View Full Version : The problem I have with TOAW1...
robarrieta
07 Jun 06, 00:57
When I purchased TOAW (actually CoW) back in 1999, I couldn't wait to play it. However, I was dissapointed when I installed it and realized I couldn't follow the game mechanics. In other words, I like to know exactly what my combat odds are (as can be determined in games like Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy). The interface just wasn't very intuitive. I'm a boardgamer and am used to knowing exactly how to move and how much it will cost, how to be in supply , determine combat odds, etc. Choosing things like "minimize losses" or "disregard losses" was not very tangible to me. Further complicating matters, the manual SUCKED! (to put it mildly) and did not help demistify the combat and supply mechanics.
So...my question is: Has TOAW3 improved upon these issues and is the manual any better? Thanks.
So...my question is: Has TOAW3 improved upon these issues and is the manual any better? Thanks.
The manual is better. However, the mechanics are the same - by design. I realize that it is not everybody's cup of tea, being unable to dissect an odds table, and see exactly what your limited range of discrete outcomes will be for any particular attack or defense, but it is exactly this system that TOAW breaks away from. Under the hood, there are still numerous "odds" and die-rolls made, but you really don't want to know exactly which of a thousand pieces of equipment fired at which of a thousand defending pieces of equipment and which units scored hits, which were disabled as opposed to killed, et cetera, do you?
It's enough to drive a sane man crazy, and a crazy man sane!:nuts:
Ben Turner
07 Jun 06, 04:08
However, the mechanics are the same - by design. I realize that it is not everybody's cup of tea, being unable to dissect an odds table, and see exactly what your limited range of discrete outcomes will be for any particular attack or defense, but it is exactly this system that TOAW breaks away from.
Amen. When I read the memoirs of a real general, I don't often come across a passage saying "and I added 3rd Battalion to the attack to shift the battle over to the 3:1 odds column on the CRT, which was a jolly good thing because I only rolled a four."
TOAW forces you to get a feel for what will work and what won't. Because you're already a wargamer, you'll already have a headstart in this regard. Think of the CRT based games which spoon-feed you the information you need as being like riding a bicycle with the stabilisers on. TOAW takes them off.
Ben (who has never ridden a bicycle in his life)
Mark Stevens
07 Jun 06, 16:55
Absolutely right: to me the idea that a '5 - 4', 50% proficiency unit may or may not turn out to perform like that against different opponents, or facing different terrain, or with air and artillery support added in, or that you can't even see the enemy until you bump into him lurking in a thick forest is exactly what elevates TOAW above those dear old cardboard games.
I've got stacks of them sitting gathering dust on my shelves because I DON'T want to know the exact odds and the percentage chance of success.
Some of the maps and counters may have been prettier, but that's about all.
General Staff
07 Jun 06, 18:07
I realize that it is not everybody's cup of tea, being unable to dissect an odds table, and see exactly what your limited range of discrete outcomes will be for any particular attack or defense, but it is exactly this system that TOAW breaks away from.
And I used to be a boardgamer too. Is there anyone else out there who set out GDW's Europa? Or played AH's Anzio?
The TOAW game engine IMO is revolutionary and unique. This sat on my shelf for a year because I bought it bargain basement and didn't realise its value.
If you ever played a 1900+ boardgame, this is the best thing since the wheel.
(P.S. Now you need to know or learn how to turn that nasty piece of wood).
And now on the web there are plenty of articles about the differents way of playing, managing, rounds and units.
It helped me a lot to improve my playing skill
Der WanderModerator
And I used to be a boardgamer too. Is there anyone else out there who set out GDW's Europa? Or played AH's Anzio?
The TOAW game engine IMO is revolutionary and unique. This sat on my shelf for a year because I bought it bargain basement and didn't realise its value.
If you ever played a 1900+ boardgame, this is the best thing since the wheel.
(P.S. Now you need to know or learn how to turn that nasty piece of wood).
Anzio was my second game! how many times I fought over Italy.
robarrieta
08 Jun 06, 18:12
I have to respectfully disagree. "Feeling" my way through combat doesn't really help me optimize my chances of success without knowing exact odds, TEM, DRM, etc. The randomness of battle factor is provided by the roll of the dice. In this respect, the SSG games (Battles in Normandy, etc.) succeed in providing simple to understand combat resolution odds.
