Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: inqistor
So, considering, that they produced larger submarines actual in-game cost is close to history.

Japanese ship costs from your link seems rather strange on a whole, with escorts being significantly more expensive than destroyers... So I wouldn't be too quick to trust these numbers. They might not take into account wartime inflation or be simply miscalculated.

[FatR]

So, the air changes.

Part 1, and probably the biggest: tweaks for more history-like balance.

Well, I have no overall complaints about the air combat model in AE, but I can't help to notice that a number of planes is considerably under/overmodelled, which is particularly easy to notice when they have a counterpart which was notably less successful in IRL.

A1)The biggest offender here, in terms of overall importance to the war, is Hellcat. RL: the most successful fighter of the Pacific war, with over two times as many claims as any other Allied fighter, despite debuting in combat significantly later than Corsairs and Lightnings, and better claim-to-loss ratio than other major contenders. AE: Allied players only ever use Hellcats at all because they have no control over production. Corsairs are superior in literally every way past 43/10 (F4U-1A has slightly worse ceiling, but this only matters against A6M5/A6M5b/A6M8, other Japanese aircraft of the period either are better than both or worse than both; on later models Corsair becomes an altitude demon as well). Even the initial F4U-1 model only lacks in service rating and not being carrier-capable, otherwise it is better than F6F-3. Hellcat is also the weakest third-generation Allied fighter in general and does not stack well against, say, Shiden.

Solution: +2 MVR across the board to all Hellcat versions. Durability 34 to all Hellcats. -2 MVR acrosss the board to all Corsair versions. Durability 32 to all Corsairs (not only Hellcat, AFAIK, simply carried more armor, better handling in the air = better chances to retain control and survive if the plane gets damaged).
As a consolation prise, F4U-1D and F4U-4 will get to carry 3x1000 lb bombs, to reflect their prominence and superior practical payload in ground attack role (this is a bit of a stretch, but as AE generally gives maximum possible payloads anyway, pretty close to normal RL capabilities).


A2)Hurricane IIa/b/c. RL: probably the worst second-generation Allied fighter in the theatre. AE: probably the best. See this thread, for example:
tm.asp?m=2756276

Solution: DUR -1 acrosss the board, MVR -2 at low altitudes and -3/-4 at high altitudes across the board. As Scen 70 features a reduction in experience for IJNAF pilots, this should not be too unfair to the Allies... Oh, and armor on IId fighter-bomber version should be reduced to 1. Only the most protected aircraft have 2, it wasn't one of them.


J1)Ki-49 Donryu sure rocks, beginning from IIa model. There is a strong argument, to which I personally subscribe, that you should build it for the entire war, never using Ki-67s except as torpedo bombers. One must wonder, why IRL this plane never managed to replace the obsolete Ki-21.

Solution: Reduce Ki-49 payload to 3x250 kg bombs in all versions. Historically the main complaint about this plane was its underpoweredness, i.e., inability to operate satisfactorily with normal load. Its effective practical load was stated to be below that of Ki-21. Add armor to Ki-21-IIb, because better fuel tank protection and pilot armor was, in fact, installed on all and nearly all, respectively, planes of this modification. Shift Ki-21-IIb production date to 42/8. I'm not sure about this date, actually, because all sources I've found state that this model was put into production somewhere in 1942... This is just so that late availability of Ki-21-IIb won't be too much of an argument for Ki-49.


Now when easy things are out of the way... to the most interesting part, IJAAF fighters. But this will have to wait for my next post.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: FatR
I looked at my copy of BabesLite... still no Effect value. See:

Well poo !! Looks like it got lost in the shuffle. Going to have to fix that.

[FatR]

Well, forgot a couple more things:

J2)While they both are mostly fit for training alone, there is no reason to build Ki-51 over Ki-30. Existing survivability bonuses are immaterial, the ability to carry a 250-kg bomb to a longer range is not.

Solution: Give Ki-51 armor it historically had right away... and allow Ki-51b to carry a 250-kg bomb as well.


J3)As noted and explained in details here:
tm.asp?m=2631884
D4Y Judy divebomber was shafted unrealistically hard by the removal of droptank. From numbers cited by Brady I can suggest 10/12 hexes normal/extended range for D4Y.

