(Old Bone from) CMx2 Fog of War Options.. Steve said something like.... (??????)

[aka_tom_w]

It will likely create such a mess of disinformation that the player will be totally confused and frustrated by it all.

Yeah but

for some folks this might make a game against the AI challenging and enjoyable (maybe?)

We ALL like the idea of options and optional FOW settings, you can't go wrong giving us all lots of options for playing the game.

You might find some us here asking for the FOW option that does do this " create such a mess of disinformation that the player will be totally confused and frustrated by it all."

JUST so it can give the AI a fighting chance.

Please please consider giving the AI a shot in the arm by offering the player the disinformation&frustration level of FOW so that sometimes solo play might present a new form of challenge that might mean the player would have to use solid recon techniques and adapt to the new challenge of that kind of Frustration FOW (FFOW and that is ONE up from EFOW) game environment. I am just saying it might be more fun than you think as an option against the AI (that of course would hopefully NOT be hobbled by the same FFOW limits and restrictions, if that is possible)

Thanks!

-tom w

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for the suggestion of showing both possible positions for a particular enemy unit... I think that won't work out in reality very well. It will likely create such a mess of disinformation that the player will be totally confused and frustrated by it all. More so than he should, and certainly more so than that type of player would want. I mean, if the player is saying "I'll take less realism for more fun" (fun is always a relative concept) then the last thing we should do is say "OK, here is how you dumb down the realism so you can have more fun. Oh, BTW... you might notice that it is really, super annoying. Enjoy!"

Well, duh! Options Steve, options.

1) Relative playback,

2) Full Playback c/w Spooks,

3) Full Playback with Single Marker Using Best Info (ie no spooks).

Now everyones happy. I thought you were the smart one, and we were the know nothing, think-small grogs?

Jon

[Wartgamer]

As for Realtive Spotting in Movie playback... remember that part of the benefit of Relative Spotting is to make the God and Borg problems less of a factor. In the most realistic settings that means NOT giving the player a complete and unfettered view of the entire battlefield all at once. Ever. By allowing the player to sit back and watch all the action happening he gets situational awareness that no commander would ever have and therefore... Borg and God issues. There is no arguing against this from a realism perspective.

However, arguing against this from a playability/fun standpoint... sure! I think the majority of gamers would want to have the full movie with all action playing back at once shown. So obviously we are going to support it in some form. And if you ninnies read my post better, you'd see that I already said this

Steve [/QB]

Thats quite remarkable. You call people ninnys for not reading your posts closely when its very evident that you did not read the posts about relative spotting here. You could not have read my posts if you typed the above paragraphs.

The exact opposite effect is described by the use of HQ based relative spotting movie playback.

[ February 28, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

I thought you were the smart one, and we were the know nothing, think-small grogs?

You thought correctly. We don't put in game options that suck just because somebody asked for it to be in.

Now everyones happy.

Like that will ever happen! Duh We never forget there will always be some "small minded grog" pointing out our horrid mistakes that completely undermine and diminish the playability of an entire game (like having the wrong SMGs for a period of time). So even if we put in an option that wouldn't be used by more than 2 people, we'll still get chewed out by someone just because they have nothing better to do on a Friday night

Thats quite remarkable. You call people ninnys for not reading your posts closely when its very evident that did not read the posts about relative spotting here. You could not have read my posts if you typed the above paragraphs.

Sorry Wartgamer, I forgot that you're the only important one in this thread and that I should only read your posts and respond to yours, not any of the others. My bad.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

In any case, I would like you to read the last two pages closely and think about the subtle implications of many of the points raised. Starting at this post..

"It isn't a test as much as personal preferences.

I am beginning to think that some form of relative spotting playback is desirable. Especially if the game uses many 'spooks' or false info reports.

Perhaps having relative spotting playback for just HQ type units?

I don't know the inner workings of the game but I do not believe that a unique movie would have to ground out for each HQ. It would be the same movie with just his perspective acting as a 'filter'."

I agree that giving the player the ability to jump around and watch relative perpective playback movies from all units is just defeating the realism that relative spotting brings. While it was initially brought up, when I thought about, theres actually an opportunity to use it to create more realism at this level of combat.

