Third Party Combat and Miniatures

[hmgs1]

Need some help here, perhaps from one of the developers.

I'm going to be writing a follow-up review for wargamer.com specifically targeting EiA as a campaign system for miniatures. The struggle I am going through right now is that:

1. There doesn't seem to be any documentation as to how this Third Party Resolution system works, no screen shots, etc. I guess that means that if you activate the process, when battle comes, something will appear on the screen and it will be intuitive.

2. Over on TMP (The Miniatures Page) a comment was made that you can't use this Third Party system unless you have multiple players with NO AI involved. Is this correct? I hope not because I was going to play France against the AI and when battle was joined, convert over to the table top.

3. A quick look suggests that the mathematics used by the game are a direct import from the old boardgame (I have the AH version), correct?

Anyway, thanx muchly for any insight you can provide.

Warmest regards, Bill Gray

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: hmgs1

Need some help here, perhaps from one of the developers.

I'm no expert in EiANW or EiA but I've got a keen interest in this myself so might be able to help:

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
1. There doesn't seem to be any documentation as to how this Third Party Resolution system works, no screen shots, etc. I guess that means that if you activate the process, when battle comes, something will appear on the screen and it will be intuitive.

I've found it pretty easy to use, though a little interpretation of the text file that is produced by the system is required.

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
2. Over on TMP (The Miniatures Page) a comment was made that you can't use this Third Party system unless you have multiple players with NO AI involved. Is this correct? I hope not because I was going to play France against the AI and when battle was joined, convert over to the table top.

My test game is 6 AI and me, the 3rd party thing seems to work just fine.

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
3. A quick look suggests that the mathematics used by the game are a direct import from the old boardgame (I have the AH version), correct?

Can't comment on this because I don't know the boardgame, however, there are several challenges that present themselves for direct tabletop conversion.

Army "Factors" are the sub units of EiA Corps and are apparently roughly 2,000 men, I've read this somewhere either in the rulebook or on this forum. So, an infantry factor is about a regiment and a cavalry factor is about a division (ish).

Factors are not identifiable inside EiANW by regiment or other means and are only broadly classified as Guard, Infantry, Militia or Cavalry. So, if the Russian 4th Corps with 5 infantry factors is involved in a conflict at the EiA level and I want to fight it out using miniatures I'll have to develop a system to translate the high level (low detail) EiA factors into real units of Grenadier, Line, Jaeger, Artillery, Cuirassier, Dragoon, Hussar, etc, etc, etc. I'll obviously then need to re-convert the OOB back into EiA after a battle is concluded.

Not an impossible task, but it will be hard to pretend there is more detail available then there really is and the miniatures battle might all tend to look similar if generic formations are used to translate the infantry/cavalry factors into battlefield units.

Interested in your thoughts on this.

Regards,
Moopere

[Windfire]

FYI - The first edition of Napoleon's Battles had a supplement (#2 - blue one) that provide rules for converting EIA factors into miniatures and back again (for Napoleons Batlles rule). It provided division leader statistics for divisions in each of the corps and handled conversions into various troop types (heavy cav, light cav, line inf, light inf, heavy art, horse art).

Paul

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: Windfire

FYI - The first edition of Napoleon's Battles had a supplement (#2 - blue one) that provide rules for converting EIA factors into miniatures and back again (for Napoleons Batlles rule). It provided division leader statistics for divisions in each of the corps and handled conversions into various troop types (heavy cav, light cav, line inf, light inf, heavy art, horse art).

Paul

Yes, thats quite interesting and I've heard this before. How does it work though? Is there some static formula used or does it use 'points' which are then converted into the players choice of units on the field?

Regards,
Moopere

[Marshall Ellis]

Hmgs1:
 
Should work no matter the player type combinations.
We did not test this with PBEM and I mention this because there are certain situations where combat is autoresolved that might not give you the chance to export the battle.
I did not have the factor conversion tables (From EiA to Miniature) so the factors are raw EiA.
It should be pretty simple to opertate. I'll do a thread with a little step-through...
 
 
 
 

[hmgs1]

OK, this is some excellent information, thanks to all. Obviously the folks at TMP are mistaken and the fact that I can play solo to test out the Third Party system is exactly what I was looking for.

