Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[jim crowley]

Whatever you do, do it quickly then move back to WW2. No need for fiction there

[Gryphon]

It seems to me, that a lot of people just vote "fictional setting" as to get more hardware to play with. This should definitely not be the way to build a game like this. And this is not the way CM was built either, with Tigers in 1941 for eg.

Besides, i liked the original story of SF very much. Gives a more David and Goliath feeling to it as well, one that was so present throughout the entire CMx1 series (Pz IIIs < T-34 and T-34s < Tigers) The fictional setting gives me the impression of a stale game where both sides are basically equally strong, well, warfare is never an equal thing, whereas the original CMSF setting presents two entirely different tactical solutions.

On top of that, i think deviating from the original setting will cause more delays for the game as well, and possibly introduce problems that have not been looked at yet.

I would go with the original setting you guys were planning as it seemed the most appealing. Finally, I think PseudoSimonds put it the best.

[TheVulture]

I don't see much real difference between fictional and Syria-with-no-pretense-of-backstory. Ultimately, as has been said already, people are going to make scenarios in any number of settings that have nothing to do with the 'official' setting. I don't care what the country is called. I'd rather the TO&E was based on a real world one (Syria, since you are committed to that) so that it represents something that makes sense militarily (within the economic constraints of that country). But beyond that, I don't care (as a non-grog) what equipment is/isn't there, or what the story is. I just want the challenge of beating my opponent in a fun game.

At the end of the day the difference between Syria and Bitemestan is going to be a few lines of text in the manual, a different set of unfamiliar names on maps, and 1% of the player base who care passionately about such thins on principle.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Personally, I would like whatever option allows scenario developers (and I'm not one) the greatest flexibility to generate content with maximum equipment choices. As the game industry has shown, there is an ocean of free fan content that just needs to be tapped with the right toolset. I am getting newfound enjoyment out of CMBB and CMAK years after purchase due to the folks down at the Proving Grounds -- they make em, I have fun testing them.

I see your role as the one who enables the playing field, and provides some demo "teams" for us to then reshape. I don't see you in the story-telling role, as that is not your company's forte, nor something I think development time should be spent excessively on, since plenty of armchair historians will fill in the story for free. Something that allows for great flexibility in renaming troop types, names, and TOEs with a range of equipment would give me the best buy for my dollar IMHO.

This all points in the "fictional scenario with easily relabeled core elements" direction.

AND

Dalem says:

Steve, I am not that jazzed by a modern setting so I don't really consider myself to have much of a dog in this cake mix, but...

I think the most important driving factor is that no matter what you do or where you set it, a very vocal group (minority? majority?) will be screaming for their T-80s and the like. You know it. I know it. They know it.

So try a Taliban-ruled Syria that has deposed Assad the Chinless and has as its elite force a regiment of Russians and all their top equipment who have gone 100% mercenary. You can have a storyline involving irregulars, regulars, fedayyin-like nutbags riding explosive-laden motorcycles at armor columns, and platoons of T-80s.

Seems reasonable to me.

How about this:

"Just get on with it!!"

What I really want is the WWII version of CMx2 and the longer you diddle around some crazy backstory/plot thingy for CM:SF the longer I have to wait for CMx2 WWII! (really)

Seriously lots of folks here are thinking that!

Backstory? What Backstory that whole concept is new to CM and I since the whole modern thing is not my first choice anyway I don't really care about the backstory? Sure I follow current geopolitical military events, and sure a modern day military simulator "might" be fun, but I would be happy if you would just say "fictional country" in a Syria like setting and evironment and "Get on with it!" Mostly because this makes the most sense to me:

"I see your role as the one who enables the playing field, and provides some demo "teams" for us to then reshape. I don't see you in the story-telling role, as that is not your company's forte, nor something I think development time should be spent excessively on, since plenty of armchair historians will fill in the story for free. Something that allows for great flexibility in renaming troop types, names, and TOEs with a range of equipment would give me the best buy for my dollar IMHO.

This all points in the "fictional scenario with easily relabeled core elements" direction. "

That says it BEST for me.

