Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pelton

tm.asp?m=2922689

Your circular auto-citations add zero to your position.

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: Stoat

Let us say we'd like to achieve the most realistic historical simulation (as above, with reasonable abstractions such that it remains playable). I think we'd all like the game to be able to produce some range of outcomes, rather than every game producing the same outcome, because that would be pointless and no fun to play.

Some on this forum have in fact expressed this view, and moreover feel that this is in fact the current state of affairs. I do not share this view, but I am sympathetic to it, because over many AARs I think we can observe what to me personally is quite a narrow distributions of outcomes.

So this is my idea:

1) IF we can agree on what historically occurred, then we can assign this a numerical value of 0, representing no deviation from the mean historical outcome.
3) Over a sufficient number of samples, if the game is not hardwired to produce the same result every time, we will observe a distribution of outcomes.
3) Perhaps we can agree that the mean observed (played) out come should more or less equal the historical outcome (0 error or deviation).
4) ...

Very clearly expressed. One thing is bothering me though if we go into the 'simulation/modelization' path (which is different from the 'historical' or the 'fun gameplay' paths).

Why should the actual history which is just ONE sample be the mean of the model ?

I'd like to try to answer saintsup before JAMiAM, because his question really captured my interest, and because it forms an underpinning of the greater question of "what balance of play/balance of outcomes should we have".

Why to Aim for a Play Balance with a Mean Outcome Equalling the Historical Result

Premièrement, mon cher saintsup, thank you for the kind words, and moreover, thank you for understanding! Your question contains the implied criticism that the mean desired outcome need not be the historical outcome. Let us try to reframe your argument, and restate it in mathematical terms so we can solve it. We will show that we are living in a universe which is almost certainly not the product of mean outcomes, and that you are logically, if not politically, correct not to fixate on the historical outcome.

An overarching assumption: let us believe that we live in a universe where different outcomes can occur, that is, believe we live in one of an infinite number of possible universes, where at each point in Time, an infinite number of alternate universes branch out from their common root reality, increasing the number of universes in the "multiverse" (the set of all universes). Let us believe this, rather than believing in Destiny, that is, that there is only one, predetermined future, one universe, and one path of history which Time must follow. I think as gamers, it is more useful, more meaningful & more fun for us to believe in a universe of possibilities than one where things will & must always turn out the same, so let's do it! Off we go...

I) Gedankenexperiment - Framework & Assumptions:

Let us conduct a thought experiment, making useful simplifications:

I.1) the root Universe started to exist at t(0) (aka the "Big Bang)
I.2) time increments in discrete, positive integer intervals, so after t(0) comes t(1), then t(2), etc... to some time t(n).
I.3) the state of each (simple) universe can be numerically represented as an integer.
I.4) At t(0) the value of the root Universe is 0.
I.5) At each increment of time, each root universe branches into 3 child universes.
I.6) Accordingly, the number of current universes in our multiverse at time n is 3^n, so for time t = [0, 1, 2, 3] we have u = [1, 3, 9, 27] universes.
I.7) At each time increment, the 3 "child" universes, of each "parent" universe having a value of v, have respective values of v-1, v, and v+1. So, if at t(n) a certain universe has a state or value of -2, at t(n+1) it will have branched into 3 child universes with values or states of -3, -2 & -1.
I.8) Let us call positive universe states "good", and negative states "bad". So, branching from the parent with state -2 above, the child with state -1 has had a "good" outcome whereas the child with state -3 has had a "bad" outcome.
I.9) The spawning of a child universe from its parent when time increments can be thought of as a "historical event"
I.10) Inhabitants of a given reality (a path of universes traced through time) have a memory of past events and have an awareness of historical events taking place, but have no basis on which to know the true numerical value of the universe in which they live.
I.11) Inhabitants of a given reality, while aware of current or past events, have no sense of whether these events are Good or Bad in the Grand Scheme of Things, that is as they impact (the numerical value of) the state of the universe.