[John 3rd]

I like the Hellcat--Corsair and Hurricane II changes. Seems much more 'right' for these aircraft.

Know less about the Japanese bombers so I'll leave that alone.

Had read the thread discussing Judy's range and wholeheartedly concur with that modification. It is appropriate and based on good info.

[FatR]

So, IJAAF fighters.

Take note, that here I want not only to move closer to history if possible, but also to create several possible options in which a player can move his production. I believe changes to IJNAF in Scen 70 make the production game less than linear, and I hope to add more viable choices here as well.

There is alot of strange stuff going on with IJAAF mid-war fighters statblocks. The result is well-known: everyone builds Tojos, because Ki-43 has its MVR drop like a rock on later modifications, and Ki-61, besides its service rating problem, is given range that makes its useable only as a point defense 4E interceptor. So while Tojo has its own pieces of strangeness, like Ki-44-I and Ki-44-IIa available on the same month, or 4x12.7 configuration only appearing in 1944, it's the only choice that works for IJAAF at all from late 1942 to early 1944. This... is not exactly as things happened IRL. So let's look at what can be done here to possibly find a better compromise between simulation and playability.

1)Ki-43 (I'm primarily using Aero Derail 29 for history of its modifications here, supplemented by stats from other sources). Following things are weird with its later modifications:

- Speed skyrockets to almost 590 km/h on IIIa, with proportional increases on earlier models. Other sources state 555-576 km/h as its max speed. Now, I do believe that commonly accepted speed figures for many Japanese fighters sell them short, but as they are usually compensated for this by great MVR, said figures are adequate for AE purposes. There is no need to inflate numbers.
- Speaking of MVR, for later Ki-43s it drops by about 14 points. By comparison, the least maneurable Zero version has its MVR reduced only by 9 points, compared to A6M2, and most only by 4.
- Ki-43-IV(IIIb, cannon-armed modifications) exists in the game. No such luck IRL, it was found to be unusable. There also are mentions of cannon-armed Ki-43 version that used Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine, but Aero Detail does not mention that, so probably it's mistaken for the same two cannon-armed prototypes.
- IIIa is available too late, the production actually started in July of 1944 and by August of 1944 64th Sentai was already using Model III.

Solution: Use 308/320/358 Speed for Ki-43-I/II/III. Sharply reduce MVR drop in return, at least for low altitudes, so it will keep the definitive edge in this area. While extra weight reduced the turning ability, practical maneurability of late-war Ki-43s might have been even higher, due to much reduced threat of mid-air disintegration. Remove the cannon modification.
Also, while I reduced payload to 1x250kg bomb before, as, to my knowledge, the usual loadout was a bomb under one wing and a droptank under another, AE, as mentioned above, generally uses maximum bombloads normally possible, so, I now think, it should go back to 2x250.

Of course, all this won't keep Ki-43 from becoming obsolete by 1944, as it should. However, this hopefully should keep it more competitive in 1943 and survivable in its, ahem, unique tactical niches (like low-level dive bait on CAP/flying ablative armor for bombers), so that the players won't be so tempted to shut the production down as soon as they have alternatives.


2)Ki-44. Oh well, this is a tricky plane to find information about. There are only a few books, which are scarcely more informative than Francillon and contradict each other on matters like late-modifications armament. Anyway, I think a couple of issues still can be identified:

- I and IIa models are available on the same month, September of 1942, too late for the former and too early for the latter.
- 4x12.7 is stated everywhere to be standard Model II armament before they started cramming heavy cannons into Ki-44, in AE we must wait until 1944 to get it.
- Armor on IIc. In AE to qualify for Armor 1 a fighter needs fuel tank protection + armored pilot seat, and all Ki-44 of Model II apparently got these. There are mentions that they were insufficient against Allied HMGs, but Ki-43-IIb gets Armor 1 despite approximately in the same league... Anyway, it seems like either all planes of Model II warrant Armor 1, or none does.
- And not a flow, but a question is - IRL, Ki-44-III model, re-engined (to an engine that probably should be Ha-45 in AE terms) existed and apparently was useable, except for usual Japanese problems with engine reliability. Should we include it in the game? In RL it mostly got shelved because Ki-84 was almost ready for production.

