Reports from Area 51

[Erik Rutins]

mdiehl,

Regarding the Kongo vs. NC battle - while the NC was very resistant to the Kongo's guns historically, it was not invulnerable. My extremely experienced Kongo crew, along with a full supporting TF, took on the NC with a slightly smaller TF. It was her first battle, period. The AI sent her in having just received her and her night experience was quite low, whereas the Kongo was at around 91, IIRC.

The result was that the NC's shots fell largely wide of the mark. She got one 16" hit which penetrated the tower armor and caused some system damage, nothing critical. The Kongo scored several 14" hits on her, two of which caused significant damage, one critical damage. One of the escorting cruisers then introduced her to the Long Lance. The NC was crippled, but my Val's couldn't finish her off with their 250kg bombs (they couldn't get through her deck armor). She limped home to Noumea, but has not been seen again.

I shared that set of battle reports because of the number of similar reports I've seen recently posted on this forum, but with the results reversed. The IJN is perfectly capable of "owning the night", but so is the USN. Ultimately, it's the riddle of steel - it's not the tool, but how you use it.

Regards,

- Erik

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins

Cap and Gown,

If you're reading my post, where did I say that the manual is incorrect?
- Erik

Earlier you wrote:

My goal was to get my night experience and overall crew experience as high as possible while minimizing casualties.

In other words, you assumed the initial advantage was not enough to win battles, even though the manual indicates it is.

Drongo saw this same problem with your AAR:

I suppose this whole effort in testing has come about because there was an expectation that the starting night experience levels
(plus leadership) for the IJN would suffice to give them an advantage over early period allied TF's. The UV manual certainly gave me that impression. Should we not assume that concept is correct?

You wouldn't happen to be related to Glenn Saunders would you?

[mdiehl]

The result was that the NC's shots fell largely wide of the mark.

Something that is not going to happen, regardless, if the range is close enough to make a Type 93 a useful tool (less than 10K yards). The NC was one of the oldest modern BBs in the US inventory, thus more experienced than, say Washington, which handily pummeled Kirishima under circumstances similar to the one that you describe.

The thing is, there is not much historical evidence to compellingly claim that IJN night gun accuracy was much, if at all, better than Allied night gun accuracy.

[Erik Rutins]

Allright, let's give this another shot.

Yes, I feel the initial experience advantage is sufficient, if combined with proper TFs and Admirals, to give the IJN a likelihood of victory, not a guarantee.

The entire point of my post was that this advantage disappears quickly once the Allied ships experience and survive night combat. Therefore, you should always take every opportunity to build your experience up even further to maintain that edge once more SG-equipped ships become available and once most surviving US ships have decent experience levels. Otherwise, you will start losing more than winning after the first two or three months.

Regarding the example on Washington vs. Kirishima. I am aware of that battle - in the same engagement, the more modern South Dakota did very little while Washington "over-achieved" (and was lucky to elude the long lances aimed for her). All of the historical examples have to be taken in context and none can be taken as "this ship must do this in all battles or the model is wrong". If the under-performing South Dakota had been alone in that battle against an over-achieving and elite Kirishima (or in my case Kongo), the results that I achieved would not be far-fetched.

Certainly, my expectation was that the Kongo would head back to Japan after the battle. It was a pleasant surprise that she was largely unscathed. I would not expect replays to yield those same results, but I would expect that TF to regularly defeat that same US TF, whether or not the NC vs. Kongo duel goes the same way.

No, I have no relation to Glenn Saunders, nor did I get that reference. I recall Glenn from TOAW and HPS, is there something else I should know?

The entire point of this series of posts was to point out that when I see anecdotal posts about the IJN getting smoked time and again, I immediately can pick those out as being exceptions to the rule. The statistics here prove that the model is working fine, as does experience with many battles vs. just a few. Beating the AI can be achieved by the vast majority of UV players - what I did is not that difficult. Against a PBEM opponent carefully managing his USN forces, it would most likely be enough to avoid defeat, but I would not expect victory.

In short, lighten up, guys!

Regards,

- Erik

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins

No, I have no relation to Glenn Saunders, nor did I get that reference. I recall Glenn from TOAW and HPS, is there something else I should know?
Regards,

- Erik

Let's just say Glenn is a tad bit defensive about HPS products. For instance, I would advise not mentioning the word bug in his presence.