II) Gedankenexperiment - Analysis:

We can now visualise the expansion or explosion of the Multiverse through time. If you sum up the number of instances of each universe state at each time, you can see a depiction similar to a Pascal's Triangle. What does it show? We see the incidence of universes with average (0) outcomes decreasing as the multiverse explodes over time, from a 100% incidence at the Big Bang to a 20.99% incidence at t(5) (51/243) to a 15.16% incidence at t(10) (8953/59049). I'm a bit cross with myself that I don't have the algebra for you to tell you at what rate the incidence of an average universe is decreasing, but this incidence seems to be approaching 0 as t(n) (time) approaches infinity. But what can we know from our perspective as mere mortals, if you, Zinzup, & I, are occupying one of these universes at a certain point in time?

We can know that we are not here at t(0), the Beginning of Time, because we have some knowledge of the past history of our universe. Assuming we have knowledge of several past historical events, we also know that the value of n is not very small, that is, we are not living at a time very close to the Big Bang. And thus we know, the chance we are living in an average universe, that is, a universe with v = 0, is extremely, probably infinitessimally small. And the chance that our universe is not only average, but was created through a succession of average events (in our reality, v = 0 for each t), is even so very much infinitessimally smaller than that.

Now, what about the incidences of universes with other values, i.e. where v <> 0? If we look at our Pascal's Triangle-type view summarising the multiverse through time, we can see that the average universe (v = 0) is also the mode or modal universe (the most frequently-occurring universe). So if it is almost certain that we are not living in a universe where v = 0, it is even more certain we are not living in a universe where v = -100 or one where v = +42.

So for all practical purposes, we know that we live in an extraordinary universe. We know we live in an extraordinary reality, one that came about through a long series of astronomically unlikely events. Somehow, it's wonderful to know this, isn't it?

And we really haven't the foggiest idea whether we live in a great universe, or a terrible universe, because it's the only one we have, and we have no basis on which to compare. If however, we had to guess, what should our guess be? Well, it's clear from a quick inspection of the multiverse that we should guess that we live in a universe where v = 0, an average universe. This is the guess with the minimum average error.

Similarly, if we were looking at any past event in our history, without having any basis upon which to evaluate it, we should similarly guess that it was an average universe at that time in the past. And lastly, evaluating any interval between two points in time, we could make no better guess than that an average chain of outcomes produced the latter state from the former.

III) Gedankenexperiment - Conclusions:

Having viewed our multiverse throughout all of time, let us change our perspective and zoom in much closer. Let us zoom in an unimaginable amount, on one particular bunch of creatures, inhabiting a particular universe at a particular point in time. These creatures, curious as they are, are united in their interest in a particular series of historical events that took place over a particular time interval in the history of their reality. You will find me fanciful, but entertain the idea for just a moment that some of these creatures have actually created a game representing this series of events, so that the whole group of them, either singly or in pairs, can play the game to achieve different outcomes, or to achieve the same outcome, and to derive pleasure from doing this.

Many of these creatures are highly knowledgeable about the history of these past events, and some have even devoted much of their lives, insignificant though they may be in any Grand Sense, to its study. Yet they have not seen the Multiverse as we have, they have not conducted the thought experiment we have, and they have no basis upon which to know whether a segment of their history was fantastically improbable or turned out about average. These little creatures are quite clever - they could immediately tell you with absolute confidence, for instance, that one of their number was lucky to have rolled a 12 on 2d6 at a critical moment in the brief blip of his existence. But they simply cannot see the immense range of what could have been, or what likely should have been, for they have not seen the Multiverse as we have, and hence can have no notion of the True Values of all possibilities.

IV) Gedankenexperiment - Epilogue:

If you'll just indulge me one moment further, imagine that the game these creatures had created was the greatest game in their history. In their entire Reality from t(0) to t(n), nothing so fine had ever been done. Imagine the happiness of these little creatures at such an accomplishment! And so they played the game. And the game, quite faithfully, repeated the history of their reality each time. It repeated it so faithfully, that virtually the same thing happened every time.

The strongest and the biggest group, perhaps including the most knowledgeable, had argued for this design. Knowing very well what had happened in their universe, but knowing nothing of any others, it pleased them to tread the same path over & over. And is this not natural? Is the powerful yearning of some small creatures to run in spinning wheels any different from the celestial Movements of the Spheres, in the Grand Scheme? At any rate, after much time, and a mighty effort, and many changes, these creatures had managed to transform their game from a contest in which one side must, with any reasonable play, win virtually 100% of the time, into a new game, in which one side must, with any reasonable play, win virtually 100% of the time. Still, the astronomically small chance of the underdog was acknowledged to have become slightly less infinitesimally small, and the consensus was that balance had finally been achieved. Those who were strongest and loudest fought a tenacious, disciplined and effective rearguard action to forbid an outcome other than that which occurred. For they knew their history. They knew quite well what had occurred, at least in their universe, they did.