See if you can catch the implications.

[ February 28, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Battlefront.com]

Taking Jon's suggested options list as a starting point, here are the pros/cons of each:

1) Relative playback - when you click on a unit you only see what that unit sees. Since players aren't likely to watch the playback dozens of times to get the perspective of each unit they are instead likely to watch from a few key vantage points. When the Orders Phase comes around again they'll make decisions based on incomplete information. That is the pro and the con.

2) Full Playback c/w Spooks - you see all the action from all unit's perspectives simultaneously. Pro is that you get a ton of information in one go. Con is you get a ton of information in one go AND quite a lot of it is conflicting, thereby being very confusing.

3) Full Playback with Single Marker Using Best Info (ie no spooks). - you get a subset and more refined version of #2, missing the elements that will cause consternation more often than not. That is the pro. The con is that you are now looking at the whole battlefield in its entirety (undermines #1's pro) with better refined information (undermines #2's pro). So, while on the whole it is the least realistic of the three, it is also likely the most "enjoyable" because the player gets to experience the whole battle as a passive, God like observer (the latter bit is the obvious reason for the reduction in realism).

The suggestion of combining #1 with #3, centered around an HQ, is an interesting suggestion since it fits sorta inbetween the two extremes. It is also something I've already thought of I was thinking of this for CoPlay (Co-Op Play) in the sense that #3 would be limited to your own force and not those of other players. However, there is no reason why this behavior couldn't also be allowed for single player (i.e. one player per side) forces.

So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)

Steve

[JonS]

edit, ne'er mind

[ February 28, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Wartgamer]

I have to be honest. I don't really catch what Halbadiers is proposing.

But I do like the idea he implied about possible sitrep snapshots during the ORDERS phase based around a small unit HQ. Not to be confused with HQ based relative movie playbacks.

[Battlefront.com]

Edited out because Jon removed his post. I will say that it gets VERY tiring to see people constantly focusing on few things that we got wrong as if the thousands of things we got right are either unimportant or somehow acheived through dumb luck. As the old saying goes... until I can come to YOUR job and peant gallery what you do for a living, you've got us at a disadvantage. That's because I am sure that I can find something wrong with anybody's work after only a few hours of observation, and it doesn't matter what field they are in or how respected they are by their peers. And I am sure you wouldn't find any more joy in such nit picking than I do

Steve

[ February 28, 2005, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Deleted because I put in the wrong quote and now can't remember which quote I was responding to

Steve

[ March 01, 2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Wartgamer]

I hope the designer gives consideration to the possible 'command-crossroad' I proposed AFTER viewing a HQ based relative movie playback. It nicely simulates the Bn/Company HQ relationship and implications of command. The more I think of it, deciding a course of action BEFORE seeing the individual orders phase unit relative 'snapshots, the more I think the game can abstract multiple layers of command even though the game is being 'God'd' by a single human being. It is effectively forcing a player to think at different levels.

[Wartgamer]

The suggestion of combining #1 with #3, centered around an HQ, is an interesting suggestion since it fits sorta inbetween the two extremes. It is also something I've already thought of I was thinking of this for CoPlay (Co-Op Play) in the sense that #3 would be limited to your own force and not those of other players. However, there is no reason why this behavior couldn't also be allowed for single player (i.e. one player per side) forces.

Its more subtle than that. I want to break up the force. I want to force a single player to actually behave like multiple levels of command. The heart of it is a top down info feed to the player with command implications at different levels.

[Battlefront.com]

There is no "crossroads", as you call it, in the CMx2 design. In other words, there are no abstract concepts to force the player into doing prior to doing something else. Therefore, your suggestion (as is) isn't relative.

The reason for having individual unit viewpoints is because the player is still expected to issue commands to the individual units. If you deprive the player of knowledge that unit should have, then you are depriving the player of the ability to realistically make decisions for that unit. So, even in the Replay as HQ option the C&C quality would be ignored and all units under that HQ's command would be a part of the playback. Otherwise you will have far too many situations where the player is not getting feedback when he should from a realism standpoint.