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

1) Fictional with Minimal Back-story: -

I'm not too taken with the idea of a totally fictional setting. A campaign mode in such a setting would seem too much like an exercise rather than a real war. Also, if the OPFOR TO&E is based entirely on the Syrian military, it seems a bit strange to then go and teleport these forces into a fictional land. You may as well have an entirely fictional TO&E.

2) Syria with Detailed Back-Story: -

I think Battlefront are right to say that this is probably the worst option. It would be inherently unrealistic and would easily become dated due to real world events making it look silly.

3) Syria with Minimal Back-Story: -

I prefer this option of the three. The real world setting would make the campaign mode much more engaging. Capturing bridges over the Euphrates or street-fighting in Damascus make for more interesting scenarios than some sort of made up scenario in a fictional sand-pit. It also has the advantage of less work for BFC.

I would gloss over the implausibility issues in three ways. Firstly, I would not specifically say it was in 2007. Just go with the old cliche of, "The near future". If scenarios need specific dates, just use the convention of "H-Hour" and "D-Day" plus "X". Secondly, don't mention Afghanistan or Iraq at all. Players will have to assume that US involvement in these countries has been scaled back somehow but they don't need to know exactly how. Thirdly, don't go into any detail about why Syria is invaded. Just say it is the "third major conflict in the so-called 'War on Terror'".

One angle from a presentation point of view would be to have all back-story (what little there is of it) and scenario descriptions in the past tense, as if the game is chronicling a war that happened in the recent past. The focus of the chronicle is on the military operations and not on the political reasons for the war. Kind of like a "History Channel" program from the future.

For example:-

"By D-Day + 4, only one major bridge across the Euphrates remained to be taken. It fell to 1st battalion 172 Stryker brigade to make the final assault to secure the crossing."

Extract from "The Syria Campaign, Chapter 4 - Fire over the Euphrates"

[mav1]

I will put in simply,

With fictional a player has the choice to play the game how he/she wants. You can play it as fictional or non fictional as you want it.

For example in cmX1 I Used T34/85 in 1942 and Pershings in 1944. But I also played it historicaly as well. I prefer playing the game fictinaly because I like even battles. Everyone else can play the game how yhey want, when they have the option of a fictinal setting.

As well it gives more options for modders to create.

Here is an idea make the campaign story changable. So that a player can make up his/her own campaign story if they want.

Flexibility is what made cmx1 great. No other game matches combat mission so far because of it. Thats why cmx1 is still played today.

Dosn't it make you as the creators of the game pleased that you have made a game that people love so much even after all this time?

[aka_tom_w]

If you want to say its Syria this this is a good way to do it:

I would gloss over the implausibility issues in three ways. Firstly, I would not specifically say it was in 2007. Just go with the old cliche of, "The near future". If scenarios need specific dates, just use the convention of "H-Hour" and "D-Day" plus "X". Secondly, don't mention Afghanistan or Iraq at all. Players will have to assume that US involvement in these countries has been scaled back somehow but they don't need to know exactly how. Thirdly, don't go into any detail about why Syria is invaded. Just say it is the "third major conflict in the so-called 'War on Terror'".

Its just a wargame so that works for me, Cpl Steiner's rationalle there might just be the best way to move forward to make most folks happy.

I personally won't be happy or unhappy with any of the three options in the original post, that opened this thread, the choice to go with any singel one of those options would not make me to choose to NOT buy the game.

I would suggest that most folks posting to this thread and reading this forum are going to buy the game anyway irrespective of any internal "confusion" or dilema you feel about the issue of the unsettled backstory.

And since I am just ranting anyway, some folks might buy this game, (given they are over about 30 and have $50 extra disposable income) just so they can be sure BFC doesn't go into the red and thus miss the opportunity to develop CMx2 WWII.

(That would be the loyalty factor I guess )

-tom w

[ September 15, 2006, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Glukx Ouglouk]

Maybe it's not possible, but why not do both Syria and fictional ?

If you can make a Syrian backstory, do it, so that in the campaign which comes with the game we get real names, real places, and the like - and, of course, no T-80s.