I should not not wish to zoom into this little drama any further. I should not care to consider what would happen if one or two weaker creatures of low standing should dare to raise their voices against the many & the strong, hoping spend their time, short though it may be, playing in a world of possibilities rather than dooming themselves to relive Destiny on endless loop until the lights go out. For there have always been, are now, and always will be, little creatures struggling over any number of things throughout the Multiverse. They're fascinating to observe but one wonders what's the point of it all after a while, wouldn't you say?

And of all the things we've considered in our little journey together, I certainly shouldn't like to imagine trying to convince such a group of creatures, so deeply ensconced in the rich traditions of their own reality and so blithely unconcerned with the other possibilities woven into the Eternal Golden Braid, that the mean outcome of their game should be anything other than what happened.

You're entirely correct of course, to suggest that what did happen almost certainly wasn't an average outcome, but we shall have to content ourselves with our own agreement on this point.

Bravo Stoat!

It is interesting to note that the designers have decided that the following losses occurred historically (from comparing Soviet Industry from 41GC start to 42GC start):

Vehicle factories are 140 in 1941 and 137 in 1942 - a loss of 3.
Heavy Industries go from 236 to 217 - a loss of 19.
Armaments go from 370 to 339 - a loss of 31!
Manpower/City goes from 3937 to 2663 - a loss of 1274.

So the designers decided that the historic results were that the Axis did not do well in the factory destruction task during 1941 while the Soviets were quite good in moving out the industry.

Carlkay 58,

Do not confuse the discussion with facts and logic.

Thanks,

Marquo [:)]

My bad [&:]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The only question is are you going to defend this exploit that is unbalancing the game or are you looking for a fair fix that will make the game better in the long run?

I think its more then clear to all sides other then the hard liners who really don't care about fair play or a better game that something needs to be done to address this exploit.

Quite demagogic: You speak for "all sides". And it's your say to determine who are the hard liners and what is fair play and what is a better game.

If it is all broken, make your own *better* mod. You seem to have all the time to do so.

If you care about "fair balance" play chess.

I love this post. I think you add to Pelton's argument here. The game should be like chess, yes? so the players can rise and fall due to their skills playing a fair and balanced game...Some
people have stopped playing because of major issues that there seems to be only the faintest glimmer of hope left of ever being fixed. I hope this is not the case, and Rail and HVY are not the only major issues left.

ORIGINAL: entwood
I love this post. I think you add to Pelton's argument here. The game should be like chess, yes? so the players can rise and fall due to their skills playing a fair and balanced game...Some
people have stopped playing because of major issues that there seems to be only the faintest glimmer of hope left of ever being fixed. I hope this is not the case, and Rail and HVY are not the only major issues left.

You have to ask yourself what *is* "fair and balanced" in the first place?

That is, if the goal of the game is to present a scenario that is historically accurate, but simply allows the two sides to make strategic decisions as they see fit, then you have to consider the possibility that a sufficiently accurate game might not allow the Germans to ever score a victory in the first place.

On the other hand, if you define 'fair and balanced' as both sides having an equal opportunity to win, then you're treading closer towards the line of implausibility. I mean, of course one always has the option to create Chess-With-T-34s: The Game, but then that's not exactly a representation of what actually happened in the East Front.

This also leads into the question of what defines 'victory' as well. Do you simply aim to let the player 'do better' than history and take that with him as a prize, or are we to look at letting players achieve ultimate-decisive victory as the end-goal for balancing?

I think there is enough room for an Axis victory ;
Capturing Leningrad and linking the Finns is a step.
Capturing Moscow or a head-long retreat by the Soviets might have given Japan the courage to intervene and try and help finish Russia off
or perhaps if the Caucasus oil and other resources were secured, if not that
then the best answer of all;&nbsp;&nbsp; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7IxwOlr2PY

If it is just possible to convince the Dev's and eliminate some 'junk' left in this (great) game then even losing could be great and honorable fun

Thank you, very interesting AND funny. Do you know that in 10 years of wargame's forums you're the first to actually trying to answer the question.

