*According to the rules it is the corps that seeks supply so any blocking
is defined by the corps. *
*Consequently, putting an example as my original question was, a french
corps may not trace supply from a Spanish depot if a Prussian corps
intervenes, but a Spanish corps may trace supply from a French depot even
if a Prussian corps intervene *
I am fine with this interpretation. Unless someone else objects, we can
keep it like this for future reference.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:16 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just to add to the discussion that I agree we may not play it both ways.
Either the depot defines the supply nationality or the corps.
According to the rules it is the corps that seeks supply so any blocking
is defined by the corps.
I’m terms of realism it also makes sense since the depots are static
points which are known before the start of movement while the corps are
moving, so it is more reasonable for a corps to send its baggage train to
the depot in order to retrieve supply than vice versa since a depot may not
be aware of the location of the moving corps.
Consequently, putting an example as my original question was, a french
corps may not trace supply from a Spanish depot if a Prussian corps
intervenes, but a Spanish corps may trace supply from a French depot even
if a Prussian corps intervenes.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2019 12:47:41 PM
*To:* Makis Xiroyannis; eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
honestly speaking i don't have any specific case in my mind. maybe we can
have such a case or not. maybe in your turn or in mine.
from my side, i find interesting this dispute and i like participating in
it. i think participation is useful, but i respect those who don't
participate for their reasons.
my motive is only to find the right way to play it. no matter if we start
from this turn, or next or next game, etc. it is more from this game
addiction / rules mania / how to-what if curiosity on how should this be
played.
i will try describe a hypothetical scenario to see how i get it and close
my argument. it's up to the group to decide (and even decide if there is
something to decide!!!)
7.2.3.2 states clearly that a French depot, as part of a valid supply
chain is able to provide supply to Spanish corps.
so if Prussian corps intervene between the Spanish corps and the depot,
then according to my interpretation of 7.4.2.1.1, the Spanish corps can
trace an unblocked route to the depot and have supply. if i'd like to not
allow it i have to place my corps in an area that blocks the supply chain
between the 2 French depots.
On the other hand, if a Spanish depot is part of a valid supply chain,
then it can provide supply to French corps.
but if Prussian corps intervene between the French corps and the Spanish
depot, then the French corps cannot trace an unblocked route, so it may not
receive supply from the Spanish depot.
in addition, if the French corps is part of an army that includes also
Spanish corps, then Spanish corps may have supply, but French may not.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2019 13:21
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
a few points from my side too Dimitri
- I try to answer your questions, as clearly none else does
- We have to take into account that people got bored or frustrated with
such discussions. The other Dimitri openly said so. Theo said he has no
time to participate. Laertis and Tiron do not even reply. So I understand
you like such debates, but we need to take into consideration that the
majority no longer enjoys them.
- I don't want to impose any opinion either. I reply because someone has
to reply, and do so according to my logic.
- I understand that some questions "come up" when someone plays, but
generally speaking, I try to time my own discussions before someone has
already played, then it is my turn to play, and call upon voting for
things. I consider it more polite gamewise so to speak. Now in our case, I
have absolutely no clue what cases you have thought or seen on map, nor
care much to be honest. But as I see this happening more and more often
(middle turn decisions on how to play), I need to comment on it.
To the issue at hand, we have a corps that feeds from a depot. My view was
that the depot provides supply, not that the corps 'picks up' supply. All
your arguments are because of the sentence that says from corps to depot
and not from depot to corps. So, in essence, you say that the depot only
provides supply to other depots, but when it comes to providing supply to
corps, it is the corps that "takes" the supply from the depot. In truth, I
don't mind much for which of the 2 explanations we decide, but what is
important to me is that in one of the two ways *supply must pass through*.
This is because the corps is at war with 1 of the 2 nations, not with both.
So either we take the depot as the starting supply and check political
conditions based to this reference point (as I did), or we take the corps
as a starting supply point and check political conditions from the corps
point of view (as you did). In both situations, supply passes in one case
but gets cut off in the other. I am fine with that, you saw that from my
first reply and the way I thought about it. What I do not agree with, is
supply getting cut EITHER way. It's not possible to have it both ways, that
is only possible when the corps is at war with both nations.
So decide when supply passes and when it is cut and I am fine with that.
Lastly, I also apologize for saying that you change interpretations as you
see fit. I did not really believe it, but I found pushing in both
directions somewhat strange. Given that you change opinions as the
discussion continues, it makes more sense.