[Drongo]

Posted by Erik Rutins

The statistics here prove that the model is working fine, as does experience with many battles vs. just a few.

The statistic we've presented so far show that the early battles will tend to result in equal losses over all between the two sides (equivalent TF leader for both sides, an IJN force with early experience (av 75-80) vs a USN force with SC radar and low early experience (av 45-50). Is that what we should expect?

Yes, I feel the initial experience advantage is sufficient, if combined with proper TFs and Admirals, to give the IJN a likelihood of victory, not a guarantee.

That would indicate that the IJN should have a better chance of victory but you qualify it with leaders and TF composition (?). The problem with the leaders is Tanaka always seems to run into Lee in battle (not much between them except aggression) and the TF composition you mentioned earlier (CL's to match against DD's etc) would mean you wouldn't really be defeating an enemy made up of equivalent ship types. The question is whether the IJN's initial advantage is sufficient to give them a better than average likelihood of victory (not guarantee) when their leader is no better than the enemies and the ship types are equally matched.

In short, lighten up, guys!

You'll have to excuse us, were a bit worn out from the testing.:p

Thanks for joining in.

cap_and_gown,
Stop pissing off the big boys or they'll shut the X Files.

It's 5 in the morning now and I'm going to bed. Cap_and_gown, the future is in your hands, dont bugger it up.
Night.

[CapAndGown]

In a continuing effot to validate my rush to judgement (in scientific circles commonly referred to as a hypothesis) I offer the following experimental data.

============================================
Fourth test set: Test high IJN experience, no USN radar
============================================
IJN night experience: 80
USN night experience: 40
No ships have radar

(1)
IJN damage112
USN damage 133

(2)
IJN damage 0
USN damage 0

(3) USN crosses T
IJN damage 47
USN damage 113

(4)
IJN damagen 0
USN damage 107

(5) USN crosses T
IJN damage 0
USN damage 51

(6)
IJN damage 39
USN damage 26

(7)
IJN damage 83
USN damage 368

(8) IJN crosses T
IJN damage 79
USN damage 77

(9)
IJN damage 38
USN damage 193

(10)
IJN damage 0
USN damage 83

(11) Both surprised
IJN damage 66
USN damage 44

(12)
IJN damage 75
USN damage 44

(13) Both surprised
IJN damage 0
USN damage 172

(14)
IJN damage 23
USN damage 15

(15)
IJN damage 69
USN damage 133

(16) USN crosses T
IJN damage 0
USN damage 103

(17)
IJN damage 76
USN damage 307

(18)
IJN damage 0
USN damage 34

(19) IJN crosses T
IJN damage 121
USN damage 174

(20) Both surprised
IJN damage 0
USN damage 33

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks:
1) This test set is interesting to compare with the first test set. In this test set the IJN has twice the experience level of the USN. In the frist test set the IJN had three times the experience level of the USN. Yet the USN SG radar completely nullified that advantage. Here, with neither side having radar, the IJN clearly comes out on top, though not decisively so.

Although several more tests need to be run, it seems that US radar is given much more weight than experience levels. Regression analysis will be able to show the magnitude of this difference. IMO, experience should be a multiplier for radar, and not a simple additive. In other words, low experience crews should benefit from radar less than high experience crews.

2) It is getting to the point where I believe that crossing the T is no advantage at all. It has not gotten to the point that I believe that crossing the T is negatively corelated with damage inflicted, but it is getting close. This is perhaps the most surprising result of these set of tests so far

Further testing will be devoted to creating more data points along the experience curve and with SC radar, at which point a regression analysis will be possible. This will require at least 60 more test battles. From there the testing can proceed to evaluate the influence of TF commanders on surface engagements.

[mdiehl]

Yet the USN SG radar completely nullified that advantage.

In which characteristic the model is quite correct.

Here, with neither side having radar, the IJN clearly comes out on top, though not decisively so.

Which also seems quite correct. The IJN had a slight edge that was not decisive, historically. Now if your analyses show that the slight edge achieved by the IJN turns out to be damage inflicted by Type 93s at <<10K yards then the model seems right on.

The "crossing T" results do seem quirky.