IMHO, and if you aim more at pedagogy that funny show-off and for us mere mortals not familiar with multiverses and Pascal's triangle, I think that the Galton's device is a simpler analogy with June 41 at the top and May 45 at the bottom

ORIGINAL: Stoat
If however, we had to guess, what should our guess be? Well, it's clear from a quick inspection of the multiverse that we should guess that we live in a universe where v = 0, an average universe. This is the guess with the minimum average error.

And now: THE ANSWER. Never thought about that. It ends the discussion in a black-box simulation context.

However if we are more on a bottom-up modelization based on unitary laws like (for exemple ...) someone trying to recreate the whole east front war with (instead of the usual CRT) a detailed combat model based on fire power of each weapon and thickness orf armors, ..., one could wonder why put a posteriori on top of this detailed model some artificial constraints to force the mean of the model on history and to force the standard deviation based on the public opinion on the forum.

ORIGINAL: entwood

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The only question is are you going to defend this exploit that is unbalancing the game or are you looking for a fair fix that will make the game better in the long run?

I think its more then clear to all sides other then the hard liners who really don't care about fair play or a better game that something needs to be done to address this exploit.

Quite demagogic: You speak for "all sides". And it's your say to determine who are the hard liners and what is fair play and what is a better game.

If it is all broken, make your own *better* mod. You seem to have all the time to do so.

If you care about "fair balance" play chess.

I love this post. I think you add to Pelton's argument here. The game should be like chess, yes? so the players can rise and fall due to their skills playing a fair and balanced game...Some
people have stopped playing because of major issues that there seems to be only the faintest glimmer of hope left of ever being fixed. I hope this is not the case, and Rail and HVY are not the only major issues left.

Don't know what you're talking about.

I wouldn't like WitE to be balanced & fair like chess. Because it would take away realism and make it sciene fiction. There are lots of games out there which do so. GG games trademark is that they don't.

ORIGINAL: saintsup
..., one could wonder why put a posteriori on top of this detailed model some artificial constraints to force the mean of the model on history and to force the standard deviation based on the public opinion on the forum.

Interesting observation...and perhaps very true given the ebb and flow of the game changes as what seems to be -- at least partially -- a direct function of forum discussion\arguments.

But game play and game results are also skewed from the MEAN (the mean being the historical outcome) as a direct result of After Action Reports and optimal in-game tactics\strategy discussions on this forum. For example the opening Axis moves on Turn-1 of the GC41-45 has become almost scripted amongst numerous players as a direct result of these players glomming onto strategy and tactics as discussed here on this forum. Tell me that this issue is not a statistical monkey wrench that succeeds in skewing results away from the MEAN (the historical result). Hitler & Stalin didn’t have the luxury of reading through numerous previous Hitler and Stalin After Action Reports on how to fight the War in the East. Hitler & Stalin also didn’t have the luxury of quitting and restarting a GC every time they felt like they didn’t conduct their HQ Build-Ups correctly; Or quitting when they realized they should have been sending more divisions to defend Moscow; Or etc. They had to grind through "their GC" to the bitter end -- living with and trying to work through each one of their mistakes. Moreover, they didnt quit in February and April of 1942 and than go and complain to the world that the War is broken and we will need to restart.

My take is: focus on the basics of the game model. Nail down the combat model (both ground and air), the logistics model and production model. I think this is far more doable in terms of representing what is a typical or an atypical result, average or outlier. Test the engine against existing combat and logistical models. Focus on the micro detailing and let the chips fall where they may in terms of overall operational and\or strategic outcomes of campaigns and wars.

The ride of Col. Hessler, classic.

I do not want AH's Blitzkrieg, i would like a historical game of the eastern front.
I do not believe the Germans had no chance to win WW2 in the East. I think this game makes a German victory almost impossible, which is not realistic.
I think city and territory loss should cost morale which should slowly return as the Soviets realize that they have not lost the war yet.