As regards converting EIA into miniature forces, my gut feeling is that most pewter pushers are going to be very familiar with the period of play - its kinda mandatory and part of the miniatures experience overall - so if they need to field 30 points of 1806 Prussians, they will know how to historically organize them and the correct proportion of musketeers, grenadiers, fusiliers, Jaegers and Garde zu Fus to put out on the table.

The larger question I would have is whether results on the miniatures table would reasonably correspond to what was expected if the software adjudicated the battle. I've only taken a brief look, but it seems the combat tables the software uses are the same as the original boardgame. If so, miniature games, and I mean all of them (Empire, Age of Eagles, Grande Armee) seem far less kinder to the Austro-Russo-Prussians than EiA is. Its no coincidence that in miniature circles the 1813 campaign seems to be most popular, particularly if you play Allies, and I wonder if miniature combat results might actually skew the campaign and strategic level play EIA has been made to simulate.

JMTSW, YMMV

Regards, Bill Gray

[Marshall Ellis]

hmgs1:
 
I just posted this a few minutes ago.
Check it out...
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705282
 
Hope that helps.
 
 

[hmgs1]

Most excellent, thanks!

Now the only unanswered question about if and how well miniature combat results will segue into EIA. I have a game coming up in March at the Cold Wars convention, so I'll try to finagle the game into a combat situation that is similar and use the results from the convention game to adjudicate it.

Unfortunately the game is Gross Beeren 1813, but we'll make it work somehow.

Regards, Bill Gray

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: moopere

ORIGINAL: Windfire

FYI - The first edition of Napoleon's Battles had a supplement (#2 - blue one) that provide rules for converting EIA factors into miniatures and back again (for Napoleons Batlles rule). It provided division leader statistics for divisions in each of the corps and handled conversions into various troop types (heavy cav, light cav, line inf, light inf, heavy art, horse art).

Paul

Yes, thats quite interesting and I've heard this before. How does it work though? Is there some static formula used or does it use 'points' which are then converted into the players choice of units on the field?

Regards,
Moopere

In the Napoleons Battles System, the number of strength factors of each type is multipled by the morale of the factor and a set scaling factor. The scaling factor is the same for everyone, it is used to adjust battle sizes and could be used to adjust rules. The inclusion of the morale in the calculation is key as it allows purchase of more points of what would normally be more costly units. In Napoleons battles, British infantry is expensive as it has good combat and morale ratings. The extra points from the morale factor allow the higher quality factors to be purchased.

The rules then allow a set percentage of infantry points to go to artillery units (horse and foot) and light units. They allow a set percentage of cavalry points to go to heavy cavalry units and horse artillery. Special units such as guerilla and cossack counters are converted directly over. Leader become army and wing commanders. Each corps is provided a set number of sub commanders in the corp based on nationality ratings. Nationality flavor is captured by special rules for each nation. Britian is only allowed half the normal amount of artillery points from the conversion, Russia is allowed double. Guard units come from guard strenght points. Turkish provincial units translate into irregular units.

Much of the conversion will depend on what rules set you are using. Every miniatures system has a different scale, unit cost, etc. It will likely take some experimentation on percentages with other systems. The Napoleons Battle system conversion is tied to having costs set for all units in the rules. A possible alternative would be to convert the strength in Empire in Arms into equivalent unit sizes in the applicable miniature system with rules for adding artillery and rules for % of special units.

Paul

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: hmgs1

As regards converting EIA into miniature forces, my gut feeling is that most pewter pushers are going to be very familiar with the period of play - its kinda mandatory and part of the miniatures experience overall - so if they need to field 30 points of 1806 Prussians, they will know how to historically organize them and the correct proportion of musketeers, grenadiers, fusiliers, Jaegers and Garde zu Fus to put out on the table.

Ahh, yes, but this sounds exactly like the "generic formation" I mention above. I well know the stereotypical OOB for many nations at this time - perhaps I am wanting to go into too much detail, but I guess my point is that if the Russian 4th Corps in EiA was built as a standard infantry division and say a grenadier brigade and during the miniatures battle I manage to completely decimate my grenadier brigade, should I still 'magically' be able to have my grenadiers back in the next battle the Russian 4th Corps finds itself involved in?

