[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

I assume they'd be editor-only, at least until somebody decides to mod an entire Etruscan faction, but it wouldn't be right to represent them with Romans or Celts. 0 A.D. is supposed to be set apart from other historical RTS games by its realism and accuracy. Maybe it could work to use existing models with only their stats and textures re-done, I don't know enough about the Etruscan navy to say. But just using the Roman navy wouldn't fit.

It would be better to just make a tutorial that stops after the Battle of Himera. In fact, it could be a 2-part tutorial, with Part 2 (Battle of Cumae) simply assuming that you won at Himera. That way, it doesn't have to include complicated alternative history scenarios.

The simplest version of a Syracuse tutorial could ignore the natives entirely, and stop after Himera. That leaves out the Etruscans and the natives, so it wouldn't require anything that won't be part of the game at Alpha release, except a few maps. Later versions could build on it by adding editor-only native Sicilian factions to cut your teeth on before the big battle, and/or adding Etruscan naval units and a map for the Battle of Cumae.

Or a tutorial could do something else entirely. The Ionian Revolt, or founding a Roman colony somewhere and battling the Iberian/Celtic/Greek natives, or founding Carthage and fighting at Himera from the other side, or founding some historical Iberian city and then fighting one battle against the Romans. There must be other suitable scenarios out there that could work for a simple tutorial.

[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

Good idea! That would include building city and infrastructure, maybe small skirmishes with Sicels or Elymians to first get the hang of battle, one large land battle, and one large sea battle. The battles should all be nicely separated in time so the player has a chance to get the feel for how things operate instead of rushing around.

Diodorus Siculus was convinced that Persia must have formed an agreement with the Carthaginians, because of how close together the two conflicts were. He may or may not have been correct, though.

The only difficulty I can see with Sicily is that the modders would need to produce Etruscan units and maybe Sicel and/or Elymian units and buildings as well. There's also the question of what happens in 474 if the player got defeated at Himera?

[monthly newsletter?]

The front page hadn't changed in so long I stopped looking. I had no idea the Alpha had been scheduled for July!

This is great news!

[Fortified City]

Yay, a new screenshot!

Yeah, the Ishtar Gate would make more sense as a special building, but that would probably not be a difficult mod if somebody cares enough.

[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

It doesn't have to be any particular faction, I'd just prefer a tutorial of some kind that starts out small instead of dropping directly into a war zone. It could also be a Carthaginian colony, for example. Not sure if the other factions started colonies during the time period covered, or what their equivalent would be.

[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

Would a smaller colony be better for a tutorial campaign? It should be less epic and centuries-spanning than an Athenian campaign from hypothetical founding through the Persian wars.

Heck, you could found Syracuse or a smaller Sicilian city, develop your economy and infrastructure, get in a few fights with the Elymians or Sicels or Phoenicians or whoever, and call the tutorial over. Save the epic Athenian campaign for more experienced players.

[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

Sorry, your phrasing wasn't literal enough for my brain. I don't read between the lines well.

[Campaign Ideas for 0 A.D.]

Now, this is getting interesting. Unfortunately, the Britons lost in the long term due to poor management, but they were certainly fierce warriors, and offered much resistance. With some imagination...

Looks like the player's job is to provide better management!

[Neanderthals]

You're welcome. It feels good to be discussing something I actually know something about.

I've been a bit confused about what exactly is a subspecies. EDIT: so at what time does a subspecies break off from the species? And can it be said that neanderthals before they became isolated in europe and developed subspecies specific traits, were technically fully homo sapiens? Or did both humans and neanderthals diverge from a common ancestor, that ancestors being neither fully sapien or neanderthal?

I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for how old a split must be to count as separate sub-species. Homo sapiens and Neanderthals share a common ancestor in Homo heidelbergensis, which seems to have originated in Africa. They spread in both Africa and Europe, where their populations were largely isolated by geography and then adapted to rather different climates. Those in Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while those in Africa evolved into us. The genetic divergence was roughly estimated at 825,000 years ago and the physically distinct bone features of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens emerged gradually over the years from roughly 400,000 to 125,000 years ago. The classification of those transitional fossils is to some extent a matter of taste, where subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis end and separate species (or subspecies of Homo sapiens) begin.

