[0.85 Balance] Lets talk about horses

By on April 27, 2013 8:46:32 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Galactic_Hu...

Join Date 04/2003
+6

I have been playing with 0.85 for a few hours. 

 

Just focusing on horses.

1. Previously a ranch produced 1 horse per turn. I recommended 0.1 per turn. It was changed to 0.5 horses per turn.

I am in the mid-game, produced just a few units so far, and I have nearly a hundred horses spare. Talking to my neighbours, they have hundreds of horses spare. If I were short, I could easily trade for more. 

If the idea of the resources is to provide a constraint on what you can build / buy, then the number of horses in the game has to be changed down.

Just looking at the numbers, and the number of units I actually end up building to play and win the game, I suspect even 0.1 per turn might be too much. Can we do numbers less than 0.1 and still have them displayed (say 0.02)?

2. There is an additional production cost to building cavalry. However, production cost is rarely a big consideration for my main fortress. This provides very little disincentive to producing an all cavalry army.

3. There are no tactical penalties for being cavalry. They move faster, dodge missiles better, and for wargs, even have higher initiative (which means, for example, they shoot bows quicker!). 

The way horses are represented does not adequately reflect their 'real' advantages and disadvantages, nor does it provide a balanced mechanism for their 'abstract' powers in the tactical game.

I suggest:

- Bonus for spears vs horses (or negative for cavalry vs spears, or both)

- Do not have increased initiative for Wargs (in fact, perhaps have reduced initiative for both horses and wargs). Horse archers are historically useful, but do not shoot faster and longer than foot archers.

- Not able to mix Wargs and Horses in the one army, or nation. Use one or the other. Perhaps the old system of Horses for Kingdoms and Wargs for Empires.

- Reduced (not increased) dodge vs missiles. Also reduced defence against missiles. Cavalry typically avoids missile fire by moving fast, which is an ability they have already been given, and can use it to close with archers quickly, taking less shots.

- The main benefit of mounts is the speed increase and an impressive charge ability. Start from that.

 

Cheers

Locked Post 39 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 12:05:02 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I've been calling for changes to mounts since the FE beta. 

  • Horses should get reduced dodge and attack if they start their turn in melee range of another unit, and should not get the dodge vs ranged bonus at all.
  • Horses, if anything, should have an increased propensity to 'go prone.' I 100% disagree with the +100% Prone Avoidance, imo this is silliness and laziness all rolled into one (sorry Derek.) 
  • Each horse unit should cost more than one horse resource, and better horses should cost more.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 2:08:20 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

There are PLENTY of ways to balance Horses in a variety of directions... 

Most of them are good too! 


But if I had my magic wand....

 

1. Decrease the Spawn rate of horses and wargs to .1-.25 a turn. (Galactic Hunter's Idea!) 

 

Horses are hard to find and raise, which is why resource poor countries (such as Nordic kingdoms) often had to rely on Infantry to defend themselves, while Mongols had plenty of land to raise grazing Horses.  

 

2. Horses and Wargs add a 4.0, 2.0 Wage upkeep per turn. 


The problem of Horses aren't in battle.... I mean, who wouldn't want to be on top of a thousand pound beast that could crush a man's skull with his front hoof? With good training, Horses ARE the original **ing Dragon! Unless of course, you know how to wield a pike... which is NOT a spear!  

The real problem of Horses is that they are thousand pound beasts that need to be taken care of... which for a medieval society, is QUITE different then taking care of a toy dog. 

To represent this difficulty, Horses should be lubriciously expensive, forcing the player to have a broad, slow, cheap infantry based army, and a quick and powerful, but pricey and slow, "Four-legged" Tank Army.

 

3. Horses and Wargs should be able to attack  

 

To truly represent the fear of Calvary, Horses should have a basic attack, equivalent to an attack by a Club. The speed of Horses is great for Mongolian Pasture warriors, but the REAL reason Western Knights used them was for their Strength rather then their maneuverability, because when Barded, most peasants didn't have the strength to actually harm the beast, let alone kill it! 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 2:54:29 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I have to agree.

 

My suggestions:

 

Late game, I'd suggest pikes (but not spears) get a 50% damage bonus vs cavalry. 

Mounted troops should have triple upkeep, to represent feeding and balance

horse/warg resource gathered needs to be nerfed more

 

One last suggestion: -40 penalty for using ranged weapons on horseback.  Champions can select horse archery as a general trait, troops can also get it as a promotion.

