Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sabre on February 22, 2002, 01:02:48 PM
-
Figured this really belongs here, rather than the General board. Hope HTC folks read this.
The concept laid out here has been heavily influenced by the on-going debate on the AH strategic system. When HiTech chimed in the other day in Eskimo’s thread, I was at first disappointed on his views on the subject. Re-reading them however has lead me to better understand both sides of this whole issue. The central issue as I understand it is how do you change the strategic game system to provide more game-playing fun for the strat/immersion crowd without negatively impacting the enjoyment of the A2A purists? This is the acid test that any change must pass. I’ll start by laying out restrictions and assumptions. I ask that the reader give them careful consideration, and frame responses with them in mind.
Restrictions:
1. Any change in the strat system must be no more restricting to the individual pilot in the cockpit than the current system. By this I mean the ability to choose an aircraft, take off, find a fight, and engage the enemy in A2A combat. This is the toughest restriction, and may require compromise. However, any compromise should be weighted towards the A2A crowd.
2. Any wide-scale impact (action at point A effecting operations at point B) must require more than a couple players to accomplish, and must be of limited duration. The idea is to create a window of opportunity for the offense, rather than open up a gaping whole in the defense. I used 10 people as a base line figure when defining “more than a couple.”
Assumptions: These are the things that have already been announced by HTC as coming down the pipe in the AH development cycle.
1. Larger Maps will be the norm in the MA, with more fields and objects allowed in the TE.
2. The newly eluded to “Attack Warning” system will be in place, allowing changes to radar coverage in the MA without hobbling the defense too much.
3. Bomber enhancements implemented. Particularly I mean the addition of bomb dispersion, multi-aircraft option, and (hopefully) a fix for the “firing through your own plane” bug.
4. The re-arm pad code would be changed, such that re-arming on the re-arm pad would be tied to damage at that base. Example: if base fuel is down to 75%, then you could only load 75% fuel by hitting the re-arm pad.
Concept:
Rather than the “Proxy War” idea put forth by Preon1, we instead divide up each of the three countries’ territory into three “strategic provinces.” Each strategic province, or SP, will have it’s own organic strategic infrastructure (HQ, city, refinery, troop training camp, ammo factory, flak factory, depots, and train stations). Attacks against these facilities will only affect rebuild times and resupply in that province. The nature of those effects will be similar to what they are now, but with some important differences. Arena reset would occur when any country completely looses two of their three provinces (i.e. all bases and depots in those two provinces captured by enemy forces). This localizes the impact of strategic strikes. Kill a regional HQ – let’s call it the Provincial Air Defense Center, or PADC (pronounced “pad-see”) – and you affect radar only in that province, in effect creating a hole in coverage. The attack warning system would be completely unaffected by HQ damage. Strat target size and hardness would be such that approximately ten B-17s would be required to completely destroy it.
Rebuild and Resupply – This is the meat of the changes. First, you totally eliminate the player resupply (via goons and M-3s) of strategic targets, including depots and train stations. Each strat target would have a maximum down-time, assuming no convoys or trains reach them earlier. For a city (now a provincial capitol, rather than the country capital) we make that, say, 120 minutes. Now, for every train that reaches the city 15 minutes are subtracted from the down-time. So, if a city is completely destroyed (and assuming a train arrives every 15 minutes), the city would normally be rebuilt in one hour (2 hours – {4 x 15 minutes/train} = 1 hour). Kill the first train feeding the city, and the rebuild time will be an hour and fifteen minutes; kill two trains in a row and the rebuild time is an hour and a half. The point is, the city will rebuild no later than two hours, and could rebuild 60 minutes earlier if the enemy ignores the trains and/or train station. Other strat targets like refineries would have maximum rebuild times that would be dynamic, that is, the max rebuild time would be affected by the status of the provincial capitol. Again that maximum time would be shortened by timely arrival of their trains.