This is the classic disconnect of importance traditionally faced by strategists versus tacticians I suppose. As the battlefield commander I care a lot about jaegers, grenadiers, militia, line etc. Each type of troop has qualities that I will want to use to bring about a victory. At the strategic level its more about numbers than distinct troop types. I've commanded several armies at the campaign level over the years (not with EiA though) and of course don't really care a lot about whether or not the grenadier flanking company from the 51st battalion of line survived the last battle or not.

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
The larger question I would have is whether results on the miniatures table would reasonably correspond to what was expected if the software adjudicated the battle. I've only taken a brief look, but it seems the combat tables the software uses are the same as the original boardgame. If so, miniature games, and I mean all of them (Empire, Age of Eagles, Grande Armee) seem far less kinder to the Austro-Russo-Prussians than EiA is.

This is a very good question...one I didn't think of but you are right to bring it up. I can't see any realistic answer though because its not just the kindness or otherwise of the miniatures rules at work but the player skill as well. We have too many unmeasurable variables at work.

Probably, as suggested by several folks now, the best way forward is to allocate some sort of strength points system and try as much is as possible to make sure the miniatures system used fairly distributes points against actual battlefield value as perceived by the rules themselves.

So, if a specific rules set undervalues Austrian line infantry as compared to French line infantry then, fairly, the points required to 'buy' French line infantry should be higher...by a factor equivalent to their prowess (and this is the impossible thing to measure....but we have to try).

Cheers, Moopere

[hmgs1]

I checked the NB solution and its pretty complex if not overkill. It also suffers historically somewhat due to the need of the game to field units of a single troop type, which often did not happen. Overall the system seems keyed to duplicate the EIA OB system as exactly as possible, regardless of historical discrepancies.

My experience is that most miniature players are too much into historical detail to support that type of environment, though I really don't think its an issue. If an 1806 Prussian "corps" has 15 factors of infantry (30,000 men), then the players will likely field four infantry divisions each of two brigades, each of two musketeer regiments and a single grenadier battalion with a 12 lb foot battery attached, because that was the way the Prussians did it in 1806. If there are light infantry factors present then each division gets a fusilier regiment, and if their are cavalry factors present, then each division gets half a hussar regiment with any left over factors going into brigades of dragoons and kurassiers, each with a horse battery. There wouldn't be a corps commander because the Prussians didn't use corps ion 1806, regardless of what the counter might be designated. And if a strength point does equal 2000 men, that's pretty easy to translate into the number of miniatures or stands of miniatures one would field.

To me, at least, I don't see an issue for a reasonably knowledgeable set of players, and it does seem like a simpler way to go than the NB campaign system.

The rub comes in the period 1805 - 1807 when most miniature rules very, VERY heavily favor the French, to the extent human skill may not make enough of a difference. And many of the differences are subtle. Consider 1806 French and Prussian infantry. In my own published rules they fire the same, but the French move 50% faster and all French infantry are designated light infantry and can deploy skirmishers regardless of title. Conversely, no Prussian infantry is defined as light, even those who are so titled. Now there are some differences between armies in EIA that lean towards the French, but I'm just curious if what seems to be a bigger advantage with lead is actually present, and will it skew the EIA game system in ways unanticipated.

Personally, I wouldn't want to redefine strength points (each French SP = 1500 men, for example) just to re-balance the game, as that moves the contest too far from history to me. If 60,000 Prussians tackle 60,000 French in 1806 with all their advantages thereof, well, that's life.

JMTSW. YMMV

Regards, Bill Gray

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
My experience is that most miniature players are too much into historical detail to support that type of environment,

Which is probably right and why I think I'm struggling with the idea myself. After decades of pushing lead around the table I'm focused on minute detail. Nevertheless, you raise some good points:

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
though I really don't think its an issue. If an 1806 Prussian "corps" has 15 factors of infantry (30,000 men), then the players will likely field four infantry divisions each of two brigades, each of two musketeer regiments and a single grenadier battalion with a 12 lb foot battery attached, because that was the way the Prussians did it in 1806.

