"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Username]

I am going to try to ignore slappy. I am literally befuddled by his posts.

What I was thinking of, about the spotting, is as follows:

If the spotting 'roll' is a mathematical cumulation, can it be toned down as a function of additional 'spotters'. That is, as more spotters are tallied, there contribution is of decreasing significance? More so than the direct math would tally?

This would be somewhat elegant because individual spotters, like a one-on-one situation could remain realistic, and the Borg-Hive-telepathy is toned down but not eliminated entirely.

I hope MOST people here can see my intent. This is a last ditch effort to get tweaks included in CM2 that can have game-wide improvements. I really dont want to get into a citizenship award ceremony.

If the game (CM2) was going from West front to Africa, I dont think I would care that much. Open battlefields considered, I wouldnt have that big a problem with the present CMBO spotting being 'non-tweaked'. It would probably work OK. But since I am like a lot of WWII fans waiting on a great East front game (besides my own), I want the best that can be wringed out of the present system. My own personal convictions, towards anything I work on, think about, etc, is that it can always be improved. Makes me a bit of a pain but thats the way I tick inside.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I am going to try to ignore slappy. I am literally befuddled by his posts.

What I was thinking of, about the spotting, is as follows:

If the spotting 'roll' is a mathematical cumulation, can it be toned down as a function of additional 'spotters'. That is, as more spotters are tallied, there contribution is of decreasing significance? More so than the direct math would tally?

This would be somewhat elegant because individual spotters, like a one-on-one situation could remain realistic, and the Borg-Hive-telepathy is toned down but not eliminated entirely.

I hope MOST people here can see my intent. This is a last ditch effort to get tweaks included in CM2 that can have game-wide improvements. I really dont want to get into a citizenship award ceremony.

If the game (CM2) was going from West front to Africa, I dont think I would care that much. Open battlefields considered, I wouldnt have that big a problem with the present CMBO spotting being 'non-tweaked'. It would probably work OK. But since I am like a lot of WWII fans waiting on a great East front game (besides my own), I want the best that can be wringed out of the present system. My own personal convictions, towards anything I work on, think about, etc, is that it can always be improved. Makes me a bit of a pain but thats the way I tick inside.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a bit vague. Sort of like saying that you intend to build a sky scraper and when asked what it will look like you reply it will be tall.

Since you are coding your own game, lets bring out some better numbers, or a system to discuss. How much cumulative effect should each unit have on spotting. What is the difference per unit. If not linear, what math system would you use to create a working code base. I know you would prefer to ignore tough questions, but I really want to understand your proposal better, and right now it is hard to discuss it when it is just glttering generalities.

Perhaps you could even construct a few platoon level spotting situations with which to demonstrate your proposed system, or at least how you think the CM2 system would work. Something to sink our teeth into.

I am sorry if I have been unable to communicate this request with you, but I will try to reword it in a way that works. I for one an truly interested in what you are saying here, but I need more meat and less sizzle to understand what you intend.

[Slapdragon]

Lets give an example.

I feel that unit morale needs some tweeking, so I am going propose a change (this is one I have really been working on, but is not complete).

First I want to isolate variables. Those include experience level of the unit, unit training, casualties, and amount of fire directed at the unit. If I miss any, then peer review when the thing gets beta tested will help me out.

I then read as much as I can on morale, and discover that small unit morale is dominated by two major theories used to predict behavior of the group (per Fort Benning study "Small Unit Morale". Those are herd theory and tipping points. Herd theory says that a group is less likely to break if they can see a number of their fellows not broken (this explains why a hundred thousand men could go over the top in WW1 into certain death but a squad of ten in WW2 would break under intense but not automatically deadly MG fire). A tipping point means that instead of a constant curve, moral functions as a cliff. Go past the cliff, and panic sets in.

So my figure looks like this

X= base morale as figured by unit quality, training, global morale and modified by casualties etc).

Y= the number of friendly firepower points my unit can "see".

Z = how many enemy firepower units directed at my unit.

Z1 - Z9 = modifiers for things like cover (or lack of it), leadership, global morale hits, etc).

(Y-Z sub 0 to 9 ) is morale state.

If X>Y then the unit is OK

If Y>X then the unit is progressively disabled.