How would all this affect rebuild times at the pointy-end of the spear, i.e. the airfields, ports, and vehicle fields? Hanger down-time would remain 15 minutes as it is now, and would be unaffected by convoys or goons/M-3s. Other field objects (fuel, radar, barracks, ammo) would have a maximum, un-supplied rebuild time just like strat targets which would be at least a half hour to an hour. There are two ways to speed up rebuild: convoy/barges or goons/M-3 resupply. We’ll deal first with the first method, convoy/barge resupply. Arrival of a convoy or resupply goon/M-3 will immediately (within 3 minutes that is) rebuild field objects. The difference is that the level they can rebuilt to will be dictated by the level of damage to that province’s like-item strat facility. Taking fuel as an example, let’s say field A20’s max fuel load-out has been reduced by enemy attack to 50%. The provincial refinery complex for that area was also attacked and stands at 75%. When a convoy arrives, the fuel will be immediately restored to 75%, the maximum that can be supported by the provincial refinery. Ammo would have to be subdivided to allow for a gradual loss of offensive weaponry, rather than the all-or-nothing availability we have now. A possible correlation between ammo bunker status and ordnance availability might look like the following:
Ammo Bunker Status-
0-25% = MG/cannon available
26-50% = MG/cannon and rockets available
51-75% = MG/cannon, rockets, and light bombs available
76-100% = All ordnance available
The second method, goon/M-3 resupply would work somewhat differently. Resupply by goon or M-3 represents a redistribution of supplies between front-line bases, rather than resupply by the province’s strategic infrastructure. Goon/M-3 load-outs would be changed such that instead of selecting “field supplies” as a load-out option, the pilot/driver would be able to select up to two “cargo pallets,” similar to how Jabo pilots can select load-outs for multiple hard-point. There would be fuel pallets, ammo pallets, radar pallets, and barracks pallets. Successfully delivering a pallet by goon or M-3 (oh, and LVT’s…almost forgot those) would completely restore that resource at the field. HOWEVER, each type of pallet would only be available from fields where that resource type is undamaged! In other words, you couldn’t select a fuel pallet to load in your C-47 if the field you’re launching from has damaged fuel tanks. So each goon/M-3/LVT could only rebuild two types of damage per trip.
The above system works fine until you start talking about captured enemy bases. How does rebuild/resupply work for bases you capture in enemy provinces? Well, in all cases any base will eventually rebuild on its own, regardless of whether they receive resupply via convoys or goons. Resupply by goon/M-3/LVT would work exactly like the same, too. To re-establish automatic supply by convoy/barge would require you to capture the enemy depot feeding that base. Depots would be dynamically assigned to a province (the closest friendly one) upon being captured, to insure rebuild limits for newly captured bases would have the same restrictions as home-country bases.
Conclusion: The above system would allow a reasonably sized strategic strike to create a window of opportunity for the capture of bases. Yet the effects on the individual defending pilot’s freedom of action would be no more than they are now under the current AH system. Less so in some ways, as they would only affect things on a provincial level, not the entire country. The key is that damaging strat targets would not impact the current status at any bases, only the rebuild times of things already damaged there. The player resupply system would still be there to speed repair, but only to the level dictated by the current strat targets in that province. No more spawning a C47 on the runway or hitting the re-arm pad repeatedly at a damaged base to speed rebuild it. No one or two players could have much impact by attacking strat targets, either. Why? Because in general one or two players could not do damage fast enough (fly to target, drop bombs, rtb or auger, repeat) fast enough on their own to keep up with the train resupply.
I invite your comments and critique. I also ask that when you review this you remember that strat used to have more impact than it does now, and this simply seeks to redress that loss of impact. For the A2A purists (I dislike the negative connotation that the term “furballer” has acquired), I ask you that you be honest with yourselves when deciding if the above suggestions would truly spoil your enjoyment of AH, or simply inconvenience you a bit.
-
Not to knock you off your block but I think everyone needs to understand that HiTech is the dweeb at HTC. It is he who finds pure pleasure in the free for all no holds barred furball orgy (like lazs).
On the other hand, Pyro is the guy who pays attention to "us".
"We" of higher intellectual stature. Are we serious? Yes.
If it were up to HiTech, AcesHigh would be just like......AcesHigh.
Yet if Pyro wings the battle, we would end up with a more serious simulation of combat. Pyro must win. pyro......must.....win.
As good as the intent of your thread appears to be, "We" need to make sure that Pyro wins the battle of good vrs dweeb at HTC by insuring that HiTech works FOR Pyro and not the other way around (dont let em fool ya into thinking HTC is some sort of feel good, everyones the boss liberal type of hippie outfit).
There must be a way...........good vrs dweeb, good vrs dweeb.