M.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:50 AM Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Makis, apologies if i made it more personal than should be. some points
1) Whenever is needed i have the guts to change my mind if proven wrong
2) Rules "help" to decide what is right and wrong. I don't know every
rule, but i guess i have the right to read them and if i see something that
makes me change my mind, i will do so. regardless what suits me or not.
please don't challenge my integrity.
3) In the initial email Yiannis puts a misplaced question. according to my
interpretation of 7.4.2.1.1 the depots provide supply only if a corps can
trace a route up to them (the yellow). if this is not the right
interpretation, we need to go back, find the right one and then continue or
not the discussion.
and your answer is in conflict as well since the route is traced from the
corps and not wagons are sent from the depot.
4) this is how you end your last mail *Unless you find something
different in the handbook I believe this issue closes: An empire can supply
another empire, if there is a corps in betweennot at war with the empire
thatowns the supply chain. *
7.4.2.1.1 to me is something different
bottom line, the value i see from this kind of discussion is to argue in
order to find the best interpretation / implementation of the rules.
to me such discussions offer motivation for more rule studying.
that's why changing mind after more rule studying, more/different
opinions, different argumentation and critical thinking SHOULD be an option
for everyone.
I don't participate in such discussions just to try to impose my opinion
to others, and i never consider as argument *You got an answer that
suited you a while back, accepting my reasoning, but you decline the same
reasoning later when it is the other way round and does not suit you*
i will try to persuade you with my arguments and you have all right to
oppose them with your own arguments based on booklet, experience and
"common sense" (even if it rarely happens).
but this is my approach.
again apologies if this provokes the discussion or makes anyone feel
uncomfortable.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2019 11:08
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
If this is how you see this example? In that case, then why did you agree
with the following previous question:
*Can Prussian corps block supply leading to Spanish forces if they are
originated from French depots? *
*Don't remember a specific rule on it, but it makes sense that Prussia
blocks supply since wagons are French and cannot move over hostile corps
for whatever reason. *
You accepted that reasoning. If you accuse me of not being open minded,
don't you give me grounds to accuse you of one-sided implementation? You
got an answer that suited you a while back, accepting my reasoning, but you
decline the same reasoning later when it is the other way round and does
not suit you. So try to be open-minded. You can't have both cases blocking
supply.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Makis please try to be open minded
a supply *chain* is blocked because of presence of enemy corps, enemy to
whom? to the depot's owner
a supply *route* is blocked because of presence of enemy corps, enemy to
whom? to the corps trying to trace supply
this is the similarity i see, and this also the difference between yours
and Yannis' cases
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:42
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
Dimitris sums it up nicely. But even so, the yellow sentence (Yanni's
point) is clarified by purple parenthesis "same rules as for blocking
supply chain" therefore we are back at my point.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:09 AM Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
maybe that helps
7.4.2.1.1 Corps Depot Supply: A corps in the same area as a depot being
part of a valid supply chain costs half a money point to supply. Other
corps
up to 3 unblocked areas away from a depot pay the number of areas they
are away from a depot in a valid supply chain in money points. For
example, a corps 3 areas away pays 3 money points to get supply. The route
through intervening areas *traced from a corps to a depot *may not be
blocked by forces (same rules as for blocking a supply chain (see
7.2.3.2.1).
Makis mentioned the "purple" case.
Imho, Yannis' case is the "yellow".
a Spanish depot could be a part of a valid supply chain, no matter
intervening prussian corps.
but what is happening if a French corps has to trace a route from his area
to the depot? as i get it, "yellow" describes forces hostile to the corps
that is trying to trace a route, and in Yannis' case French corps have to
trace a route and in intervening areas there are prussian corps, that are
enemy corps for the french.
it says clearly that it is not the depot who sends convoys, but a corps
that tries to trace a route from his area to the depot.
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 23:36
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
If we assume that this is the case then a corps may not trace supply from
a depot if an unbesieged enemy corps stands between the depot and the
corps, correct?
------------------------------
*From:* eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 22:15
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
don't you consider this a definition of unblocked supply?
*"not blocked by the presence of unbesieged enemy corp"*
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_7198487558868130432_x_m_3056204348034114645_x_m_-8696040706738789497_x_m_-2988517168378442878_x_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:58 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sorry but I still do not understand how this is linked to my question.
What the rules here describe is the validity of the supply chain in order
to have your depots properly “connected”.