Solution: First, tone down MVR by 3 at low altitudes and 1 at high altitudes on early Tojos (up to IIb), by 3 at low altitudes only on cannon-armed versions, so other improvements won't make Ki-44 overwhelming. MVR 23-21 is still by no means bad, but a number of nimbler Allied planes can now compete with Ki-44 in this area, so things will be as they should be.
Make Model Ia available around 8/42. IIb on 12/42. Give it 4x12.7 armament, Armor 1. Let's skip IIa, apparently only a handful of planes were built and production lasted less than a month. IIc is available on 5/42 and is armed as IIb in stock. Once upon a time there were arguments on these forums about Tojo's armament, and though I failed to find the thread, I remember that there were references to primary sources, indicating that indeed about half of the overall production run used 40mm cannons in the wings.
There were later modifications with 20mm or 37mm cannons in the wings, but they seem to be not widely used. If you want, I can add Ki-44-III for early 1944, with armament of 2x20+2x37, speed around 390, significantly reduced MVR and Service Rating 2.

You might note, that these changes make Ki-44 less of a dogfighter, but more capable of handling Allied bombers. This is intentional, of course. Well, IIb still will be a good all-around fighter, if less nimble than Ki-44s in stock. But the line will only give the player pure interceptors later on.

I'm still busy, so I'll touch Ki-61 and Ki-84 later.

[John 3rd]

Nice detail and well thought out ideas Sir.

Oscar Models (Ki-43):
Speed looks good, dropping the MVR seems fine, but not sure regarding 2x250 bombs. Could that delicate of a plane realistically carry them?

Tojo Models (Ki-44):
Like production deployment times (8/42--12/42--5/43) for the differing models. LOVE the idea of 4x12.7MM for armament on the IIa. I just changed research away from my Tojo's due to marginal differences in the models. There is now a real choice to work with. Dropping the MVR is good to counter other tweaks.

Also remember a highly detailed Thread discussing the issue of Tojo and armament. Does anyone remember that?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Nice detail and well thought out ideas Sir.

Oscar Models (Ki-43):
Speed looks good, dropping the MVR seems fine, but not sure regarding 2x250 bombs. Could that delicate of a plane realistically carry them?

I meant MVR should be dropped less. I already reduced the drop a bit for the previous build, but was too indecisive about that.

As about 2x250kg, technically later modifications of Ki-43 certainly could lift as much, one under each wing. Not with a droptank at the same time (so two bombs were hardly ever carried in actual fighter-bomber and kamikaze operations, probably because bombload increased fuel consumption, and Japanese usually were forced to operate from distant airfields late in the war), but AE apparently gives every fighter its max bombload without droptanks as standard.

As about the thread with Tojo armament discussion, probably it is the thread I've referred already, but I can't find it, because I don't remember its title or OP.

And to be cleark do you approve putting Ki-44-III in the mod?

[John 3rd]

Ahhhh...understand the MVR comment now. Thanks.

Want to be careful with any IJA changes due to what the thrust of the Mod is. Is the Ki-44-III based on a real plane? I got the impression from your Post that it was, however, Frank was so superior the Model didn't get much of a run.

[FatR]

Yes, it was a real-life plane, that never got past the trial series, because Tojo production was fairly small to begin with and changing the engine was deemed not being worth the effort, when Ki-84 was almost ready. There is also seems to be a controversy about its armament, as multiple sources state 37mm cannons in the wings, for both Model III and IIc but Schiffer's "Japanese Aircraft Equipment" states that no Japanese 37mm cannons were suitable for wing mounting...

EDIT: Sigh... Another stated variant of Model 3 armament was 4x20, but that will make it all-around great. Oh well. I can propose the following:

1)Either introduce Ki-44 Model II with 20mm cannons in the wings in the middle of 1944 (which was yet another stated armament configuration) if we want it to be viable later in the war...

2)Or stop the model line at IIb.

EDIT2: To clarify a bit, Ki-44-IIIa with 4x20mm cannons and reasonable other stats, combined with other changes, will make the payoff from building this whole line so big, that it will once again be an overall favorite. From the positions of both historical plausibility and making player's choices more interesting, I'd much prefer to keep Ki-44 a star of 1943, that will burn out in a year. In the current stock I expect to build Ki-44-IIc model for the entire war, because everything that is actually beter than it has Service Rating 3+. Except Ki-100-II which is available 18 months later and offers such marginal improvements, that I can't bring myself to care.