In regards to the theories about neanderthal gene assimilation, A and B seem to be the simplest and thus the most likely. I suppose either would explain how "every" non-african possesses neanderthal genes. Some of the scientists have said only "some" non-africans will possess the gene whereas others say "all." So how are we going to test this to determine whether every non african has the gene?

In my opinion A seems to be the simplest explanation, but A would not rule out either C or D. However, C and D aren't the only possible explanations for why the gene-flow was seemingly one-way. Hopefully more Neanderthal individuals will be sequenced in the future, and compared with a larger number of modern humans, to widen the comparison.

But what's also mind-boggling is that neanderthals were living in Europe for 100,000 years before humans entered the picture. Assuming that our african migrants possessed "black african" traits, then how is the span of time that they were in europe enough for them to evolve the physical traits that are characteristic of modern europeans? Unless, they had assimilated some neanderthal traits who were already well adapted to that environment.

The genes aren't that hugely different. There's only a six allele difference between the darkest skin tone and the lightest, for example. I know less about the genes for respiration efficiency, body fat thickness, nose shape, stature, and so on, but the general picture seems to be that, in minor traits, humans have and continue to evolve pretty fast. Lactose tolerance and alcohol tolerance apparently evolved after the start of agriculture and cities respectively. All species with large ranges exhibit variation -- just look at the tiger, which like humans used to range from the tropics to the cold subarctic, from lowlands to mountains. They varied in size, color, stripe patterns, and no doubt internal traits that adapted them for different environments. It also appears that the wide differences in human appearances (which are the majority of the differences between "races") are due to sexual selection. Each culture seems to have their own beauty standards, which select for a somewhat different appearance from their immediate neighbors, forming clines.

I can't find a catalog of which genes were closer to Neanderthals, but it's possible that they include genes for lighter skin and hair, and adaptations to cold climates.

The reason it's possible for the matings to have been few is that the number of Homo sapiens who initially entered Neanderthal territory could have been few, and later increased population size after the hybridization had already taken place.

About the Beaker Folk, I do not know much more than their name. It's another name for the Bell-Beaker tool culture, which is a material culture that may or may not have corresponded to any ethnicity(ies). They're one of the material culture sets that existed in Great Britain and western Europe at various times in prehistory. I was premature to suggest that they definitely preceded the first Celtic language in the Isles. It seems there's not agreement on when Celtic languages came to Great Britain, and in any case a language cannot be correlated with a material culture group or even a group of people.

What I do know is that there were Homo sapiens that occupied Europe after Neanderthals died out 30000-25000 years ago, which is at least 15,000 years before Proto-Indo-European could have come into existence. I don't know if the post-Neanderthal Gravettian tool culture is known from Great Britain, but after the Gravettian time-period Great Britain was apparently abandoned due to weather, to be re-colonized later by a tool culture called Creswellian. After the Ice Age the British Isles were inhabited by Homo sapiens with Mesolithic tool cultures, who apparently adopted farming around 4000 B.C. instead of being invaded by Neolithic farmers from the mainland. The Bell-Beaker tool culture belongs to later years, contemporary with Stonehenge and the early Bronze Age in the British Isles. So whoever the first Celt-language-speakers or Proto-Indo-European-speakers in the Isles encountered were Homo sapiens. When the first Celtic-family language came to Britain, and whether it was accompanied by new tools, migrating humans, new crops and livestock, new cultural or religious practices, or none of the above, is controversial and unknown.

[Neanderthals]

Unfortunately you have some of the facts incorrect. I am sorry that I am shooting down most of what you said. I just don't think they could possibly work as a mod faction, and I do feel the need to correct some misconceptions that you've accidentally picked up (possibly provided by the ever-helpful popular media). I think Neanderthals are a very interesting subject and the new genetic study is fascinating (hopefully only the first of many to come), but not one suited for 0 A.D.

Making Neanderthals into a mod faction would cause a lot of problems simply because their technology would never stack up against the technology of the factions in 0 A.D. I'm not certain that there is even evidence they had projectiles. I can look it up. Oshron is planning a mythological AoM-style mod in which the "Cro Magnons" would have very powerful myth units to make up for their weak mortal units, but in a regular mod of 0 A.D. that isn't an option. His "Cro Magnon" faction are also actually neolithic, so their technology is much more "advanced" than what Neanderthals used.