 

-20 penalty for using melee weapon.  Champions can also select this as a general trait, and troops can get it as a promotion.

 

I'd like to see prone avoidance go also.  Maybe have it where going prone= stunned, take 1d5 damage, and dismounted (you lose the horse for the battle)

 

These are pretty massive nerfs, but I think most of these are needed.  Even with all these nerfs, I'd still mount as many troops as possible.

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 3:36:52 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think the prone avoidance is probably because they would need a new animation. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 6:40:58 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think that it would be balanced if mounted units would get:

+ 2 initiative (horse) or + 5 initiative (warg)

+ 2 movement (horse) or + 1 movement (warg)

- 20 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks (horse and warg)

Charge: + 3 movement and + 40 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks for 1 turn, cooldown: 2 turns (horse) or 4 turns (warg)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 11:19:31 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Wizard1200,

I think that it would be balanced if mounted units would get:

+ 2 initiative (horse) or + 5 initiative (warg)

+ 2 movement (horse) or + 1 movement (warg)

- 20 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks (horse and warg)

Charge: + 3 movement and + 40 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks for 1 turn, cooldown: 2 turns (horse) or 4 turns (warg)

 

Well I disagree with giving them additional initiative. That makes them faster at everything, including shooting bows. How does that make sense?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 28, 2013 1:08:45 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Galactic_Hunter,
Well I disagree with giving them additional initiative. That makes them faster at everything, including shooting bows. How does that make sense?

They would be able to get faster into a firing position and it simulates that they have a better view of the battlefield.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 11:00:14 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think reducing the horse/warg income further and increasing the production/upkeep dramatically are the best solutions, as that would balance out the benefits of mobility and buffs mounted troops already represent. If you can afford it, sure, mounted troops are superior. But on a cost/production scale, you could pump out and maintain three infantry for the cost of one cavalry. This keeps them from completely replacing the infantry aspect of the game with minimal impact on re-balancing combat.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 12:38:29 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Good ideas, Galactic Hunter.  

And alstein great thoughts on adding more traits for heroes/units to choose from.  Pretty easy to implement and it makes the mounted range or melee skill take up one of the three trait slots in unit design...  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 2:06:43 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

The problem is the Excel-table approach to game design, making horses "just another resource like stone or gold" which ultimately does not work.

Why? Because you can store heaps of gold or iron indefinitely in some sort of vault, you can accumulate it and stockpile it. 

Horses, however, require constant supply of food where they compete with regular food production. The limiting factor in both human and domesticated animal population was always the available land. Some land is arable and therefore suitable for settlements, some grows only grass or shrubs and is therefore better for sheep/horses and nations practicing nomadic way of life. Nomads and horses are intertwined, because when the cattle/horses eat all the grass, the whole community must move to new pastures. Also, mobility is more important to them. 

All in all, the amount of arable/fertile land a nation occupies should present a certain maximum supportable human/animal population. Horses should require both food and materials (human care, training) to maintain. They should be viewed as an expensive luxury, especially trained warhorses that require great deal of patience to breed and train (you cannot ride just any horse to battle, y'know).

In battle, horses should be subject to certain unique routing effects representing the mounts panicking and just running away. It happened historically when faced camels, elephants, fire, etc. Fantastic creatures like dragons should frighten horses. 

There is really no reason why riders should have missile dodge ability. A rider is also a larger target, and while it's able to ride faster, allowing the archer smaller time window for losing arrows, it's really much more exposed to missiles than a footsoldier, as battles like Agincourt, Crechy and battles against Mongols proved. 

Cavalry really has the important advantage of tactical initiative, being able to pick the time to attack and withdraw at will, and being able to lure units depending on combined arms out of position. Traditionally, flanking and harassing of support units was important, but since combat in FE is just a brawl where troops start few steps apart, there is really no way to represent this properly. 

Advantage of polearms as anticavalry weapons should be implemented somehow. For cavalry units to be interesting, they must have momentum implemented in some way, otherwise they are just faster regular units. 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 3:01:49 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Mongol horse archers are probably the reason dodge vs. range exists, but this involved manuevers only suitable to light calvary( ie. wargs).

