Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aircraft carriers'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. So straight up this is NOT a serious post. Its part alcohol-infused day dream, part national pride, and pure silliness. But here's my big idea: What if we put another Yorktown-class carrier in the game, named her Hornet, and slapped some B-25s on her AND NOTHING ELSE. Well how does that work you ask? EASY! 1-3 planes per wave, insane health, slow, "one way" attack waves. payload: british carpet bombing pattern but with American HE bombs, yeah the big ones. Like, if you hit a bismarck you'd take half his health. WHY?!? cuz. drugs are a hell of a drugs.
  2. Howdy sailors! so I finally unlocked and purchased the midway but I have a question involving the tier X Dive and Torpedo bombers. why are the tier X planes the BTD destroyer when they were canceled after WW2 and later replaced by the AD-1 Skyraiders in the Korean war? (technically 30 BTD's were made but only 5 did any combat) BTD data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_BTD_Destroyer AD1- data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider Did someone at WG make a mistake? does anyone by chance know why they went with this route? if anyone knows please let me know anyways, until next time I'll C'ya on the Seas!
  3. Wargaming, give us the night-capable, all-weather torpedo bomber we deserve!
  4. Hello! I always thought this was an interesting question. Aircraft carriers were frankly the game-changer for the big battleship-on-battleship engagements that dominated naval doctrine for years. They can send ordinance from the sky to eliminate heavily-armored warships without too many casualties to the attacker. While aircraft carriers were somewhat used in World War I by the British (HMS Ark Royal and HMS Furious), they didn't really hit their stride until World War II with Taranto, the destruction of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway and more. XX My question is this: If aircraft carriers were more heavily explored in WW1 (i.e. They were used more in engagements and had their equivalent testing battles...like a bombing of the German High Seas Fleet with British carrier planes. This is just a random example of perhaps a demonstration of good carrier aviation that could happen in a what-if WW1), how would've that affected WW2 naval battles? Under this, there are a few more questions: -How would've technology advanced with the rise of carriers from the prior war (i.e. rise in missile technology to destroy carriers? Better planes to avoid carrier AA fire?) -What mistakes do you think naval commanders would make with carriers in the beginning stages of the conflict? -How would that affect building strategy and the naval treaties during the interwar period? -Would some warships have been prioritized over others (i.e. more carriers vs the Yamato-class battleships for the Japanese? Graf Zeppelin-like carriers over Bismarcks?) XX Feel free to get creative with your answers and expand upon your own lines of observation. Thanks!
  5. Ok. So first, a little bit of info on my experience First, I bought a 20 pack of crates and got both saipan and enterprise. I also have the midway and have sunk a fair bit of games in all three +Lexi. I do not have graf zeppelin or kaga or any other nations carriers higher than tier 6. With that in mind, here are my thoughts Out of all of the carriers I currently own, enterprise is my favourite. She is basically a flexington with AP bombs and an amazing fighter consumable. Seriously. She spawns 10 fighters (11 with direction center for catapult aircraft) in a 3.5km range which is insane! In comparison, the midway spawns about 7 or 8 fighters with the same patrol radius. If any squadron steps into these fighters, they will be shredded, so use them to protect your DD's and focused capital ships. Her torpedo bombers are about the same as Rexingtons and I found those torps fun to use when I was grinding midway. What really sells this ship for me is her AP bombers which are a lot like the old American AP bombers, in my experience, they are extremely effective against cruisers of all armor and German battleships, other nations battleships that I dropped were rarely citadeled and aircraft carriers were the same story. All of this coupled with the quick squadron refresh and fair rockets make her my favorite carrier so far Saipan is a bit of a different story. While I don't think she is terrible, I definitely don't think she is easy to play as her refreshment time