None of the peer-reviewed journal I have read (including the new study, your link #2) suggest that Neanderthals are the same subspecies as us. The debate about Neanderthal classification still concerns only two options: a separate species and a Homo sapiens subspecies. They're clearly at least a separate subspecies -- subspecies of the same species can and do interbreed in living mammals today. The new nuclear genetic evidence leans towards them being a subspecies instead of a separate species, but bear in mind that the species definition allows for behavioral prezygotic barriers (behaviors that strongly discourage interbreeding and make it extremely rare) and the new study states that it is entirely possible that A. very, very few matings took place between our ancestors and Neanderthals, magnified by later population growth from a tiny immigrant population; or B. the separate genes were present in Africa before the migrations and had nothing to do with crossbreeding. Other possibilities are that C. the hybrids could only back-cross with Homo sapiens [sapiens] but could never back-cross with Neanderthals; and/or D. only the female hybrids were fertile (like ligers). Bear in mind also that if there was cross-breeding (the simplest explanation at this point) it happened with early Neanderthals, not the later "classic" Neanderthals of later Ice Age Eurasia.

While anthropologists have been responsible for a lot of racist pseudoscience that separated members of the living human subspecies into separate "races" or even subspecies and helped legitimize the whole "race" concept that has no actual biological validity whatsoever, separating fossil humans into separate subspecies and species has nothing to do with this: it is a matter of significant physical differences and, as the new studies show, significant genetic differences as well. All of the phylogenetic tests of the genes found Neanderthals to cluster well outside all known Homo sapiens [sapiens]lines and the depth of the branching and systematic genome-wide differences confirm the physical bone evidence that they are at least a separate subspecies. This is in marked contrast to living humans, who (despite small differences like skin color and a few Neanderthal genes) are almost genetically identical to each other, have no valid genetic clades at all, and simply cannot be divided into biological "races," much less subspecies. Classification should also be separated from discussions of moral worth or superiority -- the motivation for separating "people of color" from white people was racism and perceived superiority, but the genetic differences between Neanderthals and us don't automatically mean they should be considered morally inferior to us. I hope that no scientists have suggested that.

As for the "mystical/spiritual" side of Neanderthals, there's no evidence of what their religions were like or if they even had anything we could call religion. Fictional stories that speculate about it are just that -- speculation, which while plausible and interesting are not based on archaeological evidence. There's not even any certainty yet that they could speak, though deciphering their nuclear genome may change that -- at present, we can only say that their FOXP2 gene shared the same mutations ours does, so speech cannot be ruled out yet. Yes, even if they had no spoken language they could still have had sign language as depicted by Jean Aule, but again that is speculation, not based on evidence and IMO, our genetic knowledge is not yet good enough to find evidence for that sort of thing.

Regarding genocide, historical genocides have often been incomplete, with a few people surviving after being raped and/or taken captive and/or escaping to hide, plus we're probably talking about a few thousand years of contact, so genocide and interbreeding are not mutually exclusive. Mass rape is actually a frequent tool used in genocide and while I don't think that fits the evidence that I saw, taking people captive and keeping them as trophy wives probably does. Still, the actual reason Neanderthals disappeared is not known and deliberate genocide is only one possibility.

The Celts entered the British Isles when earlier members of our subspecies, the Beaker Folk IIRC, were living there. Neanderthals in Europe were way way earlier, so there's no overlap there. By the time Proto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere in Asia, Neanderthals had been globally extinct for tens of thousands of years.

[Building Queue | Voices?]

Is there any agreement about Theta, Phi, and Khi, whether they were fricatives or not?

Sorry if this is off-topic.

[Building Queue | Voices?]

The pronunciation is today's Greek btw. But it is probably nearer to ancient Greek than the one i learn at school.

From what my Classics professor told me, even academic linguists disagree how precisely ancient Greek was pronounced, so getting it entirely right may be rather difficult! I don't think it should sound exactly like modern Greek, though, that wouldn't make sense.

[A Chinese faction]

I think this is a great idea for a mod.

5. Weaker Cavalry (It seemed like the Chinese horses were inferior to other Nations Steeds due to poor breeding)

To what extent can stirrups make up for that? Until stirrups caught on with other peoples, they should have given the Chinese an advantage, right?

