Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
JonnyH13

J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 7/11/2019 1.25.1 Hotfix

Recommended Posts

Will 'battlefield smoke / obscured vision' ever be a feature?  - either in ui design (graphics presentation on the map) or functionally (diminished command control / effectiveness of musket fire)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not possible to add smoke graphically with the current tools we have unfortunately.  Functionally speaking it is technically possible but it will take a lot of work and balancing. 

Obscured vision is technically already in the game with the fog of war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

I enjoy playing now with detached Skirmishers on. Will be interested to see what happens with next phases of rebalance, so that they can be seamless part of the default mode:  I feel that they're an integral part of the history and the game.

Age of Sail has opened up some options. Will be experimenting with a reattachment cooldown timer and reducing the size of the detached units to somewhere in the 50-100 range. Will still allow their use as scouts while significantly curtailing the exploits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One complaint I have of this otherwise wonderful mod is how slow officers gain experience. Thomas Jackson is still a Colonel after 2nd Bull Run and having been in the thick of fighting every time. As division commander at 2nd Bull Run his division caused over 20k casualties and his exp didn’t move more than 2mm. 

It kind of sucks not being able to have him as a Corp commander for the battles he made possible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Godric said:

One complaint I have of this otherwise wonderful mod is how slow officers gain experience. Thomas Jackson is still a Colonel after 2nd Bull Run and having been in the thick of fighting every time. As division commander at 2nd Bull Run his division caused over 20k casualties and his exp didn’t move more than 2mm. 

Division and corps commanders don't receive experience based on how their commanded units perform. They get a flat value based on the type of battle. If you want to level up a colonel quickly it is usually better to put them in command of a relatively inexperienced unit that will gain stats very quickly.

Division officer xp gain is probably still a bit too low despite the increase in 1.25. The BG xp requirement will probably be lowered slightly in the future to make it easier to get certain historical commanders to that rank faster.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 9:36 AM, pandakraut said:

Division and corps commanders don't receive experience based on how their commanded units perform.

"experience / promotion' among senior officers is an ongoing issue.  I find that I am buying all of the historical commanders I can in Career tab - because I lack both BG's and Colonels as I try to grow my army. Hope to see accelerated performance/rewards soon.

Perhaps consider promotion based on unit performance, as well:  losses inflicted / losses incurred, successful defense, successful assault, overall victory are all possible factors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

"experience / promotion' among senior officers is an ongoing issue.  I find that I am buying all of the historical commanders I can in Career tab - because I lack both BG's and Colonels as I try to grow my army. Hope to see accelerated performance/rewards soon.

Perhaps consider promotion based on unit performance, as well:  losses inflicted / losses incurred, successful defense, successful assault, overall victory are all possible factors

Not sure if you're aware, but if no officer of the necessary rank is available when you try to create a new corps/division/unit then a new officer will get generated to fill the slot. You can use this by buying out all officers in the barracks, putting them all in a command slot and then creating a new corps/division/unit to be able to buy a new officer of the relevant rank.

Purchasing officers through rep buys being an option worth considering is a net improvement in my opinion. There was basically no reason to ever bother in the base game. 

Unfortunately I can't do much more than modify the flat xp rewards prior to the battle being played. Corps and division officers gain their xp in a different section of the code than brigade commanders and it's a section where everything breaks if I try to alter it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troop Movement remains an issue

  • Getting Reinforcements to the battle is a pain
  • Grabbing a group of units and moving them forward as a group results in the creation of an artificial 'battle line' which is overly broad, ill-formed, and unwieldy
  1. Units don't recognize - or use - Roads ... even if they are on a road
  2. Units tend to deploy into battle formation by default ... even if they are at a distance from the battle

Both of these result in unnecessarily slow movement.

Unit speed

Current Modes:

  • Advance : in Battle formation (slowest)
  • Double-quick : in Battle formation (fast, but tiring)
  • Charge : in Battle formation (top speed - only for short bursts)

What's missing:

  • Route-step : in Column formation (speed without exhaustion)

"A march to battle would be made in light marching-order, the men four abreast, and generally on the double quick."