I guess thats fine, particularly in the early stages of a campaign. But what strikes me immediately as a problem when we abstract the soldiers in this way is what happens when I boldy use my elite units, like the grenadiers mentioned above, and get them killed in the process....next battle they can magically appear again, and again, and again.

The above shows my baggage as a tactical commander with miniatures, but even if we accept that, would it not skew the battles over time when the best performing troop types are continually fielded -and- used up only to keep reappearing? I don't know that I'm being completely clear in what I mean here. I'm probably focusing on too much detail that really ultimately doesn't matter at the strategic/political level which EiA is played at..

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
If there are light infantry factors present then each division gets a fusilier regiment, and if their are cavalry factors present, then each division gets half a hussar regiment with any left over factors going into brigades of dragoons and kurassiers, each with a horse battery. There wouldn't be a corps commander because the Prussians didn't use corps ion 1806, regardless of what the counter might be designated. And if a strength point does equal 2000 men, that's pretty easy to translate into the number of miniatures or stands of miniatures one would field.

To me, at least, I don't see an issue for a reasonably knowledgeable set of players, and it does seem like a simpler way to go than the NB campaign system.

Mmmm, you are probably right. Seems sensible at the level we are playing at. I do wonder about special formations...like Grenadier brigades (or divisions) in say...the Russian Army, but I guess similarly to above you could account for say a single Grenadier brigade every few regular line divisions?

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
The rub comes in the period 1805 - 1807 when most miniature rules very, VERY heavily favor the French, to the extent human skill may not make enough of a difference.

Yes, this is a big problem which is why I usually advocate some sort of prowess based points system. I don't mind French line being 'twice as good' but I need to have twice as many Russians to face you on an even field. (not quite true of course, but you get the idea).

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
And many of the differences are subtle. Consider 1806 French and Prussian infantry. In my own published rules they fire the same, but the French move 50% faster and all French infantry are designated light infantry and can deploy skirmishers regardless of title. Conversely, no Prussian infantry is defined as light, even those who are so titled.

Yes, and the subtlety is really hard to measure in a way that makes sense for a points system - this is the oldest argument in miniatures wargaming...perhaps your conclusion (below) is as good a solution as any.

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
Now there are some differences between armies in EIA that lean towards the French, but I'm just curious if what seems to be a bigger advantage with lead is actually present, and will it skew the EIA game system in ways unanticipated.

Hmm, I'd say this is quite likely, however will just as likely be compensated for by the players themselves forming coalitions against france.

ORIGINAL: hmgs1
Personally, I wouldn't want to redefine strength points (each French SP = 1500 men, for example) just to re-balance the game, as that moves the contest too far from history to me. If 60,000 Prussians tackle 60,000 French in 1806 with all their advantages thereof, well, that's life.

Its a reasonable argument which I've seen before in NTW2 (Napoleonic Total War 2) where all battles are more or less 'one-offs'. However, eventually no-one wants to play Prussia if there is almost no chance of winning a field encounter (regardless of skill). Luckily, in a campaign situation you can try to always present on the field with larger numbers of troops thus countering your french enemies inherent advantages with numbers. In EiA this is probably hard however as the French are able to produce and maintain relatively huge armies whereas the smaller major powers will have a struggle to always present at a battle with greater numbers of troops.

Its an interesting topic. I wonder if anyone reading this has or is going to transfer battles to the miniatures table (or use a 3rd party napoleonics computer gaming system)?

Cheers,
Moopere

[lavisj]

Having played both EiA (FtF) and miniatures, I would be very carefull about trying to make a connection between the two game systems. For one part, EiA is a strategic game while most miniature rules system are tactical systems (Grand Tactical at best). As was pointed out, the EiA does not allow the same subtelty in terms of troop kinds that the miniature system offers and therefore one would have to physically keep track of those things.

But I think most importantly, the battle of EiA in my sens does not represent a one day battle per se, but a one month campaigning. The Corps present are the forces in the theater of operation but not necessarily the troops on the field. Most tactical option chit actually refer to strategic (at the very least Grand Tactical) options. This is evident for the Probe, Outflank, Echellon and withdrawal options.

Thus is one was going to play the things with miniatures, one would actually have to play the whole campaign. It is not uncommon that not all the available troops in the area participate in the battle. So, even though it could seem fun to take the forces of an EiA and play it in miniatures, it would, in my opinion, unbalance the game.