Yes, there must be a way.
-
A lot depends on changes in bomber modelling. If one guy in a 30K Lanc (or flight of four Lanc's) can kill all the FH's for 15 minutes, then the furball...er, A2A guys are still gonna fret.
-
Yep. That's why I started with the assumptions I did. I should note the obvious, that this is already possible now. So they can complain about it, but it would be no worse under this new strat system than it is now (and should be better if the laser norden truly goes away).
-
15 minutes is too short for hangers. If you are trying to up from a base with a fleet of b17s over head, your a fool anyway. HOping the hangers come up before the next wave is downright silly (You should be upping from a rear base for alt). I agree with most of your suggestions, but fhs reup should be in line with other strat targets. 20 minutes minimum, this number increasing without train or convoy supply.
-
It's so simple, yet parallels reality so well!
The beauty of this system is that strategic campaigns can still effectively take place in/against one province, and yet the neighboring province would be unaffected. In many(most?) cases, a country may have one complete or nearly complete, fully functioning strategic province when they finally lose the war. This means that no one is forced to take off from one of two porked and/or vulched fields to put up a defense! The fully operational rear bases in the intact province would also give them a chance to launch bombers, organize counter-strike missions, get goons etc. Perhaps most importantly, the HQ and radar in the intact province would become an unlikely target since the attackers focus would most likely be on/against the falling province and its resources.
A gang-banged country never had it so well!
Great idea Sabre!
eskimo
-
Sabre: The depo (zone ownership) concept would put a wrather large value on that target. Not sure if thats a bad thing, it could be a very heavly defended field of some type.
Another way to acomplish the who owns resources could be owner of the most fields in the zone.
Another thought could be to have each resource type asociatied with one field. 2nd thought, this might lead to a problem with who owns the trains.
As far as how the resuply of trucks and trains work, your describing exactly how it works now, just with different down times.
Why is it you wish to eliminate player resuply of factories?
How do cities tie into rebuild of the factories with the train resuplie times? Asking this question did make me think of one posiblity, if we merge the concept of cities and stations all resuplie could be stoped for a period of time by completly destroying a city, great use for lots of buffs.
Your example of eleminating the MG & cannon would be a very bad idea. This would efectivly close a field, but down grading offensive supplies like being able to take only 100lb instead of 1000lb's or just less of each would work.
HiTech
-
Hitech,
Cannon WOULD ALWAYS be available at all bases in Sabre's example. Even if ammo is = 0
At 25% ammo-up you get rockets as well, etc.
Thanks,
eskimo
-
I have read the handbook about down times hitech. Does this still stand in the game? DOes this change depending on map?
-
HiTech and all,
. I appreciate you're taking time out to respond.
Sabre: The depo (zone ownership) concept would put a wrather large value on that target. Not sure if thats a bad thing, it could be a very heavly defended field of some type.
Agreed, they are a hi-valued target and deserve heavier defenses (and a vehicle hanger, IMO). Of course, you can always use player resupply of fields you capture in enemy provinces, if you can't muster the forces to capture the depots.
Another way to acomplish the who owns resources could be owner of the most fields in the zone.
I thought of this as well, but took my approach because it seemed like less code to write...of course, I'm an electrical engineer and not a software engineer.
Another thought could be to have each resource type asociatied with one field. 2nd thought, this might lead to a problem with who owns the trains.
An interesting thought. It might overly complicate things for players, though. I'd be very interested in hearing a little more on what you mean here.
As far as how the resuply of trucks and trains work, your describing exactly how it works now, just with different down times.
I think the main difference (correct me if I'm wrong) is that rebuild of damaged field objects by convoy would only be to the level of the provincial strat target. Meaning that if your refinery is at 75%, then arrival of a convoy would only restore the field fuel to 75%. As it stands right now, damage to a strat target affects the automatic rebuild time, but not the level the field object is rebuilt to. Is that not so? As for trains, yes; I knew that each train shortens the down time. The main point of this section was a) to eliminate player resupply of strat targets, and b) to stress to the wary A2A purists that the strat targets would not be down indefinitely, even with constant train-busting by the enemy. At the same time, the elimination of player resupply would insure that a concerted attack on the strat target would last for some minimum length of time. Exactly how long those times should be is a matter of experimentation. My numbers were simply there to help illustrate the concept.