The addition of what I am calling 'route step' allows you to swiftly move troops across the field without excessive fatigue

  • The unit automatically forms a Column
  • They can make use of roads
  • but they are not deployed in battle formation
  • and are more vulnerable to artillery or a surprise attack from skirmishers or cavalry
  • They incur the overhead of deploying to/from battle formation

If one of the other modes (advance, double-quick, charge) is selected, then the unit automatically deploys into battle formation

  • All units - if placed on a Road - will use the Road to reach their destination, if the destination is in the vicinity of the road and they are in route-step/column mode
  • For artillery "route-step/column" is the same as "limbered" (i.e. move swiftly/undeployed)

On large battlefields (Bull Run, Shiloh, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, etc.), newly-arriving units are far from the fighting and need fear little from surprise attack or artillery. Wise commanders would move their units to the battle area as swiftly and efficiently as possible.  In-Column Route Step  is a sensible, realistic solution. 

There may be a "proximity trigger" which automatically deploys a unit into battle formation when it gets close enough to enemy units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Units do already march in column if you order them to move a long distance. And I personally direct my units to use roads if they are available, or any open ground, for movement. I'm positive that the modders can't modify pathing logic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

if no officer of the necessary rank is available when you try to create a new corps/division/unit then a new officer will get generated to fill the slot. You can use this by buying out all officers in the barracks, putting them all in a command slot and then creating a new corps/division/unit to be able to buy a new officer of the relevant rank.

Thanks for the speedy reply, tho am not sure that I grasp the explanation clearly...  Pity that the base game is inflexible regarding xp/promotions, as they are an interesting aspect of the game

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Purchasing officers through rep buys being an option worth considering is a net improvement in my opinion. There was basically no reason to ever bother in the base game.

Agreed:  "Rep buys" (buying historical leaders in the Career section?) is more valuable in this game. 

Given the limitations of advancement/xp earned through battle, perhaps:

  • Historical leaders might advance at a higher rate or
  • Historical leaders arrive at a higher xp level (i.e. BG, instead of Colonel), even if they must be purchased at a higher Career price. 

Context: I am currently entering 2nd Bull Run as Confederates and none of my divisional or line officers have advanced to BG yet.  Frustrating.

Related observation:

  • Senior officers are now much more expensive when purchased from the Academy 
Edited by dixiePig
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adishee said:

Units do already march in column if you order them to move a long distance. And I personally direct my units to use roads if they are available, or any open ground, for movement. I'm positive that the modders can't modify pathing logic.

Yes, some of these things can be accomplished, but only if the 'ultimate general' engages in a lot of click-intensive busywork.  From what I've seen, "road ignorance" is a well-recognized problem w/ ugcw.  It may be true, but I am surprised that a complex mapping engine like ugcw cannot handle the concept of point-to-point pathing on visible roads.

imo, a dedicated "Route-step In-column" movement button would solve these issues simply, appropriately, and in a 'common-sense' manner which has historical precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

imo, a dedicated "Route-step In-column" movement button would solve these issues simply, appropriately, and in a 'common-sense' manner which has historical precedent

I wouldn't mind seeing it, if it's possible!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:  Am enjoying the re-balance, but ...

Just won 2nd Bull Run as Confederates, playing at a moderate level, with Detached Skirmishers feature = on

I have won 15 engagements (4 major battles)

I've acquired every Historical Leader possible through Government

I now have 55 brigades in 3 corps, with 10 divisions : A total of 86 active commanders

Including  the 11 replacements in my Barracks, I now have:

  • 2 Major Generals
  • 1 Brigadier General
  • 71 Colonels
  • Some Lt Cols and a few Majors

I'll just leave it at that, in hopes that the re-balance will soon deal with the issue of senior-level promotions more gracefully.

By way of observation, junior-level officers advance quickly - almost reflexively - but there is an obvious ceiling at the level of Colonel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Thanks for the speedy reply, tho am not sure that I grasp the explanation clearly...  Pity that the base game is inflexible regarding xp/promotions, as they are an interesting aspect of the game

For example, you need a BG to field a second corps and one is available in the barracks. Buy him up, put him in command of a unit, then create the corps. This will cause an extra BG to be purchasable and now you have access to two BGs. 

21 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Context: I am currently entering 2nd Bull Run as Confederates and none of my divisional or line officers have advanced to BG yet.  Frustrating.

Unless you have been having very bad luck with wounding/death rates, then more focus is needed on putting officers in position to gain experience faster. Not an exact comparison due to RNG and campaign differences, but going into 2nd Bull Run as the Union I have 5 BGs and 3 LTGs. After the battle one of the BG hit MG and another Colonel hit BG.

Experienced officers are indeed much more expensive in the mod, but can be well worth purchasing. I basically buy out every officer that can be used to get a unit to 1* whenever they are available. I don't recall specifically but I think I've only purchased 3-4 officers with reputation.

