Zels77 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Step 1: supply the enemy with gun-mounted halftracks Step 2: fire in the general direction of the halftracks Apparently it's impossible not to kill the gunner. You could be anywhere in the world, and if you fired your handgun into the air, the round would come down on a gunner in a halftrack somewhere on the planet. It takes concentrated fire to kill troops taking cover behind a stationary wall, but shoot at a halftrack moving at full speed and you are guaranteed to kill the gunner. You can't see it in the game, but every halftrack - and unbuttoned tank for that matter - has a giant dog cone that directs all small arms fire towards the exposed gunner. Very realistic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushingleeek Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 they do die pretty quickly under fire. maybe its because in the code the gunner/commander is actually the "size" of the entire object, ie the halftrack/tank. very easy to hit. Fanboi rebuttals? "Well, this should be pretty simple to test... Make a scenario with...":D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Does this seem to happen more so with British gunners? Because it's already been shown that British tank commanders are summarily executed. I noticed an interesting TacAI behavior a few weeks back. If a buttoned halftrack takes small arms or machine gun fire and spots the shooter the machine gunner will unbutton on his own and return fire, then sit back down when the threat is suppressed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You have to admit, Halftracks are pretty weak by this point in the war. I have no problem seeing rounds penetrate them if they are armor piercing, which by this point of the war, larger MGs had and likely had some with them. But in the game, it is a guarantee, not only do they have them, but they are loaded, ready to use, no matter what. So standing behind the armor plating is not worth much. So no blitzkrieg with them at this point. The most you can do with them is help support from long range, and I mean long range. They might be a worthy attack platform as long as they were used against an enemy that had only small arms weapons. You are the attacker, have the firepower to suppress, then maybe you could use them in that rolling assault that you want to envision. It has been pointed out here many times, that vision is not a correct one as to how they were really used. But I could see them having been used at some earlier points in the war that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 they do die pretty quickly under fire. maybe its because in the code the gunner/commander is actually the "size" of the entire object, ie the halftrack/tank. very easy to hit. It depends, unsurprisingly, on the angle of the fire. If you have half tracks like 251/1s and the fire is from ahead at ground level at close range (and therefore a rising angle), the gunner is very well protected indeed, IME (and I do try and squeeze every use I feel is safe out of my APCs, as I've said in previous threads, so my "E" is probably wider than someone who wisely adopts historical doctrine). If the incoming fire is at all plunging, the gunner and any passengers are at severe risk, certainly. Odd how the exact modelling of the gun shield makes a difference, eh? The gun shield of a Hanomag doesn't protect the gunner from the side. Astonishingly, trained riflemen aim for the mofo with the machine gun, and actually hit relatively often. It's amazing too how the larger gun shield on 251/9 Stummels and the 37mm variant give the crew more protection. Fanboi rebuttals? Sometimes they die. Sometimes they're indestructible. If you pay attention to what you're doing with your assets, you can mitigate the risks. OP lost some gunners in a situation where he should have lost some gunners and is pissed that his misuse of a percieved uberweapon didn't pan out like he naively hoped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 OP lost some gunners in a situation where he should have lost some gunners and is pissed that his misuse of a percieved uberweapon didn't pan out like he naively hoped. Is that not the reason for about 50% of the post on this forum:) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 OP lost some gunners in a situation where he should have lost some gunners and is pissed that his misuse of a percieved uberweapon didn't pan out like he naively hoped. Nope, it's a recurring issue I've experienced across multiple scenarios. The ratio of kills against gunners in moving HTs compared to stationary infantry behind similar or inferior cover doesn't match up. For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism, this should be seen as a significant flaw - in the same way that leader-seeking shrapnel was addressed as a significant flaw in the v1.10 patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I really haven't noticed unusual casualty rates among my HT gunners. Then again, I also keep their heads down with the "open up" toggle unless I have a specific target I want them to shoot at. I definitely never move around with the gunner standing up. That's just begging to get shot since any enemy unit you come into LOS with will almost always spot a moving vehicle before the moving vehicle spots them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism What !!!.......BF have stopped the pursuit of total realism ?...........you would of thought they'd have made an announcement wouldn't you.........curse you BF !