Note that tipping points come in at two points. First the above math does not have a gradual degradation of ability. Second, a unit which goes to ground can see fewer friendlies and feels more isolated, and is more likely to break.

Now I can begin making my math better through research, and what is better, through peer review by people interested in the game.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

This is a bit vague. Sort of like saying that you intend to build a sky scraper and when asked what it will look like you reply it will be tall.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooooo. Its like theres an existing building and I want to renovate it and I would like the floor plans.

Steve would be able to find those out. I respect that he might be reluctant to disclose any exact coded math but I believe I do have a point (if spotting works the way I think).

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

X1 X2

Consider that the 'Y's are inf and that the spotting routine is going to determine if X's can see them. The game, I think, determines what chance X1 and X2 (who are the same experience, size, everything) have of spotting Y1. Its somehow mathematically cumulative.

Lets say 50 percent for each X1 and X2. Lets use an assumption that the games present engine determines that theres a 75% chance then that Y1 gets spotted by the combined 'X' effort. What I am saying is that this should be toned down. How much?, depends on the real math but somewhere between 50 < Z < 75 probably.

I would also assume that the game does not degrade either the number of 'spotting chances per spotter' or subsequant spotting ability (ie he can spot as many times as he can without taxing him anyway in acuity).

But this is all getting far ahead. maybe Steve can jump in.

Lewis

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, settle down. Everybody knows about Lewis' SOP so no need to beat a dead horse.

As for Lewis' questions:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

1. Is there a single 'roll' for an instant in time when multiple mixed unit types are trying to spot an enemy in LOS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sortof. As I said before, I didn't remember exactly how it works so I asked charles. Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time...

Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10.

Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20.

Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20.

The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit.

Each x seconds every unit's spotting value is knocked down (dunno how much or how often). This means that there has to be a continual spotting of the Enemy unit to keep it marked on the map. So assuming the Enemy unit cited above loses 10 spotting points, and the next friendly unit spots at 20, then the new value is 20. If no friendly units spot, or spot weaker than 10, then 10 is the number. This is how units can disappear off the map. However, when they reappear they do so at the highest level of Intelligence that it was last indexed to. This is not something that can be changed effectively until we move to Relative Spotting (i.e. downgrading Intel).

Steve

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

If X>Y then the unit is OK

If Y>X then the unit is progressively disabled.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if X=Y? Is it pinned/disabled/perturbed? This all has a Avalon Hill Tobruk type feel to it.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Sortof. As I said before, I didn't remember exactly how it works so I asked charles. Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time...

Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10.

Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20.

Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20.

The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I get this but when you say 'Unit A spots...', how is that determined? I assume there must be a determination of:

1. LOS

2. Probability of spot (whats the math behind this? Is it on a unit-to-unit spotter-to-spottee basis?)

I guess the new FOW level will deal with the unfortunate 'getting info-stripped tag'. Its probably going to be the only way I would want to play.

lewis

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I get this but when you say 'Unit A spots...', how is that determined? I assume there must be a determination of:

1. LOS

2. Probability of spot (whats the math behind this? Is it on a unit-to-unit spotter-to-spottee basis?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have gone over some of the factors (experience, cover, status, etc) in previous posts. There are a crudload of factors that go into determining if and to what degree a unit spots another. LOS quality is, obviously, the most important aspect.

Yes, the probability is strcitly spotter-to-spottee basis. There is no cumulative calculations to determine group spotting. Since Absolute Spotting is what it is, there is no point in doing it differently than that. In fact, unit to unit spotting will still be the way it is done with a Relative Spotting system, but the difference is that each unit will remember what it spots and not be able to access what other units have spotted.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

What if X=Y? Is it pinned/disabled/perturbed? This all has a Avalon Hill Tobruk type feel to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that SL could not figure progressive addition of suppression with no apparent effect, but which could lead to throughing in the towel later. For example, a 6 fp HMG fires at a squad and gets a MC2. The squad passes and is safe. Next turn, same deal. Next turn, same deal. Now for 3 minutes a squad has been under heavy fire and is the same as it was before.

the theory of tipping points says that stress can accumulate until something blows and the unit freaks. Stress can also blow off, and the unit gets better. But until the unit starts to freak, there is no difference in the unit from a fresh one, except it is under that stress, and that stress is recorded in my system, when the SL system could have a squad suffer 36 morale checks and still be ready for #37.