[elmo3]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown


Let's just say Glenn is a tad bit defensive about HPS products. For instance, I would advise not mentioning the word bug in his presence.

Oh, please! Glenn and I use the bug word all the time.

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by mdiehl


Which also seems quite correct. The IJN had a slight edge that was not decisive, historically. Now if your analyses show that the slight edge achieved by the IJN turns out to be damage inflicted by Type 93s at <<10K yards then the model seems right on.

If the IJN had a "slight edge" then that should be reflected in game terms by a 60-40, or 70-40 advantage. Here, the experience levels have puposely been set at 90-30 and 80-40 to see what difference experience makes in the game. You can go on about how wonderful the USN was historically all day long, but it says nothing about how the game engine works.

[CapAndGown]

=============================================
Test set 5: test equal experience, no radar
=============================================
USN experience: 50
IJN experience: 50
no radar

Damage to
IJN USN Diff

37 111 -74
28 43 -15 Both surprised
17 54 -37
0 0 0
48 63 -15 IJN crosses T
0 0 0
0 29 -29
0 48 -48 USN crosses T
16 219 -203
53 0 53
100 89 11
37 160 -123
26 19 7
0 16 -16
67 95 -28
24 38 -14
143 113 30
14 82 -68
136 104 32
0 161 -161

----------------------------------------------------
Well, with equal experience in this test set, the IJN was still able to dish out more punishment than it recieved. I did not mark down the torp hits, but as in previous test runs, I suspect that the Long Lance is the great equalizer here.

From the few runs I watched, it seemed as though the USN was equally willing to fire its torps, but the IJN seemed to hit more often. Is this modelling the shorter range of US torps? Anyway, despite what Scully had to say, I find little to argue against as far a LLs are concerned. I have seen undamaged DDs and CAs hit by them, as well as ships that are already damaged. Nevertheless, I do think an opening salvo for both sides should be added that is tied into experience level.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mulder

Anyway, despite what Scully had to say, I find little to argue against as far a LLs are concerned.

You have to BELIEVE.

Morning!

The LL's are excellent weapons and their effectiveness seems modeled correctly. My comment was that they are not ship killers in that players should not expect them to put a ship (even DD's) out of the fight (or on the bottom) with a single hit. The damage aspects of a torpedo hit (ie very rarely or never putting a ship out of the fight) may need to be looked at - along with what Nikademus mentioned. This is based on the testing so far.

In a rough summary from the test battles (only) :

a) The average torp hits were approx 1.1 per battle (both CAvCA and DDvDD). Torp hit numbers will be very much driven by the battle situation (primarily range and whether the enemy has damaged (esp. burning) ships).

b) 20% of all hits were made against undamaged ships. No accuracy rate can be given (as the total number of torpedo's fired would need to be recorded) so the expected effectiveness of a 6 ship opening salvo against an undamaged enemy can not be determined at present. What can be stated is that the current battle model (overall) means that ships are relatively safe from torpedo hits unless they've been slown and/or on fire. Apart from that, the closer the enemy gets, the more likely it is to hit with its torps (duh!).

c) The IJN will win, lose or draw its battles based on its gunfire, not torpedoes (and the USN far more so). This is for 2 reasons. Gunfire supplied over 60% of the IJN damage inflicted on the USN. It is gunfire which is the weapon that is most likely to strike undamaged targets and begin the process of slowing them and setting them on fire. Without these gunfire hits, battles would tend to be short affairs with little damage and few torpedo hits. SG radar would obviously make a difference if it was present on the USN side.

[Drongo]

Unlike my less patient colleague, I actually get out the popcorn and watch the test battles (I'm just a big kid, not a statistician). So far, the figures from my test battles indicate IJN high experience IJN ships will draw (on average) with low experience USN ships equipped with SC radar.

On watching the battles as they play out (especially the CA vs CA), I have the impression that the IJN starts out far better (ie does more initial firing, is normally the first to hit and initially hits more often. By the time I get to the end of the battle and check the results, my initial impression of an IJN advantage is gone. This is unsubstantiated but I am assuming that two things could be happening.

First is that USN damage control reduces the effect of the hits.