But in the scenario editor, add a drop-down menu which let the scenario designer choose between "Syria" and "hypothetical OPFOR" (just like we can choose between US and UK in CMx1). If Syria is chosen, the designer will only be able to use syrian equipment and TO&E ; if OPFOR is, he can choose any equipment and TO&E avalaible in the game and the modules (which will be limited to Syrian stuff whith the game alone, but more will come with the modules).

That way, you even get the opportunity to include other real countries for the red side in future modules if you find it interesting (as long as they share most of their equipments whith Syria, but that's the case, to some extent, for a number of countries using ex-Soviet/Russian equipment).

Maybe it's unfeasible, or maybe too much work would be needed to implement that, but it seems reasonable to me - as long as you can come with a backstory for Syria, but isn't a minor one still better than none at all ?

[beardiebloke]

I like the sound of Syria with either major or minor story. I like the fact that we could find the locations (as mentioned before) on Google Earth or maybe even go on holiday there. As for what kind of tanks we get to play with I don't really care. Include T-80s and space lobsters for the editor and let people make whatever campaigns they want after the game is out.

*** Most of all *** I just want to get my hands on the game and start blowing stuff up sooner rather than later.

[nijis]

Maybe I'm missing stuff that has been covered in other threads, but I'm not sure that the original story is implausible. As far as I'm aware, there's no reason to rule out an Islamist/nationalist coup in Syria, and it's always possible that a group based in Syria could do something horrible enough that the world would be forced to respond. If anything, the perceived weakening of US power by its embroilment in Iraq makes these possibilities more likely rather than less.

What's been changed by Iraq is the US capability to launch a conventional war against a Syria-sized power on short notice with overwhelming force. But if the atrocity is horrific enough, the Americans might feel compelled to go in with underwhelming force, with whatever allies they could cobble together. That, I think, would make a conventional war in Syria more interesting, from a wargaming perspective anyway.

My vote would go to Syria setting, minimal story. I find historical settings more immersive. Like Beardiebloke, I'm really looking forward to fighting battles on a bit of terrain that I can check out on Google Earth, for example.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Rudel is correct. If we go with a strictly "realistic" setting then we need to be consistent. Which is one of the reasons I've suggested that going with a strict "realistic" setting is perhaps not the best way to go.

Steve

Well, I thought presenting "realistic" settings was what CM was all about which I was surprised to see this whole fictional country idea even suggested, where you just get to make up a TO&E and toss in whatever fancy equipment you want.

I far prefer the Glukx's suggestion of sticking with the realistic Syrian TO&E for the campaign and then just allowing for an expanded pool of units for scenario makers to do what they like.

[J Ruddy]

Fictional with Minimal Story

I hate to say it, but unless you're doing something historical I think you're best going the way they did with BF2.

Some kind of Middle East Alliance versus NATO.

It *could* start with Syria with a minimal backstory but for gaming (and expansions) I'd sure like to be able to expand into a more general conflict.

Just my 184 Iran Rials (or 2 cents)

[Kineas]

I value the physical and military realism and variety (lots of stuff and missions) the most. Compared to the "average wargamer" I value historical accuracy and story based gameplay less. That's just me, recommending the 2nd option.

I think this would still allow you to create "high fidelity" campaigns in Syria or in other ME theater, while giving the scenario designers and players more toys to play with. And you could attract (hopefully) more new players with nicely painted T90s on the DVD cover

[MikeyD]

I think no matter what you do you've GOT to mention somewhere that you're providing an accurate Syrian TO&E to fight against, just so people know its a believeably constructed middle-east combat force. ...even if its just a footnote with an asterisk!

I vote for Syria with minimal story. VERY minimal. Strong emphasis on the game engine, realtime play, scale and accuracy - and 'oh by the way we chose the Syrian army to battle against because it appeared to be one of the few regional forces most likely to result in strong gameplay.' Nothing about how evil they are and how righteous we are. Actually, read that way it almost sounds like a 'tip-o-the-hat' compliment to include them in the ame! Some actual story line can then creep into the scenarios.

Is this the point where I vote to include multi-turret Russian tanks in the game? I'm worried that some votes up above for 'fictional' were made simply so they can lobby for adding more equipment in the game!

[ September 15, 2006, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[aka_tom_w]

Good point

Is this the point where I vote to include multi-turret Russian tanks in the game? I'm worried that some votes up above for 'fictional' were made simply so they can lobby for adding more equipment in the game!

there might be two other options besides the first three posted by Steve in the original post:

#4 Fictional with new toys. "So we can lobby for adding more equipment in the game". i.e.

stuff like T-80, T-90, BMP-3 Kornet, or even Chinese equipment using the CMx2 game engine.

#5 Its just a game, the backstory doesn't really matter, just release the darn thing ASAP with the least time delay possible.

-tom w

[ September 15, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Dirtweasle]

I think the best idea is the "Schrullenhaft Gambit" so far.

In other words, not fictionalize Syria into ME Nation "X", but rather make peace with the idea that you are great game designers, but not "Carnac The Great" all seeing all knowing future seeing wisemen.

Focus on a fictionalized an opening Syrian "near future" module.

[rudel.dietrich]

In case it was not clear before, I vote for Syria with major back story.

Many games have done this before and had no problems with looking 'silly'

All the Ghost Recon games have a story

All the Rainbow Six games

Lock On Modern Air Combat did as well

And if the OOB is going to be 'Syrian' then the flexibility for a fictional nation is not really there anyways.

In future add ons you can just change the story to get the equipment you want.

I think too much of being put into this story idea anyways.

If you want to focus on a single player campaign then pick a story and go with it no matter how unbelivable.

I don't really think anyone is going to pick over it and point out all the 'silliness'

People are not expecting a Tom Clancy novel here, just something to give their campaign battles some context.

[C'Rogers]

I feel strange that I lack a clear strong opinion on such am important issue. I think there are fair arguments for either.

However whether you go with fictional or real Syria I think you need a strong story. Personally I don't care, I would of been fine with CM:SF without the campaign. But you put the campaign in for a reason right? Massive requests from fans that the one thing they felt lacking was a strong campaign. Part of that is having a detailed backstory to play along with.

My opinion is that if the campaign isn't going to have a strong story you probably would have been better off not touching the issue at all.

Fictional story - Personally I don't care for the use of tons of tanks in my games so whether a T-80 is in or not is not really an issue to me. It does create the benefit that more modules could be made with countries that would not get involved in Syria but might get involved in Country X.

Real Syria - I don't find the idea of an invasion of Syria nearly as impossible as you make it sound. While it might be done under far less than ideal conditions I am sure there are scenarios where the US might be willing to destablize Iraq to dispose of Syria. Obviously it would be very difficult, but that is what would make it an exciting game isn't it?

For example in your scenario of Syria harboring terrorists who have used a nuclear or biological weapon on a major Western city and plans to do so again, what alternative is there to invasion? Even if that meant moving troops out of major Iraqi cities and losing more control, and Europe sending what availble troops they do have, isn't that what would be done?

Also as the operation might not be taking over the entire country of Syria it is more realisticly possible. It may be more of an Iraq War 1 scenario, go in accomplish mission X, leave. If they have one particular target in mind it really lowers the number of required troops and the time they are needed.

As a final note I think the concept of using "the near future" makes a lot of sense. In addition to the already mentioned benefits it could help with modules. If something that really changes the landscape of a conflict in that region comes out, mass improvements in areil drones, a much cheaper version of the kornet increase its numbers, you can allow a module to plug in the change.

Anyway my vote is from strong story definetly, real Syria preferable.

[Sequoia]

My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it.

However with a totally fictional setting, I think I might go for it. Yes, I appreciate Combat Missions realism, but in the end I play games to escape reality. Maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

BTW…I have not yet read the other posts so as to come to it fresh…. after posting this will read what others wrote…

I would go for Syria Minimal Story… this is why…

Syria is a real country and so is it far easier to imagine a war there than would be the case with a fictional country. A fictional country is more suited for “PC games set in a war setting” not for more serious, although still fun, real wargames or simulations. It is true that the real hard core… i.e. those like myself … could cope with just an OPFORs types game but this does not apply to most. For most my guess is “fictional” equals dumbed down RTS games. So let’s stick to a real country.

The story line does not matter much because no story line will be credible for long anyway. Events will ambush you whatever the story line you go for, no matter how realistic you try to make it… so do not try too hard on the story line anyway as you are headed for a beating on that one .