If X=Y then the requirement that Y>X for some sort of moral problem has not been met, so the unit is the same. Of course, a gnat flying by it will stress it over the edge into progressive levels of suppression.

[Username]

Hmmmmm interesting. But I was refering to Tobruk not SL/ASL.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Hmmmmm interesting. But I was refering to Tobruk not SL/ASL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So explain how Tobruk did it. Perhaps they had a good idea. How did they track progressive morale harm while keeping tipping points in place.

[Tero]

Wife asleep, lurk mode off:

>The current spotting value determines what

>the friendly side gets to see/know about

>the Enemy unit.

What if there is a contact marker and the enemy unit has not moved ?

>This means that there has to be a continual

>spotting of the Enemy unit to keep it

>marked on the map......

In a recent PBEM we had two unbuttoned tanks face eachother for two turns well inside LOS and the markers did not change from contact to full blown ID'd unit until we got some help from additional units.

How is area fire modelled in a situation like this ? You can not target a contact marker and area fire is liable to get you into troubles as the TacAI will not be aware of what it is supposed to shoot at. And with what ammo type.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What if there is a contact marker and the enemy unit has not moved ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a unit is no longer actively spotted (i.e. spotting value above a basic threshold) the generic contact marker is placed in the last spot where the enemy unit was known to be. The contact marker is removed if the unit is spotted elsewhere or if a friendly unit "spots" the contact marker location enough to know that nothing is there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a recent PBEM we had two unbuttoned tanks face eachother for two turns well inside LOS and the markers did not change from contact to full blown ID'd unit until we got some help from additional units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is supposed to be able to happen. I can not speculate what caused this in your particular game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is area fire modelled in a situation like this ? You can not target a contact marker and area fire is liable to get you into troubles as the TacAI will not be aware of what it is supposed to shoot at. And with what ammo type. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Area Fire is blind. There is absolutely no "thinking" about what *might* be there or might not be. HE, small arms, or grenades are used. AP ammo is not used since a target must be present for AP to work. Getting an AP round "close" means little.

Steve

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

After painfully reading through USeR’s and Slapdragon’s discourse I was struck by the correlation this thread has to Alice and Wonderland and the disjointed conversations between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The daughter loves this story.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Agreed to have a battle!

For Tweedledum said Tweedledee

Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,

As black as a tar-barrel!

Which frightened both the heroes so,

They quite forgot their quarrel.'

`I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; `but it isn't so, nohow.'

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:

After painfully reading through USeR’s and Slapdragon’s discourse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check you glass perscription. If reading is causing you headaches, it could be a sign of a vision problem.

Or perhaps you should not read these sort of discussions.

[Username]

Jesus

Slapdragon, tero and ridget all in one thread. I must be in hell.

[Jarmo]

So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before.

Oh my are we far from SMG gap but who cares.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before.

Oh my are we far from SMG gap but who cares. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes it does. look up at my example above with the X's and Y's. Each X is getting a chance at spotting the Y's. Its shared information if one of the X's gets a spot. what steve is saying for relative spotting is that there will be a routine that remembers/calculates for the unit itself what it can see. So while the target may appear "sighted" on the map, it wont be targettable to a unit that cant see it. targetting wont "stick" if you will.

Since the present system is going to be used in CM2, I am hoping that theres some way around this, an abstraction or limitation, that can tone this down.

Certain things have been mentioned in the past:

1. Override: this is when you target a unit and the TACAI decides that a nearer unit is a better target. The assumption is that a nearer unit is a greater threat AND would more likely be spotted by the firer.

2. Filtering: Firepower of firing unit is reduced (reported reduced in firepower factors at the end of the fire colored line string) as a function of spotting. This doesnt stop anyone from targetting anything that is absolutely spotted but the game reduces FP depending on how much spotting chance a firer has.

3. Command limitations: The game menus that pop up dont allow you to pick targets just actions. Example would be to just 'Fire' and the game would decide what the best target would be. Hated and reviled by control freaks.