However, I am intelligent enough to see the problem with this idea; with the level of German play we now have in an IGOUGO game this would mean that most games would end in a German victory in '41 or '42. I think that this highlights a problem the game has; the soviets CANNOT fight effectively in '41. I do not think this is accurate, the Soviets had severe doctrine and educational problems and were knocked off balance in June but the Germans still had to hit unit borders, weak spots etc. In this game we can just steamroll ahead which i do not think is historical.

Michael

ORIGINAL: lycortas

I think this game makes a German victory almost impossible, which is not realistic.

Michael

Not for everyone here: "Before 1.05 ... I won 9 out of 10 games 41-45 campiagns", declared one of our young Axis rising stars.

ORIGINAL: lycortas

The ride of Col. Hessler, classic.

I do not want AH's Blitzkrieg, i would like a historical game of the eastern front.
I do not believe the Germans had no chance to win WW2 in the East. I think this game makes a German victory almost impossible, which is not realistic.
I think city and territory loss should cost morale which should slowly return as the Soviets realize that they have not lost the war yet.

However, I am intelligent enough to see the problem with this idea; with the level of German play we now have in an IGOUGO game this would mean that most games would end in a German victory in '41 or '42. I think that this highlights a problem the game has; the soviets CANNOT fight effectively in '41. I do not think this is accurate, the Soviets had severe doctrine and educational problems and were knocked off balance in June but the Germans still had to hit unit borders, weak spots etc. In this game we can just steamroll ahead which i do not think is historical.

Michael

I am a German player but i would say the Germans had no chance of beating the Soviets. It is simply a matter of production. The Soviets could massively outproduce the Germans. Throw in Lend Lease from the allies and a multi front war and it should be obvious that the Germans had no chance.

Having said that i think for gameplay it would be great to have a scenario 2 like in WITPAE that is ahistorical to give the Germans a better shot at winning decisively. Barring that i would say winning for the Germans should be measured on doing better than they historically did.

It is unfortunate that this does not make for a more balanced and thus more fun game but alas history is history. We are not playing a fantasy game.

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: lycortas

The ride of Col. Hessler, classic.

I do not want AH's Blitzkrieg, i would like a historical game of the eastern front.
I do not believe the Germans had no chance to win WW2 in the East. I think this game makes a German victory almost impossible, which is not realistic.
I think city and territory loss should cost morale which should slowly return as the Soviets realize that they have not lost the war yet.

However, I am intelligent enough to see the problem with this idea; with the level of German play we now have in an IGOUGO game this would mean that most games would end in a German victory in '41 or '42. I think that this highlights a problem the game has; the soviets CANNOT fight effectively in '41. I do not think this is accurate, the Soviets had severe doctrine and educational problems and were knocked off balance in June but the Germans still had to hit unit borders, weak spots etc. In this game we can just steamroll ahead which i do not think is historical.

Michael

I am a German player but i would say the Germans had no chance of beating the Soviets. It is simply a matter of production. The Soviets could massively outproduce the Germans. Throw in Lend Lease from the allies and a multi front war and it should be obvious that the Germans had no chance.

Having said that i think for gameplay it would be great to have a scenario 2 like in WITPAE that is ahistorical to give the Germans a better shot at winning. Barring that i would say winning for the Germans should be measured on doing better than they historically did.

It is unfortunate that this does not make for a more balanced and thus more fun game but alas history is history. We are not playing a fantasy game.

What about an "alternative reality" East Front scenario without Pearl Harbour? then..

a) no USA-Germany war: more German production devoted to the East Front, less withdrawal of units, less Luftwaffe stopping the American Bomber offenssive....

b) less lend-lease

c) less Soviet reinforcements coming from the Far East

In that case Victory conditions should be adjusted, it seems very difficult for the Soviets to reach Berlin in 1945 in that scenario...

Another "alternative reality" that can be used simply as a houserule

Germany develops the Atomic Bomb in May 1945 (or whatever month chosen). From the start, the German mission is to protect the Berlin atomic laboratories until that date. It is not a real change in the game, but in the Axis player "attitude" (this could lead, though, to slow and boring trench warfare...)

I agree, I believe the Axis never stood a chance. It could have done better and extended the war (likely at the cost of a few nukes on Germany), perhaps by taking Leningrad 41 or even still 42, cutting the railroad communications for Lend-and-Lease towards the Barents sea and middle-east, even taken Moscow, or Stalingrad, but by then heart of the Russian country, the economy, the political centers and all that makes up Stalin and the nation resided no longer west of the Urals. Besides, if that happened, Lend-and-Lease would surely have been bumped up in volume.