All units have an HQ in CMx2, even if it is an ad hoc relationship. If a HQ is wiped out we can still pretend it is there for the sake of playback (i.e. the player clicks on a unit in A Company and sees A Company's playback even if HQ A Company is 100% KIA).

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Taking Jon's suggested options list as a starting point, here are the pros/cons of each:

1) Relative playback - agreed

2) Full Playback c/w Spooks - you see all the action from all unit's perspectives simultaneously. Pro is that you get a ton of information in one go. Con is you get a ton of information in one go AND quite a lot of it is conflicting, thereby being very confusing.

Actually, FWIW, I view the 'ton of info in one go' as a pro, simply from the efficiency POV. I also see that much of it will be conflicting as a pro also. It means that the player will have to assess the info he's being presented to sort out the conflicts, then make decisions based on sub-optimal info. It also means that the opposing player can usefully engage in feints, spoofs, and deceptions. Without spook markers, that becomes impractical.

Also, thinking Real World for a sec, this aggregation of info is exactly the sort of information that commanders are presented with.

I do, however, acknowledge that the mass of info, and the need to assess it, will be off-putting to some players.

3) Full Playback with Single Marker Using Best Info (ie no spooks). - you get a subset and more refined version of #2, missing the elements that will cause consternation more often than not. That is the pro.

See above. I think its a con, for the reasons listed above. Oh, except for the player frustration and consternation thing - that is important, but you're acheiving it by reducing FOW.

More later - off to see The Aviator

[Wartgamer]

This is from an earlier post...

Lets say the game FORCED you to watch the HQ based relative movie playback with the least intel first. You have to watch from the company HQ perspective of the stricken company. The movie shows very little enemy troops but many spooks. You also have little indication of what effects the barrage/HMG have had on your troops (the actual company HQ is pinned). You are not being updated as far as casualties. At the end of that movie, you are menu asked "Commit reserves? Retreat? Hold?". You must decide if the reserve components must be committed BEFORE selecting units in your company for issuing orders to. Why? Because when you select each unit, you will gather individual pieces of the puzzle and these 'snapshots' will reveal to you much more than a company commander/Bn Commander could know.

What you decide at this 'command-crossroads' effects how the individual orders impact the troops under your command. War is Hell.

The command decision at this point will effect the individual orders you give to all the units under that command HQ. So you still get to give all the individual units orders after selecting them and seeing their relative info, but the command decision made previous has implications on those commands.

Example: You are company HQ and the whole company has been hit by arty and MG fire. You get a very poor HQ based relative movie playback (HQBRMP). Your own relative spotting and 'relayed' spotting is just terrible. All sorts of spooks are reported but no definite enemy info. You decide to command retreat. This will help your guys get back in better order.

When opening up each individual unit, you get a clearer picture that it was heavy arty, but there are few casualties and the MG fire is only from two guns or so. The problem now is you are under a retreat order and having your guys attempt to stay and fight may lead to men breaking (since the order came down). Best to just give hide orders or withdrawl orders to better cover if possible. Starting any fights right now is not advisable.

But if the actual situation was dire, being under a retreat order could have been beneficial in extracting men without causing a major rout.

[ February 28, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

So what I am proposing is a C&C menu at the HQ based level. At this point, I am thinking mostly on a company level but it could be platoon level for other type units.

Yes its a new concept

The reason for having individual unit viewpoints is because the player is still expected to issue commands to the individual units. If you deprive the player of knowledge that unit should have, then you are depriving the player of the ability to realistically make decisions for that unit. So, even in the Replay as HQ option the C&C quality would be ignored and all units under that HQ's command would be a part of the playback. Otherwise you will have far too many situations where the player is not getting feedback when he should from a realism standpoint.

Yes I understand, and the units can STILL see what they see during the orders phase. I agree that can not be messed with. BUT the command modeling CAN effect what orders may actually do to the unit also. It may even limit WHAT orders are actually IN the units little menus.