is extremely punishing for newer CV players. Her planes are individually amazing (as expected! They are t10 aircraft) but are limited by small squadron sizes and lower HP pools than her American counterparts due to the small squadron size. The armament on the saipan is awesome though. The fighters drop the same number of tiny Tim rockets as the Keckxington drops, the HE bombs are good and have a decent fire chance and finally, the torpedoes have great alpha damage, but are slow and have short range (a trait common with American air-dropped torpedoes). The kicker is the same as her rockets. You get 4 torpedoes per drop (2 a plane) and you can do large chunks of damage to ships if you line up all of your torpedoes correctly. Overall, saipan is much more difficult to use, but can be very rewarding if you play your cards right. So why do choose the enterprise over the saipan? Well that brings me back to the biggest point of all. MATCHMAKING! Matchmaking for tier 8 carriers is probably the worst it will be right now and it doesn't show any sign of changing any time soon. The reason for this is that a tier 8 carrier has no problem dealing with tier 8 ships as of now, but as of late, matchmaking has been pretty atrocious for tier 8 carriers with many tier 10s and tier 9s in queue. One or two tier 10s can be managed as you can be sure to give them a wide berth to avoid unnecessary losses. But more often than not, you will have games where the enemy team is filled to the brim with tier 10 AA. I have seen people feel so helpless that they immediately quit the battle when they see that they are the only tier 8s in the game. This is why I rate the enterprise as the easier ship to play because of the fact that its aircraft regeneration is so fast and saipan's is so very slow. If the meta was a bit different without constant uptiering for carriers, I would say it would be a harder choice. But the meta isn't changing and neither is carrier matchmaking. As for kaga and graf zeppelin, I really can't comment on them since I didn't have the luck of getting one in a container and I don't think I want to sink any more money into the game. Still, that doesn't mean they are bad, I just don't have the experience to comment on them. This is all just my opinion and observations. I don't really like spewing data numbers on a page so that's why I don't have data crammed in here. Hope this helps!
  6. At it's current state, Hakuryu is very underpowered compared to Midway and the 0.8.0 version. It was hit too hard with nerfs, and while it did need a nerf because of how easily people could get nearly 500,000 damage in it, it did not need all of those nerfs combined. The flooding chance nerf and the removal of the F key spam thing would have been enough, but the aiming change made the ship unplayable. But it could still be made great again with some changes. 1. Restore the old aiming before 0.8.1 The current one is slow, wide, takes forever to get on target, and does not keep up with a normal attack run. The one before it was much better, and just changing this would improve the ship so much. 2. Discourage Torpedo Spam by making all 3 plane types viable One thing that makes Midway so great is that when fully upgraded all 3 of the plane types can be effective. 0.8.0 Hakuryu had very powerful torpedo bombers, but then the AP dive bombers and the rocket planes were much weaker and not very fun to play. Giving the Hakuryu some good rockets and bombs like the Midway would mean a lot less torpedo spam. But the torpedoes would still be a powerful plane, just not the one the carrier should solely rely on. 3. One that is already in the game, the F spam nerf and the improved AA With the changes listed above added to the current version, Hakuryu would be just as if not more powerful than Midway, but not so that it is unbalanced. The super strong AA that currently exists after the hotfixes and the large number of strong AA ships in the matchmaking means that it would not perform as high as it did in 0.8.0, but still pretty high. 300-400 thousand damage matches would be a possibility if the player is really skilled, maybe even a very small chance of breaking 500,000 again. So in conclusion, Hakuryu needs buffs and the ones in this article should be able to make it powerful again without making it unbalanced. Keep in mind that it is not unheard of for surface ships to occasionally get 300-400k games, and since aircraft carriers were historically the most powerful ship class, why shouldn't they have higher chances of performing so high?
