have the manual reflect the game's actual features and behaviors. But for a game like Combat Mission? No way.

3. Simulation type games (which CM is) are, by their nature, extremely complex. Compare CM to Company of Heroes to see what I mean. Company of Heroes probably had two dedicated people writing the documentation, yet the game is infinitely more simplistic than CM. So if their manuals have fewer errors it's mostly because there are fewer places to make errors. In fact, those sorts of games don't even try to document how their games work to the extent you guys demand of us. Which means other games have lower technical requirements, lower customer expectations, and more resources. Yet I still bet there are plenty of errors in those manuals as well.

We do the best we can with the situation we have to deal with. It is reasonable to expect a quality manual for Combat Mission. You have that and more. But is it perfect? No. Never will be because that is an unreasonable expectation. Even if you paid $100 or $10,000 per license.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

My view on BF is that I want them to be successful - better stated as even more successful. I think any games that educates players on terrain types, history, geography and technology is great. That it can engage the brain creatively and provide laughs is a bonus.

Whatever I think of CMBN V1.00 is now history. Given I was never part of the CMSF experience when I came to buy CMBN I thought it was a honed and substantially finished item given all the buzz about the CMSF patches. The super tank targeting a la moderns was a rude shock. But that has been changed.

I read the comments above on Manuals and problems. I can understand the late changes etc but it seems to me that an error is to look at the Manual as a static item. If it were linked to an on-line version then the Manual could be amended and effects explained in view of reader feedback. Looking at the downloadable .pdf makes me realise the constraints that there are when making a printed manual to fit a boxed game. Bigger manual constrained by cost and box size is a physical limiter so providing on up-dated and expansive guide on-line surely is good.

The other point is to be upfront on the game compromises. It is a highly realistic game but why not make a virtue of explaining why and where it is not historically accurate.

For instance

" In CM V2 the reverse speeds of all vehicles have been standardised at xmph . This is for the benefit of the AI [ i make that up] but may be changed in due course.

Compared to the actual vehicles in WW2 this has been a great benefit to tanks were reverse speeds vary from 1.5 to 5.5 mph. The Tiger with its 4 speed gearbox being the fastest. The biggest losers are the recon armoured cars such as A and B where having two drivers and the right gearbox could travel at speed in either direction."

and this

" The modelling of the depression and elevation of a tanks main gun has not been modelled because it is computational difficulties which may affect real time play and also very hard on players deciding what there chances would be when going across slopes.

The downside is that armour main guns are not hampered in shooting at top stories when very close. Of the two alternatives this is the least damaging to game play."

You get the drift. I think the game would be easier to play with a better explaining manual and awareness of compromises - and in my book easy to play equals more buyers.

Certainly for CM V2 one might start with a little competition on explaining how Quick Battles score in a pithy style understandable by most and this could form the start of an on-line exampled manual. So your starter for ten is:

Only terrain objectives are considered for determining victory conditions in a QB.

All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are

converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically. The code automatically adds an

enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side, which is lowest for meeting

engagements, and highest for assaults.

BTW the manual does make good sense mostly. Though for me it would be nice for screen reading if it were not in the two column format and if web-based provide jpg. examples from game.

How much time would be required for a manual to be up-dated online. I don't know because if the community can submit worked examples where it is currently opaque and these are peer reviewed and added once a month to a semi-official site I would think not huge. Are there are enough interested parties judging by the forums for this work? The added load to BF would be presumably to read the monthly up-date to check nothing totally wrong was included! : )

[Battlefront.com]

My view on BF is that I want them to be successful - better stated as even more successful.

Huh. Well, that's surprising to hear.

Whatever I think of CMBN V1.00 is now history.

Wait a sec. You were saying you thought we had to apologize for CMBN's launch being a premature disaster? Seriously?

I read the comments above on Manuals and problems. I can understand the late changes etc but it seems to me that an error is to look at the Manual as a static item. If it were linked to an on-line version then the Manual could be amended and effects explained in view of reader feedback.

That is, in no small part, what this Forum is all about.

The other point is to be upfront on the game compromises. It is a highly realistic game but why not make a virtue of explaining why and where it is not historically accurate.

We never have, and never will, hide things from people. There's little point to even try since someone here will no doubt figure it out and post about it.

Our job is to make the best game we can within the constraints of reality. Our job is not to dwell on the hundreds, if not thousands, of "failings" to meet 100% pure realism. It's really not productive.

Plus, if you use the SEARCH feature of this Forum you would find the answers to both of your "for instances" if you really cared to know the answers.

You get the drift. I think the game would be easier to play with a better explaining manual and awareness of compromises - and in my book easy to play equals more buyers.

Since most players want to play the game to have fun, not figure out why they shouldn't be having fun with it, I don't agree. Especially with the "more buyers" part. That just shows you don't really understand who buys CM.

BTW the manual does make good sense mostly.

Thanks for that. It doesn't do much good to trash talk our manuals when so few even try to do as good of a job.

Though for me it would be nice for screen reading if it were not in the two column format and if web-based provide jpg. examples from game.

Everybody has their own concept of what a good manual looks like and reads like. I can see the desire for some to have a "full page" read. Maybe we will do that some day.

