Russian/German border readines thing is absolutely stupid

[jon_j_rambo]

What's the deal with the damn Russian readiness? I just wasted 6-hours playing a game & the readiness jumps to 67% in March 1941?

Hubert, what the hell (heaven) is the deal? I've played 100+ games & still don't understand the rules.

1) Put units on the border?

2) Put units in the cities?

3) Put units spaced out?

4) What's the total number of units?

5) Do Italians count?

6) Do Neutrals count?

What a waste of my time. I don't know how many games I've played that have been ruined by this sorry Russian readiness thing.

I remember playing Terif (Terif was Axis) & he took a 10% hit. Nobody could explain it. Strange things happens when Romania/Hungary join, so don't tell me it has nothing to do with the Axis minors or their borders.

This game should be renamed from Strategic Command to Strategic Crap.

How many opinions are there on how to garrison the border? It's absolutely STUPID.

[ November 30, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Bill101]

Isn't some unpredictability good for the game?

Wouldn't it just get boring if things always went the same way, every time?

I don't understand the Russian readiness either, and have paid with Axis blood as a result, but I didn't care. I just got on with the fight and did my best.

Let's not have everything so perfectly programmed so that those who know the game inside out will always wipe the floor with those who don't.

[JerseyJohn]

I have to agree with Rambo and have been saying since my earliest days here that I don't believe either the USSR or the US would have entered the war till at least mid-1943, if at all!

The Soviet Army, if the USSR enters early, should have inferrior units,

-- The Russian Army was jolted into effectiveness by the early massive disasters it suffered when Germany invaded. It wasn't the same army before Germany's invasion and wouldn't have been without it.

massive supply problems,

-- No American trucks and the Russian guage rail road stops at the border. Aside from which the Soviets regularly had logistical trouble even when fighting close to their own major cities! The could not have supplied offensive operations beyond their own border without thousands of U. S. manufactured trucks.

and a low collapse level.

-- Instead of The Great Patriotic War, it would have been known as Stalin's Stupidity! As the losses mounted and the Axis inevitably rolled the still inept and poorly led Soviet Army back into it's own hinterland, Stalin, like Nicholas in 1917, would have suffered an internal collapse.

And Stalin himself knew all that, which is why he bent over backwards to avoid a war with Germany.

I don't know how to solve the problem; if there's some way to have Soviet and U. S. war readiness progress at half it's present rate that might do the trick. I've been experimenting with Zappsweden's LendLease idea and other means of generating more MPPs for the UK and have it found it can easily hold out till that time if it has a good MPP income, though it is stuck on the defensive.

This was discussed at some legnth in another Thread, mainly by Shaka and myself, and I'm sure we were on the right track.

[ November 30, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

John

You're right (as usual) about the historical detail, but if that were the case then no playable game could be made to represent WWII unless it forced the Germans to attack Russia in 1941.

The way this game works at the moment, the Axis player has to DOW on Russia sometime in 1941 (or possibly very early 42 if they've been really lucky).

If they could avoid this until later in 1942 or 1943 then the Axis would win the game every time.

Playability and game balance is the key here.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Glad we agree, and I also agree with your point on play balance. That's definitely the motivating factor here instead of being historically responsible, as Shaka and myself like to put it.

Beyond a doubt Hubert and the designers of CoS and HiCom know at least as much about the historical situation as I do and they're aware of everything I've said above, but is an arificially induced Soviet and U. S. entry really the answer?

Hitler turned on Russia when he did, in part at least, because he believed if he took the Soviets out of the picture Britain would see reason and agree to a peace treaty. He wasn't trying to gain Britain as an Ally, as some historians claim, he was trying to establish peace so he could consolodate his gains before moving on again. Beyond what he already conquered he was interested in South America and also, after the Fall of France, in establishing German occupation of the still considerable Belgian and Dutch Colonial Empires.

Churchill rightly understood that, given time build, Germany would muster vastly greater resources than Britain and a peace agreement was, ultimately, almost as bad as a surrender! When Hitler again got the itch, after a few years of consolodation, he'd be prepared to really cross the Channel, or the North Sea. Britain's only choice, other than war, would be full cooperation; perhaps not as an ally, but as a trade partner and accomplice against the United States.