Secondly, the seemingly superior IJN initial performance is quickly negated once the opening shots have been fired. I wonder if something like the following could be occuring. IJN ship with high night experience opens fire at sighted target and misses. The act of firing has just increased its DL. USN ship now fires back at a target whose DL has been increased by both firing and the effect of SC radar. Unless the kind blokes at Matrix can summarise the firing algorithim for me, all I can do is guess at what is going on. Any comments?

I feel that better IJN experience is definitely present in the battles but it is being buried beneath several other factors that are hard to qualify (allied damage control and damage routines, what influences Detection Levels (and by how much) and what part the DL's play in hit rates). Cap_and_gown's regression analysis may shed some light (as well as cancer man's helpful historical insights :p) but a better understanding of the UV combat model would help.

A few further observations on battle :

Crossing the 'T' - Both cap_and_gown's and my results are indicating that no clear advantage is being gained. Further testing is obviously required (but unfortunately these situations are not easy to generate). I would hazard a guess and say the battle mechanisms are limiting or nullifying the advantage. Every now and then, it is devastating (mainly for the IJN). My advice would be not to have any expectations of victory if you cross someone's 'T', otherwise you'll normally be very disappointed.

Surprise - I am still waiting (hoping) someone can tell me about this. The only time I ever see this is in the sentence "both are surprised". What does surprise mean and when would you ever expect to have only one side achieving it. I assume that mutual surprise is common because if a commander ever surprises the enemy, he is so shocked that he becomes surprised as well. :p

My Battle Opinion (by Drongo) :

Too much firing (where's the confusion and hesitation), too many ships staying in combat despite crippling damage (ever heard of pulling out of the battle line if you're crippled?), too many destructive hits and too many secondary hits starting fires (the equivalent of wearing a neon "kick me" sign in combat).

Any initial advantage normally disappears into a general all shooting, all dancing melee. The battles start off looking realistic in that someone may get an advantage (radar, spotting, experience), not all ships are involved (confusion), several ships from one side may fire without an enemy reply, etc. Soon after that, someone screams brawl and its normally on for young and old (all thats missing is the guy being thrown through the bar room window into the horse trough).

If I could suggest a few other area's of improvement for night combat, it would be as follows :

Gunfire hits : There should be a lower probability of destructive hits (critical etc). One penetrating 8" hit is all it normally takes to inflict 30+ damage on a CA. It could and did happen but nowhere to this extent. The end result is that you're left with a non combat worthy ship for at least a month and a better target for the enemy. This is reasonable for a destructive hit but these should not be that common. My guess is you have a greater than 50% percent chance of receiving this every time your armour is penetrated. On a related note, shouldn't ships under fire suffer an accuracy penalty or do players feel its not relevant at night?

Damage effects on capability : When critical damage is taken, I think there should be some chance for a ship to be "knocked out" of the battle. This could be for a round or even for the whole battle. It happened enough in reality to warrant its inclusion. The impact of a torpedo or a major internal explosion (loss of power, steering etc) was often counter productive to fighting ability. Voluntarily (or involuntarily) the ship might be forced out of battle.
If this happens, it should be less of a target (or none at all). Currently, all ships just sit their pounding away at the enemy, regardless of their condition.

Withdrawl : Is there a routine (and if not, I would favour considering one) that says if you're holding the sharp end of the stick in battle, at least consider breaking off the action. Even if you've got an aggressive commander, does that mean that 6 IJN DD's under Tanaka would hang around more than they needed to if up against something like 4 CA/CL's and 8 DD's? The same applies to a equal battle where one side has suffered something like all their CA's shot up and burning and can't see any damage to the other side. Confusion and aggression need to be considered in why a force will stay in a losing battle but there should be a chance that early withdrawl is considered. Obviously, if one side wants to withdraw, they still have to evade the enemy.

Confusion : In my opinion, there is not enough of it in night combat (except for the players). Once battle is joined, almost everyone squares of with their dance partner and goes for it. It makes the battles far more destructive than the historical average for the time. On a related note, uninvolved ships (greyed out) seem to be brought fully into the fighting too quickly. They normally respond at their firer with seemingly full effect immeadiately on being shot at. If they weren't aware of their attacker previously, is there be a penalty?