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 3:04:20 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

just to chime in on the whole pike argument..... People who watched braveheart are big believers in the spear / pike vs horses.  In reality, it wasn't quite so awesome.  Horse mounted troops *decimated* the non mounted variety.   2000 lbs of monster breaks people.  Period.  (yes, warhorses were typically what we would call a "draft" stock variety these days, and commonly run 1850-2300 lbs.  Not the 800 lb variety you see at the track)

A long stick with a pointy end, set into the ground allowed foot soldiers a HOPE against these troops.  But it wasn't like the guy with the stick had better odds than the guy with the horse. He just wasn't quite as bad off as the guy with the sword or axe.... who was totally screwed.

Talk to your history professor, not just look at a few movies and traditional wargame rules.   Horses made armies horrifying before rifles.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 4:42:15 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think limiting them as a resource is heading in the wrong direction. There needs to be realistic advantages and disadvantages to using mounted units and upkeep costs need to reflect expenses in caring for mounts. Unfortunately, because of the relatively small size of most tactical maps, some historical advantages of cavalry cannot be simulated. Integrating something realistic and satisfying within the limited bounds of the current tactical system will be difficult in my opinion. However, I do think that a combination of logical changes can be made to make mounted units fill a tactical role rather than being a necessity.

Some things I would consider below to balance and define mounted units.

1. Tie initiative to the armor class of the mounted soldier. 

2. Remove the dodge bonus.

3. Add bonus damage in melee (attacking and defending), a sort of trample effect to simulate a horse kicking and biting.

4. Integrate a charge bonus if moving from distance into melee range and attacking.

5. Spears and Pikes should negate the above mentioned charge bonus.

6. Make mounted units one size smaller than foot units.

7. Increase upkeep costs to better reflect caring for the animals.

8. Keep wargs as the better initiative choice and make horses the better shock choice. They have to be different in some way. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 7:40:55 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting emmagine,

just to chime in on the whole pike argument..... People who watched braveheart are big believers in the spear / pike vs horses.  In reality, it wasn't quite so awesome.  Horse mounted troops *decimated* the non mounted variety.   2000 lbs of monster breaks people.  Period.  (yes, warhorses were typically what we would call a "draft" stock variety these days, and commonly run 1850-2300 lbs.  Not the 800 lb variety you see at the track)

A long stick with a pointy end, set into the ground allowed foot soldiers a HOPE against these troops.  But it wasn't like the guy with the stick had better odds than the guy with the horse. He just wasn't quite as bad off as the guy with the sword or axe.... who was totally screwed.

Talk to your history professor, not just look at a few movies and traditional wargame rules.   Horses made armies horrifying before rifles.

I don't want to be prickly, but you may be underestimating my reading and knowledge of cavalry warfare. It isn't entirely from watching Braveheart

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 7:43:15 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Grogtank,

I think limiting them as a resource is heading in the wrong direction. There needs to be realistic advantages and disadvantages to using mounted units and upkeep costs need to reflect expenses in caring for mounts. Unfortunately, because of the relatively small size of most tactical maps, some historical advantages of cavalry cannot be simulated. Integrating something realistic and satisfying within the limited bounds of the current tactical system will be difficult in my opinion. However, I do think that a combination of logical changes can be made to make mounted units fill a tactical role rather than being a necessity.

Some things I would consider below to balance and define mounted units.

1. Tie initiative to the armor class of the mounted soldier. 

2. Remove the dodge bonus.

3. Add bonus damage in melee (attacking and defending), a sort of trample effect to simulate a horse kicking and biting.

4. Integrate a charge bonus if moving from distance into melee range and attacking.

5. Spears and Pikes should negate the above mentioned charge bonus.

6. Make mounted units one size smaller than foot units.

7. Increase upkeep costs to better reflect caring for the animals.

8. Keep wargs as the better initiative choice and make horses the better shock choice. They have to be different in some way. 

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions about how to balance them out tactically, but even if these are done, it doesn't make much sense to have a resource type that is effectively unlimited. If you want that effect, then just get rid of it entirely and allow people to build cavalry all the time. 

In summary, yes I want them tactically balanced (through cost, effects, etc) AND limited by available resource.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 8:13:22 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting emmagine,

just to chime in on the whole pike argument..... People who watched braveheart are big believers in the spear / pike vs horses.  In reality, it wasn't quite so awesome.  Horse mounted troops *decimated* the non mounted variety.   2000 lbs of monster breaks people.  Period.  (yes, warhorses were typically what we would call a "draft" stock variety these days, and commonly run 1850-2300 lbs.  Not the 800 lb variety you see at the track)

A long stick with a pointy end, set into the ground allowed foot soldiers a HOPE against these troops.  But it wasn't like the guy with the stick had better odds than the guy with the horse. He just wasn't quite as bad off as the guy with the sword or axe.... who was totally screwed.