[I modded the game!]

Very nice screenshots! Though as usual, they break the forum frame.

One thing I noticed about the models is that most of the Greek units have no beards.

Is this usual in the game as written, or is it the result of your mod? Also, I think

Alexander's unarmored mode looks bald. I don't know if you made your own textures,

but if you can I suggest eventually adding some more hair to him.

Otherwise, I think it's simply awesome that the game can already be modded, even to

a limited extent.

[Suggestions for 0 A.D.]

Oshron, that's a good idea. It sounds like a seige scenario, where the individual fortresses and barracks hold out even though most of the countryside is taken. I don't know if it is too complicated for 0 A.D., but no doubt there are some types of military buildings that can withstand a seige and others that require frequent resupply and civilian/economic support to put up a fight. Those would probably need to be differentiated if possible.

There's also the question of the concept of guerrilla resistance, even after a territory is captured. I think 0 A.D. has no morale meter, but the continued resistance of surviving military units in a more guerilla-style manner might also be an option, even if most military buildings are taken, provided there's suitable cover in the landscape. There could also be economic units who run off to join them as support, though I don't know how that could be handled.

In fact, the game engine need not distinguish, at least for non-AI factions, between "fighting to capture territory held by the enemy" and "fighting to recapture territory captured by the enemy." In both cases, the territory is held by one faction while the other has units in the territory trying to take it.

Then again, this entire guerrilla concept might be totally inappropriate for the time periods covered, at least outside the Iberian faction.

[Multi-level maps]

If there's no ramming, doesn't that reduce the value of triremes?

[Campaign Mode?]

- persuading neighbouring islands to join your 'sea-alliance'

And by "persuade" you actually mean bribe, blackmail, embargo, and force with the point of a sword, right?

[post-0 AD idea: mythology]

OK, that makes much more sense than what I thought you meant. I was thinking of these guys throwing their only weapon and then rolling up their fists and getting killed forthwith.

[post-0 AD idea: mythology]

On a battlefield with multiple opponents, sensible folks would not throw their javelin unless they have at least one backup weapon, preferrably a whole quiver of javelins or a solid melee weapon. It's one thing to throw it when you're hunting with a group and have separated a single animal off from the herd, but in a battle it seems a poor tactic.

I was thinking that the chieftains would have several javelins (or infinite javelins, like Ykkrosh pointed out) and a spear-thrower.

BTW, if the dancing isn't an editor-only eye candy unit in 0A.D., you should definitely add one to your mod.

[post-0 AD idea: mythology]

For the love of everything holy, don't include anything based off of or inspired by or even remotely similar to 10,000 BC. The movie crew horrendously mangled history, reality, and common sense to produce that thing. It is as historically realistic and accurate as the humans and dinosaurs living together with televisions and cars made out of stone, except that it was not produced as a children's cartoon.

(No, I didn't actually watch it. I saw the trailer, in which woolly mammoths build the pyramids of Egypt in the burning hot desert and so forth (after mammoths died out and before the pyramids were built), and I ran away and deliberately forgot most of the other awful, awful things that I had seen. You should run away, too. Very, very far away.)

Actually, a well-written, merciless, and well-informed satiric review might be funny to read. But that isn't the point.

There are real, historical stone age weapons (like real javelins and spearthrowers) to use for Cro-Magnons.

I mean, you are going to mix different time periods, including mammoths and Dynastic Egypt, but the mod should at least be inspired by something serious and decently made. And hopefully you won't be claiming that your game takes place in any specific real year.

the greeks have hoplites as their basic infantryman; im trying to differentiate it from 0ad as much as i can. but hoplites are still a major focus, theyre kind of the all-around soldiers for the greeks

But wait, aren't you planning this as a mod for 0A.D.?

[Dead Forum/Game]

So... all fan-fiction and fan-art in the world, for any copywrited anything, is illegal, even if you only make it for personal amusement and never show anyone? And the Tolkien Estate also are against fans just as much as the Tolkien Enterprises? My mistake then.

I do not understand this attitude, though. These lawyers give the impression they are angry that anyone even discusses what they have read or ever mentions it by name.