Torpedo launches : these should not trigger a reaction from the enemy if the ship does not fire (ie a friendly ship should have as much chance of firing next as an enemy). I've noticed in battles that a torpedo salvo is often the only attack a ship will make for its turn (it wont fire its guns). If thats the case, it should be considered a "free" shot. Obviously I also advocate the concept of torp salvo launching as defined in the "Where are the Long Lance's thread."

The above suggestions are made with the intention of making combat less destructive and more decisive.

Comments?

[mdiehl]

At the moment the mean IJN torp hit rate is commensurate with historical results, including historical battles in which the IJN "surprised" its opponent or opened with an initial torp salvo. If an initial torp salvo option is now added to the routine, then the mean hit rate for other IJN torpedoes launched in the midst of the engagement should be reduced.

It seems unnecessary, given the AARs. I've noticed no "Midway" type surprises, and a decidedly inaccurate IJN advantage in launching large airstrikes and maintaining large CAPs. If a "Tassafaronga" engine is introduced, an Allied intel-driven "Midway" engine should also be added.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mdiehl

At the moment the mean IJN torp hit rate is commensurate with historical results, including historical battles in which the IJN "surprised" its opponent or opened with an initial torp salvo.

What "mean IJN torp hit" rate are you talking about? The tests are designed to measure the impact of night experience in combat. If you are talking about hit rates per torps fired, there are none as that info was not gathered. If your talking about number of hits per battle, that's irrelevant as I've already stated that the number of hits per test battle should not be assumed to be the normal UV rate.

[/QUOTE]

If an initial torp salvo option is now added to the routine, then the mean hit rate for other IJN torpedoes launched in the midst of the engagement should be reduced.

Once again, there is no hit rate as such. All torpedoes fired in UV will have the same mean accuracy for a given range and a given target condition.

It seems unnecessary, given the AARs. I've noticed no "Midway" type surprises, and a decidedly inaccurate IJN advantage in launching large airstrikes and maintaining large CAPs. If a "Tassafaronga" engine is introduced, an Allied intel-driven "Midway" engine should also be added.

Why doesn't this response surprise me?

You seem to be ignoring almost all of my previous post and just wanting to refight the battle of the Long Lance thread again. How the Tass engine works and why it should be considered for realism purposes was dealt with in detail elsewhere. The concept of having to counter balance it with a "Midway" engine is irrelevant. If you feel (from reading AAR's) that there is a real need for a "Midway" engine, go create your own thread and bandy the idea about. If players feel that the CV v CV battles are unrealistic, then maybe Matrix should look at it. This thread is about naval combat.

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Drongo
If players feel that the CV v CV battles are unrealistic, then maybe Matrix should look at it. This thread is about naval combat.

Not to highjack this thread or anything, I should mention that I find the carrier battles very well done. In one "battle of the Coral Sea" I had in a PBEM game, we practically duplicated the historical battle, with Lexington sunk and Shoho very badly damaged and sent back to Japan. Despite some complaints I have seen about how the US can't win carrier battles, I doubt this really takes into account the real variability built into the engine. These players may be using an inappropriate CAP setting, or not paying attention to pilot fatigue, carrier positioning, etc. So my hat is off to 2x3 and Matrix for such a great engine for air combat.

But I am mainly interested in this theater because of all the surface engagements fought here and because I believe this is the one period of the war when the two sides were more evenly matched than at any other point. Thus, I want to be sure that the surface combat engine is just as good as the air combat engine.

[mdiehl]

As opposed to Ryujo sunk, 1 fleet CV sent back to Japan, and another fleet CV stripped of its veteran pilots? Or did these latter also occur in your Coral Sea and you just didn't mention it? If not, it's a stretch to think that your engagement even came close to duplicating the real thing.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by mdiehl


Something that is not going to happen, regardless, if the range is close enough to make a Type 93 a useful tool (less than 10K yards). The NC was one of the oldest modern BBs in the US inventory, thus more experienced than, say Washington, which handily pummeled Kirishima under circumstances similar to the one that you describe.

On what evidence do you base this? If one examines the statistics of a South Dakota class battleship, one could easily conclude that what happened to SoDak historically at Third Guadalcanal would never occur....(an electical failure) but it did.
Washington's preformance is no indication of North Carolina's crew efficency nor is it a gurantee that the particular commander in the new situation will understand and exploit his radar advantage. In game terms again, this should be modified roll based on leadership skill and crew efficiency. Going with your logic of "it happened this way in real life therefore it will always happen that way", one could say with just as much validity that a SoDak will suffer a catastrophic failure every time it engages in night combat.