[John 3rd]

Heck--I don't know. The 4x20mm would ROCK!

Does anyone beyond FatR and I have a comment on this? Is there perhaps a benchmark text that AE follows as the Holy Grail (Fancillon?)?

[John 3rd]

OK. My Francillon Notes on Mister Tojo:

I-A armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
I-B armed with 4x12.7mm
I-C same but slightly faster

II-B 2x7x7mm and 2x12.7mm with new engine
II-C-1 4x12.7mm
II-C-2 4x20mm (deployed in small numbers and effective vs. bombers)
II-C-3 2x12.7mm and 2x37mm

III-A 4x20mm with new engine
III-B 2x20mm and 2x37mm

What a MESS! I begin to understand FatR's confusion over the choices. ALL of these variants were built and used--NUTS!

Mondey's Book:

I-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm
I-B/C 4x12.7mm

II-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm
II-B 4x12.7mm
II-C 4x20mm OR 2 12.7mm and 2 40mm

III-A 4x20mm
III-B 2 20mm and 2 37mm

Working through the consistencies of the two resources we have the following:

Tojo I Series
A 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
B/C 4x12.7mm

Tojo II Series
A 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
B 4x12.7mm
C 4x20mm

Tojo III Series
A 4x20mm
B 2x20mm and 2x37mm

Proposal: How about we work this as allowing five possible Tojo choices over its deployment life?

I-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm (initial plane)
I-C 4x12.7mm (armament upgrade to reflect lessons learned fighting Allied fighters)

II-B 4x12.7mm (new engine and improved characteristics)
II-C 4x20mm (built to fight bombers but worsened stats due to same engine but heavier guns)

III-A 4x20mm (new engine and HEAVY armament for bombers--FINAL Variant)

For whatever this is worth. Shot it down if anyone TOTALLY disagrees! [:'(]

[John 3rd]

AE lists the following deployment dates and their versions of Tojo as:

Ki-44 Tojo deployed in 9/42 armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm

Ki-44-IIa Tojo deployed in 08/42 armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm

Ki-44-IIb Tojo deployed in 7/43 armed with 2 12.7mm and 2 40mm

Ki-44-IIc Tojo deployed in 3/44 armed with 4 12.7mm

REVISED Deployment Times Proposal:
1. Ki-44 deployed in 08/42 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm (initial plane)

2. Ki-44-Ic deployed in 12/42 armed with 4x12.7mm (armament upgrade to reflect lessons learned fighting Allied fighters)

3. Ki-44-IIb deployed in 10/43 armed with 4x12.7mm (new engine and improved characteristics)

4. Ki-44-IIc deployed in 2/44 armed with 4x20mm (built to fight bombers but worsened stats due to same engine but heavier guns)

5. Ki-44-IIIa deployed in 6/44 armed with 4x20mm (new engine and HEAVY armament for bombers--FINAL Variant)

Players would see an improving fighter during the course of its life. The final version would make the choice between it and Frank a bit tougher and require some serious thinking as to which production lines to run and expand during the game.

I am not wedded to this set of Posts whatsoever. If there are other ideas/proposals out there then let us here them.

[FatR]

I think you have misread your Francillon, John. Model I and Model II differed by their engine, and the latter was put into production by November-December of 1942. Most Model I planes apparently were built with 2x7.7/2x12.7 armament, while Model II started using 4 HMGs after the first few planes. Take note, that our model designation is in large part artificial and post-factum... which explains much of the confusion. To avoid profileration of minor versions I already noted that I propose building only one Model I version with lighter armament, and start Model II with 4 HMGs right away (12/42).

As about 40mm wing guns, as I mentioned before, developers or someone else provided strong evidence before that 40mm-armed Tojo was a major production version. I want to leave it as is, available on 43/7 (it will have armor like all Model IIs now, but less MVR).