Why is it you wish to eliminate player resuply of factories?
First, for the reason stated above. If you manage to get enough guys together to completely wipe out a strat target, it should have some effect you can count on. My observation is that strategic attacks are virtually gone from the game right now because it's too easy for the defense to rebuild it. It is certainly the reason the Buccaneers don't do them any more (and we were known for them before 1.08). Upping the number of goons it takes to rebuild a city helped some, but I think it would be better to simply do away with it. The strat targets should be worth defending, and they won't be until their worth attacking.
The second reason is, admittedly, because I think about this part of AH from both a historical and military science point of view. Cities and factories support the front lines, not the other way around. If the logistics system in AH is supposed to represent the delivery of supplies (using rebuild of damaged objects to represent this), it doesn't follow logic that forward bases could possibly resupply the infrastructure that supports them. At least not without stripping the front lines of material and manpower.
How do cities tie into rebuild of the factories with the train resuplie times? Asking this question did make me think of one posiblity, if we merge the concept of cities and stations all resuplie could be stoped for a period of time by completly destroying a city, great use for lots of buffs.
It would be a ripple effect, if you will. The maximum rebuild time for factories/refineries/etc would be dynamically set, based on the level of damage to the city at the time the factory damage occured. The arrival of a train would take a set amount of time off the down time, regardless of the damage to the city, but it would take more trains if your city was heavily damaged. I really like the idea of merging the cities and stations too, as an adjunct to the dynamically set max down time. Let's face it, railyards are always located in cities, both to receive raw materials from without, and to ship finished goods out to where they're needed. I would actually like to see them integrated into the city in such a way that flattening either the city or the railyards (with their rolling stock and workshops and roundhouses) would prevent trains from spawning. That way, attacking just the railyard would prevent trains from spawning, but not affect the maximum rebuild times of factories. The cities should be large and harder to completely knock down than the railyards, too.
Your example of eleminating the MG & cannon would be a very bad idea. This would efectivly close a field, but down grading offensive supplies like being able to take only 100lb instead of 1000lb's or just less of each would work.
This was probably not as clear as it was supposed to be, but Eskimo is correct in what I meant. Fields would always have MG and cannon for aircraft and tanks, regardless of damage to the ammo bunkers. The idea was to limit a base as an offensive launch point through attack on the ammo bunkers, without preventing the defenders from upping there.
Again, thanks for the discourse, HiTech. Knowing that you guys pay attention to the community is what really separates Aces High from other sims I've played. I realize the strat system is by no means finished. I also know how hard it is to balance one group's' wish-lists without alienating everyone else.
-
sounds good sabre. couple of things.
1. AW used to model field damage and it worked well. As ammo and fuel was hit at a base, the ammo load and fuel would be decreased on the plane (we have this for fuel, we should have this for ammo too).
2. Somehow the field damage needs to be more apparent to the players. I rarely trust what the 'map' tells me, sometime I have been over a base seen that it is wasted, looked at the map and it was at 100 percent. Along these lines, damage to resources nearby should be apparent and understandable. If a depot is hurting there should be visible signs of this. 'smoke on the horizon?"
-
I Like the idea of strat play and hope it returns. I am a little confussed by the concern showen for the A2A population. My understanding was that the Dueling Arena was developed just for their enjoyment and from the heavy usage that the Dueling Arena gets it's easy to see why it was so necessary to development it in the first place. Please bring back interesting game play.
-
I'm just checking in on this one.
Personally I love the idea of segmenting the map into different capturable zones (I started the thread "Proxy Wars: A Strategic Compromise for the MA" in the general discussion forum)
I hope something like this goes through.
-
in the hopes that HiTech will get a chance to respond again.:)
Sabre
CT Team
-
PUNT
-
Heya Sabre,
Just wanted to pop in for a second to say germany and sgrad res.es are on my server for testing.
I'm trying to incorperate Sabre's ideas into both maps.
depots control all strat guns in the district.
depots can spawn vhs.
This makes depots a very juicy target... however, you have to destroy all guns/buildings for a capture.
I've build several train yards in Germany.. i'ts just bombable rolling stock but that's a good idea about degrading the country's ability to use trains. Right now it's just a cool thing for P47s or P38's to swoop down on.
Hitech's idea of destroying the city would delay shipments of supplies is a good one.. What if your map has ten cities? Destroy HQ... better.
Here I got a question.. Why are trains/stations assigned to country but trucks are assigned to depots?
-
Some comments......
It could mean the same thing but it would be better IMHO if down time was looked upon as rebuild time..........
Then I would like to set the commencement of rebuild time from a point in time where logistics became available.
Even given this the rebuild time could be effected by the field town content. (half the town objects destroyed = rebuild time x 2)
Then tie this into a 100% logistic based model for rebuild.
ie no rebuild without logistic delivery......... if convoys, barges, trains or M3's /C47's do not get to the field or depot or factory then nothing happens. No rebuild takes place......... at all.
Very much as present we would have a multi tiered level
I suggest in reverse order
Fields are replenished by the contents of trucks, barges, player C47's or player M3's. (logistic carriers) Each of these logistic carriers would replenish field stocks (fuel,ammo,barracks, radar,AAA, Hangers) to an amount directly proportional to the carrier type (a convoy will carry more stuff than an M3) , its source (convoys from depots with depleted stores carry less than those from whole depots ) and even maybe its condition (a convoy thats lost a truck should deliver less than a whole convoy).
Depots are replenished by trains arriving from stations. depots will possess silos (fuel,ammo,barracks, radar,AAA, Hangers) convoys or barges leaving depots will reflect the amount of materiel in the silos. As stated above.
Also if the "town" structure is depleted then the frequency of convoys leaving a depot is decreased.
Depots can also be appropriately replenished by player driven C47 / M3's.
Depots can also be replenished by other depots (Like a stock transfer) via convoy or barge using the same method as above.
Stations become super depots they have silos of stuff just like depots. They feed standard depots with train loads of stuff. However they are fed differently. Trains from factories to stations only carry one logistic relevant to the factory source.
Again the frequency of trains leaving the station is effected by the % of town buildings still standing.
Stations cannot feed stations they can only be fed by single source logistics.
Stations will be capturable once town and ack objects are fully destroyed.
Factories and cities feed stations. We would add another factory called "Engineering". This is what will act as the source for hanger logistics . Trains always leave factories and cities full but their frequency is effected by the number of town objects in the factory/ city.
Factories can feed more than one station by a track.
All factories will be capturable once all town and ack objects are destroyed.
Cities feed factories as well as stations they supply labor to build town objects. Labor is handled as a logistic resource in stations and depots just as the others are. Labor is also used to rebuild town objects in depots and stations.
The link between cities and factories is also by trains.
Cities will be capturable once its town and ack objets are destroyed. Cities are rebuilt by cities all maps should give every nation 3 or more cities.
it may seem complex but actually the maths is quite simple once the objects are told to behave certain ways.
Some stuff would have to be upgraded tho
a) train tracks would have to be able to cross as will roads.
b) a new factory called engineering.
c) silo objects with a capacity criteria would have to be created.
d)Convoy,barge and train carriage objects could be asigned to recource criteria and act like mobile silos. (truck1 as ammo truck 2 as fuel etc)
e) we could get rid of the training factory and use the labor resource to also replenish barracks.
Some changes to game play rules
Presently an MA reset occurs when a side has a depleted number of fields / depots. I would add another criteria which would be that a reset should occur when a side has a depleted strat capacity. This could be initiated by several criteria....total silo capacities......or...... total factory ownership.......or...... key factory ownerhip (fuel, ammo,engineering).
I would favour the key factory ownership criteria with a possible added time constraint. eg a side without fuel or ammo or engineering factories for more than 30 mins forces a reset.
The rest of the game considerations comes from good map design. As cities are captured then the strat model slows for one side and speeds up for the other. As factories are taken then (according to the railway routes) whole sectors could (after a period of attrition)be deprived needed rebuild resources resulting in their subsequent capture.
When a side is deprived an essential resource in total then further game play is wrecked and so a strategic loss is incurred and a reset forced.
Tilt
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Then tie this into a 100% logistic based model for rebuild.
While I agree that a strat system with rebuild based entirely on logistics is more realistic, I think it would hurt gameplay.
