Why the big deal over Firepower in Civilization 2?

[XPav]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Whenever the point is made that technology is the deciding factor in 99% of all battles in history, someone, usually Libertarian, waves the "What about Vietnam?" banner as though it makes the entire point moot. I mentioned Desert Storm because technology was the deciding factor in that war and everyone can remember that (I hope).

Well, the Germans had better tanks (Panther) & better aircraft (ME-262) than the Allies did in World War 2. They had cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, guided missiles, and a bunch of other neat toys.

The US just had more tanks, aircraft, more supplies, and lots and lots of trucks that allowed us to outproduce the Germans.

Yes, technology is important, but only up to a certain point. Iraq folded like a house of cards mainly because they were idiots. We had control of the air, allowing us to wreck their conscript army.

For a good Civ recreation of the Gulf War, conscript Mech Inf from every city, then line them up in fixed positions and do nothing while they get the crap bombed out of them, then attack them with Veteran Modern Armor. :-)

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by XPav


Well, the Germans had better tanks (Panther) & better aircraft (ME-262) than the Allies did in World War 2. They had cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, guided missiles, and a bunch of other neat toys.

The US just had more tanks, aircraft, more supplies, and lots and lots of trucks that allowed us to outproduce the Germans.

Yes, technology is important, but only up to a certain point. Iraq folded like a house of cards mainly because they were idiots. We had control of the air, allowing us to wreck their conscript army.

For a good Civ recreation of the Gulf War, conscript Mech Inf from every city, then line them up in fixed positions and do nothing while they get the crap bombed out of them, then attack them with Veteran Modern Armor. :-)

Their superior aircraft was countered by RADAR. Believe me, if the English couldn't see the Luftwafe from hundreds of miles away, the Battle of Britain would have been slightly different. As for the tanks, believe it or not, but the U.S. wasn't the only tank force against the German Panzers. The British tanks outclassed the German ones at the begining of the war, but Germany's more advanced aircraft overcame that deficet.

No, a better way to recreate the Gulf War in Civ3, is to pit a bunch of conscript tanks vs Modern Armour. The Iraqi's had missles as well, they had the SCUD, we had the Patriot; that's about 2 decades of difference in tech a.k.a old tech vs new tech.

[Dis]

well I think the combat in civ3 is superior to civ2. So Nananananana.

what are you going to do about it?

how's that for childish?

[GePap]

We, the 'whinners' have given our argument, over, and overs, and over.....
The fanboys say "it's the best ever, you just haven't adapted, get over it!", which is loud, but not an argument in any sense of the word.

The only type of argument I have heard that actually states why the current HP rules are better than Hp/FP is the following: "the new system allows backward players (A.I. or HUman) a chance to survive even if all is against them". Other than that, no one that defends this combat system has been able to give a compelling resons why the current method of calculating combat outcomes (I am not knocking bobardemnt, which I love) is in any way better than the one in civ2, i.e., why exactly did FP suck?

So, again, as far as the only given argument is concerned: The problems with the game being so easy in Civ2 had nothing to do with the combat system as it was, but was due to various other game decisions (like the ability to use their RR's, which is no longer in Civ and I think the only reasons the A.I. lasts that long at all after RR's are around) or the fact that the A.I. was deficient in waging war (it still is, but in a different way). If civ2 had everything the same but you put in the current a.i., that would be a much harder game, especially if the A.I. came all out vs you in massive assaults. So, the folk at Fixaris, aiming not only at the civ community but at a much wider audience (hence the TV ads) decided to, as some have said, give the weak a chance. Personally, I am cold blooded on this issue. If the A.I. is dumb at waging war, or if a human opponent is dumb at waging war, then they deserve to get killed by the more skilled players. Would all the current fanatical defenders of the combat system as is like it if it were some other Humans (as when, if ever we get MP) little pikeman destroyed their tanks, and through sheer stupid luck, defeat your well crafted army? I personally, really doubt it, since it is so easy to take pity on the poor little A.I., but not on someone else with a brain who is trying to beat you.

[XPav]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Their superior aircraft was countered by RADAR. Believe me, if the English couldn't see the Luftwafe from hundreds of miles away, the Battle of Britain would have been slightly different. As for the tanks, believe it or not, but the U.S. wasn't the only tank force against the German Panzers. The British tanks outclassed the German ones at the begining of the war, but Germany's more advanced aircraft overcame that deficet.

Errr. No.

The Me-262 wasn't in the battle of Britain.
The Bf-109 was superior to the Hurricane, which equipped most of the RAF Fighter Command. The Spitfire was better than the Me-109 though. The RAF was on the ropes until Hitler switched his attacks from the RAF airfields to attacking British cities directly. Thank God Hitler was an idiot.

Radar was one of the major factors helping the British, but there were plenty of those, one of the major ones being that british pilots that bailed out could return to fly another day.

German pilots couldn't.

At the beginning of the war, which I'm assuming you mean the German invasion of France (since thats the first time British tanks engaged the Germans tanks), the best tanks the British had were the Matilda II and the A13 Cruiser .

They didn't "outclass" the German armor. The Matilda, while heavily armored, was poorly armed and slow. The A13 had thin armor.

The French had, on paper at least, the best armed and armored tanks, but their doctrine, command structure, and their lack of radios limited their effectiveness.

The German Pz III and Pz IV were reliable, well armed, well armored, and in general, were much better tanks than the Allies at the start of the war.

The Pz V (Panther) and Pz VI (Tiger) were the best medium & heavy tanks of the war, but their reliability sucked.

The Germany Navy's type XXI U-Boat, which entered service at the end of the war, was also more advanced than anything the Allies had.

The Germans had lots of technology, but they didn't have enough to win the war.

[GePap]

XPav:
WW2 is in no way a valid war to use as a test of the Civ3 combat system because, in Civ3 terms, everyone was at the same tech level. Eevryone had tanks, fighters, bombers, arty, and inf. Tech differences in Civ3 are not subtle enough to differentiate between a Pz. V a. (panther) and a Pz. VI (tiger), or even a tiger with a sherman, or a sherman v a JS3. What won WW2 was quantity and strategy, and that could be modelled in Civ3.

Now, a spearman (bronze age) v a tank is a whole different matter. Please, if you can find me a single battle in which bronze age (or iron age even) beat a mechanized age army, then i will drop my argument. Again, can you find a signle example of Bronze age warriors defeating mechanized forces. (hint- neither afghanistan nor Abyssinia count since everyone involved was beyond the iron age- heck, both side had gunpowder!).

[Venger]

Originally posted by XPav
Civ isn't realistic or historical.

Huh? Dude read the damn box - this game is about allowing you to reshape history. And if it's not real, why use real city names, units, technologies, terrains, etc... that it doesn't APE history or realism is different from it drawing on history and realism.

It takes names & places & technologies & unit types from the span of human history, rolls them all together and simplifies & abstracts them to make a fun to play empire-building game.

Yes - oh wait, you used that history word. And last I checked it used years, not turns, that's more history...

It is not a wargame like The Operational Art of War or Combat Mission. Before you can argue "Realism" when it comes to units, you have to define what a unit is first.

No, those are pure wargames meant to have their gameplay mechanics in battle simulation. Those games are also real and historical, but they don't include building the cities that build the units...

What does one tank in civ represent? A brigade? Battalion? What type of tank is it? Is this tank unit tanks only? Why can't I take half a tank unit and half an infantry unit and make a task force?

Because Civ3 armies suck...

Why does everyone (save the Germans) seem to have the same tank?

Dude, we all get the abstract thing...

How is it even possible that a Warrior unit that's been in existence since 4000BC requires the same upkeep than a brand new Modern Armor unit?

You have to feed the men - upkeep cost is a pretty obtuse angle.

There is absolutely no way to find real world analogs with any sort of consistency the military units and structure and tactics used in Civ.

Huh? Foritifcations, unit morale, armies (poorly done but there), bombardment, etc. etc. are not extrapolatable to the real world?

There are hundreds of "to make it more realistic" arguments in Civ.

Some of which are valid.

Just accept the fact that its not a realistic or historical game.

Quotes from the damn box:

"It's History in the Making!" (Big letters on back)
"Rewrite History with the Greatest Game of All Time!" (Jeez Firaxis gimme a break...)
"History has never been so addictive" (Time quote on box cover)
"...takes history simulation to the next level" (Time quote in cover)
"whole of history to reconstruct" (PC Gamer quote in cover)

Seems history plays a big part of the box at least...