Talk to your history professor, not just look at a few movies and traditional wargame rules.   Horses made armies horrifying before rifles.

Hussites: 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Josef_Mathauser_-_Bitva_u_Lipan_roku_1434.jpg

They crushed several crusades with mostly infantry versus the finest knights from whole Europe

 

Swiss armored pikemen:

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1336/93/1336937170375.jpg

The Popes chose them as their guard for a reason. They absolutely dominated in their time.

 

And of course Landsknecht armies who copied their tactics.

 

Yes, armored knights dominated during their period against poorly trained levies and light infantry, but professional armies that started to appear in the 15th century with the rise of the power of cities and city states proved to be more than a challenge for them. Might wanna consult with your history professor. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 9:18:00 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

After the early game I never build any units that aren't mounted.  I think that says it all regarding the lack of balance.

 

most of the suggested changes here are excellent starts for changes.  Horses make you fast and can carry heavy weights, they aren't magic and are quite expensive.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 10:19:11 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Yeah, there's no drawback to horses, that's just poor balance.

 

I'd like to see beastlords be able to beguile mounted units with their ability.  Or a spell that makes mounts panic and move randomly.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 29, 2013 11:49:14 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Just wanted to retort about increasing the maintenance costing on Cavalry because the economic system w/ Unrest as it is now is completely out of whack.  Really can't talk about additional costs to units until they fix the broken Unrest/Cash system

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 2:11:02 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I'm in agreement with the horse glut issue, it would make the game more interesting if they were rarer, so only an elite minority of an army could be mounted.

I'm trying a game with scarce resources, to see if that helps ... but early on I've already come across 2 horse fields. \

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 3:28:24 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I think the OP is on to something with reducing initiative for mounted units.   It takes a little bit to get going, but then they get going really fast.

Mounted effect:

-initiative (takes time to control the mount)

+movement 

+melee attack 

+defense against melee

-ranged attack (I don't think anyone would argue its as easy to use a bow on a horse, than standing on the ground)

 

Also, for fun, the minus for initiative does NOT stack with armor/weapons.     I'm guessing a dude in platemail with a warhammer is going to be swinging just as fast as a guy on the ground with the same equipment.   Yet, a guy in leather with a sword is much quicker on the ground.  Sure, the guy on the horse is going to hit much harder, but not as quickly nor as adaptive.

 

With the minus to initiative, we are less likely to see archers and mages being mounted, because there would be an actual disadvantage to it.

 

What the game really needs is another way to get strategic, but not necessarily tactical movement.   That way your spell casters can keep up with the knights.   Maybe we need marching boots, or travelling rations.  Ox carts.  Whatever.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 3:36:37 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting NaytchSG,
And alstein great thoughts on adding more traits for heroes/units to choose from.  Pretty easy to implement and it makes the mounted range or melee skill take up one of the three trait slots in unit design...  

I was trying to gather race-specific traits in this thread, but sadly no one seemed to have many ideas for it! I am really in favor of increasing the number of traits available for unit design. It will really help to distinguish different unit types further, and really make you specialize that unit for what you want it to do.

I also can't imagine that it would be that hard to implement - I haven't really done much modding, but I'm at the point where I'm ready to delve into the .xml files and introduce them myself, if possible.

Quoting Kamamura_CZ,
For cavalry units to be interesting, they must have momentum implemented in some way, otherwise they are just faster regular units. 

This is something I wanted to see implemented. I always thought that all this charge "attack bonus" business could be avoided by simply giving cavalry a damage bonus based on how far they moved before they attacked the enemy unit - maybe +1 attack for every tile traversed, provided of course that they didn't start their turn in an enemy's ZoC. This might encourage players to maneuver their cavalry around the battlefield in this way, providing this "momentum" bonus that you would expect from charging cavalry.

Also, many of these ideas and other great ones were discussed in this thread, if anyone is interested.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 7:20:42 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting animageous,


Quoting NaytchSG, reply 9And alstein great thoughts on adding more traits for heroes/units to choose from.  Pretty easy to implement and it makes the mounted range or melee skill take up one of the three trait slots in unit design...  

I was trying to gather race-specific traits in this thread, but sadly no one seemed to have many ideas for it! I am really in favor of increasing the number of traits available for unit design. It will really help to distinguish different unit types further, and really make you specialize that unit for what you want it to do.