I suggest that spontaneous rebuild still be around (all those mechanics running around on the field should be able to get SOMETHING working with what they have on hand) but should take more time than the standard 15 mins / half hour and should be slightly randomized. Attacking a base's resupply should prolong the damage just long enough for somebody to go land and grab a goon (and still, things should pop up because you shouldn't be able to count on a base staying down.)
The goal is not to make a system with strategic elements that overwhelm all others, but a system where a group of 10 well regimented pilots can create and execute plans that give them a greater chance at capturing bases aside from the simple rush/gangbang.
-
Figured this really belongs here, rather than the General board. Hope HTC folks read this.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=46423&referrerid=710
-
Originally posted by Seeker
MA strat weenies are nutless bags of wind
Which is why none of the caps lock key challenged, socialy deficient blubber eaters have stepped forward to volunteer as
Allied command for the Sicily scenario.
Could it be that despite all the rhetoric of "multi-layered" gaming; strategic awareness and mentaly maturity they in fact have to come to realise that it takes more to win a war than a couple of gang bang base capture "misshuns"? and that the real warriors of the virtual skies are the furballers, against whom the Generallisimo's are as milk skinned, doe eyed choirboys awaiting a rude awakening?
Could it be that despite all the protestations of historical interest, interlectual maturity and MA ennui they prefer to hide in the anonymous mass of the MA rather than actualy partake of a war game?
Could it in fact be that the oh-so-superior Generallisimos are in fact no more than pimply no lifer virgins with testacles the size of sultanas and no one to talk to on Squad channel?
You're scared of me. All of you.
Winers.
__________________
#1 Sqn. Spitler Youth
YMMV
Worn with Pride!
[/SIZE]
Damn... well... name calling and poor spelling and grammar aside (assuming those were on purpose to compliment the name calling)... you're wrong, but there's nothing there worth attacking.
I admit that I have a very slanted view on this, but the purpose in a furballer's life is to lift a fighter, generate some kills, get shot down, and lift again. There's nothing wrong with this deathmatch arena mentality, but that's no excuse for you to post that.
This is a reasonable discussion on how to improve life for your so called 'generallisimo's without hurting the life of the furballers. Maybe you could chime in with something constructive?
-
Originally posted by Preon1
While I agree that a strat system with rebuild based entirely on logistics is more realistic, I think it would hurt gameplay.
I would profer that any system could unbalance game play if improperly implemented. Either through innappropriate use of time constants, map layout or supply quantity variables.
Any system can use modifiers to enhance gameplay without changing the core principle.
Some examples that may be used in the 100% logistic model
1) All facilities could be capable of being topped up to 125% or even 150% of logistics required for peak performance.
2) capture modifiers could be made more numerous (more town objects, scattered more about...............more ack objects) for cities, factories and or fields, depots or stations.
3) proper carpet bombing required due to wind and drift factors reducing bomb accuracy from high level bombers.
4) replenishment values of resupply can be chosen to balance normal area inertia.
the key aspect of the 100% model is that fields / facilities cut off from their strat sources should perish. IMHO this is more preferable than a field lasting for some time with poor ammo / fuel reserves or occasional FH facilities coming and going. If logistic supply is cut then lack of replenish ment could mean that the end quickly happens as attrition uses up recources. the field is lost and the combat moves on to an area where strat supply isstill secure.
To actually do this (cut the logistic supply) may not be a simple task and would require much combat around a single zone(which is good game play). However once (if) done and sustained for even a short period then the end should be swift Capture should be quickly enabled to allow gameplay to move on to another area without the need for folks to fly 20 mins just to reach the area of action.
Whilst we would see fields with full strat supply should be quite difficult to capture.
The other aspect is the role of the high alt buff ( or buff formation that may be coming). It should be strat based not tactical yet we find it is used tactically. Apart from occasional mission based massive jabo gang bang raids it is the heavy buff which is presently used to take out gun pits, hangers and pinpoint individual targets on air fields most successfully. The 100% model will give the carpet bombing heavy buffs a vital strat role one they may need if their present one is removed. If less accurate formation flying buffs are coming a role must be found for them else another imbalance will occur whilst the jabo role becomes the core battle field ground attack tool ( Along with the panzer). The obvious indeed historical role ( for heavy buffs) is strat targets.
And whilst the strat target requres a fairly large group of buffs then they become the focus of a zone of combat al beit at a higher altitude.
Just my opinion
Tilt