[post-0 AD idea: mythology]

well, actually, the norse here DO have ranged weapons, iirc, an archer. i based their regular units on known viking age weaponry

Ah, I see. I don't know anything about ancient Norse military topics.

thanks. ill look into those. i was starting to think that maybe a good hero would be an Avatar, a mortal(i guess)incarnation of the various hindu gods, and they could have different powers depending on which major god you chose

I'm pretty sure the only Avatars in Hindu religion are the ten Avatars of Vishnu. Most of them are clearly gods. Krishna resembles a human but is worshipped as the Supreme Being (just like Vishnu), and Rama lived a mortal life, but is now also worshipped as a god. The other gods apparently don't get any Avatars, just Vishnu. So I'd stick with mythical human heroes, such as Arjuna. Well actually, maybe Rama could be one too, I think he was a prince.

OK, I think I have a clearer idea of how the three types of faction work now. Thanks for explaining it more. The distinction between rulers and Greek- and Indian-type heroes isn't as great as it appears; those heroes all seem to have been princes, or kings, or legitimate heirs of some kingdom, or exiled lords, etc. Even the ones who were heroic because of their semi-divine ancestry were still princes, because what sort of Olympian would sleep with a Bronze-Age peasant or a slave? (And notice that when the Greeks eliminated their kings and instituted oligarchies and democracies, they stopped getting new demigods...! ) So here is how I would do it:

Cro-Magnon: Chivalric: Chief and Shaman (making them Chivalric lets you avoid any need to name their heroes). I would give shapeshifting and healing to the Shaman, and let the Chief be more of a beefy melee or javelin-thrower guy.

Mesopotamians: Chivalric makes sense the way you described it

Egyptians: Sovereign: named Pharaohs in awesome chariots with some magic or other special abilities in addition to a khopesh or spear, and a lesser official (such as Vizier) with a less awesome chariot, no magic, and no magic abilities, but good melee abilities and a bow as well.

Greeks: Assuming hoplites are a super unit, Heroic is the way to go.

Roman: Famous commanders would make good heroes, so Heroic seems a good choice, unless you want some elite soldiers such as Centurions to be a support mass-hero unit.

Chinese: They seem to have famous historical generals as well as mythical heroes, so depending on the time periods you use you could use both and make them Heroic. Otherwise, Sovereign might be a good choice. I wouldn't make them Chivalric, though -- that just seems like a waste of the mythical heroes. I mean, you have that guy who shot down the nine extra suns, Yu or something, who should be great against myth units.

Persians: Sovereign is the best choice IMO. Give them named emperors, and Satraps or Immortals as mass support heroes.

Indians: Heroic. The Mahabharata and Ramayana should provide lots of heroes, but I think there are other epics as well with yet more heroes in them.

Celtic: Sovereign: named Kings (name them after real kings, or mythical heroes) and nameless Druids

Norse: Chivalric makes sense

Medieval Christians: Chivalric

Polynesians: I do not know anything about Maori or Hawaiian military tactics, but I know that the Maori at least have named heroes in their oral history who were presumably historical people, and the Hawaiians probably do as well. Heroic or Sovereign may be the way to go here.

Aztec: Chivalric, but with Eagle Warriors as well. The Jaguar Warriors shouldn't eat their opponents until after they defeat one (AFAIK Aztec warriors did eat the hearts of at least some captives, but it tended to kill the victim! ) Shamans who can shapeshift into jaguars would be awesome too, but only as a myth unit.

Japanese, Slavic, Hittites, Semites, and Soninke: I literally have no clue!

[post-0 AD idea: mythology]

also, the norse dont have many ranged units, and even though the throwing-axeman is only available to odin, i think it helps even things out a bit more

I think in 0 A.D. the Celtic faction is supposed to have no ranged units because they considered them cowardly. You might look at how they are balanced to see how it's done, and whether it would work for your Norse (assuming the Norse really had no ranged weapons historically).

So the Sacred Band you mention isn't really the Theban one, you were just mentioning them in comparison. Do you know what name the Carthigians had for their "Sacred Band" unit?

as for the leiomano, it IS more sword-like--in fact, its pretty similar to the aztec macana, which was also something of a bladed club or an axe rather than a sword. im not too sure on the size, but i think its about the length of a forearm or maybe even as long as a comparable sword from another culture, more or less. the stingray spear is kind of a stretch; it was presented as a maori weapon in the Spike television series 'Deadliest Warrior' but i looked it up on wikipedia for quick reference and didnt find anything, so i decided to mark it off as a fictionalized weapon for the people of rapa nui. theres also precedence in other myths: iirc, the son of Circe in greek myth used a spear tipped with a stingray's barb to kill odysseus in the events after the odyssey ended.