4x20mm configuration was probably technically possible but never used in practice on Model II, possibly due to shortage of 20mm cannons. By summer of 1944 this problem was mostly solved with mass production of Ho-5, so Model III can use it... the question is, should we make make Ki-44 a good all-around in-game choice it easily can be with such armament? I believe it is not out of the realm of possibility that Shoki could have remained very competitive late in the war IRL, with a new engine, but this might only reinforce its current dominance in the game... If you want Model III to be offered as an option, I propose reducing range, compared to Model 2, so it will be only useful for point defense, reducing MRV a bit more and giving it Service Rating 2. Availability around 44/5.

Still would have been a bit too good, had I not intended to give Allies much boost in the number of available airframes from the end of 1943.

[John 3rd]

Stanislav and I have had an email running during the day and I thought it better belonged on the Thread. Should be noted for every one or two Post we have here we have triple in emails I italics is Stanislav.

I am going to cut-and-paste the email in correct order so it is easier to read:

Subject: To avoid confusion...

Just take a direct look at my proposal for Tojos in the mod...

Also, fixed the number of turrets on Ibuki here.


Will place this file into my ‘Master’ file and will then take a serious look.

Got concerns yesterday about too many changes turning RA from an enhanced Japanese naval mod to something quite different. Think we need to be careful when it comes to that. Perhaps we settle on Tojo and then good enough. It is so tempting to work on everything, however, that is not the vision we settled on quite a while back. What do you think?

Am also concerned—the more I think about it—about Allied changes. I think ‘tweaks’ are OK, however, major changes could do the same thing I mentioned in the above paragraph. We’ll need to be careful there as well. Perhaps we should identify 2-3 things we all agree on for changes and leave it at that with the Allies...


I believe that what I'm doing to air side is not althistory but bringing stuff closer to history. Except Ki-44-III. Which we might avoid, if we don't want alternatives here... Believe me, if would have moved to far deeper changes, like making Nakakima fighters progress like Ki-44 -> Ki-87, while removing Frank and Oscars and adopting Mitsubishi's fighters for the Army instead, if I was making real alternatives. I think we still need a couple of major changes, like making Ki-67's range not shit, sorting out Ki-84s modifications, and tweaking aircraft weapons so that twin-engined fighters can shoot down anything. Then I'll need a weak or two to test new stuff.

Forgot to say what I think about Allied reinforcements:
- More less-than-cutting edge US planes from late autumn of 1943. In order of increase Second generation fighters -> Single-engine bombers -> Twin-engine bombers. More Hellcats late in 1944, no increase to other third-generation fighters or anything else.
- I think you should better shift extra Allied CVLs to 1944. Adding a dozen or two of subs and DEs would have been nice, but that's on your discretion, I can't think of names for them anyway.

Thanks for the response. My mind just sat chewing on this last night and I wanted to see what you thought. Spoke to Michael on the phone about it as well.


Would you mind if I posted these onto the Thread? Would love to comment and brainstorm some on the above and below Posts. I think we have some lurkers who have been afraid to jump into the discussion and contribute their thoughts. This might help.

John

Will place this file into my ‘Master’ file and will then take a serious look.

[FatR]

Just wanted to clarify - I meant Ki-61 there, not Ki-67[:)]. John, you might edit that.

[FatR]

Anyway, proposals for Ki-61 and Ki-84, very briefly this time:

Ki-61: This plane sucks from start to finish, except maybe for Ic version, which does not upgrade from earlier ones, and even Ic is good only for point-defense beyond Allied fighters range. Range is a hex or two too low on earlier modifications and much too low on KAId, MVR is worse than Tojo, altitude performace is just as bad as on other Japanese planes (all of this applies to Ki-100 derivatives as well, although them we have already mended, except perhaps forgetting to add greater ceiling to Ki-100-II, compared to Ki-100-I). Add Service Rating 3 and you'll see why it is only used to intercept bombers at major hubs. I already tried to raise high-altitude MVR a bit on the previous build, but did not go far enough. Needs major buff overall. And I think I did wrong by cutting its final model upgrade to Ki-100.