  7. Warships; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? Greetings, Earthlings Fellow Forumers! So, as some of you may have noticed, I've started, and completed as far as I could, a little series known as "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" The purpose of these threads, and the charts that accompany them, is to keep an easily accessible record of all the tech tree ships in World of Warships, and just how 'real' they are. As you're all aware, people tend to throw around the slur (or at least treat it as such) 'paper ships,' usually accompanied by the statement we only want real ships, or something like that. Heck, I'm guilty of it. Well, some ships we have are 'paper' ships, but certainly not fake. We do a few actually fake ships. The vast majority of ships in the game, thankfully, are real, were commissioned, and saw service. That will probably always be the case, looking at what's available. These threads already exist, each in the relevant subforum in "Discussions about Warships," but that'd kind of out of the way, so I decided to make this one as a compilation, where all 4 charts could be seen, and the other 4 threads easily found. So, in these threads, I've catalogued all 4 types of ship, first cruisers, then battleships, next destroyers, and finally carriers, into these four categories: Green = Ships that were built and saw service Violet = Ships that were partially constructed, but were destroyed/scrapped before completion Blue = Paper ships in the purest sense, existing only as blueprints, but never constructed. Orange = I dunno. No, really, i don't know. These are the ships I can find nothing on, and as far as I know are pure fiction constructed by WG to fill tree gaps, which, I guess, if it's necessary, it's necessary. I'm not going to blame them for it if they couldn't find anything, so long as the fictional ship doesn't take the place of a real one. Also, any nation with a red box for their name box means the tree, and the placements within it, for that ships type, are purely speculation as to the ship placements. As soon as WG releases the details for what ships are when in those lines, they'll be corrected where needed, of course. As this is the case, if the name box above is in red, take the placements with a grain of salt, and add pepper for flavor. Particularly on the carriers, since that's by far the most paper-intensive of all ship types. Important: This chart is open to edits! If you guys have anything to add or to fix, then do comment, and I'll edit it! For example, I think I've seen someone mention the Orlan as actually being a design, but I can't find anything on it so for now I've put it as fiction, not a blueprint. Additionally, I know there were loads of Soviet ships that got laid down, but were never completed, so if that's any of the classes I have listed as purely blueprints, fire away! Also Important: IF you want to comment on ships placement for the speculative threads, please take a look at the thread for that ship's type, which I will link, as they contained more detailed descriptions of the the thread usually. They will also contain the edit logs. You can mention any edits that need to be made in this thread, but I would appreciate it if you would also suggest it in the relevant thread to that ship type, as that makes it much easier to keep track of and organize. Even if you're from another server, don't be afraid to shoot a message, I've already had one from the EU server, for example. So, without further a-due, and me running my mouth(fingers?) more, here they are; Aircraft Carriers: Thread here NOTE - Pending CV Rework for Further Updates Battleships: Thread here Cruisers: Thread here Destroyers: Thread here Edit log: All Edits will be kept track of in the Edit log for the appropriate thread. This thread is merely a compilation of sorts, where it's easier to find. Exception 21-1-2018: All threads repaired from photobucket shenanigans. Also, for those unfamiliar with the names of various navies; United States Navy = United States Navy (pretty self explanatory) Royal Navy = British Royal Navy Dai-Nippon Teikoku Kaigun = Imperial Japanese Navy Regia Marina = Italian Royal Navy (literally, 'Royal Navy') Marine Nationale = French Navy (literally, 'National Navy') Voyenno-morskoy Flot = Soviet Navy (Literally, Military Maritime Fleet) Kriegsmarine = German Navy (Literally, War Navy?) Keep in mind, some of the countries had multiple iterations of their navies' names across the timeframe of the game. The Russian Navy starts out as the Imperial Russian Navy, and later becomes the VMF after the Soviet Union is formed (tier 4 to 5 is the transition). The German navy was originally the Kaiserliche Marine, or the Imperial Germany Navy up to the end of WWI. Inter-war it was known as the Reichsmarine, aka Navy of the Realm, until 1935 where it became the Kriegsmarine. In game this depends on the line you go down. For German battleships, you go from the IGN to KM at the tier 6 to 7 transition, while for cruisers it's tier 4 to 5. My other "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" Threads: Aircraft Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers
  8. Hello all, Being a fan of the old more micro-intensive strategic style, I would like to see it brought back into the game. We know the graphics, UI, settings, and coding exist for it. Allow CV players to choose whether to do the old style or the new style. I like the new style sometimes, it is much more relaxing; but it doesn't offer the same control and intensity the old style did. So why not allow both? Because a few super unicums might dominate with it? Hasn't that been the argument for why the current style works anyway, that certain players dominate with it (so we know it works). I see no downside; all sides happy :) #MakeWoWsGreatAgain
  9. I have always enjoyed playing this game with the carriers. However, they have become no fun and if you want to continue to give back large amounts of credits you won, then buy a carrier. They have included a service fee of about 240,000 credits for each battle and then on top of that, they add in fees for replacing lost planes and other stuff. Has anyone won any positive credits. Even with premium play its a joke. Imagine someone trying to get ahead without having premium play. I have sent in many responses to how unfair these carriers are and I get these ridiculous responses telling that i can add all this upgrades. How the hell can you add upgrades when you continue to go backwards in credits. Even in the public test arena, where you can add every upgrade, you lose all your plans before you can even get close to making an attack. As the previous post said , death to the aircraft carriers. As much as I wish that was not the case, but it is true. I sold all mine. No fun anymore. What do you say if you read this. Let me hear your comments.