But getting back to the original point, Hitler turned on Russia because he was convinced he couldn't defeat Britain!

Wouldn't it be better to design the game so Britain receives enough MPPs to hold out, on it's own, till 1943, and then have a real possibility of Soviet / USA entry? It can easily be done.

One scenario I've been working on places Ireland, Portugal, & Iraq with the UK from the start, along with three U. S. cities and an oil field @5MPPs each (all inland so they won't be landed on by either side), as well as four Soviet cities @3MPPs each. This gives the UK: USA (& Soviet) = 32 MPPs per turn

Portugal = 5 MPPs per turn

Ireland = 5 MPPs per turn

Iraq = 25 MPPs per turn.

Total = 57 MPPs per turn!

The UK doesn't appear to have any problems with all that income. If anything it becomes a bit too strong. I'm toying now with adding Sweden to the Axis and adding three more Soviet cities to the British LL income.

All of this LL bonus ceases, of course, as the USA and USSR enter in 1943, which reflects the prolonged drain on the UK economy and manpower.

The only houserules I use are:

the Axis must DoW on USA by the first turn of March 1943 and the USSR by the first turn of May 1943.

If it DoW's on either of them before that time it has to DoW against the other four months later in 41, three months later 42 and the following month in 43.

The USSR enters much stronger than if it comes in two years earlier, a good idea Hubert had in the game design.

[ November 30, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

There's nothing wrong with some random events in a game, but when it just wasted 6-hours of my time, enough is enough. If the Russian Government is going to increase war readiness & that percentage is know by the Germans, some indicator of why would be nice. Nothing in the rules...and nothing but a bunch of opinions how to garrison. Hell (Heaven), I'm a Legend & don't know how to answer the question. YodaTerif thought he had the game figured out perfect until he got a 10% pop one game for no reason. There's something screwy when the Axis minors join, who's half-turn they join on, & how many minors join. There's a mystery there to solve, but in a strategy game, it's not up to the consumer to solve.

[Curry]

JJ - Agree with you that the USSR would not have joined the war with what Germany did historically until at least 1943 or later. However, we dont know what the USSR would have done if for say, Hitler invaded Sweden which is so close to the Soviet Union. But for game playability I also believe Bill is right. What makes SC so fun and playable is that the axis knows the USSR will enter the war. If the USSR would not enter the war until attacked by Germany and Germany could wait until it first killed off the UK and anyone else Germany would win every time. So I guess IMHO you both are right.

[ November 30, 2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Edwin P.]

It would be nice if the game had an optional pop-up news indicator that gave the players some "in game" indication as to why Russian readiness jumps or why US readiness drops.

Example:

The Russian government is worried about the concentration of German troops in the border area. (When Germany puts too many troops on the border too soon)

Russian newspaper Pravda reports that the failure of the German High Command to crush the Polish resistance demonstrates the inherent weaknesses of the German Army. (When the Polish resistance lasts beyond turn 4)

Ivestia reports that the German invasion of England has caused the Russian Command to order a full mobilizations of the Russian Army. (in response to a German Sea Lion)

[ November 30, 2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

The latest entry date for the US should be Dec1941, when Japan attacked Perl Harbor.

A subsequent German Sea Lion on the UK, given Hitler's previous statements about the Communist system should trigger a rapid growth in Russian readiness as Stalin would have wanted to attack Germany before it crushed the UK and was able to concentrate all of its forces against the USSR

I would also like to see (only in games vs the AI) the Russian AI occassionaly (say 1 in 10 games) reflect the alternative strategy that the Russian command staff had proposed - not basing units so close to the Russian border.

[ November 30, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

I like your idea of "news events" telling you indirectly why the Russian readiness increased.

About the US entry being no later than Pearl Harbor, I must say I disagree. Lets not forget, that Hitler DoW'd on the US, not the US DoWing on Germany.