I also can't imagine that it would be that hard to implement - I haven't really done much modding, but I'm at the point where I'm ready to delve into the .xml files and introduce them myself, if possible.


Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 10For cavalry units to be interesting, they must have momentum implemented in some way, otherwise they are just faster regular units. 

This is something I wanted to see implemented. I always thought that all this charge "attack bonus" business could be avoided by simply giving cavalry a damage bonus based on how far they moved before they attacked the enemy unit - maybe +1 attack for every tile traversed, provided of course that they didn't start their turn in an enemy's ZoC. This might encourage players to maneuver their cavalry around the battlefield in this way, providing this "momentum" bonus that you would expect from charging cavalry.

Also, many of these ideas and other great ones were discussed in this thread, if anyone is interested.

 

Hey, Animageous... did you happen to see dsraider's faction traits mod?  It might be a place to start:

http://forums.elementalgame.com/427703/page/1/#3261344

 

Maybe give them a +3 attack on first turn and then - 3 defense the rest of the battle... or can you make them get Hobbled if they get swarmed?

My youngest daughter got totally pumped when she saw your avatar btw! 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 6:44:22 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting NaytchSG,
Hey, Animageous... did you happen to see dsraider's faction traits mod?  It might be a place to start:

Not to hijack the thread, but yes, I have. I am more interested in trained unit traits, though, but now I am working on a trait mod for trained units myself.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 30, 2013 6:50:34 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting animageous,


Quoting NaytchSG, reply 9And alstein great thoughts on adding more traits for heroes/units to choose from.  Pretty easy to implement and it makes the mounted range or melee skill take up one of the three trait slots in unit design...  

I was trying to gather race-specific traits in this thread, but sadly no one seemed to have many ideas for it! I am really in favor of increasing the number of traits available for unit design. It will really help to distinguish different unit types further, and really make you specialize that unit for what you want it to do.

I also can't imagine that it would be that hard to implement - I haven't really done much modding, but I'm at the point where I'm ready to delve into the .xml files and introduce them myself, if possible.


Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 10For cavalry units to be interesting, they must have momentum implemented in some way, otherwise they are just faster regular units. 

This is something I wanted to see implemented. I always thought that all this charge "attack bonus" business could be avoided by simply giving cavalry a damage bonus based on how far they moved before they attacked the enemy unit - maybe +1 attack for every tile traversed, provided of course that they didn't start their turn in an enemy's ZoC. This might encourage players to maneuver their cavalry around the battlefield in this way, providing this "momentum" bonus that you would expect from charging cavalry.

Also, many of these ideas and other great ones were discussed in this thread, if anyone is interested.

 

Am not sure how well those changes would work, for the following reason: if you fight against a high initiative summoner, your precious cavalry will be surrounded by skeletons negating their movement and charge dmg bonus, while you pelt them with arrows / spells. 

Also there is no tactical phase (like in heroes series for example) where you choose how your troops will be deployed on battlefield, it's pretty random, and depending on maps you can have cavalry blocked by other units.

Not to mention how movement is restricted by enemy units, a single tough unit is enough in a good position, to prevent all mounted troops to reach the back row units due to 1 square movement near enemy unit restrain.

And finally, I believe developers intent with horses & wargs is to give a technological advantage (movement, defense, initiative, immunity to prone etc) to units using them. AKA mounted units are superior to pedestrian ones. You can only mount sovereign, champions and your faction units. You won't see a troll, ogre, dragon mounted And with this am perfectly fine, they should provide advantages. 

The way they work resource wise has to do with more factors (in my opinion). If they gave a fixed amount like in Civ 5, say 2 horses for this resource, and 4 for that one, if you had a bad start (like in middle of the map surrounded by other factions and with some nasty creatures you don't want to wake early-mid game just to get 2 more horses), you would be pretty much screwed. Is not always easy to expand and keep your expansions, and horse / worgs are not as abundant as other resources. In my last game, playing Ceresa, won diplomacy, I had approx 6 mounted units, with 150 horses resource, and 20 worgs. I had 8 towns and 4 outpots (well 4 towns, 2 almost fully developed fortresses, and 2 conclaves). It was taking me 7 seasons to build a single mounted archer in the fortresses. But then again, I wasn't really in need of a big army, mounted or not, playing a summoner. Having a leveled up summon familiar helps a lot

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000109   Page Render Time: