Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Wouldn't campaign be more fun without replenishment?

elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237
edited November 2021 in General Discussion
Be real, there are two unit types that dominate the campaign, ranged and SE, and those are the ones that can tank replenishment better than others. The units in this game are not balanced to take in account replenishment differences, but are balanced instead on how hard it is to micro them (why right-click-and-forget melee infantry suck hard).

For this reason i suggest to simply cut the unnecessary replenishment mechanic and make battles less about cheap cheese tactics that don't belong in a TW game and more about showing the real skill (yes, CA could do a lot more on the matter, but i'll be still happy if this would pass).


Edit ->
Jesus Christ guys, i don't understand how hard it is for you to comprehend this: THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED FOR REPLENISHMENT, PERIOD.
There's not replenishment mechanic QB, you simply start the match and its either win, loose, or draw, there's no "oh i won the fight but my army got 90% killed and now i will loose any engagement after that" like you have in campaign, the only consequence there is your place in the ladder.

Now, CA have already said that they're still gonna balance TWW3 for QB/Domination, so changing that is out of question; the only solution remaining to avoid having melee infantry not penalized by default in campaign (because now that's the case) is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army. Otherwise really you need mods to make some units work.
Post edited by elkapp on
«1

Comments

  • wunderb0rwunderb0r Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 945
    edited November 2021
    it was like this in any game pre- shogun 2 and I hated it

    edit: manual replenishing troops is meeh
    ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 8,895
    God that would be so incredibly boring.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.

    We're paying full price for a Chaos Warrior of Tzeentch without any actual Tzeentch markings or changes to the model? Change this now CA, #JusticeForTzeentch #TLM
  • ProcessingProcessing Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 477
    I made a similar post a year ago saying that replenishment is a stupid mechanic (it's essentially free gold every turn) but got downvoted into oblivion.

    Yea, my 10K army just lost half of its health? Let me wait a turn for my 50% replenishment so I can get 5K gold back for free!
  • BloodydaggerBloodydagger Registered Users Posts: 3,637
    If fun is like pulling teeth, then sure.
  • YellowTreeYellowTree Registered Users Posts: 347
  • Rasmus242Rasmus242 Registered Users Posts: 660
    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.
  • Hourgath_the_HutridHourgath_the_Hutrid Registered Users Posts: 676
    Maybe in very hard difficulty but as in general base game .....sorry not every player in here is a dark souls enthusiast (even though it is a great game but still )
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,387
    I don't know. I'm not saying I love the current replenishment situation as implemented.

    But it's become necessary to counter how the game has evolved.

    The AI used to have WAY fewer stacks and their recruitment and retraining was just as constrained as the players. This did give more purpose to smaller 'garrison armies' (before garrisons existed) and a smaller variety of small scale fights.

    ^I do miss this.

    But modern titles have increasingly given the AI cheats to add challenge as well as increased the average scope of battles. This has increased the entertainment value of the series for sure! Obviously, a smarter AI would be welcome, but failing that, the AI has a lot more ways to pressure the player than used to be present in the series. And the number of truly epic battles rather than small skirmishes has gone up.

    It would be impossible to just 'ax one of these things' without severely altering or rebalancing the other.

    Like, if you axed auto-replenishment and reinstated local building requirements for retraining that you had to pay for on top of upkeep.....while keeping the number of AI stacks the same, you would absolutely be overwhelmed. It wouldn't be challenging or fun. It'd be an obnoxious grind.

    Is the current system perfect? Ofc not. Do I also want some changes from older Total Wars, like formations, multi-walled sieges, etc.? Yes, ofc I do.

    But I also think it's important to recognize that just 'copy-pasting' old game systems into the new Total War setting, without making multiple adjustments, won't instantly make the game better by default. New Total War has also made improvements and progress that I'd rather not have needlessly thrown away.