And the HQBRSMP will be not only what the actual HQ unit sees relative to himself, but also 'relayed' spotting information shared to him from realistic modeling. So units of his in LOS can signal, walkie talkie, etc. A well situated company that is not under excessive fire would produce a situationally aware HQBRSMP.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

This looks good

Steve, can you tell us a little bit more about #2 HQ Based Relative Playback? Sorry I am still not clear.

Does that mean the totality of ALL cumulative HQ spotting info is revealed to the player in the Relative play back, OR JUST spotting info for one selected HQ unit and the player would have to watch the play back over and over again from the spotting perspective of EACH friendly HQ unit to try to get the cumulative effects of all the independent Relative spotting intel from each unique HQ?

Sorry I don't understand the proposal....

But I think it looks like a realistic compromise....

Does anyone else here "get" what Steve is proposing for #2 HQ Based Relative Playback ????

Thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The suggestion of combining #1 with #3, centered around an HQ, is an interesting suggestion since it fits sorta inbetween the two extremes. It is also something I've already thought of I was thinking of this for CoPlay (Co-Op Play) in the sense that #3 would be limited to your own force and not those of other players. However, there is no reason why this behavior couldn't also be allowed for single player (i.e. one player per side) forces.

So.... how about this?

1. Relative Playback (Unit Based)

2. Relative Playback (HQ Based)

3. Relative Playback (Force Based)

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

I hope Steve willl think about this a reconsider:

"player frustration and consternation thing - that is important, but you're acheiving it by reducing FOW."

This should be an option and for PRACTICE against the AI it should prove quite a challenge for most players I am guessing.

I think JonS has a GREAT point here:

"Actually, FWIW, I view the 'ton of info in one go' as a pro, simply from the efficiency POV. I also see that much of it will be conflicting as a pro also. It means that the player will have to assess the info he's being presented to sort out the conflicts, then make decisions based on sub-optimal info. It also means that the opposing player can usefully engage in feints, spoofs, and deceptions. Without spook markers, that becomes impractical.

Also, thinking Real World for a sec, this aggregation of info is exactly the sort of information that commanders are presented with.

I do, however, acknowledge that the mass of info, and the need to assess it, will be off-putting to some players."

(THAT'S why it is optional!)

The game should have a FOW option that would let the player CHOOSE to overwhelm himself with multiple conflicting spotting reports so that "the player will have to assess the info he's being presented to sort out the conflicts, then make decisions based on sub-optimal info. It also means that the opposing player can usefully engage in feints, spoofs, and deceptions. "

This does have an UP SIDE or a pro if the player chooses to play this way against the AI or another less skilled opponent, given that (and I know this is radical and may be impossible) the opponent or the AI may be playing under a MORE forgiving or LESS realistic Fog of War spotting or playback option.

Please...

-tom w

[Halberdiers]

"As a general rule, every one is more inclined to lend credence to the bad than the good. Every one is inclined to magnify the bad in some measure"."In short, he is exposed to countless impressions, most of them disturbing, few of them encouraging". Carl Von Clausewitz.

Definition of information: The vision of all elements of the battlefield.Include:units,terrain elements,bridges,roads,elevation...ALL,etc.

KEYS:

1-Player's unified vision in the movie phase.

2-Player's elective vision of the battefield in the orders phase.

3-Pulse of true information in orders phase.

4-Borg,uncertainy,C-2,friction of war,realistic,FUN.

Commander's estimate:

The SETUP PHASE must to be for the vision of player all the noise of the vision of the squad. The vision of the squad see in excess and overestimate the enemy forces (the player first impression :"I CAN'T DO THIS").

In the order phase of TURN ONE , The commander's estimation is automatically activated (the player can deactivate). Then HQ filtered all information and change the vision of the player of the battlefield in the ORDER PHASE. The better or worse intelligence of the HQ will be discovered by the player along the battle. MOVIE PHASE will be unified and a mix of vision of squads , ones with a filter activated and others with deactivated filter .

0-Setup phase:

Noise of all squads.The worst vision of my life.

False or Unknown information of mobile elements and inmobile elements (terrain).

1-Turn 1

Orders Phase:

-HQ activated.

-Noise of the vision of squads without filtered information by the HQ.