4. Spotting Chance based on firer/target types: Unworkable due to coding in the game, see this thread.

5. Pinning/Hiding improvement: Since motion catches the human eye more so than anything else (besides flashing Xenon lights), perhaps units that are pinned/hiding should be stepped down in spottability. Especially in any type of cover. having this extra 'drop from spotting' ability can offset the shared spotting.

Lewis

[Paco QNS]

Thanks Steve for your explanations (and re-explanations) on all issues. For your patience, too.

So, here is one of the points where is "FUZZY LOGIC" in CMBO showing its face (in a stealthy fashion, of course ).

I have always loved "fuzzy logic" (probably because of my fuzzy mind ).

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

On the issue of LMG based squad tactics, a couple of excerpts from spanish manuals:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>INFANTRY Tactical and organic fractions:

311.

Division (...)

(,,,) ... (,,,)

Company 3 Platoons((="Secciones"))

Platoon 2 Squads (("Pelotones"))

Squad 3 Teams (("Escuadras"))

( 1st for LMG, 2nd rifle and 3rd grenadiers

((alternatively: 1st LMG, 2nd & 3rd rifle-grenadiers))

Team 6 men

From: "Rules to organize and prepare the ground for combat" Book I 1927 page 151<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A few more cites -from a 1938 manual- in a next post.

Regards.

[Jaldaen]

Hey Steve,

I was wondering if you might swing by the: "CM2 Commands- Wish List" and give us some feedback.

Thanks,

Jaldaen

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the present system is going to be used in CM2, I am hoping that theres some way around this, an abstraction or limitation, that can tone this down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Things are probably as toned down as they can get without either a whole new system (Relative Spotting) or something that is flawed in other, perhaps more serious, ways.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Override: this is when you target a unit and the TACAI decides that a nearer unit is a better target. The assumption is that a nearer unit is a greater threat AND would more likely be spotted by the firer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not a good idea. First of all, how do you define the cutoff point? Open field, two targets, one is 100m and the other is 80m. How do you decide if an Override is in order or not? AT gun looking at tank at 1000m and infantry at 500m, should it switch to the Infantry? No, this is not a workable solution and it probably wouldn't do much more than the Targeting logic already does (i.e. favors closer targets if better chance of hitting/hurting).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Filtering: Firepower of firing unit is reduced (reported reduced in firepower factors at the end of the fire colored line string) as a function of spotting. This doesnt stop anyone from targetting anything that is absolutely spotted but the game reduces FP depending on how much spotting chance a firer has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is absolutely no mechanism to link spotting and firepower together. Each unit doesn't have a clue as to what chance it might have of spotting an enemy unit. As I said, it just comes up with a number and passes it off to the enemy unit. The value resident in the enemy unit is all that matters. Plus, how would this work anyway? Unit A sees enemy squad, knows where it is, but hasn't figured out exactly what it is. Why should firepower be toned down? And how do you apply this logic to stuff like tanks? Now that AP round won't penetrate as much simply because it has a lower chance of spotting?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Command limitations: The game menus that pop up dont allow you to pick targets just actions. Example would be to just 'Fire' and the game would decide what the best target would be. Hated and reviled by control freaks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hated and reviled by us too, since it is impossible for us to make the TacAI do what it should do in all circumstances. The TacAI can not read the commander's mind, so how is it supposed to know that 1st Platoon has been given a suppression mission why 2nd Platoon advances? Again,there is absolutely no mechanism in the game to come up with adequate behavior like this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. Spotting Chance based on firer/target types: Unworkable due to coding in the game, see this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. Pinning/Hiding improvement: Since motion catches the human eye more so than anything else (besides flashing Xenon lights), perhaps units that are pinned/hiding should be stepped down in spottability. Especially in any type of cover. having this extra 'drop from spotting' ability can offset the shared spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are looking at these values again, but there is a big danger of swinging things in the other direction, making units TOO hard to spot. There was a big discussion about this in the previous thread (IIRC) and the examples of "spotting is too easy" were more the result of massive "eyes" or poor use of cover. So although we are going to look at the values again, do not expect radical behavioral changes even if we do tweak them.

The problem here is that what you want is Realtive Spotting. Tweaking, poking, pulling, hacking, etc. Absolute Spotting will NOT get you there. Not even close. At best a few MINOR tweaks can be made to the existing system, but not even 1/100th of what you are looking for. In short, the two systems are completely different. It is a waste of our time trying to kludge something that will hit diminishing returns even before we start.