    I'd rather solutions to replenishment be found through new, clever systems like more effective counters to it via agent actions or more 3K styles or something else like that, rather than just copy-pasting the Rome 1 system over without changing anything else.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,732
    Nerfing replenishment would harm melee armies; not help them. Ranged units need ammo to be effective; melee need HP.

    Besides you need only play an earlier total war to see why this causes problems with the A.I (and annoying conga lines of troops marching to the frontline).
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    Made a small edit to the main post, hoping it will clear some misconceptions.
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,977
    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • JirzikJirzik Registered Users Posts: 347

    I made a similar post a year ago saying that replenishment is a stupid mechanic (it's essentially free gold every turn) but got downvoted into oblivion.

    Yea, my 10K army just lost half of its health? Let me wait a turn for my 50% replenishment so I can get 5K gold back for free!

    You are paying full price for beaten army. Excess money will are used to replenish your troops.
  • ProcessingProcessing Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 477
    Jirzik said:

    I made a similar post a year ago saying that replenishment is a stupid mechanic (it's essentially free gold every turn) but got downvoted into oblivion.

    Yea, my 10K army just lost half of its health? Let me wait a turn for my 50% replenishment so I can get 5K gold back for free!

    You are paying full price for beaten army. Excess money will are used to replenish your troops.
    Alright you got me, that doesnt change the fact that high replenishment only makes snowballing easier. At the very least change the max cap from 50% to like 25% or something.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237

    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    You're gonna replenish full after you win, and get your army nuked after you loose. Simple as that.
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,732
    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    You're gonna replenish full after you win, and get your army nuked after you loose. Simple as that.
    So winning while taking huge casualties is meaningless; and losing but saving the majority of your force is also meaningless? Making the retreat function pointless?

    Yep... really sounds like that would 'improve' the game...
  • BloatedCorpse1234BloatedCorpse1234 Registered Users Posts: 125
    No. The replenishment could be nerfed, you can get it too high for many factions. But remove completely? No.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237

    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    You're gonna replenish full after you win, and get your army nuked after you loose. Simple as that.
    So winning while taking huge casualties is meaningless; and losing but saving the majority of your force is also meaningless? Making the retreat function pointless?

    Yep... really sounds like that would 'improve' the game...
    If you have a better idea on how to make heavy infantry better more useful in campaign, tell me that.
    Or generally, how to make any unit that rely on trading useful in campaign.
    Because now they're good in PvP, and they're because you don't have to care about the integrity of your army.

    Is not like mine is without issues, but is the best one that came in my mind.
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,732
    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    You're gonna replenish full after you win, and get your army nuked after you loose. Simple as that.
    So winning while taking huge casualties is meaningless; and losing but saving the majority of your force is also meaningless? Making the retreat function pointless?

    Yep... really sounds like that would 'improve' the game...
    If you have a better idea on how to make heavy infantry better more useful in campaign, tell me that.
    Or generally, how to make any unit that rely on trading useful in campaign.
    Because now they're good in PvP, and they're because you don't have to care about the integrity of your army.

    Is not like mine is without issues, but is the best one that came in my mind.
    Well for starters balance the difficulty options so they don't unfairly nerf melee units while leaving ranged units alone.

    Secondly I don't agree this is as much of a problem as you make it sound. I think a better solution is to work on ways to round out the armies in general; and the Admin cap looks like a good step in that direction.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 28,233
    It would make me stop to ever play a TW game again so no, it’s a terrible idea.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,429
    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    elkapp said:

    Rasmus242 said:

    Wouldn't a better less annoying solution just be adding a cost to replenishment based on initial cost and a multiplier based on how long something takes to recruit?

    But yes, I think a select few people would enjoy this (me included) and most people would hate the game.

    But, no, the idea is to make melee infantry builds more viable. This one will make elite heavy infantry worse.
    So you're going to make melee infantry builds (which take more damage than any other build) more viable, by removing their ability to replenish? Do you need me to show you why that wouldn't work?
    You're gonna replenish full after you win, and get your army nuked after you loose. Simple as that.
    So winning while taking huge casualties is meaningless; and losing but saving the majority of your force is also meaningless? Making the retreat function pointless?