While I like the TOAW graphics and the game's flexibility, combat resolution and supply is just too much of a black box for me. Also, some of the detail provided is overkill (e.g. number of bicycles in a division!). Is this minutiae used to calculated probability of success?
While I like the TOAW graphics and the game's flexibility, combat resolution and supply is just too much of a black box for me.
How is it a 'black box' for you?
Also, some of the detail provided is overkill (e.g. number of bicycles in a division!). Is this minutiae used to calculated probability of success?
I absolutely diagree that this is too much detail. The detail is what makes the game a step, or two, above any other wargame I've ever played. I quite enjoy knowing just how many trucks, tanks, etc. are in my units.
How is it a 'black box' for you?
What he means by "black box" is that he knows the input, and can observe the output, but the function in the middle, the "black box", has to be guessed at, or derived from empirical data. In this case, he is essentially correct, in that TOAW's combat engine is something of a black box.
Is this minutiae used to calculated probability of success?
In short, yes it is, and gets directly to the crux of the biscuit, so to speak.
TOAW does make thousands of odds calculations, and resolutions per multi-division sized combat. Asking it to be boiled down to a 12x15 array of 2d6 combat odds and results, with a few drm's thrown in for good measure is like asking a cheetah to be a duck.
My best friend dislikes TOAW for the very same reason as you do, so I don't disrespect your choice of taste. It's simply a matter of your preference in gaming. TOAW III is not for everyone, but then neither is any other game.
robarrieta
08 Jun 06, 19:16
Thanks for the response. I'm a little bit of an odd case since I actually started wargaming on the computer with TOAW and East Front and enjoyed the games (I must have spent 100 hours playing TOAW but I haven't played in about 5 years). I then discovered boardgaming with ASL, SCS, OCS and GMT's East Front Series of boardgames and these blew me away. Planning an attack and being able to grasp the success of the attack via odds calculations lends a more tangible feel to the games, almost as if the player is more "in control". Perhaps it is the perceived lack of control factor that irks me about TOAW. That said, I'm going from memory and it has been a long time.
I am not trying to put down TOAW since I think it is remarkable in its own way. I might even but it again and give it another shot. I just wish I could say "8:1 odds with a -2 DRM" !
General Staff
08 Jun 06, 19:48
I just wish I could say "8:1 odds with a -2 DRM" !
Anyone else here remember that first turn in AH TRC? Or AH 3R? It don't work that way here and that's the beauty of it.
Maybe like real combat, you get a feel, pile the resources in as you see fit and face the results.
Maybe like real combat, you get a feel, pile the resources in as you see fit and face the results.
Yes, this way is much more realistic.
Ben Turner
08 Jun 06, 21:32
"Feeling" my way through combat doesn't really help me optimize my chances of success without knowing exact odds, TEM, DRM, etc.
If you're worried about your chances of success, remember that your opponent doesn't get to add up the numbers either. In TOAW, you win because you executed the battle well- not because you're great at mental arithmetic.
If you prefer the former then I suppose that's your choice and TOAW perhaps isn't for you. I can argue about realism until I'm blue in the face but if you don't enjoy it you won't play.
robarrieta
08 Jun 06, 23:03
In TOAW, you win because you executed the battle well- not because you're great at mental arithmetic.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, unit qualities, which are in turn used for combat odds calcualtions, are directly reflected in combat strength, mobility, morale, etc. A well executed battle plan will make use of the best units and exploit the nemy's weak points. This can be very elegantly reflected in combat odds.
viridomaros
09 Jun 06, 05:38
actually when you have a good feeling about how the game works, you'll know which attacks are likely to work and which aren't going to work. the engine is using math to resolve combat but it's so complex that you can't use calculation to win a battle. I'm sure that in real war if one wants, it's possible to explain everything using math and physics but here again it's so complex that it's not possible for human to use calculations to win a battle.
if you like games using more math and where the results are somewhat more predictable i advise you to play panzer general or people general. I still play those games from time to time, i wish i could find some players to try pbem or internet play.
Ben Turner
09 Jun 06, 10:29
A well executed battle plan will make use of the best units and exploit the nemy's weak points.
Sometimes. One can also do the same in TOAW. I don't need to see the numbers on the icon to know which units are good.