This issue is different that providing supply to a corps which is
described in 7.4.2.1. My argument was not about the establishment of depots
as supply source but on tracing supply to a corps through an unblocked
route and eventually the definition of the unblocked route for this purpose.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:10
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
actually I found it, there is a definition of unblocked. We had to check a
bit earlier in the handbook, back to basics as they say
*7.2.3.2 SUPPLY CHAIN DEFINITION: A "supply chain" is a series of one
major power's depots that are placed no more than two areas apart and lead *
*back to a supply source of that major power.*
(This proves the supply chain is Spanish, not half-spanish half-french)
7.2.3.2.1: A "valid" supply chain is one where the intervening areas
between any of a supply chain's depots are*not blocked by the presence of
unbesieged**enemy corps**,*garrisons, guerrillas, cossacks and/or
freikorps (EXCEPTION: these enemy forces do not block an area if that area
also contains an unbesieged friendly corps or garrison).
(This proves the supply chain is valid since Prussia is not an enemy of
Spain)
there is no mention of destination as part of supply so the discussion was
based on assumptions
Unless you find something different in the handbook I believe this issue
closes: An empire can supply another empire, if there is a corps in
between*not
at war* with the empire that*owns* the supply chain.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 12:53 PM Makis Xiroyannis <
makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
none else has an opinion on this?
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 10:13 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We need something to light up the spirit after so many days of dormant
condition...
Once more we are in the loop on trying to apply reality in game rules...
Anyway, let us all share our opinion and move on.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2019 8:21:14 PM
*To:* Makis Xiroyannis; eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
calm down gents, we had loooong time to do anything in the game and much
mooooore to have a dispute.
see it as a warm up to get back in business.
regarding fleets, i assume it is obvious what kind of troops they carry,
so if you see a Russian fleet full of French entering London, for sure it
is not just to see Thames.
in the same sense, if Prussians have a mission to block the supply of a
French army, and see Spanish caravans passing by their camp heading for an
area where there are only French troops, for sure it is not to just say hi!
7.4.2.1 mentions depot and unblocked route. doesn't say something about
nationality of the depot or who transports to whom. i suppose we all agree
that a friendly depot works as an own depot in terms of supply.
so, i see 2 points: 1) a spanish depot is like a french depot, 2) the
route from the deopt is considered blocked if enemy corps are present, and
i cannot see why we should consider about the nationality of the depot,
neither the convoys'
so, i'm closer to Yannis view.
could be interesting if at the sane area were French AND spanish troops.
in this no problem for Spanish troops, but what about french?
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2019 18:35
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
Broken, because all France had to do was hire Spanish or Russian fleets to
unload French corps in London, free of charge, without GB being able to do
anything about it while at peace with other nations, and get his
unconditional. Is there a similar case with your supply so that it is
broken the other way?
Also, in the fleet example, hostile TROOPS are being carried. In your
example, supply - not military forces - are carried.
Everyone, please vote so that we move on.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:20 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I agree that the game might be broken if this stands but in the opposite
direction! 😛
7.4.2.1 PAYING FOR DEPOT SUPPLY: Any corps in a depot area or which can
trace an unblocked route to a depot may use depot supply. Besieged port
city garrisons (regardless of size) may also use depot supply (see 7.4.3
and 7.4.4). The costs for all corps and separate garrisons are summed and
any fraction rounded up, that amount then being deducted from that major
power's current monetary total. A major power may not use depot supply for
a corps if it doesn't have enough money to pay the cost and such corps must
instead forage for supply.
There is no definition of an unblocked route but if two nations are at war
then it would make sense to block any supply targeting your enemy
regardless of the supply source.
Why you consider attacking a neutral fleet that carries enemy troops
logical? Do you believe that the enemy troops are sitting on the deck with
t-shirts stating their nationality and intention? 😉
To me it is the same issue and since it is allowed in naval it should be
similar to land.
I would like to hear the opinion of the other group members though.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, April 1, 2019 21:16
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
1. if you found something in the rules, by all means, post it here,
otherwise, how do you explain that you know the destination of a convoy,
and you intercept it as well without being at war? It made sense to me when
it was French (with which you are at war and care not for the destination -
you just stop it) but it does not make sense to me when it is a friendly
force. The only case I could find that clearly opposes this logic
(attacking a neutral/friendly force) is when a neutral fleet carries enemy
corps, but there the reasoning is obvious, the game is broken otherwise.
2. No off course, no need to pay costs in that case, since your movement
is not complete. Try "part 1", "part 2"
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_7198487558868130432_x_m_3056204348034114645_x_m_-8696040706738789497_x_m_-2988517168378442878_x_m_1452199230885889131_m_-7678908694879853111_m_-3593897329711799504_m_2477586481413069337_x_m_-5023573071174385541_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:04 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the case of Spanish supply on French troops
given that the destination is an enemy one but in any case we may discuss.