Paco, that sounds a lot like many of the inter war platoon organizations I have seen. A large dedicated LMG team and two similar sized rifle teams.

Jaldaen,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was wondering if you might swing by the: "CM2 Commands- Wish List" and give us some feedback.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the most frequent discussions we have here is about new orders I think the discussion has been exhausted long ago. Plus, we have already implemented all the new orders we are going to do for CMBB. So I'll take a look at the thread, but nothing will come of the suggestions there unless we have already addressed them.

Steve

[Jarmo]

Since puffing your own thread seems to work:

Steve, would you please also take a quick look at my CM2 suggestion thread:

"CM2, enabling both sides to dig in. Please?"

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=020405

It's really short thread. I promise.

...

Or if Steve has left the building, could someone else take a look and help me float it a bit longer...

[Username]

"It is a waste of our time trying to kludge something that will hit diminishing returns even before we start."

Is it really possible to hit diminishing returns before you start? It would then seem that diminishing returns are independant of any time reference and could spontaneously diminish your returns at any moment. They would be something indeed to be wary of. Sort of like the spanish inquisition. Nobody expects it I hear.

Steve. Are you related to Yogi Bearra?

Lewis

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

So basically it doesn't really help spotting to have multiple observers. I've been wondering about that before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis:

Well yes it does. look up at my example above with the X's and Y's. Each X is getting a chance at spotting the Y's. Its shared information if one of the X's gets a spot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this may be what your example says, but it doesn't seem to be what Steve's says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve:

Basically, the highest spotting value "wins". For example, various spottings of a single Enemy unit over time...

Unit A spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 10.

Unit B spots Enemy unit with value 20 - Enemy unit's spot value goes to 20.

Unit C spots Enemy unit with value 10 - Enemy unit's spot value remains at 20.

The current spotting value determines what the friendly side gets to see/know about the Enemy unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve's example above suggests that there is not a seperate spotting check done for each unit in LOS. Rather, the highest spotting value of any single unit in LOS is used when doing the check. If the result comes up as "spotted" all units in LOS spot it. Having more than one unit in LOS could help in that the more units, the higher the likelyhood of one of them having a higher spotting value, but it does not increase the number of checks made.

If this is correct, that would mean that 1 unit with a spotting value of 20, would be more likely to spot that enemy unit than 6 units each with a spotting value of 10.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Steve's example above suggests that there is not a seperate spotting check done for each unit in LOS. Rather, the highest spotting value of any single unit in LOS is used when doing the check. If the result comes up as "spotted" all units in LOS spot it. Having more than one unit in LOS could help in that the more units, the higher the likelyhood of one of them having a higher spotting value, but it does not increase the number of checks made.

If this is correct, that would mean that 1 unit with a spotting value of 20, would be more likely to spot that enemy unit than 6 units each with a spotting value of 10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah thats not it. He is getting into a spotted level. That is, the game hangs the highest spotted level on the target. This spotted level reveals info. Once the info is stripped, it aint growing back.

In steves example he is saying that all the spotters have attained spotting. My example, with the X's and Y's, would have came before as a pre-function to what steves explaining. That is:

Determine units with LOS to target

Determine if units spot target

Determine highest spotted value (10, 20,etc)

If already spotted, does unit lose spotting

So, once spotted, you are ratchet'd up to a known-info level. If you run behind a mountain and come back, you will be at this stripped level. This is really an IDing concern but lets not get into that also. But perhaps the game should not take the highest value but the lowest or average (I can hear steve now "NO, thats not a good idea, it would be a waste of our present and possibly future time irregardless of if we do it or not!! What you want is REALTIVE SPOTTING DAMMIT!!!!").

So the real problem with spotting is that multiple units with LOS to a unit each get a shot at seeing the unit. If one is successful, then all benefit. Its like if 10 guys kick in 10 bux each invest and earn 15 dollars on the 100 spot. They all get 15 bux each. Nice deal but wrong. Also there is no limit to the number of investments each can make. Once "uncovered", its probably not that easy to get back to invisable.

Its all because of SPOTTEE sided mathematics. Theres no SPOTTER accountability or limitations.

Lewis