-The vision of the player is corrected for all elements of the battlefield:units,terrain,etc.

-Timer 1 min 30 sec (variable,chance,etc) to the next filter correction:time delay of information.

-AI CALCULATE.

Movie Phase: vision of squads are unified and mix with and without HQfilter (units,elements and terrain).

2-Turn 2

Orders Phase:

-Overestimation by the new information of the squads without correction.False information.

-The HQ filter is deactivated!!!

-AI CALCULATE.

Movie phase: Vision of squads without correction.

(see picture)

Attention: you do not have the Commander's estimate . Are False the Minifield , False the enemy infantry , False the Flag. Is false that the infantry do not have LOS . The HQ have LOF , but if HQ shoot then discover their position!!. You see false wounded enemies .But you , as player , have the Turn as a thriller!! .

3-Turn 3

Orders phase:

-Filter of HQ activated (danger of underestimation!!!).

-The vision of the player is Corrected for all elements of the battlefield.

-the automatic Timer set 3 min to the next correction.

-AI CALCULATE.

Movie phase: Unified movie.

(see picture)

Notes:

1-In the SETUP PHASE, the vision of the player must to be the vision of squads without HQ filters. A spectacular representation but OVERESTIMATED and FALSE beyond of some meters.

2-The HQ is a filter and modifier of information. The HQ gives the TRUE vision to the player. Automatic activation by timer. Elective deactivation by player. Timer of silence or Latency is different between HQs and between the same HQ turn by turn. The HQ can generate UNDERESTIMATION.

3-Levels of filter:(from overestimated to underestimated):Team,Squad,PlatoonHQ,CompanyHQ.In theory at greater level of activated filter, the information of the battlefield is truer.The HQ company is the more TRUE filter.But with more timer of silence and with more risk to extend the UNDERESTIMATION along the battlefield.

4-The player can deactivate each level of HQ (platoon, company) if he wishes the vision without filters or with smaller filters . Elective in the orders phase. But ever the game will give to the player a VISION UNIFIED of the battlefield in the orders phase and in the movie phase.

[ March 01, 2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I am trying

but sorry this is still hard to follow

if you were writting an essay, perhaps your professor might say this to help you:

Tell me what you are going to tell me (introduction)

Tell me

Tell me again

and in summation:

Tell me that you have told me.

(And don't forget your bibliography )

Halberdiers, would you be kind enough to try to tell us what effect or impact your concept or idea is trying to achieve in the game and in general terms (perhaps with examples) explain it slowly and carefully for even the thickest amongst us to try and grasp in a few paragraphs of prose without the choppy points and bullets?

I think there is a really interesting idea and concept in there but I truly sorry that I still don't really get how it will impact the game or the player or how it will make the game more fun or more realistic :confused:

Sorry

BUT really I am trying

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

There could be some situations where you only get a unit based relative movie playback. The one that pops to mind is the old CMBO Wittman scenario at VillersBocage. I believe the game starts with just him in his Tiger so basically, it would be a movie from his viewpoint.

After the other Tigers show up, he would be the HQ based relative movie playback relative point. The othet Tigers would add to his movie's info, especially if they were in radio contact. The small infantry forces would add very little if anything. If he gets smoked, the HQBRMP would move to the next best Tiger commander.

In this type of scenario, there would only be (under a high realistic game setting) just this HQBRMP. Having a viewpoint from the small scattering of infantry forces would be a designers decision. And a bad one to have IMO as it takes away from the essence of what is being depicted.

Likewise, having a 'Grand' movie overview is fluff for wienies. Under a realistic FOW setting, these 'Grand' movie views are not given.

Lets explore what a HQBRMP might look like/entail..

Lets say Wittman is engaging enemy armor and the other Tigers have already arrived. The movie would contain his relative spotting information. This is largely based on what He himself sees, along with his gunner and MG/RO (German tanks had sights for the bow MG). The driver and loader give very little info beyond local security.

The othet Tigers are engaging the enemy. The ones in radio communication relay info to Wittman. The funny thing is, the targets of these other Tigars show detail (Firefly!) but the position is not exactly relayed. These Fireflys are out of Wittmans LOS. So we see an odd effect of knowing detail about a spook but not position detail.