What I'd like to see, is the actions of Japan (which are off-map), being "historical" or "random". The US readiness percentage, would be effected by the Japanese actions as well as Axis (Germany/Italy) actions. And just like you described for Russia, it would be nice to see some sort of "news event" showing the actions that Japan did.

Without getting into too much detail, Japanese actions would dictate what kind of Commonwealth units the UK would receive. Example would be Japan making major advances in Indo-China, would reduce the number of CW units that would reinforce Egypt as well as forcing the US readiness to go higher. While the Japanese DoW on US ('41 if historical, sooner or later if random) would in turn force US to war with Japan, it would not guarantee a German DoW on the US.

Germany would have the option of DoWing on US, because in return it wanted Japan to DoW on Russia. If it was determined that Japan would DoW on Russia, that would mean no Siberians for Russia as well as a MPP reduction.

Now, lets get back to Russia. Russia has the option of transferring troops to fight against Germany. But if it does so, it would weaken the forces facing Japan. Hence, if the Russians transferred the Siberians before fighting Japan, Japan would have the advantage. If it doesn't transfer them, then it would just about gurantee success in a conflict against Japan. That would put the decision in Russian hands on how to handle the Siberians, with the pro's and con's that they had in real life.

[Blashy]

I don't like random when it can break a game.

And myself I still have a hard time making the readiness issue for USSR work, sometimes its on the ball, sometimes its not even if I'm following the exact same pattern.

I'm with JJ that Ireland, Greece and Iraq should be UK, Iraq was still under UK influence big time until the end of the 40s when warlords started taking control. Ireland, well they were certainly not going to export to Axis with a big UK Navy surrounding them. And Greece, that is just plain obvious that any trade they would have done would have gone to Allies, as well I feel they need to get entrenched to simulate how stubborn they were even with the crap equipement.

Portugal, I can't say, I really don't know their position in WW2, if they cut ties with Spain then I would say yes to trading with Allies.

The US L/L is a good idea, it's accurate history. 1 Oil / 1 Mine simulates supplies.

Now if you want to drop the bidding, you would probably need to increase the US readiness.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka, your idea of having actions in the Pacific theater influences the war in Europe is just what the game needs. It adds to the historical context of the War in Europe and allows the players to influence the direction of the Pacific war in an abstract manner.

Does Russia maintain a large garrison in Siberia? as you said:

Now, lets get back to Russia. Russia has the option of transferring troops to fight against Germany. But if it does so, it would weaken the forces facing Japan. Hence, if the Russians transferred the Siberians before fighting Japan, Japan would have the advantage. If it doesn't transfer them, then it would just about gurantee success in a conflict against Japan. That would put the decision in Russian hands on how to handle the Siberians, with the pro's and con's that they had in real life.

How many naval units does the US maintain in the Pacific? A reduced presence may guarantee Japanese victory in the Pacific and prevent the Siberian transfer. An increased focus on the Pacific will shorten the war in the Pacific but reduce US forces (aka MPP) available for the war in Europe until Japan is defeated.

And as you also stated regarding Germany:

Germany would have the option of DoWing on US, because in return it wanted Japan to DoW on Russia. If it was determined that Japan would DoW on Russia, that would mean no Siberians for Russia as well as a MPP reduction.

If you had 3 choices for the US, 2 choices for Germany, 2 choics for Russia and say 3 choices for Japan you have 36 (3x2x2x3) possible scenarios.

---German Options After Japan DOW US

----------Historical DOW on US

----------Do Not DOW on US

---US Options After Japan DOW on US

----------Historical

----------Victory in the Pacific First

--------------Reduces US Production by 50% but Japan surrenders sooner. Counters Effect of Reduced Russian Garrison in Siberia

----------Greater Resources to War in Europe

--------------US Naval Units Transferred to Atlantic

--------------------US gains 2 Carriers in the Atlantic

--------------Chance of Japanese Victory vs Russia or India.

--------------------Japanese Victory vs Russia reduces Russian MPP by 25%.