Ki-84: (I'm using Kagero #18 here as my main reference)

- The speed should increase later in the production. Pre-production Ki-84a were slower than FW-190A-4, late production Ki-84 were on late-war Corsair/Mustang level, with same fuel and service both times. Of course in real practice topspeed was worse due to fuel/mainenance problems but with increase in engine power by up to 175 hps one would except some serious boost. Reliability of the engine was also increased on later models (Ki-84's engine had two major problems, sudden loss of power due to malfunction of the fuel system and inefficient oil cooler, leading to easy overheating; the former was eventually dealt with, the latter wasn't, that's why I gave 84b Service Rating 2 in the current Scen 70 build).

- Ki-84b is not upgraded from Ki-84a, something I didn't notice for a looong time, because it makes no sense. I bet this was an unpleasant surprise to other people as well.

- Ki-84r, present in the game, was not greenlighted for prototype construction, never mind production. Ki-84N/Ki-117 using Nakajima Ha-44 engine was. And even it had not much chances of ever going into production, considering the condition of Japanese industry. If we want to stick close to reality, Ki-116, using Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine, and featuring slightly lesser speed, but even greater maneurability (due to lesser weight and much reduced wing loading) was the most likely final production model of Ki-84. It was built, tested and considered good.

- So I propose to up Ki-84b speed, to make it upgrade from Ki-84a, and to make it upgrade either to Ki-116, or to nothing.

[darbycmcd]

Well, I was not going to say anything until I saw that John was already posing it, but this is getting very far afield from the 'admiral' mod i think in some danger of moving into just another buff out the japanese fanboi mod. especially hitting the allied planes, now adding a Army interceptor... i really liked this mod as an alt history, and there was a lot of interesting work put in. but this changing of plane stats is not encouraging. they were well researched using a uniform methodology originally, and a thread with a couple of whiners notwithstanding, i don't think changing them is justified by more than a bit of wishful thinking.

i realize it is your baby, and if i don't like it i don't have to play it but i played the last version and liked it, i was hoping for a more refined version of that. maybe we could get two versions, one with the changes that are rationalized with the origional premise, and a second one that is the 'FatR dream' mod? or is there at least a comprehensive change log so we can roll back some of the more... imaginative... changes?

[John 3rd]

FatR and Darby: Thanks for the commentary.

Would really like some of the other RA Players to jump in and toss out their thoughts? My concerns are growing instead of diminishing.

[FatR]

Darbymcd, if you don't like my changes, you are more than welcome to state where they are historically incorrect or fanboyish. There are commonly observed facts that, for example:

Hellcat is inferior to Corsair in every single stat, except ceiling, and even in ceiling after a certain point, despite being much more successful IRL.
Hurricane was a flying coffin IRL, never achieving even close to 1:1 losses against Japanese, and is godly (by early-war Allied standards) in AE.
Ki-49 is the best overall IJAAF bomber in the game, even though it was a failure IRL.
Ki-51 is not worth building compared to the planes it historically replaced.
Ki-44 was the least common of IJAAF fighter types IRL, but it relegates anything else to secondary roles in the game until at least Ki-84r is available. Ki-61 was considered by Japanese a superior fighter overall, as evidenced, I don't know, by much higher production, but its stats are flatly inferior, even before we take into account crippling Service Rating; Ki-43 is no longer remotely capable of battling even Allied fighters into 1943; Ki-84 is better, but not by that much, and is crippled by SR.
Ki-45 KAIa should be never upgraded to later models and is quite probably your fighter-bomber for the entire war, its successors and other 2E fighters with a big centerline gun are useless, because these guns have 10-20% of a 20mm gun accuracy and don't even double its damage.

That, except probably Ki-51 bit, is not my bias, that's how people rate aircraft across multiple AARs, that's is what advised on forums to build (when we talk about Japanese aircraft), that is how things work. And they work not at all life-like.

Of course, darbymcnd, you or anyone, again, is also welcome to tell me why my position on a particular aircraft is wrong. I recognize, that my knowledge can be easily outdated or flawed, due to mostly coming from old and cursory secondary sources and reading j-aircraft.org[:)]. Without appeals to authority, though. I respect devs' work, but the very fact that it still gets constantly tweaked shows that it isn't flawless. And as you can see, if you look at all, my changes introduce not only improvements, but also significant nerfs to Japanese. With them they will never get a bomber as good as Ki-49-IIb, and their Ki-44s will never be as all-around good as Ki-44-IIc in stock, and this is pretty significant. So I don't get from where your fanboyism accusations are coming.