Venger

[Frank Johnson]

The biggest tech difference battles that went to the low tech end I can think of would be native americans with their occasional victories over US forces (archers vs riflemen, or cavalry) But eventually they had horses and guns, although not for everyone all the time. But there's an example of a stone age beating a industrial age.

The problem is no army in real life is asked to do what some of us want our units to do. No one says in real life, hey you modern armor go take over country X, for godsake they don't even have gunpowder! Go take their civ over. Its never happened, so I can't see how any realistic comparsion can be made. I suppose if you did send out an army of 50, or 100 thousand men to take over a whole civilization unbacked I doubt they'd succeed if they just blindly attacked frontly which is about all you can do in CIV3 with tanks, and that's what everyone complains about.

[Badtz Maru]

The point has been made repeatedly that a Spearman in modern times can not be the same unit as a Spearman in Ancient Times if you are holding the game as symbolic of anything approaching realism. No civilization in modern times still uses infantry armed solely with hand-to-hand weaponry. Take away the names and what is a Spearman? It's a defensive-oriented infantry that can be produced for 22% of what is needed to field a modern infantry. It does not require access to any special resources to produce, but it's upkeep costs are the same as what is needed to maintain the more modern infantry we are comparing it to.

In modern times this unit is not going to be a bunch of guys with spears. It's simply infantry that has not received as much training (which comprises most of the cost of raising modern infantry) and whose equipment was probably not manufactured by the civilization who mustered it. They probably have out-of-date firearms bought from some other world power and their upkeep cost indicates that they are able to afford ammunition and probably a few heavier weapons. In a fair fight on level ground they are going to be smashed by a modern army unless they get lucky - they may win the battle, but not the war. With superior numbers and in a fortified position they will have much better odds, especially if they have a lot more combat experience than the well-equipped troops being thrown against them. If they are all their civilization can produce, they will lose in the long run, though their low cost can draw the battle out and cause significant casualties for their opponent, especially if the attacker is not making full use of their technological advantage.

This fits well with how the game actually plays out. Yes, I've lost advanced units to inferior ones, but I have never lost a war where I had a technological advantage and I committed to winning, even when I was going against superior numbers. It was costly to win, but not nearly as bad as if I was fighting an equal. The 'Tank vs. Bronze Age Spearmen' scenario is a form of the straw-man argument. You are creating a totally unrealistic interpretation of the situation and claiming the reason it doesn't play out the way you think it should is unrealistic because of a weakness in the game's design. It's not the game, it's the way you are seeing things. Combat in this game is extremely abstract because this is not a detailed simulation of war.

[GePap]

Frank Johnson:
Even that comparison is not really that valid- the scale of combat in Civ3 is simply too large to simulate the sort of encounters you had between the Cavalry and Native americans, plus the fact is that the plains tribes barely fit the definition of a civ (personally, the Iriqouis are in for P.C. reasons. Need more native Americans? Include the Inca or Maya, real civs). I would add also, that the tribes were not stone age- they used metal tips and metal tools, so they are at least iron age.

As for your second point, we have had folks told, hey, they don't have guns, lets take their country over (europeans in most of Africa) and they always won the war, and lost very few battles, and in those situations only when they were badly outnumbered and outmanuevered. In civ3 you can't really outmanuver(front, back, side, it doesn't matter),and all the aggregious combat results are based on one on one combat (let me add that all modern units should represent far larger groups of men than anciet units, simply to simulate the vast growth in pop. and army sizes) so that even the two reasons that tech. superior units lots are not valid for civ3.

[N. Machiavelli]

Alright then, it's time for a little history lesson...

Originally posted by XPav


Errr. No.

The Me-262 wasn't in the battle of Britain.
The Bf-109 was superior to the Hurricane, which equipped most of the RAF Fighter Command. The Spitfire was better than the Me-109 though. The RAF was on the ropes until Hitler switched his attacks from the RAF airfields to attacking British cities directly. Thank God Hitler was an idiot.