It is very speculative, though, and no one will ever be able to say for sure what could have triggered a Russian breakdown.  Often such things aren't quite as predictable.  Imagine if one of the bombs aimed at Hitler in 43 or 44 had succeeded to disable him -- Germany might have suddenly collapsed from the inside, much as an inner revolution accelerated the breakdown in 1918.  Similarly, the Germans had been hoping for inducing a political collapse, revolution or uprising against Stalin by delivering spectacurlar, crippling blows.  Even at the hand of his own army that he so nastily cleansed before (which surely not everyone forgave him).  It is well possible that of Moscow had fallen during Typhoon with rather even losses to both sides (a draw, and Soviet withdrawal rather than defeat), this would have kicked up the Soviet fighting moral, but if the Germans had succeeded to take it with another stunning, crippling blow such as Kiev and capturing another several 100k prisoners, this could have been the knife thrust that would have rolled over the Soviet morale, or caused political disturbances.  Such debates probably can't be resolved, and for sure not definitively. I wouldn't mind if such possibilities would be present in games as a random factor, even if not totally realistic, but would give the German or Japanese player, or the Confederates in Civil War games, a tiny surprise chance to aim for.
I would guess, though, that nothing short of the AGC forming up, full strength, in a staging area at the slopes of the Ural, the eastern slopes, for another summer offensive would have meant a sure end to Stalin.

ORIGINAL: Oskkar

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: lycortas

The ride of Col. Hessler, classic.

I do not want AH's Blitzkrieg, i would like a historical game of the eastern front.
I do not believe the Germans had no chance to win WW2 in the East. I think this game makes a German victory almost impossible, which is not realistic.
I think city and territory loss should cost morale which should slowly return as the Soviets realize that they have not lost the war yet.

However, I am intelligent enough to see the problem with this idea; with the level of German play we now have in an IGOUGO game this would mean that most games would end in a German victory in '41 or '42. I think that this highlights a problem the game has; the soviets CANNOT fight effectively in '41. I do not think this is accurate, the Soviets had severe doctrine and educational problems and were knocked off balance in June but the Germans still had to hit unit borders, weak spots etc. In this game we can just steamroll ahead which i do not think is historical.

Michael

I am a German player but i would say the Germans had no chance of beating the Soviets. It is simply a matter of production. The Soviets could massively outproduce the Germans. Throw in Lend Lease from the allies and a multi front war and it should be obvious that the Germans had no chance.

Having said that i think for gameplay it would be great to have a scenario 2 like in WITPAE that is ahistorical to give the Germans a better shot at winning. Barring that i would say winning for the Germans should be measured on doing better than they historically did.

It is unfortunate that this does not make for a more balanced and thus more fun game but alas history is history. We are not playing a fantasy game.

What about an "alternative reality" East Front scenario without Pearl Harbour? then..

a) no USA-Germany war: more German production devoted to the East Front, less withdrawal of units, less Luftwaffe stopping the American Bomber offenssive....

b) less lend-lease

c) less Soviet reinforcements coming from the Far East

In that case Victory conditions should be adjusted, it seems very difficult for the Soviets to reach Berlin in 1945 in that scenario...

Another "alternative reality" that can be used simply as a houserule

Germany develops the Atomic Bomb in May 1945 (or whatever month chosen). From the start, the German mission is to protect the Berlin atomic laboratories until that date. It is not a real change in the game, but in the Axis player "attitude" (this could lead, though, to slow and boring trench warfare...)

I am all in favor of an alternate reality scenario. While i am a historical nut and want the game to be realistic, i fully realize that this does not make for the most fun in gameplay. I would love to have a scenario where the Germans had a chance for a decisive win.

In reality no German decisive win was possible, no matter what is said by us German fanboys.

ORIGINAL: Wild
In reality no German decisive win was possible, no matter what is said by us German fanboys.

Watch it, they are going to kick you out of the club!

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Wild
In reality no German decisive win was possible, no matter what is said by us German fanboys.

Watch it, they are going to kick you out of the club!

I have to call it as i see it. I'll take my chances with the club[;)]