--------------------Japanese Conquest of India results in

---Russia Options before Japan DOW on US

----------Weak Garrison in Siberia

----------Strong Garrison in Siberia

[ November 30, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Curry

Agreed on the basic gameplay premise except it's fairly easy to create good scenarios where Britain has a high and steady MPP income, making it safe from an early Sea Lion. For good measure an army (8th) and tank group (Western Desert) can be placed in Egypt to avoid the routine, quick and historically absurd Italian amphibious takeover of Alexandria and the Suez Canal; the game is way out of whack in allowing that possibility.

Germany couldn't invade Britain, it's that simple. It could have made things harder for her with measures like building more and better U-boats, manufacturing them in France as well as Germany, it might have conducted an even more murderous air war, but direct invasion was out of the question, at least while the Soviet Union was lurking in the background.

In the AAR game I had with Archibald he posted a great cartoon (copied below) of an Englishman saying the war in Russia didn't concern Britain except it was a war being fought so Germany could get what it needed to invade them. There's a lot of truth there.

I don't think Germany would have invaded Sweden because it had absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose; like many other things, this is never reflected in SC, HiCom or CoS type games.

But aside from the specific example, there's no reason to believe Stalin ever intended to invade Germany and every reason to believe he never even considered the possibility.

[ November 30, 2003, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Completely agreed on all points and enjoyed your ideas on Pacific events influencing the European War.

Edwin

Excellent development of those ideas.

Regarding your remark about the United States entering no later than it's historical date, why and what's the historical justification?

To begin with, even with the attack on Pearl Harbor the United States was not at war with the Axis! The Pearl Harbor episode of World at War has an interview with Averill Harriman, member of FDR's cabinet and future governor of New York. Harriman comes right out and states that FDR felt we were in the wrong war! Further, he says that if Germany and Italy had not declared war on the United States the country would not have gotten into the European War at all!

The United States people and congress did not want to get involved in any war anywhere -- it's that simple!

What you're saying is Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 and would always have been destined to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 and that the Axis declared war on the United States and would always have been destined to declare war on the United States! What's the point of putting any of this in a game if that's the reasoning we have to use?

[Edwin P.]

Excellent Point and I agree with you totally.

As you know some Japanese leaders did not want to attack the US at all.

The problem I had was with war with Germany for the US being delayed until 1943. If this happened in SC terms there would be no chance that the Allies could win. Russia would fall and Germany would be unstoppable.

[Bill101]

Jersey John wrote: "is an arificially induced Soviet and U. S. entry really the answer?"

I don't know, but we have to remember that in real life the Axis was led by two nutters, Hitler and Mussolini.

If they had been led by sensible generals like Manstein, or sensible players (i.e. us in SC) then the Axis would win every time.

I view the unpredictability of war readiness as a way of rationalising the fact that we are usually far more sensible than Hitler was in real life, and this game needs a balancer.

Stalin was a nutter too, so predicting his behaviour on all events shouldn't be too easy. Besides, people who have played this game 100+ times have an advantage of hindsight which the real life leaders and generals didn't have.

I agree that lend lease and other modifications (such as not allowing an Italian amphib adventure into either Greece or Egypt) would help, but when SC2 comes out I still would like it to have some elements in it that not even the top players can ever quite master.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin & Bill

You make good points, I hadn't looked at it from the point of view of the Allies being unable to win if Soviet-US entry is pushed too far back.

Perhaps some sort of manual system where they're set at neutral and the default entry dates are where I had them (May and March 43) but it gets moved up, manually, two months for each DoW.

-- Assuming the UK starts with Ireland, Portugal and Iraq ...

The Axis could have six DoWs and would then need to declare war on the USA in March of 42 and the USSR in May of 42. Or, Germany can sit with the LC and France only, collect it's historical allies, take Yugo when it coups, and wait till May of 43, with both the US & USSR in the war, before proceeding to DoW on anyone else. That would have a fairly reduced Axis and the Allies have four years to win -- or, a much stronger Axis and the Allies have five years to beat it.

Naturally, the Axis player can invade the USSR or DoW on the USA anytime earlier if he chooses, and that wouldn't effect the other's maximum DoW (March 43 for USA & May 43 for USSR); the remaining neutral major would only be effected by DoW's on minor neutrals.