Sometimes. One can also do the same in TOAW. I don't need to see the numbers on the icon to know which units are good.
And one eye is enough see Nelson at Trafalgar square instead of Napoleon at Waterloo station who had his 2 eyes and missed the coming of Blucher
Tsssss B1 Kenobi, Why I missed this one WHY !!!!
Der WanderCaesarPalace
Dicke Bertha
09 Jun 06, 11:43
TOAW's complex battle resolution is certainly great, I only hope that future work can make it even more complex under the hood. It shouldn't be simple odds, nor simply numbers and equipment, nor proficiencies etc.
As great as TOAW is, I think it becomes pretty obvious when playing bigger scenarios, that even more complexity should be available. As is, there isn't much 'personality' to units and formations.
The 54. Infanteriedivision, XC. Korps, 1. Panzer Armee is behaving suspiciously a lot like 299. ID, IX. Korps, 5. Armee... since they have identical inside numericals... where is the dynamic showing that 54. ID is fighting a heroic and desperate defense in its very recruitment/home area under the able command of General Dicke, whose brother happens to run the Korps, and whose brother-in-law is the formidable organisation wizard army staff chief... The 299. ID on the other hand, while great fighers, have lousy command all the way to the top, and the IX. Korps is a very newly set-up organisation, which commanding general is constantly entertaining his girlfriend...
OK very silly example, but I hope the future will see more 'complexity' and 'detail' in the engine, without (other than optionally) burdening the player too much.
I am sure there are many games with odds tables out there, but I have no interest in them.
The 54. Infanteriedivision, XC. Korps, 1. Panzer Armee is behaving suspiciously a lot like 299. ID, IX. Korps, 5. Armee... since they have identical inside numericals... where is the dynamic showing that 54. ID is fighting a heroic and desperate defense in its very recruitment/home area under the able command of General Dicke, whose brother happens to run the Korps, and whose brother-in-law is the formidable organisation wizard army staff chief... The 299. ID on the other hand, while great fighers, have lousy command all the way to the top, and the IX. Korps is a very newly set-up organisation, which commanding general is constantly entertaining his girlfriend...As it is, my guess is that you can assign different levels of proficiency and readiness to each unit (if the division is the low-end unit) or different levels of formation proficiency if we're at the formation level. Despite their identical TO&E, those two divisions will react differently.
As it is, my guess is that you can assign different levels of proficiency and readiness to each unit (if the division is the low-end unit) or different levels of formation proficiency if we're at the formation level. Despite their identical TO&E, those two divisions will react differently.
Totally agree with you.
And possibility to lower all them when reinforcements/Replacements are made with Green or Grognards folks, even at the Btn level.
Or depending of period of time, winter spring weather condition sunny of rainy, I'm not kidding here but all those factors will influence fight capacity
Der WanderMartinez:nuts:
Ben Turner
09 Jun 06, 12:28
And one eye is enough see Nelson at Trafalgar square instead of Napoleon at Waterloo station who had his 2 eyes and missed the coming of Blucher
Knowing wouldn't have allowed him to win the battle, just drag the war on a little longer.
There are a number of great battles like this. The one where the Roman slave revolt was smashed is another example. No doubt a very exciting battle- but the Romans had a further two large armies en-route to meet the slave army. Similarly, had the French been able to fend off the British, Dutch and Prussians, they would not have been able to destroy their armies due to the weather (and the fact the French cavalry had comitted suicide during the battle), and would have merely faced them again- plus the Austrians and Russians- at a later date.
Napoleon could very likely have lived out his days as Emperor of France with a tweak elsewhere- but by 1815, it was very much too late.
Ben Turner
09 Jun 06, 12:38
OK very silly example, but I hope the future will see more 'complexity' and 'detail' in the engine, without (other than optionally) burdening the player too much.
In terms of detail in the quality of the unit, one should first separate proficiency into morale and competence. Then the way "untried" status works should be changed. Currently most designers set all units to 'veteran' status because the alternative produces such wild results. I would prefer it if a new unit takes very much higher casualties than a 'veteran' unit. Also, history shows that even a small cadre of experienced soldiers can have a strong positive effect on a unit, in contrast with one formed entirely of new troops.
Dicke Bertha
09 Jun 06, 12:57
Yes Ben, it is another thing, how quickly the untried reach veteran status... and it isn't 'weighed' as such either (?).