If you were to do it, I would suggest using a rule system which is as close as possible from the EiA scale (a brigade system) and try to do a mini campaign of the few days prior, and days after (remember that pursuit).

my 2 cents
Jerome

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: lavisj

Having played both EiA (FtF) and miniatures, I would be very carefull about trying to make a connection between the two game systems. For one part, EiA is a strategic game while most miniature rules system are tactical systems (Grand Tactical at best). As was pointed out, the EiA does not allow the same subtelty in terms of troop kinds that the miniature system offers and therefore one would have to physically keep track of those things.

Mmm. There is probably little real scope for tracking the EiA factors in a foolproof way that would stand up to multi human interaction, thus the chatter about converting factors into points or money to allow players to 'purchase' (if you like) their field forces on the day of the battle in some sort of historically based way.

I struggle to swallow this as a long time miniatures player because for decades the individual companies of a battalion, let alone a whole infantry division have been really important to me. However, if I'm to accept EiA as a strategic system that will provide me with context for tabletop battles I guess I'll just have to find a way to work on past my objection.

ORIGINAL: lavisj
But I think most importantly, the battle of EiA in my sens does not represent a one day battle per se, but a one month campaigning. The Corps present are the forces in the theater of operation but not necessarily the troops on the field. Most tactical option chit actually refer to strategic (at the very least Grand Tactical) options. This is evident for the Probe, Outflank, Echellon and withdrawal options.

Ahh, now this is interesting and extremely important. I didn't think of this at all and you are 100% right. This would be were some folks are seeing a direct link in to the upcoming Les Grognards (Histwar:LG) game. LG promises to present us with 700sq km battlefields and army sized conflict wrapped up in a tactical engine. I'm impatient and want to force fit EiA battles into NTW2 or miniatures tactical systems and this is going to present me issues.

ORIGINAL: lavisj
Thus is one was going to play the things with miniatures, one would actually have to play the whole campaign. It is not uncommon that not all the available troops in the area participate in the battle. So, even though it could seem fun to take the forces of an EiA and play it in miniatures, it would, in my opinion, unbalance the game.

Excellent point! Grand tactical as a minimum which is probably interesting enough for me.

ORIGINAL: lavisj
If you were to do it, I would suggest using a rule system which is as close as possible from the EiA scale (a brigade system) and try to do a mini campaign of the few days prior, and days after (remember that pursuit).

Yep, sounds sensible. I'll focus my efforts around a model like this I think. It could actually solve (in a way) several inherent problems.

If I am able to accept that at the EiA Corps/Army level the units are really just bags of money/points, then, when a conflict occurs I need to get the opposing sides to build up their field armies which are full of the detail us miniatures players love, play out a mini campaign with those and then transfer the survivors back into EiA factors at the end.

Sounds quite do-able. Very thought provoking.

Cheers, Moopere

[lavisj]

Moopere, there is a "rule" in C2 that commander only worry about two level downs. So the scales of EiA make sens as a ruler of the country you will only worry about Armies and Corps.
Now when you bring this to the miniature level you become an army commander. And therefore should only worry about Corps (Columns) and Divisions (or 1813 Prussian Brigades). In this sens it resolve the issue of detail of the type of troops, this is why a brigade level is more suited. I do not really like the idea of buying troops, I would rather use some standard system.
 
But to some extent really the issue of destruction of elite brigade or divisions is not really an issue as most wargame inflate casualties as the miniature casualties correspond to dead and wounded, stragglers, loss of combativity etc. We often see complete anihilation of units in a miniature wargame but this actually rarely happened. One of the worst firefight of this period (Albuera) saw the destruction of "only" 60% of the units present which for the time was horrendous. But in such a case the units are just dissolved and reshuffled in other formations.
What I am trying to say is that even though the miniature battle saw the destruction of the brigade (in gane terms) it would not be completely destroyed. And probably the proportion of troops (grenadiers / jaeger / etc....) would be preserved in the new OOB.
 
But really what it also means is that in the conversion between the two systems you have to take the "casualty abstraction" into account in order to go back to EiA otherwise you will inflate real casualties.
 