-- Hubert's game can go till the Spring of '47; why not take advantage of it?

[ December 01, 2003, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

John

The good thing is that what you suggest can be playtested in SC by just setting USA and USSR to neutral, with an agreement made as to during which turn the Axis player will have to DOW on them.

Both players will need to keep track of the number of DOWs, but that shouldn't be too hard to do.

Alternatively, the USA can be set to historical, USSR to neutral, with an agreement that the Axis player must DOW on the USSR in the turn of 22nd June 1941.

That way the Axis player can do what they like in the meantime, but with generally less time than usual before having to invade Russia.

[ December 01, 2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Terif]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

What's the deal with the damn Russian readiness? I just wasted 6-hours playing a game & the readiness jumps to 67% in March 1941?

Hubert, what the hell (heaven) is the deal? I've played 100+ games & still don't understand the rules.

1) Put units on the border?

2) Put units in the cities?

3) Put units spaced out?

4) What's the total number of units?

5) Do Italians count?

6) Do Neutrals count?

...

I remember playing Terif (Terif was Axis) & he took a 10% hit. Nobody could explain it. Strange things happens when Romania/Hungary join, so don't tell me it has nothing to do with the Axis minors or their borders.

...

To answer the original "question":

You can read the answers in my strategy guide for new/intermediate players. Sometimes it can be useful to read it for veterans too . It is at the top of the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=002198#000000

The game you "remember" has to be a long, long time ago when I started playing SC... I cant remember such a game... When readiness increases, it has clear reasons. There is no random event here.

In your game you obviously either moved a unit from the border away, or you originally had not the 3 necessary units at the border. I suppose the last possibility, since readiness jumped when Hungary joined/the turn after February 1941. Simply take care, then this cant happen.

Even when your minors didnt join (and here one of them just joined) you need the units latest in January 1941 or readiness increases 10% per turn as long as you dont protect your border. The nationality or quality of your guards doesnt matter, you can also use italians or units from your minors.

For new players I just updated my strategy guide with the exact positions of the 3 units, but Veterans should already know where they have to be placed...usually you learn it in one of your first Axis games.

But perhaps the lesson is: dont drink (a brew) and play - äh drive... ? lol

BTW: I like my new nickname "Yoda"

[ December 01, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Yes, I agree and favor the keeping track of DoW's method as it leaves more options open.

Two of Hitler's mistakes people most like to cite are his invasion of the USSR and his declaration of war on the United States, both with six months of one another. So, here we are playing a game to see if we can do things differently and achieve better results and what are we funnelled into doing? Committing those very mistakes in order to maintain game balance!

[J Von Zeppelin]

Sorry JerseyJohn... you have to face up to the fact that if neither USSR of USA enter the war anytime soon then there is no more war (After fall of France) unless germany declares war on them. If I was leader of Germany in late 1940 I would have been tickled pink with all that had been conquered. And because I, as leader, have 20/20 hindsight (as you do) I would have consolidated my gains and called it a war. The war would be more or less over, the US and USSR would never get involved (maybe a decade later but then that would have been an entirely different war). I would have also never allied Germany with Japan. So there really would not have been a WORLD War II... only the German-European war of 39/40.

But as many have pointed out, Hitler was a "nutter". Primarily because of Hitler (aligning with Japan and declaring war on US) did the US join the war. Entirely because Hitler was obsessed with destroying the USSR did this country enter the war.

If you take away Hitler and his "less than sane" ideas and decisions WWII would not have been WWII... and this is a WWII game. It REQUIRES Hitler-type events or it would not be a WWII game, because WWII "required" Hitler for it to become what it did become.

Have a WWII game without Hitler and Hitler-esque consequences is like having America without the American Revolution. We would not even be making all these computer games about WWII.

As EMINEM says "that's my 10 cents - my 2 cents are free."