Anyway my example was to show that some extra factors should be assignable, such as leadership, desperation/beserk, the whole supply facette, etc etc. Not less detail, the game will be so much greater by more, as advanced options at least...
Bloodstar
09 Jun 06, 14:37
Yes Ben, it is another thing, how quickly the untried reach veteran status... and it isn't 'weighed' as such either (?).
Anyway my example was to show that some extra factors should be assignable, such as leadership, desperation/beserk, the whole supply facette, etc etc. Not less detail, the game will be so much greater by more, as advanced options at least...
I have already throwed some ideas but nobody listen to me:
Leadership factor, OK, General Janecke who was genius for defense (see how he fended off Soviets at Zaporozhe for some times...) so we assign 2 or 3 % defense bonus to units under his command. Bingo! And stuff like that.
And adding a possibility to attach or de-attach units under General Janecke or any other makes this a completely new game.
Mario
RhinoBones
09 Jun 06, 15:20
if you like games using more math and where the results are somewhat more predictable i advise you to play panzer general or people general. I still play those games from time to time, i wish i could find some players to try pbem or internet play.
Suggest you take a look at JP's Panzer General site at:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fjpspanzersfrm17
Most of the people there are into campaign games (dos version usually), but a few also seem to enjoy PBM.
Regards, RhinoBones
ralphtrickey
09 Jun 06, 16:32
I have already throwed some ideas but nobody listen to me:
Leadership factor, OK, General Janecke who was genius for defense (see how he fended off Soviets at Zaporozhe for some times...) so we assign 2 or 3 % defense bonus to units under his command. Bingo! And stuff like that.
And adding a possibility to attach or de-attach units under General Janecke or any other makes this a completely new game.
Mario
Just because someone doesn't respond doesn't mean we aren't listening. RIght now, I'm waiting to see if any major bugs crop up, and working on the next patch contents. Once we've got all the critical bugs fixed, we'll start soliciting opinions, and trying to figure out where we're going next. There's a thread on one of the forums that's soliciting somplete ideas. The more complete an idea is, the better. For example...
I'd like to propose an additonal command layer. This would be above the formationl level, and foramtions would be attached to the leaders. The formation screen would have to be lengthened ot accomodate this additional information. The following screens would need to be modifed...
Leaders should have the foloowing properties...
Leaders Do/Do not exist as playing pieces on the board.
The more detailed and well thought out the idea is, the better the chances are that I'll have time to implement it. It also means that other people will have time to look at what you're suggesting and help you flesh it out.
Thanks,
Ralph
RhinoBones
09 Jun 06, 17:06
Leadership factor, OK, General Janecke who was genius for defense (see how he fended off Soviets at Zaporozhe for some times...) so we assign 2 or 3 % defense bonus to units under his command.
Isn’t this basically what the formation proficiency setting does? Obviously the commander (proficiency) cannot move from formation to formation, but it’s close.
Maybe events could be designed to adjust shock values for individual formations.
Regards, RhinoBones
Bloodstar
09 Jun 06, 17:24
Just because someone doesn't respond doesn't mean we aren't listening. RIght now, I'm waiting to see if any major bugs crop up, and working on the next patch contents. Once we've got all the critical bugs fixed, we'll start soliciting opinions, and trying to figure out where we're going next. There's a thread on one of the forums that's soliciting somplete ideas. The more complete an idea is, the better. For example...
I'd like to propose an additonal command layer. This would be above the formationl level, and foramtions would be attached to the leaders. The formation screen would have to be lengthened ot accomodate this additional information. The following screens would need to be modifed...
Leaders should have the foloowing properties...
Leaders Do/Do not exist as playing pieces on the board.
The more detailed and well thought out the idea is, the better the chances are that I'll have time to implement it. It also means that other people will have time to look at what you're suggesting and help you flesh it out.
Thanks,
Ralph
Ralph,
I really appreciate this! That is kind of support I like and I salute you. :salute:
Great...
I will also think a little bit more about Leaders idea and try to formulate it better. I like what you are saying.
In the interest of TOAW community I will bury my tomahawk and try to be helpful. You have done good job Ralph in the end and you had been good choice for work on TOAW 3.
Of course we can make some part of the forum for fans to propose ideas, play with ideas, see what kind of features are possible.
I know it is easy to broke something, so we all must be careful so that changes are good gameplay wise.
Thank you.
Mario
Bloodstar
09 Jun 06, 17:32
Isn’t this basically what the formation proficiency setting does? Obviously the commander (proficiency) cannot move from formation to formation, but it’s close.
Maybe events could be designed to adjust shock values for individual formations.
Regards, RhinoBones
Well, hmm no... Actually you are right partly but some of TOAW system is rather crude and too abstract.
The reason why I proposed some small % numbers that leaders would grant to the troops they command because I know that if you put a bigger numbers than players and designers who like to stick with reality would object. I am not for something that would change gameplay too much.
But that would add to immersion in the game. That would also add something like RPG feeling into game, and maybe help in DIVERSIFICATION of units... That could also add some nice historical situation with additional research and consulting with books.
I always loved game systems that could provide you with some kind of let's call it "emotional attachmnet" toward units you control. Panzer General did this in it's own way by allowing that you transfer units from scenario to scenario through campaign, then he had leaders, bonuse, different experience system etc...
I am not proposing same system and dumbing down of TOAW but some realistic and feasible approach. We need to think about it...
Mario
RhinoBones
09 Jun 06, 18:45
Immersion, yes that is quite different from adjusting shock values. How about if you make a Rommel HQ unit and give it one (maybe two) indestructible Tiger tanks. The Rommel unit would add a little extra punch wherever it is deployed and you get the feeling that a real commander is on the battlefield.
As for Panzer/Allied General, played for years until I bought a PC and was able to play TOAW. Must have written over 40 scenarios, most of them for WWI. Still have a web page for Panzer/Allied General scenarios. There continues to be an active player/scenario designer community and I check in with them every so often.
Regards, RhinoBones
Bloodstar
09 Jun 06, 19:08
Immersion, yes that is quite different from adjusting shock values. How about if you make a Rommel HQ unit and give it one (maybe two) indestructible Tiger tanks. The Rommel unit would add a little extra punch wherever it is deployed and you get the feeling that a real commander is on the battlefield.
As for Panzer/Allied General, played for years until I bought a PC and was able to play TOAW. Must have written over 40 scenarios, most of them for WWI. Still have a web page for Panzer/Allied General scenarios. There continues to be an active player/scenario designer community and I check in with them every so often.
Regards, RhinoBones
Well, that's interesting idea with Tiger tanks...
All this could have been expanded to role of HQ's... They could have Leaders attached. Then they could have act as remote supply center with a radius...
As leaders could have been attached or de-attached at will - and they would provide bonuses to all unit's they command that could bring additional suspense into scenario setup... There could be scenarios and you would decide do you want to put agressive more attack oriented leader to the left flank or in the center, and your opponent would be guessing. Plenty of options for deception and dislocation. Yes, if well developed this idea could be good.
Mario
RhinoBones
09 Jun 06, 19:20
Without saying, of course it’s good. Comes direct from the Hungarian/Croatian extract.
Regards, RhinoBones
Bloodstar
10 Jun 06, 05:10
Without saying, of course it’s good. Comes direct from the Hungarian/Croatian extract.
Regards, RhinoBones
Thanks... I will try to develop this a bit further.
Mario
viridomaros
10 Jun 06, 05:24
Suggest you take a look at JP's Panzer General site at:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fjpspanzersfrm17
Most of the people there are into campaign games (dos version usually), but a few also seem to enjoy PBM.
Regards, RhinoBones
what a jewel
thanks for the link
do you own any of the versions yourself?
RhinoBones
10 Jun 06, 11:07
what a jewel
thanks for the link
do you own any of the versions yourself?
I have the PG and AG Windows versions. Both are available as free downloads.
Haven't tried it, but I understand that the dos version of PG is also available as a free download. Requires some extra software when played on a Win or XP machine, but it should be worth the hassle if you want to play the new campaign games.
Regards, RhinoBones
Ben Turner
10 Jun 06, 18:13
The Rommel unit would add a little extra punch wherever it is deployed and you get the feeling that a real commander is on the battlefield.