  10. All of you people probably are aware of the CV rework. If you are a new player and you want to play CVs (aircraft carriers.) Well, think again. In this topic, I'll tell you why CVs aren't just worth to play with. 1. How you execute a attack is rather poor. No matter how much planes are in your squadron, torpedo bombers for example will only have 2 planes that will actually attack while the original CV mechanic will have all the planes left in the squadron attack. How you attack is basically doing a manual drop with the old CVs except the "drop area" moves with the squadron, and in 3rd person instead of a birds eye view which somewhat makes executing a attack worse. 2. They whatsoever had to remove tier 5,7, and 9 carriers and it also messes up with the matchmaking. Right now, it's possible for a tier 4 CV to be in a tier 7 match where common sense tells you the poor tier 4 CVs planes would just get shredded. 3. The micromanaging I'd say is worse than the old CVs and I mean a lot worse. All CVs are 1-1-1 instead of other flight systems. If this isn't bad, you can only control one squadron, and controlling that one squadron does not let you control the CV itself without autopilot. If you played before 0.8.0 and you played CVs, you can tell striking a ship with only one squadron is stupid and either you don't do enough damage or that squadron will get shredded. 4. Sometimes, the point of playing CVs is to have fun shredding the opponent's planes with your fighters. Now with the rework, its a pain to have the air superiority. Yes, there is a consumable on strike aircraft but it only patrol a certain area and the fighters are consumables and only circle your ship. Thats all I have to say about the CV rework. If I missed anything, feel free to comment down. This is just my opinion and it's ok to have a different opinion than me.
  11. NAfishyCaptain

    Enterprise, after the rework

    Do the poll first plz. Should I sell the enterprise? It seems kinda crappy now and I would love to go for the irian, but what do you, the community think?
  12. About me (so you know where I’m coming from): I have reached the T6 American carrier, the USS Independence, almost entirely through co-op battles since I’m quite bad at it lol. I mostly play cruisers and battleships now and with those I would say I’m decent at (54% win rate). I really like the old/current CV gameplay where the player controls multiple squads in an RTS format and I think it would be a shame if this was deleted. I also really like the new CV version where the player focuses on controlling one squad to achieve maximum damage. I think it would be absolutely amazing if both versions could be in the same game under two different classes, fleet carrier and escort carrier. Escort carriers were traditionally made from cruiser hulls and thus much smaller and thus held fewer planes (about half to two thirds of a fleet carrier). This is represented in game where the carriers now have 3-5 squads running about compared to the two squads proposed with the new carriers (the bomber one the player controls along with the fighters that can be spawned). Before I get into any changes trying to make two classes of CVs viable much less viable with each other, I need to get into why there is so much frustration around carriers in the first place. Carriers interact with battleships, cruisers and destroyers through almost entirely RNG which is to say they don’t interact. There’s an AA rating number each warship has and either that number is high enough that the ship under attack does or doesn’t get nuked by the carrier. A number determines all!! AHHH!! All of my changes are centered around changing gameplay from being solely based on numbers to being based on player interactions/outplaying one another as well as trying to make the changes as easy as possible to implement. My suggested changes: 1) Don’t delete the old form of carriers but instead add a new class of carrier from the new CV rework (as mentioned in paragraph 1) 2) Give planes fuel. Planes right now are like UFOs where they can follow a DD around for days perma spotting everything in sight. Giving bombers fuel means they need to head to their target immediately instead of loitering around to gather all squads together for a massive alpha strike. This also means that ships trying to survive a strike can utilize turning to much greater effect as any time wasted by the bomber on the target means it may simply run out of