Each side in the Battle of Britain had primary fighters. The British had the Hawker Hurricane IIA, and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk IA/IIA. The German fighter involved was the ME-109. The Messerchmitt far out-classed the out-dated Hurricane and could consistantly out-maneuver the Spitfire. A year later, when the FW-190 was introduced, well, let's just say that the German air-advantage increased a wee bit.

Radar was one of the major factors helping the British, but there were plenty of those, one of the major ones being that british pilots that bailed out could return to fly another day.

German pilots couldn't.

Do you know what the ending British to German kill ratio was? 5:1 in favour of the British. Do you know why? 86% of those kills were against bombers. Apart from RADAR, the deciding factor can in the form of fuel. Flying 100 miles to reach a bombing target burns a wee bit more fuel than scrambling 10 miles to intercept. The major drawback of the ME-109 was that it was designed as a short/medium range fighter, not a long-range bomber-escort. Most times, the ME's were forced to disengage off the coast of Britain and leave the bombers to their fate. But do you know that the British to German fighter kill ratio was? 1:3 in favour of the Germans.

Btw, it's kinda easier to be recovered from ejection when it's in your own country.

At the beginning of the war, which I'm assuming you mean the German invasion of France (since thats the first time British tanks engaged the Germans tanks), the best tanks the British had were the Matilda II and the A13 Cruiser .
They didn't "outclass" the German armor. The Matilda, while heavily armored, was poorly armed and slow. The A13 had thin armor.

Hold it right there. The main tanks facing one another at the Battle of France were the German Panzer IIF, British Cruiser Mk IV, and the French Somua S35. Here are the specs:

PzKpfw II Ausf. F
Weight : 9.5 ton
Dimensions: 4.81 x 2.28 x 2.02 mt
Armor (max) : 35 mm
Range : 190 km
Speed (max - route) : 40 km/hr
Main gun : 20 mm
MG : 7.92 mm
Crew : 3

Cruiser Mk IV
Weight : 15.0 ton
Dimensions: 6.02 x 2.54 x 2.59 mt
Armor (max) : 30 mm
Range : 150 km
Speed (max - route) : 48 km/hr
Main gun : 40 mm
MG : 7.5mm
Crew : 4

Somua S35
Weight : 20.0 ton
Dimensions:5.30 x 2.12 x 2.62 mt
Armor (max) : 55 mm
Range : 230 km
Speed (max - route) : 40 km/hr
Main gun : 47 mm
MG : 7.5mm
Crew : 3

As we can see, the Brits' Cruiser had a larger gun, was faster, and had a larger crew. The German Panzer had an extra 5mm of hull. Which is the superior tank? The French had both far outclassed. The difference was general incompetance and the German use superior airpower with the 'revolutionary' concept of combined arms learned from the Spanish Civil War.

The German Pz III and Pz IV were reliable, well armed, well armored, and in general, were much better tanks than the Allies at the start of the war.

By 'start' I assume you mean 1942, half-way through the war, when the Panzer Mk III was introduced.

The Pz V (Panther) and Pz VI (Tiger) were the best medium & heavy tanks of the war, but their reliability sucked.

Well, after the Russian's T-34/76 beat the snot out of the German Mk IV, the Tiger held only a slight advantage over the Russian T-34/85. The Tiger was beaten as well since there were so few of them, and they couldn't operate in any condition other than grass.

The Germany Navy's type XXI U-Boat, which entered service at the end of the war, was also more advanced than anything the Allies had.

And had it been introduced two years prior, it would have won the War of the Atlantic. Unfortunatly, the Allies learned how to counter U-boats by then. Early SONAR, coupled with land/sea-based aircraft with torpedos, took care of that edge.

The Germans had lots of technology, but they didn't have enough to win the war.

But when the technological edge isn't that far, and you are facing 4 other countries...well, that isn't exactly a Spearman winning against a Tank, now is it?

Don't feel too upset, other folks fell asleep in history class as well.

[Ragnoff]

Hello all, my first post in an obviously emotional and contested area, so both sides get ready to engage in ad hominum attacks if you do not like what i have to say!!

1) History vs. Gameplay balance. In an obviously turn based game (years per turn is a changing variable) the the IDEA and EXISTANCE of tanks (for example) are a sudden, devistating change. If older units cannot even affect modern units, then game play goes out the window. While I realize than it is unrealistic that spearman defeat the occasional tank, it is ALSO unrealistic that a unit that represents such a drastic change of military hardware do not get developed, tested, and produced in large numbers without any of the other major civilizations even being AWARE of it (assumes contact between civilizations here - a valid assuption as all the angry coments involve units from industrial or moder ages).