In another case, a Tiger has taken a ricochet off the bow armor and the RO in that tank is shook up. We have no radio communication with them but he is in our LOS. We see he is firing at something to his half right. Many generic spooks are generated to simulate what he could be firing at.

Lets explore the infantry. They are not in radio contact but they do seem to be firing at something over to the left. We see tracers during the movie. This realistic info IS part of the HQBRMP because it is seen by the HQ unit. A very good leader may even be modeled by having some armor spooks showing up at the target point. This 'very good leader' may be the infantry leader actually. He is firing long/short burts in succession to signify armor (or firing a flare).

[ March 01, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Halberdiers]

my english is too bad to explain. Sorry guys and thanks for readme.

how it will impact the game or the player or how it will make the game more fun or more realistic

I try to say that the player can have a lot of action in the battles. "FUN" must to arrive with realistic situations.

Maybe you could be a bad "commander". But as "player" you must to have a lot of fun: action.

The battle is a dynamic situation and you have a lot of HQs. Every one with their particularities. The player (as Battalion commander) select what information of their HQs is good and what is bad.The player without the HQ intelligence have more FEAR in the play , more thriller ,more action. But less trues in the battlefield.

In the example , You can help to the platoon HQ with a near company HQ. Then you have a more TRUE vision of the battlefield.

Each turn changes the facts . A key is that isolated SQUADS overestimated the battle. And the HQ present as combat unit , is not activated ever as intelligence unit .

Your squads gives you the fun for your eyes (this remember me "Don Quijote" fighting against

mills ) and your HQ gives you the TRUE for your mind.

[ March 01, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[DrD]

Wow! This is making my head spin.

I thinks unit-based info during playback is a good idea. HQ units, as had been discussed, should have info from subordinates in C+C, but perhaps in less detail.

Now here's my twist: what if we limited the number of times one could playback the movie? Or give the player x number of minutes to watch it? This would solve the problem of having to watch it from each unit's perspective. Likely you would watch it from your highest HQ's, then maybe some of your lower HQ's, then maybe from some individual unit's perspectives in critical areas. This would add to FOW (since you can't watch every movie) while at the same time making it less cumbersome (you can't watch every movie!)

If you choose a high HQ, you will see alot, but less detail (more false reports, positions off, etc.) If you choose a unit, you will see a little, but in more detail. The decision will be what to watch when, in other words, how to use your limited time during movie playback.

This is also easily customizable simply by varying the amount of time allowed for movie playback, those of you that like "operational level" games could set it so you can only watch once, and will therefore likely watch it alwasy from the highest HQ's viewpoint.

Of course during the orders phase you will still get to see what each unit sees. But how to prevent the player greedy for info from clicking on every unit in the orders phase? Maybe limit the number of units you can give orders to in each phase, although this takes some control away. Will think about this more.

Some of the "fun" issues may be ameliorated by the "full battle replay" at the end of the scenario, with no FOW, that I think we're all hoping will be in.

Oh and thanks Steve for your participation in the forum. I don't recall any game designer who is as involved with the public as you are.

[ March 01, 2005, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by DrD:

Wow! This is making my head spin.

I thinks unit-based info during playback is a good idea. HQ units, as had been discussed, should have info from subordinates in C+C, but perhaps in less detail.

I emphatically believe that under most circumstances, giving the player the option to watch unit based relative movie playback will just defeat the reality of the game. If its an option for begginers, then fine.

If the player can jump from unit to unit and playback the movie from all those units, then he will undo any benefit that relative spotting achieves.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

Wow! This is making my head spin.

I thinks unit-based info during playback is a good idea. HQ units, as had been discussed, should have info from subordinates in C+C, but perhaps in less detail.

I emphatically believe that under most circumstances, giving the player the option to watch unit based relative movie playback will just defeat the reality of the game. If its an option for begginers, then fine.

If the player can jump from unit to unit and playback the movie from all those units, then he will undo any benefit that relative spotting achieves. </font>