I see what you mean, and I agree the stingray spear makes the most sense as a myth unit. But are spears given different stats from swords?

BTW the Aztec sword is called the macauitl.

btw, what do you think the hindu hero unit should be? with the hindu faction ideas of others, the only hero unit ive really seen is just a generic "Prince" unit, which isnt very good as far as im concerned. and since the japanese are now a chivalric culture instead of a heroic one like i originally planned (because of the new timeline for the japanese, nearly all of their more famous warriors like benkei and historical figures from the sengoku period are out of the question), i want to see if i cant find more factions that can be heroic ones

btw, i should probably clarify what i mean by "heroic" and "chivalric". i decided a long time ago that each faction will be categorized as "Heroic", "Sovereign", or "Chivalric". these all determine what kinds of hero units they get for regular gameplay: heroic cultures get historical and mythological named characters as heroes(like the greeks); sovereign cultures get special "leader" heroes as well as a mass-production hero to support the sovereign (like the celts or egyptians); and chivalric cultures get one or sometimes two mass-production heroes (like the mesopotamians or norse).

The Hindus had their own heroic myths, such as the Mahabharata, that seem to paint a picture of a society similar to the one depicted by Homer. (Homer's Iliad and Odyssey actually describe early Iron Age Greek society more than the Bronze Age society, despite their intended setting).

I don't know enough about the time periods when the Mahabharata is supposed to take place, and I think your Greek time frame spans the Bronze and Iron ages, so I'll mention two time periods for Greeks and Indians. This is what I would change from your list:

Archaic and Classical Greeks: Chivalric (for hoplite warfare) (unless Spartiates and Hoplites are super units, distinct from hero units, in which case Heroic should work fine)

Bronze Age and Dark Age Greeks: Heroic

Mahabharata-style Hindus: Heroic

later Indians: no idea, sorry

Persians: Sovereign

Romans: no idea, but the historians at 0 A.D. would be able to advise you on the closest model out of your three

Cro-Magnons: Heroic (since you are dealing with stone age cultures, and stopping before the Bronze Age when cities and central governments really took off)

Norse: Chivalric or Heroic, possibly (depending on time period? I'm not an expert on these cultures)

Mesopotamians: Sovereign or Chivalric (I know the Epic of Gilgamesh gives a rather Heroic impression, but their cities were quite hierarchical)

Celts: Chivalric may work better than Sovereign for them, again I'd see what advice the 0 A.D. historians can give you

The Egyptians, interestingly enough, might not work as a Sovereign faction. I don't know what precisely a "mass-produced hero" is or how it differs from 0 A.D.'s super units, but I think the Egyptians had unarmored, lightly armed foot-soldiers (cannon fodder, basically) and some leaders in chariots. I don't know whether or not they had anything comparable to the Persian Immortals or Macedonian cavalry. If they had nothing comparable, then Heroic or Chivalric might actually work better for them.

OK, actually you know what? Maybe I'm basing my list more on what those names sound like to me, instead of on any real understanding of the mechanics you're talking about.

[Very Important]

You do sound harsh, whether or not it's your intent. I don't really know what "another game" means, unless you mean Last Alliance.

I'm not angry, it isn't like you guys lied about the system requirements, I'm just frustrated and I should have checked the details sooner. I actually got this computer around 2005, I think. This is the apartment I rented for college -- as soon as I can, I'm moving back under my mother's roof until I can find a job, which is not looking likely any time soon, and pay off my loans.

Surely in the next 4 years, I can save $40 in birthday gifts (if that's really all it takes). I might even be able to find a job by then. Thinking about it that way does make me feel less frustrated, though.

P.S. Sorry that I hijacked the thread.

[Very Important]

Even for a project that started in 2001, this is true? My computer is not any older than 2003.

There goes any and all enthusiasm and interest I had for 0 A.D. and Last Alliance.

At least I find out now, not later.