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nope, it's a recurring issue I've experienced across multiple scenarios. The ratio of kills against gunners in moving HTs compared to stationary infantry behind similar or inferior cover doesn't match up. That, I'm afraid, is a laughable assertion. HT gunners are sitting ducks except when the fire is from directly in line with their gun shield. They only have the gun shield to protect the tender morsels they have to stick up out of the superstructure of the track. Anything from off-angle has a good chance of being at an uncovered head and shoulders. Troops on the ground have microterrain to hide in, and that, as it should , gives significant additional protection. For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism, this should be seen as a significant flaw - in the same way that leader-seeking shrapnel was addressed as a significant flaw in the v1.10 patch. Unless you actually understand the realism of HT gunners being more vulnerable than troops hugging the ground behind cover, your arguments will be significantly flawed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 That, I'm afraid, is a laughable assertion. HT gunners are sitting ducks except when the fire is from directly in line with their gun shield. They only have the gun shield to protect the tender morsels they have to stick up out of the superstructure of the track. Anything from off-angle has a good chance of being at an uncovered head and shoulders. Troops on the ground have microterrain to hide in, and that, as it should , gives significant additional protection. Unless you actually understand the realism of HT gunners being more vulnerable than troops hugging the ground behind cover, your arguments will be significantly flawed. You're right bud, I'm making this all up. You caught me. Well done Matlock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Oh. I'm so sorry. Have I mistaken the only perfect eyewitness in the world for an ordinary human being? The reason BFC have to have "forensic" evidence before they'll consider making changes is because anecdotal reportage is thorough only in its unreliability. You think Halftrack gunners are too vulnerable. Even assuming (a big assumption this) that you are immune to seeing what you've come to expect to see, against what criteria are you judging the relative vulnerabilities? I'm not denying that you think you're observing something, and I think I'm gathering that you think it's an introduction since 1.10. However, how many different games have you played and analysed since then? I should note that RT games are inherently resistant to any sort of analysis, since you can't go back and check what you think you saw. Have you eliminated side factors like the quality of the troops you're up against since 1.10 vs before? A few veteran squads in the opposition will make gunner casualties much more common than in situations where you're facing Green troops, simply from their improved accuracy. How are you comparing "cover types" for the dismounted troops? What are your sources for the relative vulnerability of halftrack gunners in Normandy '44? You see, I don't think there's anything wrong with the vulnerability of halftrack gunners, in my experience. You do. Both of us have equally valid opinions backed by exactly the same level of evidence (our own recollection of 'noticeable' events). Which of us should BFC pander to? The one who wants "a change" that will slow down some future release, or the one that doesn't require that change? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nope, it's a recurring issue I've experienced across multiple scenarios. The ratio of kills against gunners in moving HTs compared to stationary infantry behind similar or inferior cover doesn't match up. For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism, this should be seen as a significant flaw - in the same way that leader-seeking shrapnel was addressed as a significant flaw in the v1.10 patch. I don't believe I recall "leader-seeking shrapnel" being an item addressed in 1.10, can't say I recall it even being an issue. The posted notes on patch 1.10 do not list it. Did I miss some other discussion? Personally I haven't noticed any significant difference in British Tank commanders getting hit more than US tank commanders as to H-Trk gunners, none of my opponents typically put their H-Trks at that high level of risk so I have no data to work from. This patch will update your CMBN game to v1.10, which includes many enhancements and improvements. Below is a list of some of the new v1.10 game features. •Soldiers make better use of demo charges against vehicles at close range. •When vehicles bog down, it's now more likely to be temporary. •Corrected a problem where gunners would sometimes aim too low and repeatedly hit intervening ground short of the target. •Computer-player troops automatically take additional stored weapons and ammo with them when dismounting from vehicles. •Halftrack gunners will "sit" when the vehicle buttons up. •Dispersion pattern of mortar shells is more realistic. •Dismount command may be given to multi-unit groups. •In campaigns, units won't go into the next battle without a leader due to a previous casualty. •Enemy mortars are a little easier to spot when they fire. •Corrected a problem where frame rate could affect the cover offered by buildings. •Vehicles are more likely to button up when they take a crew casualty. •Computer player is more effective at