However… starting with a real country, Syria…, you have a base from which to work with equipment, OOB and such. All you then have to do is assume that the new Russia decides it is “payback time for Afghanistan” i.e. fully opens the war chest for Syria. Russia has not done so with other American crisis in the Middle East because Russia too is anti-Islamic fundamentalism but a conventional attack on their Number One friend, secular friend no less… in the Middle East could easily provoke them so use the Syrians to put Bush’s America “back in its box”.

You could ship with the Syrians’ equipped as they are today put with even more RPG29s and Kornet ATGMs… most likely they are in the air to Syria right now anyway… then in a module add some of the latest heavy Russian/OPFORs toys.

In summary…. ship with Syrians as they are realistically likely to be in late 2007 but then in a module add some latest OPFORs toys and British heavy equipment.

No solution will be perfect… but way better than fully fictional country for a serous, but still fun, simulations. In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

3) Syria with Minimal Back-Story: -

I prefer this option of the three. The real world setting would make the campaign mode much more engaging. Capturing bridges over the Euphrates or street-fighting in Damascus make for more interesting scenarios than some sort of made up scenario in a fictional sand-pit. It also has the advantage of less work for BFC.

I would gloss over the implausibility issues in three ways. Firstly, I would not specifically say it was in 2007. Just go with the old cliche of, "The near future". If scenarios need specific dates, just use the convention of "H-Hour" and "D-Day" plus "X". Secondly, don't mention Afghanistan or Iraq at all. Players will have to assume that US involvement in these countries has been scaled back somehow but they don't need to know exactly how. Thirdly, don't go into any detail about why Syria is invaded. Just say it is the "third major conflict in the so-called 'War on Terror'".

One angle from a presentation point of view would be to have all back-story (what little there is of it) and scenario descriptions in the past tense, as if the game is chronicling a war that happened in the recent past. The focus of the chronicle is on the military operations and not on the political reasons for the war. Kind of like a "History Channel" program from the future.

For example:-

"By D-Day + 4, only one major bridge across the Euphrates remained to be taken. It fell to 1st battalion 172 Stryker brigade to make the final assault to secure the crossing."

My viewpoint too.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, some more great feedback. Some quick answers:

AEB,

Sadly I think that BF.C has ruined us by giving us games with such infinite possibilities and years of replay value in the past. I fear that CM:SF will seem short and small by comparison.

I'm not at all concerned about this. All I have to do is bring up the fact that people played 2 scenarios in a BETA of CMBO for something like 6 months non-stop. While CM:SF won't have as much "Holy CRAP! I've never seen anything like this before!!!" impact as CMBO, it will have a lot. Going fictional, to some degree, offers more longevity though in the form of more Red units.

Thomm,

? (1) No fictional country, please! I want a game that I can take "serious"! I want to go to Google maps and to find that the CM:SF maps are super-realistic.

At CM's scale not only does this not matter, but it is difficult to find maps for some of the backwaters places where battles would occur.

Mr. Shirt,

It feels almost rude of me to say anything at all, but, if it's about Syria, why not call it Syria?

Every opinion is as valuable as another when expressed well. You passed that test This is indeed the crux of the issue. Do we need a backstory? If so, then we have to go fictional. If we don't need one, then perhaps we can stick with Syria. But if we go with Syria then we should also stick strictly to Syria's force structure. By going Fictional we get to ditch the need for a backstory as well as the requirement that we limit what can appear on the game. The thinking is without the backstory why does it matter if we call it Syria?

Wisbech_led

If the ToE is Syrian, stick with Syria. But a minimalist back story, heck throw in T80’s/ BMP3 etc anyway in the editor, just keep them out of the campaign

This is an option that I am considering more and more as we go through this discussion.

Gryphon,

On top of that, i think deviating from the original setting will cause more delays for the game as well, and possibly introduce problems that have not been looked at yet.

As I've said, either way doesn't affect the schedule at all. BTW folks, did you notice that "Syria", or anything related to Syria, isn't found in the game's title? That's not an accident. We expected that we'd have to make a last minute decision and therefore we've set things up so that we can do that without hurting the development schedule or the core of the game.