Simply stated, if you want realizism in the modern era, whenever any weapon or unit is seen or used against an empire, that empire will have access to the unit 1-3 turns later (meaning 1 to 3 years in modern times, more time in older eras). Thus, firepower, hps, and everthing else is irrelevant and units from vastly different eras would never fight!!!!!!

2) #'s involved, umm, not sure who posted this, but the larger number of people fighting in a battle in madertimes is a false analogy. Alexander the great was involved in several battels where 80 - 200 thousand fought on one field! There may be more people in a war in modern times, but that is due to many more units, not much larger units, and we tend to have less engaged in a particular battle at a particular time than most large scale battles of the past.

3) presumption - this is a notion that what came before is right, and is not based on arguments either. Someone above suggested no good reasons have been posted for the change aside from gameplay issues. My reply is that no good reasons have been posted to keep hp/fp rules aside from the ability to craft senarios at a level of detail that is far below the one suggested by and world and eon spanning simulation! As far as I see it, those are balenced args that boil down to "I like my style of gaming better." So both are equally valid! - NOTE - this point rests on the point described in 1 above, that no innovation would remain secret for more than 3 turns or so in any age where regular communication between member of 2 cultures exists... even if we say 5 or 10 turns, the point still holds.

I think that is enough to be attacked on in my first post, fire up those replies!!!!

[Dis]

this is getting tiresome

isn't there some way to increase hit points based on the type of unit in the editor? There must be some way to make units unbeatable by spearmen. Just raise the attack values to 40 or 50, and lets get this long discussion over with.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ragnoff
2) #'s involved, umm, not sure who posted this, but the larger number of people fighting in a battle in madertimes is a false analogy. Alexander the great was involved in several battels where 80 - 200 thousand fought on one field! There may be more people in a war in modern times, but that is due to many more units, not much larger units, and we tend to have less engaged in a particular battle at a particular time than most large scale battles of the past.

Population of the world in 250 BC : about 100-250 millions.
Population of the world in 2000 AD : about 5-6 billions.

This only is a reason for bigger armies in later ages. Though it's not the only reason.

In the past, more people were required to feed the population, due to less efficient agriculture.
In middle-age too, warfare required a lot of craftmanship, and years of practice (just look how long and expensive a longbowmen was to train). In these times, a castle had most of the time no more than a few tens of defender. An invading army of several hundreds was enormous. National armies (ie : armies led by the King) were few thousands.
The "gigantic" army of the Crusaders was about 20 000 men, no much more.
The Krack des Chevaliers was the biggest castle in the world, and held 2000 soldier at max, which was purely incredible for the time.

A Napoleonic army was typically 50 000 to 200 000 men. Several times the size of the biggest middle-age armies.
A WW1 army was several millions of people.

this is getting tiresome

isn't there some way to increase hit points based on the type of unit in the editor? There must be some way to make units unbeatable by spearmen. Just raise the attack values to 40 or 50, and lets get this long discussion over with.

If it was possible to change the hit points based on the unit and not the experience level, it would mean that the FP/HP system would be practically already in place.
And well, there is plenty ways of making any unit invincible. But that does not change the problem of moddability. And the FP/HP allows for a better representation of realism anyway.

In modern times this unit is not going to be a bunch of guys with spears. It's simply infantry that has not received as much training

That is supposed to be CONSCRIPTS. The training is reflected by the experience statut.

They probably have out-of-date firearms bought from some other world power and their upkeep cost indicates that they are able to afford ammunition and probably a few heavier weapons.

Out-to-date firearms are represented by musketmen. And then riflemen. And then infantry.
No, a spearman is supposed to be a spearman, not an AK-47 wielding guy.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

That is supposed to be CONSCRIPTS. The training is reflected by the experience statut.

You totally missed my point. I'm not talking about combat experience, I'm talking about TRAINING, which is what the majority of the expense in 'building' soldiers is.

Out-to-date firearms are represented by musketmen. And then riflemen. And then infantry.
No, a spearman is supposed to be a spearman, not an AK-47 wielding guy.