Experienced colonels are just as effective at commanding units as BGs and MGs are in the base game. The only thing you are not getting is access to corps commander perks and the rank icon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 6:24 PM, pandakraut said:

In the base game the specialized t2 general perks only apply to the specific unit type listed. I generally only use the infantry option except in very rare cases where I actually field an arty only corps.

Agreed:  infantry is the overwhelmingly likely Corps-perk option.

Although I "get" the gameplay value of selecting Corps-level "umbrella" perks, I don't get the historical or practical significance.   Might be historical niggling, but wouldn't this likelier be a 'personal preference' of an individual Corps-level commander, rather than something which is artificially & arbitrarily selected

  • For example:  Robert E. Lee was an engineer/artillery guy.  That would be an obvious artillery perk.  It also might improve entrenched infantry.  And perhaps Logistics.  More complex, but also more consistently fully-featured.

Each historical commander has his own profile of strengths and weaknesses. Those should inform the perks that they bring to the units they command.

If you wish to bring command-level perks to a Corps or Division, then appoint a commander who's good at that stuff.  Don't just say "You are now - magically - good at this stuff."

Edited by dixiePig
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

Unless you have been having very bad luck with wounding/death rates, then more focus is needed on putting officers in position to gain experience faster. Not an exact comparison due to RNG and campaign differences,

What is "RNG"?

I generally 'blend' my forces so that a battle will feature both veteran-heavy and rookie units.  In this way, I feel that I can create new units and give them experience, without compromising stability or effectiveness.  After 2nd Bull Run, I have 

  • 20 units with 6+ battles
  • 17 units with 3+ battles
  • 18 units with 2 or fewer battles

This gives me a fairly 'balanced' army with quite a few highly-experienced units. Despite a steep growth rate, nonetheless a third of my units have fought in half of the battles, which were all victorious. I have a hard time reconciling high performance with a lack of advancement.

I am well-aware that any game can be 'gamed', but have little interest in that as a strategy. 

On 9/21/2019 at 9:44 AM, pandakraut said:

Unfortunately I can't do much more than modify the flat xp rewards prior to the battle being played. Corps and division officers gain their xp in a different section of the code than brigade commanders and it's a section where everything breaks if I try to alter it.

I believe you've acknowledged that this is an issue that's hard to fix. Your mod has many fine improvements and I like it a lot.  This one still needs work - and it sounds like they haven't made it easy.  Good luck with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional observations re gameplay:

I re-activated Detached Skirmishers feature, because it is historical, appropriate, and I enjoy it. I realize that it gives me a tactical advantage, but ...

  • It appears that the re-balance is now 'too easy' - at least at the mid-point of the campaigns:  I imposed more than 40,000 casualties on the Union in 2nd Bull Run, at a cost of a little over 6,000 of my own. I doubt it was all due to Detached Skirmishers.
  • "Jonny is also worked on a unique version of the campaign where everything is scaled up to ridiculous levels to make things as difficult as possible" : sounds good : I look forward to it

Part of this may be due to:

  • The enemy (in this case the Union) starts every engagement aggressively - even when in a defensive posture.  This can put them at an immediate disadvantage, as they are often exposed and susceptible to defense+artillery.  I note this because the legacy game is not so aggressive - requiring me to put my forces at risk when attacking.
  • Is it possible to 'modularize' the aggressiveness so that it can be invoked selectively?  i.e. Some commanders are aggressive, some are even foolhardy.  Some commanders are defensive, some are even too timid.  It would be interesting to encounter a range of command/fighting profiles over the course of the campaigns.  This would provide some variety and challenge - and perhaps make "Reconnaissance/Intelligence" (which I don't value much in ugcw) more useful.

Some things I really like about the re-balance:

  • Artillery : on-screen ranging, ordnance effects (shot/canister), usage-oriented perks (long range/short range) 
  • The Forrest unit is now melee/assault cavalry (shotguns are a close-combat weapon)
  • Increased 'spoils of war' weapons recovery is tremendously valuable to the Confederacy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dixiePig said:

What is "RNG"?

Random number generation. Officers in the barracks spawn with semi randomized xp amounts. In some cases you can outright buy BGs other times only high rank colonels are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify the criteria by which 'spoils of war' are allocated after a battle?