[Blashy]

Originally posted by J Von Zeppelin:

Sorry JerseyJohn... you have to face up to the fact that if neither USSR of USA enter the war anytime soon then there is no more war (After fall of France) unless germany declares war on them. If I was leader of Germany in late 1940 I would have been tickled pink with all that had been conquered. And because I, as leader, have 20/20 hindsight (as you do) I would have consolidated my gains and called it a war. The war would be more or less over, the US and USSR would never get involved (maybe a decade later but then that would have been an entirely different war). I would have also never allied Germany with Japan. So there really would not have been a WORLD War II... only the German-European war of 39/40.

But as many have pointed out, Hitler was a "nutter". Primarily because of Hitler (aligning with Japan and declaring war on US) did the US join the war. Entirely because Hitler was obsessed with destroying the USSR did this country enter the war.

If you take away Hitler and his "less than sane" ideas and decisions WWII would not have been WWII... and this is a WWII game. It REQUIRES Hitler-type events or it would not be a WWII game, because WWII "required" Hitler for it to become what it did become.

Have a WWII game without Hitler and Hitler-esque consequences is like having America without the American Revolution. We would not even be making all these computer games about WWII.

As EMINEM says "that's my 10 cents - my 2 cents are free."

He is absolutely right on his points.

If you intend to play Germany and not make Hitler's errors then you would have to call it a game once you have all of Europe except Sweden, Russia and Switzerland.

Although the goal is that you play Germans with the "Hitler" intent at world domination but try and not make his strategical errors fighting wise, which he did by the bundles, good for us his Generals never killed him (although 19 attemps were done), if not... ouch.

[Edwin P.]

Two of Hitler's mistakes people most like to cite are his invasion of the USSR and his declaration of war on the United States, both with six months of one another. So, here we are playing a game to see if we can do things differently and achieve better results and what are we funnelled into doing? Committing those very mistakes in order to maintain game balance!

Assume that after Hitler made those two mistakes that a Military coup occured and you -the new supreme commander - are now in charge and have the opportunity to really change how the war turned out.

[JerseyJohn]

J Von Zeppelin

First -- Good to see a new member with such sensible views; hope you put up a lot of posts.

Our historical appraisal of the situation is pretty much identical. Yes, I'd say the fifties for the next round, probably no A-bomb developed but a lot research -- nothing like the Manhattan Project on either side, but some determined research all the same. Jet aircraft and rockets, better bombs, etc & etc. ...

What I'm suggesting isn't a game where neither the U. S. nor Russia enters the war at all.

I'm suggesting variables where the UK is made substantially stronger so it won't fall to a German Sea Lion, and in exchange the U. S. and USSR entry is delayed till the Spring of 1943.

It isn't that dramatic a suggestion and certainly doesn't warrent all the cycles this thing has already gone through!

Achieving the 1943 idea is simple, I've outlined it two or three times earlier in this thread. Anyone interested in giving it a try should give look at those ideas or drop me an e-mail and I'll be glad to send the scenario I've put together.

Those who want to always repeat the exact sequence of events are free to do so, but I'm pretty tired of having the U. S. enter in March of 1941 when I haven't even got functional U-boats in the Atlantic! Even more disgusted with the USSR barging in; sure, a year after Finland mowed their troops down by the thousands they're going to start jumping on Germany, with the most potent war machine the world had ever seen. No, I'm afraid it wouldn't have happened that way.

They may have sent Molotov to Berlin with an attitude, but there was nothing backing it up and everyone, including Stalin, knew it.

Anyway, thanks for the responses, signing out as there's no point rephrasing these things again, if you'd like the scenario drop a line using the envelope (through BattleFront).

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Actually, when I play Germany I like to believe I'm not the historical Hitler at all -- I'd be damned if I feel I'm fighting for the right to send millions upon millions of people to death camps!

No, I assume I'm myself in the top spot with an obsession to unite Europe under the cause of JerseyJohnnyism!

As such, I feel in no way obligated to make any of Hitler or Mussolini's historical mistakes.

On the other hand, I also like to avoid doing ahistorical moves like hitting the USSR with an amphibious attack of five armies and an HQ along the Baltic -- especially during the winter! Naturally, none of that should be allowed.

Anyhow, signing out this time -- everything has a sequel these days, including Grand Exits!

Enjoyed the discussion, interesting points presented, but can't go for another loop.