I seem to remember that Empire had a campaign rule set that allowed that conversion.
 
Jerome

[BoerWar]

If I take 2 factors of Guard into a miniature battle and get 80% or more of them killed then I should lose my 2 factors of guard in EIA. Beyond that I think it is reasonable enough to abstract it. If I lose most of my light troops in a miniature battle then I think it is likely I would as a commander on a grander scale turn some of the remaining troops I have into light troops. While this might in reality somewhat dilute the "quality" of my light troops over time I think it is a reasonable abstraction for game purposes at the level being played here. Not to mention the fact that troops "eliminated" on the miniature board don't neccesarily mean they were all killed. Maybe some where scattered or wounded and latter recovered or regrouped. This may be why miniature games appear to be more bloody than EIA.

[moopere]

Good points again:

ORIGINAL: lavisj
I do not really like the idea of buying troops, I would rather use some standard system.

I'm not against this per se, but think it might result in lots of very similar scenarios. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean exactly. But if we're talking about a straight conversion formula, say:

4 factors = 2 line brigades
6 factors = 2 line brigades + artillery + light cavalry or specialised unit (grenadiers)

and so on and so forth, then won't we end up playing out essentially the same game on the tabletop time and time again?

ORIGINAL: lavisj
But really what it also means is that in the conversion between the two systems you have to take the "casualty abstraction" into account in order to go back to EiA otherwise you will inflate real casualties.

I seem to remember that Empire had a campaign rule set that allowed that conversion.

Ahh, now thats interesting. Anyone like to guess at how EiA distributes casualties? I've not seen this raised before by anyone. If, by and large, 3rd party combat systems meter out far larger casualties than EiA would under similar circumstances then this could really skew the game. I know that NTW2 for instance usually ends a one-off battle with greater than 80% casualties on both sides....completely ahistorical.

Moopere

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar
If I take 2 factors of Guard into a miniature battle and get 80% or more of them killed then I should lose my 2 factors of guard in EIA.

Probably important because EiA uses guard Corps in a special way and they really 'matter' as a result. However, in reality, your comments below are probably close to the real historical truth, including Guard...didn't the French Middle Guardsmen magically become Old Guard after Russia in 1812 when the true Old Guard (the Old old guard?) was essentially destroyed during the retreat?

ORIGINAL: BoerWar
Beyond that I think it is reasonable enough to abstract it. If I lose most of my light troops in a miniature battle then I think it is likely I would as a commander on a grander scale turn some of the remaining troops I have into light troops. While this might in reality somewhat dilute the "quality" of my light troops over time I think it is a reasonable abstraction for game purposes at the level being played here.

I'd like to think so too, but I'm struggling to accept that at the tactical level I won't be more inclined to 'use up' my elite units knowing that tomorrow/next week/next month I'll essentially get them back again. Why send militia into the face of the grand battery when I've got more capable Grenadiers right at hand?

However, ultimately, I think you are right. EiA is grand strategic in the grandest manner possible (!!), I just can't hold on to the tiny details.

ORIGINAL: BoerWar
Not to mention the fact that troops "eliminated" on the miniature board don't neccesarily mean they were all killed. Maybe some where scattered or wounded and latter recovered or regrouped. This may be why miniature games appear to be more bloody than EIA.

Fair enough. I guess depending on the rules used and the perceived 'bloodiness factor' we'd reduce battlefield casualties by some factor so as not to skew the EiA results.

Cheers, Moopere

[gazfun]

4 factors = 2 line brigades
6 factors = 2 line brigades + artillery + light cavalry or specialised unit (grenadiers)

Moopere this is far too abstract, that will get you into trouble converting back to EiA figures
The equation for Napoleons Battles Rules gives far better flexibility.

[moopere]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

4 factors = 2 line brigadess
6 factors = 2 line brigades + artillery + light cavalry or specialised unit (grenadiers)

Moopere this is far too abstract, that will get you into trouble converting back to EiA figures
The equation for Napoleons Battles Rules gives far better flexibility.

Anyone know of an online source of this Napoleons Battles Suppliment detailing the suggested conversion from EiA to NB? I've scoured around and can't find more than a whiff. Seems a shame to have to reinvent the wheel on stuff like this.

Cheers, Moopere