breaching walls and bocage. •It's more difficult to suppress the occupants of a bunker. •Targeting an enemy unit by clicking its icon works properly when some LOS is blocked. •Corrected a problem that caused deployed soldiers to move around too frequently, especially inside trenches and buildings. •Corrected some problems with soldiers moving across narrow bridges. •Corrected a problem that caused halftracks sometimes to refuse to move across wall breaches. •Pre-battle intelligence icons don't slowly fade during setup. •Scenarios load faster when 3D Texture Quality option is set to Balanced or any faster option. If you notice any decrease in visual quality, simply increase this option one level higher in quality. •New editor feature lets you move flavor objects around more easily. In map preview, ALT-click on a flavor object (Option-click on the Mac) and the next map click will place the (previously) ALT-clicked object at the location of the second click. •Single barbed wire units remember their facing in the editor. •In the editor, when units are purchased they will try to set up by default inside friendly setup zones if the zones have already been created. •Made changes that should reduce the occurrence of Out of Memory crashes. •Allowed for the use of up to 4GB of RAM, dependent on the user's operating system and settings. •Corrected a problem where units driving near ditches would bog too easily. v1.01 GAME FEATURES Vehicles •Moving vehicles fire their weapons with further reduced accuracy. •Spotting ability of buttoned-up vehicles is further reduced. •Fixed a graphical bug that could cause a Puma crew to rotate outside the vehicle. •Vehicles that lose an unbuttoned crewman to small-arms fire are more likely to pop smoke and/or retreat like they typically do when the vehicle itself takes a hit. •Armor penetrations through a vehicle's main gun mantlet are not reported as hits on other locations. •Hit text for projectiles that enter an open vehicle hatch says "Hit: Opening" rather than turret or hull. •Corrected a rare problem that could cause tank drivers to remember "threat locations" for too long and rotate the vehicle inappropriately. •In a campaign game, if a tank is in working order but its crew is decimated, the tank will not appear in the next battle only to immediately become "knocked out" due to having a decimated crew. •Rhino vehicles are additionally available in August. •Fixed a bug that prevented ricochets off a Panther lower mantlet into the hull top (though this intentionally remains rare). •The glacis/hull-roof armor plate on the Tiger front is thicker. •SPW 250/9, SPW 251/9, and SPW 251/10 halftracks will button up under fire like most other vehicles do. •PSW 222 crew is now commander/loader, gunner, and driver. •PSW 222 and PSW 223 are capable of firing weapons after losing a crewman, and have slightly improved commander's visiblity when buttoned up. Terrain •Troops hiding in trenches or foxholes get better protection from shrapnel. •Concealment in foxholes is increased. •Corrected a problem that protected soldiers when a wall was behind them, but not enough when a wall was in front of them. •The distance between a soldier and bocage where the soldier may see through the bocage is slightly shortened. •Direct hits do more damage to trees. •Trees are less likely to block large projectiles consistently. •Tree placement remains precisely consistent each time you load/play a particular scenario. Quick Battles •Corrected a problem that sometimes switched attacking and defending sides. •The unit auto-purchaser is improved. •Air support may only be purchased during daytime with clear or hazy weather. •The "Random Service" option works properly. Artillery •Artillery is a little less precise. •When a forward observer cannot see where spotting rounds impact, he will usually require another round to be fired rather than skip ahead to fire-for-effect with poor accuracy. •Corrected a problem that sometimes caused artillery missions targeted near a TRP to "prepare" indefinitely. •Pre-planned missions for on-map artillery won't ever use spotting rounds. •Corrected an accuracy problem that could affect the first rounds of pre-planned artillery strikes using the Line pattern. •White phosphorous (smoke) does not cause unrealistically high casualties. Soldier Behavior •Soldiers are less likely to use SMGs at longer ranges. •Soldiers are less likely to fire on exposed tank crew. •Soldiers can spot anti-tank mines (in addition to anti-personnel mines). •Corrected some problems with mortars in direct-fire mode. •Soldiers are less likely to use explosive weapons for area-fire at very short range. •Soldiers won't set up heavy weapons on the precise edge of the map. •The TacAI pays a bit less attention to unarmed vehicle targets. •Soldiers aim better when area-firing into an immediately adjacent building. •Corrected some problems with soldier placement around heavy weapons in foxholes. •Soldiers are quicker to stop attempting to surrender if friendly soldiers are nearby and enemies are not. •HMG assistants can cower under fire like the rest of their team. Grenades •Troops may throw grenades from buildings at open-topped vehicles. •Grenade throwing obeys covered arc orders. •Grenades won't roll through building walls. Bridge Pathfinding •Corrected some minor pathing problems across bridges. •Troops are more willing to move across nearby fords rather than use distant bridges. Anti-tank Guns •Antitank guns won't attach to vehicles that are too small to tow them. •Corrected