That's your interpretation. If you are trying to fit the way the game works to the real world, your interpretation makes no sense, as there are no civilizations anywhere in the world producing spearmen. If you see the game as an abstract representation of the real world, you have to accept that a civilization building outdated units is building modern units which are not as well equipped and armed.

[Wrong_shui]

Moo

[Akka]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru


You totally missed my point. I'm not talking about combat experience, I'm talking about TRAINING, which is what the majority of the expense in 'building' soldiers is.

You totally missed the point. I did not talked about combat experience neither.
Conscript units are units formed with haste, very poor training.
Regular units are standard ones.
Veteran units are either regular with fight experience, EITHER units created with barracks. No combat experience here, just the added TRAINING in barracks.

I'm not even stating an opinion, I'm just showing the game mechanic. "conscript", "regular", "veteran" and "elite" are the EXPERIENCE levels, wheter this experience is acquired on the field or with training.

Further, your assumption that "spearmen" are "low-trained infantry" just does not make sense when these spearmen are elite.

That's your interpretation. If you are trying to fit the way the game works to the real world, your interpretation makes no sense, as there are no civilizations anywhere in the world producing spearmen.

Blind ?
What were the African tribes just 150 years ago ? They disappeared because Europe conquered them, but they were in contact with European traders for more than 300 years and were still not able to produce guns. Would the Europeans not being fond of colonization, there could have still Zulus spearmen (I mean SPEARMEN, not guerilla teams with grenades and semi-automatic weapons), native american hunters with bows and Aztecs using stone weapons by the time.

If you see the game as an abstract representation of the real world, you have to accept that a civilization building outdated units is building modern units which are not as well equipped and armed.

Why abstract about weaponry and experience when they are GAME FEATURES ? Would the game not have experience level nor weaponry, I would agree. But there is. So you have to find another way to rationalize.

[AllanEvans]

Isn't everyone forgetting that a key factor in European colonization of many lands was disease? In many cases after a few contacts with Europeans, folks who returned only a few years later found populations already destroyed (this happened in N. America, S. America, Australia...). So now, can someone please go on a rant about how this is missing from Civ3? Blah.

This discussion about historical reality in a bit over the top. To make any of the Civ's playable, there has to be a gradual increase in capabilities as technology advances... it is all about *gameplay* ... I agree with the poster that said that if you want historical reality, go play a historical sim game.

*gameplay*gameplay*gameplay* <--- note the word 'game'



I think that the added complexity in Civ3 is excellent, but it will take a while for the subtleties of the changes to be understood.

Discuss the gameplay, whether you like it, hate it, whatever... give suggestions, opinions, advice, ... THAT is what most people want to read, not blither about battle statistics from the Battle of the *insert name of battle here*.

[XPav]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli

Each side in the Battle of Britain had primary fighters. The British had the Hawker Hurricane IIA, and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk IA/IIA. The German fighter involved was the ME-109. The Messerchmitt far out-classed the out-dated Hurricane and could consistantly out-maneuver the Spitfire. A year later, when the FW-190 was introduced, well, let's just say that the German air-advantage increased a wee bit.

We're talking about the Battle of Britain, and, well, you're pretty much agreeing with me. You're wrong about the Me-109 being superior to the Spit though. The 109 can climb faster, but the Spit could turn better. I didn't even bring the FW-190 into this, but you're right on that -- it did outclass the Spit V.

When you point out that most of the British kills over England were bombers. Yeah, duh. Most of the German kills over France and Germany were bombers too. What's your point?

Btw, it's kinda easier to be recovered from ejection when it's in your own country.

You're agreeing with me.

Hold it right there. The main tanks facing one another at the Battle of France were the German Panzer IIF, British Cruiser Mk IV, and the French Somua S35. Here are the specs:

Snipping the tank specs, I'm going to go back to square 1 here. WHAT are we talking about? Best technology? Average technology? How many there are here? Exactly what are we trying to compare?

By 'start' I assume you mean 1942, half-way through the war, when the Panzer Mk III was introduced.

Panzer Mk III introduced 1942?

Err.

No.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz8.htm

Don't feel too upset, other folks fell asleep in history class as well.

You don't appear to have been fully awake either.