I am now in a hard-level campaign and find that I receive very few spoils.  I just won "Stay Alert" as Confederate.  I suffered ~5000 casualties, inflicted ~8000, and ended with control of the battlefield.  Yet I captured a total of only about 500 muskets (and didn't recover that many either).  Those numbers just aren't right.

  • I appreciate the 'balance' arguments, yet would propose that the desire to make the game harder can be resolved in other ways which don't defy common-sense.

Also:  What's with the fixed level of spoils?

  • I've tried re-fighting certain battles and find that the "spoils" are almost exactly the same, even when I inflict - or suffer - substantially different losses.  It begs the "why bother?" question. There is little incentive to inflict a decisive defeat.

The same applies to reputation and career points:  All victories result in the same rewards:  Doesn't matter whether you just got by or annihilated the enemy. 

  • The strategy becomes "Do enough to win a victory by objectives.  Then coast. Because there's no advantage:  You'll just lose men & resources."

The balancing might be handled in the reputation/career/government arena, for example:

  • If I inflict x amount of casualties; if I inflict y % greater casualties, etc, Then I receive additional reputation and/or resources (money/troops/leaders/weapons/xp/advancement)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work, it really is very enjoyable, but still I have to present two objections: 1. The slowing down of the units that can sometimes be annoying. This I think is rather personal but I like the default speed more. 2. The drastic reduction in the range of artillery, which causes the fighting to become more closed, limiting the player and making the operations that require maintaining the enemy's distances more complicated. Otherwise the mod is excellent. If you could give me solutions to these problems I would be grateful, if it is not enough that you have understood me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, They melancólico T rex said:

Excellent work, it really is very enjoyable, but still I have to present two objections: 1. The slowing down of the units that can sometimes be annoying. This I think is rather personal but I like the default speed more. 2. The drastic reduction in the range of artillery, which causes the fighting to become more closed, limiting the player and making the operations that require maintaining the enemy's distances more complicated. Otherwise the mod is excellent. If you could give me solutions to these problems I would be grateful, if it is not enough that you have understood me.

Thanks for the feedback. The gamespeed change definitely takes some time to get used to. I spend a lot of time at 2x or 3x fast forward myself. The gamespeed is configurable if you'd like to change it. In the Ultimate General Civil War_data\Mod\Rebalance folder there is a ConfigFile.csv. This can be edited to change the gameSpeed and fastForward values. The base game gameSpeed is 5 and fastForward is 3.

With the artillery have you taken a look at all the artillery types? The more powerful artillery tend to have longer ranges, but without multiple points in logistics it is hard to acquire them in any real number. Long range artillery presents a significant balance challenge as there are a lot of cases where battles can be won effectively for free.

Changing the artillery ranges would involve hex editing. There is a weapon and perk modding post which provides details on how to make these type of changes if that's something you want to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Can you clarify the criteria by which 'spoils of war' are allocated after a battle?

I am now in a hard-level campaign and find that I receive very few spoils.  I just won "Stay Alert" as Confederate.  I suffered ~5000 casualties, inflicted ~8000, and ended with control of the battlefield.  Yet I captured a total of only about 500 muskets (and didn't recover that many either).  Those numbers just aren't right.

  • I appreciate the 'balance' arguments, yet would propose that the desire to make the game harder can be resolved in other ways which don't defy common-sense.

Also:  What's with the fixed level of spoils?

  • I've tried re-fighting certain battles and find that the "spoils" are almost exactly the same, even when I inflict - or suffer - substantially different losses.  It begs the "why bother?" question. There is little incentive to inflict a decisive defeat.

The same applies to reputation and career points:  All victories result in the same rewards:  Doesn't matter whether you just got by or annihilated the enemy. 

  • The strategy becomes "Do enough to win a victory by objectives.  Then coast. Because there's no advantage:  You'll just lose men & resources."

The balancing might be handled in the reputation/career/government arena, for example:

  • If I inflict x amount of casualties; if I inflict y % greater casualties, etc, Then I receive additional reputation and/or resources (money/troops/leaders/weapons/xp/advancement)