a problem that potentially allowed an antitank gun team to move the gun into a building. User Interface •Keyboard camera controls are smoother (Windows version). •When placing troops in a building during setup, if you click on a soldier or its icon (instead of the building) to set the destination, it won't cause the moving troops to float in midair. •Trenches and barbed-wires "remember" their rotations if moved to a location that is not adjacent to other trenches or barbed-wire. •When attaching targeting orders to a waypoint, the range display is calculated from the waypoint, not the unit's current location. •Corrected a problem with area-targeting a non-occupiable roof of a building. •Clicking Exit or New in the Editor brings up a confirmation dialog. Miscellaneous •Less framerate is devoted to showing wind blowing through trees. •MP40 ammo pouches display correctly on German soldiers. •Fixed a disappearing "gable" on a couple of barns. •Updated US rank icons. •Fixed some out-of-memory problems. •Adjusted the point values for bunkers. Mac specific v1.01B fixes •The install works properly on Lion •Various Keys work properly. •The install instructions are easier to understand. •Number pads should perform as expected. •Fixed a bug that prevented ricochets off a Panther lower mantlet into the hull top (though this intentionally remains rare). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I don't believe I recall "leader-seeking shrapnel" being an item addressed in 1.10, can't say I recall it even being an issue. •Corrected a problem that caused deployed soldiers to move around too frequently, especially inside trenches and buildings. I have to admit to griping to myself that putatively "random" damage from HE burst seems to disporortionately harm significant assets like Leaders and LMG from any given affected Team. I had come to realise that it was because the Leader is the one with the binos and spends the most time/arranges themselves so they're in the best place to be "spotting", which means that they're more upright more of the time and get tagged by shrapnel more often. Perhaps the patch addressed that in some way, making the leader spot from prone more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I have to admit to griping to myself that putatively "random" damage from HE burst seems to disporortionately harm significant assets like Leaders and LMG from any given affected Team. I had come to realise that it was because the Leader is the one with the binos and spends the most time/arranges themselves so they're in the best place to be "spotting", which means that they're more upright more of the time and get tagged by shrapnel more often. Perhaps the patch addressed that in some way, making the leader spot from prone more. LOL okay maybe (though I think it is reaching on that one), but on the other hand every account I have ever read has almost always cited significantly higher losses amongst leaders as they are supposed to "lead". Guess I never felt leader losses being disporportionately higher was an unrealistic phenomenon. My personal feeling was it always seems to hit the guy I am going to need most 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Against what criteria are you judging the relative vulnerabilities? Against the fact that hitting a partially concealed moving target is more difficult than hitting a partially concealed stationary target. It's science buddy, not history. A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. Womble: "Yes, but you can't expect BFC to address the issue unless they know the exact angle of the terrain all of the halftracks, in each of the scenarios and instances, were travelling on, what the wind conditions were, what the morale levels were etc. Basically, unless you are able to replicate the problem in BFC's offices, I'll have to assume you're lying." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 •Dispersion pattern of mortar shells is more realistic. In my experience, leaders have become less vulnerable since the patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Against the fact that hitting a partially concealed moving target is more difficult than hitting a partially concealed stationary target. It's science buddy, not history. A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. Well what a surprise. The wall gives protection from 180 degrees which is significantly more than the gun shield of the track. The troop behind the wall pops up and down and isn't exposed for entire minutes of incoming fire. The troop behind the wall isn't as high on the priority list as the tropp manning the halfie's gun. So the troop behind the wall survives longer. Womble: "Yes, but you can't expect BFC to address the issue unless they know the exact angle of the terrain all of the halftracks, in each of the scenarios and instances, were travelling on, what the wind conditions were, what the morale levels were etc. Basically, unless you are able to replicate the problem in BFC's offices, I'll have to assume you're lying." No, I have to assume you're mistaken. The burden of demonstration isn't that exacting, either. Have a track advance directly towards a team of small arms only, perhaps in a bunker. Vary the relative elevations. If every time, the gunner gets geeked in the first volley, you're maybe seeing something real. Try it again with the incoming from the side and see if there's a difference. As it stands you've got nothing except a gut feeling. Tell me again why your opinion counts for more than mine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 LOL okay maybe (though I think it is reaching on that one), but on the other hand every account I have ever read has almost always cited significantly higher losses amongst leaders as they are supposed to "lead". Guess I never felt leader losses being disporportionately higher was an unrealistic phenomenon. Oh, certainly. I stopped griping about the Looie/Sarge buying it all the time when I realised he's always first or second through a gap and when the fur starts to fly seems to be the bravest of the team. It was specifically "random" death that I was thinking about above. My personal feeling was it always seems to hit the guy I am going to need most Curse that AI for knowing who to snipe off! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. And you want that to be different?? Your perception of what should occur is flawed or perhaps you need to expalin yourself better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. As it should be, IMO. As I mentioned before, moving vehicles are easily spotted but do not spot well themselves, so guess who gets the first shot off most of the time? If I drove my HTs around unbuttoned I would expect the gunners to drop like flies. That's why I don't drive them around unbuttoned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Against the fact that hitting a partially concealed moving target is more difficult than hitting a partially concealed stationary target. It's science buddy, not history. A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. Womble: "Yes, but you can't expect BFC to address the issue unless they know the exact angle of the terrain all of the halftracks, in each of the scenarios and instances, were travelling on, what the wind conditions were, what the morale levels were etc. Basically, unless you are able to replicate the problem in BFC's offices, I'll have to assume you're lying." For 16 posts you are pegging the snide meter pretty well. Good job. And no that is not science, that is simply a premise. Science would require that you actually show something to indicate this is really true and not just a theory. Let's review the OP Step 1: supply the enemy with gun-mounted halftracks Step 2: fire in the general direction of the halftracks Apparently it's impossible not to kill the gunner. You could be anywhere in the world, and if you fired your handgun into the air, the round would come down on a gunner in a halftrack somewhere on the planet. It takes concentrated fire to kill troops taking cover behind a stationary wall, but shoot at a halftrack moving at full speed and you are guaranteed to kill the gunner. You can't see it in the game, but every halftrack - and unbuttoned tank for that matter - has a giant dog cone that directs all small arms fire towards the exposed gunner. Very realistic. I play this game a lot, maybe too much. I am always looking to target exposed crewman, the old reward/risk cycle for it seems to me to be worth the effort. When other folks have been asking BFC to tone down firing on them, I go the opposite way and in the Hamel AAR you can see some of the impact. First of all a soldier in an Armored vehicle firing away is pretty obviously going to be drawing a LOT of attention. Not like you have to guess where he is. On the other hand an MG in concealing terrain is not going to be so obvious, you may hear it, and the rounds may be flying around your head, that doesn't mean you can see it, especially if your reaction is going to be seeking cover. Your statement misses one factor. Concealment works for the stationary infanty, not for the Htrk MG gunner. Concealment does nothing for him, he needs COVER. Everybody already knows where he is. A much different subject. As to cover, I'd take a stone wall over the gun screen etc on a halftrack any day. And yes you are going to be asked for some data, plenty of us have not had your experience and would like to actually have something show that is it actually true rather than just accept it at face value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nope, it's happened often enough - from front, side, back - for me to be sure. I'm not talking about driving the halftrack through enemy lines and expecting the gunner to be fine. I'm saying that exposed gunners in moving halftracks, that are a prudent distance (ie, they are not within range of panzerfausts etc), from the enemy, are canon-fodder for small arms fire - this is not the case in similar situations with troops behind a wall. And your "but troops behind a wall are ducking and diving" argument applies to the halftrack gunner - it's not like he's standing up with a peacock-feathered headdress begging to be shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 It's not science that a moving target is more difficult to hit a stationary one? Well then we've got no basis to argue because we're obviously stationed on different planets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zels77 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 And yes you are going to be asked for some data, plenty of us have not had your experience and would like to actually have something show that is it actually true rather than just accept it at face value. Play A Strange Awakening as US. Empty the HTs, split the squads, and load the teams into the vacant HTs. Play around with the HTs in your assault in fire support of the main infantry force. Good luck keeping those boys alive! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.