Regarding my second question I am fine with playing corps by corps however
in this case I will not post any supply costs until all moves are fully
completed in order not to reveal potential intention to move further or
not. Agreed?
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, April 1, 2019 18:57
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
*One more clarification can Prussian corps block supply from Spanish depot
to French troops? *
Again not sure, but unless in Prussian territory, I don't think so.
Prussia is not at war with Spain, they would not intercept Spanish convoys.
*Last, given that we will have many moves some of which might move through
garrisoned depots, how do we plan to play this?*
*Corps by corps?*
*Country by country?*
*Do we move stacks on area by area basis wait for a decision from the
depot owner and then move on???*
Play country-by-country. Movement is always assumed to be corps-by-corps
even when we move stacks. When there is a corps moving that enemy decision
is required before further movement, note it on the map so that the
opponent can reply. Then continue movement from there.
If the decision affects more than one move, wait for that then continue
with your remaining moves.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:32 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Given that no one else replied on this I assume we are all on the same
page.
One more clarification can Prussian corps block supply from Spanish depot
to French troops?
Last, given that we will have many moves some of which might move through
garrisoned depots, how do we plan to play this?
Corps by corps?
Country by country?
Do we move stacks on area by area basis wait for a decision from the depot
owner and then move on???
I am just asking in order to know how to prepare the cb files.
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Dimitris Stavr. <
poliorkitis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 20:41
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
Except his 1st paragraph i agree with Makis 😛
apologies from my side as well
------------------------------
*From:*eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <eiagreek-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Makis Xiroyannis <makis.xiroyannis@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 7:45:22 PM
*To:* eiagreek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [eiagreek] Re: Some questions
*Apologies for the prolonged delay of this turn but day to day issues as
well as synchronization of communication among 4 people are not always
combining... *
You are waking us out of our slumber. Expect heavy losses.
*Assuming Prussia enters a location where France and Spain both have
armies. Is the Spanish army requested to immediately leave the battlefield
(or declare war if feasible) or it has the option to remain in the area and
retire behind the city walls (if this is feasible). *
The rules say(7.3.8.4): "Must now leave the area, moving to any
adjacent area" I don't think retiring behind walls is included.
*The opposite scenario, Spain enters an area where Prussian and British
forces are located. Do the Prussians need to leave the area if the British
decide to retire behind the city walls (assuming of course that this is
feasible)? *
Yes because we are at step 4 at this stage(7.3.8.4), before step
7(7.3.8.7) when we are preparing for battle, and at THAT stage the defender
has the option "withdraw behind walls"
*What happens if a Prussian corps sieges Namur (garrisoned both by french
and Spanish forces) ? What is the forage value that France will roll in
Namur (currently there are 5 Spanish factors and 1 French) in a city with 3
spires. *
See 10.3.3 Spanish forces immediately surrender and may be redeployed
during next reinforcement. French garrison forages and fights alone.
*Can Prussian corps block supply leading to Spanish forces if they are
originated from French depots? *
Don't remember a specific rule on it, but it makes sense that Prussia
blocks supply since wagons are French and cannot move over hostile corps
for whatever reason.
if anyone has a different understanding on any of the above please say so.
M.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:09 PM Yannis Sykamias <ysykamias@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Apologies for the prolonged delay of this turn but day to day issues as
well as synchronization of communication among 4 people are not always
combining...
Some questions to the group in order to clarify in advance some issues:
All issues occur in the case Spain or Prussia (respectively) are engaged
in battle with other nations' armies present in the area.
Assuming Prussia enters a location where France and Spain both have
armies. Is the Spanish army requested to immediately leave the battlefield
(or declare war if feasible) or it has the option to remain in the area and
retire behind the city walls (if this is feasible).
The opposite scenario, Spain enters an area where Prussian and British
forces are located. Do the Prussians need to leave the area if the British
decide to retire behind the city walls (assuming of course that this is
feasible)?
What happens if a Prussian corps sieges Namur (garrisoned both by french
and Spanish forces) ? What is the forage value that France will roll in
Namur (currently there are 5 Spanish factors and 1 French) in a city with 3
spires.
Can Prussian corps block supply leading to Spanish forces if they are
originated from French depots?
Thank you!
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_7198487558868130432_x_m_3056204348034114645_x_m_-8696040706738789497_x_m_-2988517168378442878_x_m_1452199230885889131_m_-7678908694879853111_m_-3593897329711799504_m_2477586481413069337_x_m_-5023573071174385541_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>