How much time would be required for a manual to be up-dated online. I don't know because if the community can submit worked examples where it is currently opaque and these are peer reviewed and added once a month to a semi-official site I would think not huge. Are there are enough interested parties judging by the forums for this work? The added load to BF would be presumably to read the monthly up-date to check nothing totally wrong was included! : )

We have no time, nor interest, in that sort of a project. But if someone wanted to set up a Wiki type game manual addendum... that could be a good thing.

Bottom line... you guys provide us with a certain amount of funding, we provide a product in exchange. Knowing what I know about everything... you guys get way, way more than you pay for already. We're not opposed to keeping the imbalance in your favor, but we're not really keen on increasing it.

Steve

[sburke]

Bottom line... you guys provide us with a certain amount of funding, we provide a product in exchange. Knowing what I know about everything... you guys get way, way more than you pay for already. We're not opposed to keeping the imbalance in your favor, but we're not really keen on increasing it.

Steve

Ha, you guys are so much on the losing side of that equation it isn't even funny, but thanks.

[sfhand]

...

Bottom line... you guys provide us with a certain amount of funding, we provide a product in exchange. Knowing what I know about everything... you guys get way, way more than you pay for already. We're not opposed to keeping the imbalance in your favor, but we're not really keen on increasing it.

Steve

Awesome...

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, I got some clarification on the QB victory points. The answers are in the manual, though obviously it's not entirely clear. Communication is definitely an imperfect experience

This hasn't been 100% approved "as written", but it should help things out for now. The corrected text, once double checked by Charles, will be passed along to get in the manual:

Victory conditions

In order to ensure that all QB maps function uniformly, with any and all possible QB parameters, the game automatically converts all terrain objectives to OCCUPY objectives. All other types of objectives are completely ignored. The value of each OCCUPY objective is proportionally adjusted from the designer's values, relative to each other, so that the total points equals 1000. Additionally, the game automatically adds an enemy-casualty UNIT objective for each side.

The weight of OCCUPY and UNIT objectives for the final victory score depends on the type of game played. Meeting Engagements reward players less for holding terrain, more for causing casualties. Assaults are the opposite as casualties matter less, holding ground is paramount. Probes and attacks are inbetween.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

It certainly is a full time job for a game of this depth and complexity. However, even if we hired someone to work 40 hours a week on the manuals (we do have more than one) there would still be errors, omissions, and vague statements peppering an otherwise solid manual. When I worked at Impressions we had TWO full time manual writers and they were quite good. But there were plenty of issues with the manuals they worked on. For three reasons:

1. Ultimately the programmers are responsible for the fine details. They often have to make adjustments/compromises as they code features. Sometimes these adjustments are subtle, sometimes major. Due to the sheer volume of work for programmers, not all these changes get communicated to others. By others I mean other programmers, the designer/s, the testers, etc. Usually the programmer is making the best call there is to make, but if nobody is aware of the fine details then things can be miscommunicated.

2. The game design and it's code are always changing even beyond the day of release. Usually under tremendous time pressure. What might be true when the manual writer starts may change a half dozen times before the game is out and then again after. For a simple game it is fairly easy to keep track of these issues and to have the manual reflect the game's actual features and behaviors. But for a game like Combat Mission? No way.

3. Simulation type games (which CM is) are, by their nature, extremely complex. Compare CM to Company of Heroes to see what I mean. Company of Heroes probably had two dedicated people writing the documentation, yet the game is infinitely more simplistic than CM. So if their manuals have fewer errors it's mostly because there are fewer places to make errors. In fact, those sorts of games don't even try to document how their games work to the extent you guys demand of us. Which means other games have lower technical requirements, lower customer expectations, and more resources. Yet I still bet there are plenty of errors in those manuals as well.

Thanks for taking the time to write an in-depth reply, Steve. I find your explanation entirely plausible.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

^^^ Between the quoted text and the signature it was hard to find any content in that post at all!!

[GreenAsJade]

BTW, I got some clarification on the QB victory points. The answers are in the manual, though obviously it's not entirely clear. Communication is definitely an imperfect experience

This hasn't been 100% approved "as written", but it should help things out for now. The corrected text, once double checked by Charles, will be passed along to get in the manual:

"

Victory conditions

In order to ensure that all QB maps function uniformly, with any and all possible QB parameters, the game automatically converts all terrain objectives to OCCUPY objectives. All other types of objectives are completely ignored. The value of each OCCUPY objective is proportionally adjusted from the designer's values, relative to each other, so that the total points equals 1000. Additionally, the game automatically adds an enemy-casualty UNIT objective for each side.

The weight of OCCUPY and UNIT objectives for the final victory score depends on the type of game played. Meeting Engagements reward players less for holding terrain, more for causing casualties. Assaults are the opposite as casualties matter less, holding ground is paramount. Probes and attacks are inbetween."

Steve

It's probably worth noting that these words almost certainly will get some modification during the review, since we know of some situations where they aren't quite correct... or at very least the phrase "the total points" needs to be clarified to mean "the total points for OCCUPY plus UNIT objectives" rather than the way it reads as "the total for OCCUPY points".

So everyone should be on standby for the final answer

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

^^^ Between the quoted text and the signature it was hard to find any content in that post at all!!

Ah, but the skill—the vast and subtle skill—is in knowing what to quote, Grasshopper.

Michael