At 10,000 yards or less, battleship combat is point blank and any theoretical advantages in armor are negated Thus, a Kongo class battleship would have its best chance of destroying a NC class battleship at this range if the crew and command staff are able to get the jump on it. NC's primary edge in such a situation would be her radars, assuming they function properly and the crew are quick enough off the mark.....factors which should be influenced by the exp rating given.

The thing is, there is not much historical evidence to compellingly claim that IJN night gun accuracy was much, if at all, better than Allied night gun accuracy. [/B]

This is not a thread discussing the attributes of IJN (or USN) gunnery. It is a thread discussing the impact of experience in the game. As usual, you ignore the facts in favor of your own non-game related agenda. The most pertient test results have been those static tests that feature extreme differences in night exp ratings. You keep mentioning "historical results" but the tests are not historical but artificial tests where the sides are carefully chosen to be even in firepower (torps excepted) and crew ratings altered in some cases to explore the issue of exp in the game.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo

Gunfire hits : There should be a lower probability of destructive hits (critical etc). One penetrating 8" hit is all it normally takes to inflict 30+ damage on a CA. It could and did happen but nowhere to this extent. The end result is that you're left with a non combat worthy ship for at least a month and a better target for the enemy. This is reasonable for a destructive hit but these should not be that common. My guess is you have a greater than 50% percent chance of receiving this every time your armour is penetrated. On a related note, shouldn't ships under fire suffer an accuracy penalty or do players feel its not relevant at night?

Damage effects on capability : When critical damage is taken, I think there should be some chance for a ship to be "knocked out" of the battle. This could be for a round or even for the whole battle. It happened enough in reality to warrant its inclusion. The impact of a torpedo or a major internal explosion (loss of power, steering etc) was often counter productive to fighting ability. Voluntarily (or involuntarily) the ship might be forced out of battle.
If this happens, it should be less of a target (or none at all). Currently, all ships just sit their pounding away at the enemy, regardless of their condition.

EXACTLY

Confusion : In my opinion, there is not enough of it in night combat (except for the players). Once battle is joined, almost everyone squares of with their dance partner and goes for it. It makes the battles far more destructive than the historical average for the time. On a related note, uninvolved ships (greyed out) seem to be brought fully into the fighting too quickly. They normally respond at their firer with seemingly full effect immeadiately on being shot at. If they weren't aware of their attacker previously, is there be a penalty?

This form of combat resolution has been standard since the days of 8-bit Grigsby games. Since UV is an operational level game, i must admit i dont see much practical chance of this being changed for the simple reason that there's not really a more practical way of resolving battles. Gary and company appear to have "muddled" things up a little in terms of DL's where some ships participate more than others in an attempt to simulate the confusion of battles and the distances involved. This attempt has led to much complaining on the part of players who want to see all their carefully chosen ships taking a more active role in things and get frustrated when they dont ! One has to feel for Matrix here.....its almost a no win situation. I think that there's a good degree of randomization here......some battles my BB's play a big part....some battles they are spectators. Mind you i would not want to see this effect in daylight combat

making penetrating damage less lethal or more importantly, not "automatically" critical (in terms of SYS and FLT damage) on a per hit basis would help address this in my opinion

Torpedo launches : these should not trigger a reaction from the enemy if the ship does not fire (ie a friendly ship should have as much chance of firing next as an enemy). I've noticed in battles that a torpedo salvo is often the only attack a ship will make for its turn (it wont fire its guns). If thats the case, it should be considered a "free" shot. Obviously I also advocate the concept of torp salvo launching as defined in the "Where are the Long Lance's thread."

The above suggestions are made with the intention of making combat less destructive and more decisive.

total agreement

[angus]

Originally posted by mdiehl
As opposed to Ryujo sunk, 1 fleet CV sent back to Japan, and another fleet CV stripped of its veteran pilots? Or did these latter also occur in your Coral Sea and you just didn't mention it? If not, it's a stretch to think that your engagement even came close to duplicating the real thing.

And the Japanese not in control of PM or GG or Buna. Hmm. I think that might just be a challenge.

Cheers,

Angus