time to drop (going in circles for the win!). Lastly, fuel would encourage carriers to move in closer so they could reach more of the enemy fleet and the dynamics of it would be fascinating. I might suggest that planes have a range of 6-8 tiles on the mini map of range? When a plane runs out of fuel, the AI takes control of the squad and flies it in a direct route straight back to the carrier (much like bombers flying back after they drop with the new CV rework). Planes that run out of fuel could die instantly but that would put a very high emphasis on skill which is unwanted (a CV not watching his fuel could deplane himself within a few minutes from the start of a match with this lol). 3) Carriers will have a 2 fighter 2 bomber configuration (or 3/3 or 4/4 if madness if preferable). The important part about this change is that fighter squads and bomber squads are the same so that there is always a fighter squad ready to fight off any incoming bomber squad. The last thing a non-CV player wants is to have to fight off an entire bombing strike without the ally CV giving a hoot. 4) Fighters will not be able to lock or damage other fighters. This will effectively give the fighters only one role and that will be to counter enemy bombers. As the game is currently, where fighters can fight fighters, the CV has to make a choice, protect their own drop and thus get exp, or try to deny the enemy drop and risk losing their own drop. This changes the game dynamics of fighters and bombers to that of cat vs mouse relationship. I don’t know if this is good or not, but it will mean that CVs will be actively trying to defend their teammates. 5) A notification will be sent out when enemy bombers are deployed. Unless the defending CV is much closer to the battle than the attacking one, the fighters will have to be launched at the same time the bombers are launched if they ever hope to intercept them. An alternative solution to this is have the detection range on the bombers set to 8 to 15 kms so that teammates can spot the bombers far enough out so the friendly CV has enough time to react. 6) Fighters and bombers will be able to take off at the same time. Much like the previous change, time is of the essence, so when the notification goes off, waiting another few seconds before the bombers are fully off the deck is an unnecessary waste of time that may be the difference between the fighters arriving in time or not. 7) Bombers will no longer be able to be panicked. Since friendly fighters will no longer be able to take out catapult fighters/scouts and have no way of defending against incoming enemy CV fighters, it seems fair to let them carry out their strike unfrazzled. Catapult fighters/scouts will still do damage to the bombers though. 8) Giant water pillars resulting from battleship shells landing in the water will destroy any torpedo bombers flying through them while making a torpedo run. To make a torpedo run, the bombers have to fly quite low to the water. This was tried in WW2 without any success, but this is a game and I think a nifty way of how non-CVs can interact with CVs. 9) Non-CV ships will get access to a new mode, called Extra AA Damage, that ramps up their AA damage over time, but while in this mode, the ship will not be able to fire its main guns nor will its main guns continue to reload while in this mode. This will be stackable with the Defensive AA Fire consumable. Much like HE shells are located on 1, Extra AA Damage will be located on 4. Once Extra AA Damage is selected, the AA damage will start to slowly ramp up from 100% damage to 200% damage at its max which it will reach after 30s. The goal of this is to give the non-CV player a choice of how to deal with enemy incoming bombers and thus more interactions between the non-CV and CV. The problem with Extra AA Damage is that a player using it has nothing to do other than watch AA numbers slowly increase. In many ways, this is just a quick fix. 9¾) Alternate of 9: Non-CV ships get access to a new mode, AA Mode, that allows the player to manually aim their AA at incoming planes. The reason why I didn’t suggest this in 9) is because this takes a bunch of work to implement especially with the various gun calibers operating as AA guns. This can be simplified somewhat by giving all the various guns the same ballistics. I think the best option is to combine the gradual damage increase in Extra AA Damage to AA Mode so that players focusing on AA exclusively will do more damage than players focusing mostly on the surface battle. 