Weapon Recovery Rates
Colonel difficulty rates
    Win - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.3 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: .5 - weaponSavePercent: 0.5 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.625
    Draw - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.15 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: .5 - weaponSavePercent: 0.3 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.425
    Loss - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.05 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: .5 - weaponSavePercent2: 0.1 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.225
Brigadier General difficulty rates
    Win - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.2 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.375 - weaponSavePercent: 0.5 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.625
    Draw - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.15 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.375 - weaponSavePercent: 0.25 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.375
    Loss - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.05 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.375 - weaponSavePercent: 0.1 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.225
Major General and Legendary
    Win - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.1 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.25 - weaponSavePercent: 0.3 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.425
    Draw - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.05 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.25 - weaponSavePercent: 0.15 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.275
    Loss - supplyCapturePercent: 0.5 - weaponCapturePercent: 0.05 - weaponCaptureUnitPercent: 0.25 - weaponSavePercent: 0.1 - alliedUnitAlivePercent: 0.225

As you can see above, you only get 10% of weapons from enemy casualties. Of those 8000 casualties a decent amount are likely skirmishers, cavalry, and artillery so a recovery of 500 infantry weapons is within expectations.

The more casualties you inflict the more experience you gain and the more weapons you recover, so there is significant incentive to inflict as many casualties as possible while limiting your own. Coasting is sometimes the right answer, but the higher the difficulty the more you need to snowball as many advantages as possible as soon as possible. Most maps can be full cleared so higher recovery rates would result in acquiring more weapons than you need much earlier in the campaign. If we can find a way to lower casualty rates while retaining good game play then recovery rates would go up.

Reputation and career point rewards are fixed based on win/draw/loss results. It is unknown at this time if they can be affected dynamically.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As you can see above, you only get 10% of weapons from enemy casualties."

I don't dispute that this rate reflects the game engine dynamics, but I question the assumption that 10% is a reasonable figure - especially since the negative effect is compounded:

  • Not only is your recovery rate cut in half (if we assume that BG is median (normal), Col = easy, MG = hard
  • But you also get less money to buy weapons
  • It's a double whammy.

The question remains:  What is a reasonable assumption of historical weapon recovery rates - as a 'bottom line' and point of reference?

Tried to research this online but was surprised to find little available statistical info.  Can I ask how you - or ugcw - came to those figures?

Net/Net:  I can accept that - in a harder game - there are fewer resources (money), and enemy is tougher to fight - but not that a statistical reality (i.e. weapons recovery rate) changes, any more than that the weapons themselves would change. imo You can make weapons acquisition harder by reducing money or reducing the number of weapons you can buy w/ reputation points in Government.  Those are both arbitrary values.  But spoils of war are earned on the battlefield by my abilities as a commander.  I feel that cutting the recovery percentage is actually unfair.

8 hours ago, pandakraut said:

the higher the difficulty the more you need to snowball as many advantages as possible as soon as possible. Most maps can be full cleared so higher recovery rates would result in acquiring more weapons than you need much earlier in the campaign.

Can  you explain what " Most maps can be full cleared" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Gracias por la respuesta. El cambio de velocidad de juego definitivamente lleva algún tiempo acostumbrarse. Yo paso mucho tiempo a 2x o 3x adelante rápido. La velocidad del juego es configurable si desea cambiarla. En la carpeta Ultimate General Civil War_data \ Mod \ Rebalance hay un ConfigFile.csv. Esto se puede editar para cambiar los valores de gameSpeed y fastForward. El juego base GameSpeed es 5 y fastForward es 3.

Con la artillería, ¿has echado un vistazo a todos los tipos de artillería? La artillería más poderosa tiende a tener alcances más largos, pero sin múltiples puntos en logística es difícil adquirirlos en cualquier número real. La artillería de largo alcance presenta un importante desafío de equilibrio, ya que hay muchos casos en los que las batallas se pueden ganar de forma efectiva de forma gratuita.

Cambiar los rangos de artillería implicaría la edición hexadecimal. Hay una publicación de modificación de armas y beneficios que proporciona detalles sobre cómo hacer este tipo de cambios si eso es algo que desea seguir.

Thanks for the return, I will try to adapt I think the mod is worth enough to try it, keep it up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Tried to research this online but was surprised to find little available statistical info.  Can I ask how you - or ugcw - came to those figures?

No clue where the game developers came up with the numbers. Given that casualty rates are way out of sync with historical rates I assume the numbers are largely made up for the game. 10% may seem small but it's definitely enough to keep campaigns going. Even on legendary you'll end up with far more weapons than you can reasonably field and will end up selling off the excess. In most cases I never buy rifles except in very limited quantities and survive entirely off of captured and rep buy weapons.

45 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Can  you explain what " Most maps can be full cleared" means?

Capturing or shattering all enemy units. In multi-day battles this would mean dragging the battle out as long as possible to kill units that only spawn on later days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...