The Vulture,

At the end of the day the difference between Syria and Bitemestan is going to be a few lines of text in the manual, a different set of unfamiliar names on maps, and 1% of the player base who care passionately about such thins on principle.

This is true, of course. For some people it is more important than others to have a real world setting with real world backstory. But as far as the game goes, it has no impact. Whatever differences we make can simply be ignored, be it a strict historical Syrian setting or a Fictional one. As for your point about cities, it would be interesting to make a list of Syrian and Fictional cities and ask people to tell me which ones are indeed Syrian and which ones aren't without consulting any sources. I bet everybody would flunk, including me if someone else made that list. So I don't really buy the importance of having real places since nearly nobody knows the difference anyway. Not to mention that probably 99% of all CM scenarios were played in fictional areas. At least 100% of the Quick Battles were!

Tom,

What I really want is the WWII version of CMx2 and the longer you diddle around some crazy backstory/plot thingy for CM:SF the longer I have to wait for CMx2 WWII! (really)

As stated, this discussion and the resulting decision isn't delaying anything, so this is a non-issue. What is an issue is making the best decision for the first game possible. Since that game is going to be a reality before we start on WWII, doncha think we should try to get it right? Plus, don't get us started into another WW2 snobs vs. the world debate. A LOT of people want the contemporary setting, which is why we are doing it. If the interest wasn't there we wouldn't bother with it.

Cpl Steiner,

I would gloss over the implausibility issues in three ways. Firstly, I would not specifically say it was in 2007. Just go with the old cliche of, "The near future". If scenarios need specific dates, just use the convention of "H-Hour" and "D-Day" plus "X". Secondly, don't mention Afghanistan or Iraq at all. Players will have to assume that US involvement in these countries has been scaled back somehow but they don't need to know exactly how. Thirdly, don't go into any detail about why Syria is invaded. Just say it is the "third major conflict in the so-called 'War on Terror'".

Yup, that is the idea I've been noodling since yesterday

C'Rogers,

I feel strange that I lack a clear strong opinion on such am important issue. I think there are fair arguments for either.

I think this speaks to the overall importance of the story... it isn't. Not when you really get down to it. As stated above, it's just some text in the manual and some maps that people are generally unfamiliar with (to the extreme in the US!) no matter what the decision is. The important stuff is what is in the game and as long as we have a realistic TO&E, it doesn't really matter what it is called because the game will play exactly the same way. Also, no matter what we do the vast majority of gameplay will be fictional anyway. Blue on Blue, for example, is probably going to be a huge multi-player hit... and yet you can't get any more unrealistic than that! The way I figure it, if it every would have happened it would have been in November or December of 2000

Sequoia.

My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it.

This is the tip of a very large marketing iceberg that I decided not to bring into this discussion. However, I am glad you said what you said because it reminds the others here that there are other reasons for us to consider going Fictional. And with that, I'll shut my piehole

However with a totally fictional setting, I think I might go for it. Yes, I appreciate Combat Missions realism, but in the end I play games to escape reality. Maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

It makes more sense than the opposite "I don't know more than 2 cities in Syria, I don't know anything about Syria, and in the end 95% of the games I'll play will have nothing to do with Syria at all. Yet if it doesn't say Syria on it I won't enjoy it".

Thanks again for all the food for the little gray cells!

Steve

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Thanks again for all the food for the little gray cells!

See, now this is the real problem here. You're getting paid to think it over with food? Come ooOOn! It's a no-brainer that liquid smoothes the grey cells and greases the thought process. Especially if it's liquid food in the form of Belgian beers.

Tsk, tsk. You have lost the plot.

[Battlefront.com]

Beer = Food And if someone here doesn't believe that, they should put down the Miller Lite and try a Belgian Triple. Just don't do it before operating heavy machinary!

Steve

[PAEZ]

I would also admit that I wanted a wwII game, or something from the past and not the furture , that being said, I’ve grown to the CMSF idea, set up and TO&E .

BFC. You guys has proven to make good games, If you keep the same quality, I’m sure whatever the set up will be we’ll enjoy it.

Realistic TO&E is the way to go for me.