In Jarek Flis' WERS series, the "Leadership" equipment type acts like a special kind of artillery. This works well in that setting. Rommel of course tended to have a more tactical impact- as per your tigers idea. One could even have to choose between some global benefit and having the Rommel unit fighting in individual combats, simulating the problems caused when he would disappear from the HQ all day fighting small battles.
It won't surprise you that the idea of two rogue tigers in the Rommel unit irks me a bit. I'd use the BioEd to create something a little less ugly.
RhinoBones
10 Jun 06, 18:54
In Jarek Flis' WERS series, the "Leadership" equipment type acts like a special kind of artillery . . .
It won't surprise you that the idea of two rogue tigers in the Rommel unit irks me a bit. I'd use the BioEd to create something a little less ugly.
I haven’t seen Jarek’s WERS scenarios. Thanks for the lead, I’ll be sure to take a look at some more of his work.
As for the Rommel unit, think we are all basically on the same page. Doesn’t have to be Tigers, could be armored command cars with some offensive weapons to add impact. Actually, depending on the commander that you want to simulate, one could use a variety of weapons; offensive, defensive or a mix of both.
And yes, not surprised in the least bit. But if at all possible, I would prefer to use the standard OPART300. I am getting the feeling that the TOAW community has become saturated with the number of “exe’s” entering the market. Also, with the advent of TOAW3, I don’t think that this is a good time to introduce a new “exe” engine. As much as I love the Bio Editor, this is one of the few times that I defer to the fall back position.
Regards, RhinoBones
Ben Turner
12 Jun 06, 10:23
As for the Rommel unit, think we are all basically on the same page. Doesn’t have to be Tigers, could be armored command cars with some offensive weapons to add impact. Actually, depending on the commander that you want to simulate, one could use a variety of weapons; offensive, defensive or a mix of both.
Certain commanders could be assigned a negative quantity of equipment...
That is possible, btw. I haven't thought of any applications yet, but it can be done.
schnurbart
23 Jul 06, 10:39
lol...i was a toaw fan as soon as i saw the original ad for it. it sounded like the perfect wargame before i new how much abstract thinking was neccessary. a 50 dollar disk does what hundreds of dollars used to do and better. as for play i love it for the things it makes me do..for instance i run 46 p corps into the ground gaining dneper bridgheads...actually all 5 corps lol..what do i do now..my supply sucks and i have a long way to go..the game forced me to make a pause and setup defenses while rotating the worst units back toward germany quite a ways to the better supply hexes..now they are all activating as reserves where i can pick and choose where to send them..the old numbers crunching i dont like now for opposite reason of the thread author....like once a real fog of war game is on who wants to go back..unless its chess.lol
lol...i was a toaw fan as soon as i saw the original ad for it. it sounded like the perfect wargame before i new how much abstract thinking was neccessary. a 50 dollar disk does what hundreds of dollars used to do and better. as for play i love it for the things it makes me do..for instance i run 46 p corps into the ground gaining dneper bridgheads...actually all 5 corps lol..what do i do now..my supply sucks and i have a long way to go..the game forced me to make a pause and setup defenses while rotating the worst units back toward germany quite a ways to the better supply hexes..now they are all activating as reserves where i can pick and choose where to send them..the old numbers crunching i dont like now for opposite reason of the thread author....like once a real fog of war game is on who wants to go back..unless its chess.lol
Yes. I fell in love the first time I played the demo. For years before that, I had been making my own damn games, trying to figure out a way to make it realistic. TOAW made all my wargame wishes come true.
Yes. I fell in love the first time I played the demo. For years before that, I had been making my own damn games, trying to figure out a way to make it realistic. TOAW made all my wargame wishes come true.
It's kinda funny, i wonder how many of us got hooked by that evil little Korea 50-51 demo. I know the same day I tried it I went out and bought the latest incarnation of TOAW at that time and I had never even been a board or pc gamer before that.
I received TOAW vol I with a pc magazine. I was intrigued by the scale of the operations and the global depth of the game + I am a world war II fanatic.
It's kinda funny, i wonder how many of us got hooked by that evil little Korea 50-51 demo. I know the same day I tried it I went out and bought the latest incarnation of TOAW at that time and I had never even been a board or pc gamer before that.
Same here. The Korea 50-51 demo gives you an immediate hands-on feeling for the game and is just the perfect size: you're not overwhelmed by map size or thousands of units and yet you get the operational level gaming depth.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.