10) The CV can see all AA bubbles of all ships denoted by a circle outlining the perimeter of the AA gun range. Any players using Extra AA Damage or AA Mode will have their AA circles change color gradually to say from white to orange to indicate to the CV how much bonus damage the ship will get from a mode that may or may not be activated. 11) CVs can regenerate planes due to their mechanics going HAM. A consumable could be added along side this that could speed up plane regeneration. With CVs able to generate planes will give them something to do even after they would be traditionally deplaned which is generally the point of a game, to have stuff to do. 12) Escort Carriers (or the new CV rework CVs) will have their planes behave much like the Fleet Carriers’ fighters in the sense they will take off from the carrier and fly to the targeted location except the AI will control their movements entirely. There is something immersion breaking about spawning planes out of thin air though I will admit I don’t know too much of how fighters work with the CV rework yet. 13) A new game mode where only CVs are allowed. Everything is the same in this mode as it is in Random Battles except the CV planes can attack strafe each other but not lock each other otherwise the game might just end after the first strike. On the other hand, if the fighters can’t engage each other, the game will only end to time or ramming. This is quite a long post so I want to thank anyone who took the time to read the entire thing. Discussion and disagreement are welcome. PS: I realize these changes may make CVs OP or worthless or actually balanced, who knows. It really depends on the various numbers assigned. Whatever the case may be, bombers are highly reliant on the time with the enemy ship before the fighters can intercept meaning that changing their speed is be a quick instant fix on making CVs more or less powerful depending on the situation.
  13. Lets face it we need some variety. Carriers: The entire UK Line which they are working on. The Graf Zepplin rebalancing. Italian Carriers: Aquila: Guessing around T VII (51 planes 30 Knots) planes are on the low side for T VII but it has a lot of AA and comparable speed to other CVs. Sparviero: T V? (20 knots 25-34 planes) compares well to Bogue/Zuiho French Carrier: Bearn: T V - VI : . (21.5 knots 35-40 planes. Oh and Torp Tubes?) It would be nice to have the Sparviero and Bearn go at it in Tier V. Joffre: T VI: (33 knots 40 planes. Comparable AA to Tier) German Carrier: Wesser: (Seydlitz refit) T VI: (32 knots 20 planes but of an advanced tier [VII Bf 109 and Ju 87] to make up for low numbers. Another with Torp Tubes lol.) When I did this list I was doing it for Carriers who didn't have a line already or one coming. This list is by far not complete there are a ton of other Japanese Carriers and other Carriers for UK and US too.
  14. Submarines in WOWS--It is an interesting concept. A few points to consider: 1. NEW Game engine--Macwrapper from Code Weavers will have to do a new wrapper for subs. They already are probably working on one for the new CV play. I wonder if the WOWs Halloween game will even play in October 2018 ? 2. Subs of WW2 vintage did around 25 knots on the surface. WW1 did 18 knots on the surface. Speed will drop to 8 knots or so submerged (this may not be an issue with the Oxygen meter). Depending on how long you are underwater, a sub may have to fire quickly before surfacing. There will be no Irwin Allen Seaviews or 1990s vintage SeaQuest DSV subs in the game doing 30 or more knots underwater. The vessels will be SLOW 3. DDs are getting overtaxed as the main sub hunter. CAs had provisions for subs. You can see the equipment on the Tier 3 Aurora. So does (yes) the Tier 1 sloops. Note that they have depth charge deployment devices on them. While any of these ships have a role in sub chasing ? 4. CV aircraft did a fair amount of sub chasing (as well as the Zeppelins of WW2 US Navy). What role would they have ? 5. While the German U-Boats fired fore and aft torpedoes, the American "O" and "S" classes, if memory serves correct, fired only from the BOW in WW1 and later. I will give WOWS credit for thinking of all the Gamers who have asked for submarines. It will be the hardest ship class to put in if they proceed. It would be a programmer's nightmare given all the changes needed to get submarines to work right. Astrosaint
×