    Yep... really sounds like that would 'improve' the game...
    If you have a better idea on how to make heavy infantry better more useful in campaign, tell me that.
    Or generally, how to make any unit that rely on trading useful in campaign.
    Because now they're good in PvP, and they're because you don't have to care about the integrity of your army.

    Is not like mine is without issues, but is the best one that came in my mind.
    Reduce accuracy and damage missile damage across the board looks a better option for single player.
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 520
    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    edited November 2021
    Rubz2293 said:

    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.

    except... no. Most armies would have a supply train with ammo, and the troops would just resupply from that and/or by scavenging. And in history, ranged troops could actually be supplied mid battle...

    Maybe after a few battles or so, but ammunition should not be treated equal to unit reinforcements.



    Removing replenishment also would be wrong... units did get replenished afterall... the main issue is how to balance replenishment... making it excessively slow (outside of your recruitment centers) could drag down factions that rely on numbers, however giving those a major boost could in turn make them far stronger



    edit: btw. "is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army"

    What? So, you get your army back in a great shape just because you won? Your army gets flattened just because you lost? So, you'd basically ruin stuff like decimating the enemy but ultimately loosing, yet allowing your second army to defeat the weakened enemies because their armies are "intact" because they won... or in turn, you are able to save your army rather intact out of the battle, but it gets wiped out because you lsot?!
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,197
    Ideas like this are why developers ignore the forums.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 4,831
    WITHOUT is going too far



    But drastically lowered? Yeah I can get behind that
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    actually... "no Replenishment" would be a decent fit for the Union army in a TW Civil War.

    The Union army usually used fresh troops to form new units and send them to the armies. The COnfederates prefered to bring their older units back to strength (was overall the better choice, because it allowed the green troops to stand with the veterans and learn their trade etc.)
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 520

    Rubz2293 said:

    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.

    except... no. Most armies would have a supply train with ammo, and the troops would just resupply from that and/or by scavenging. And in history, ranged troops could actually be supplied mid battle...

    Maybe after a few battles or so, but ammunition should not be treated equal to unit reinforcements.



    Removing replenishment also would be wrong... units did get replenished afterall... the main issue is how to balance replenishment... making it excessively slow (outside of your recruitment centers) could drag down factions that rely on numbers, however giving those a major boost could in turn make them far stronger



    edit: btw. "is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army"

    What? So, you get your army back in a great shape just because you won? Your army gets flattened just because you lost? So, you'd basically ruin stuff like decimating the enemy but ultimately loosing, yet allowing your second army to defeat the weakened enemies because their armies are "intact" because they won... or in turn, you are able to save your army rather intact out of the battle, but it gets wiped out because you lsot?!
    This isn't history though. Its a computer game that needs balancing, since one class of unit far outperfoms the others than what is interesting or reasonable.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,429
    Rubz2293 said:

    Rubz2293 said:

    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.

    except... no. Most armies would have a supply train with ammo, and the troops would just resupply from that and/or by scavenging. And in history, ranged troops could actually be supplied mid battle...

    Maybe after a few battles or so, but ammunition should not be treated equal to unit reinforcements.



    Removing replenishment also would be wrong... units did get replenished afterall... the main issue is how to balance replenishment... making it excessively slow (outside of your recruitment centers) could drag down factions that rely on numbers, however giving those a major boost could in turn make them far stronger



    edit: btw. "is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army"

    What? So, you get your army back in a great shape just because you won? Your army gets flattened just because you lost? So, you'd basically ruin stuff like decimating the enemy but ultimately loosing, yet allowing your second army to defeat the weakened enemies because their armies are "intact" because they won... or in turn, you are able to save your army rather intact out of the battle, but it gets wiped out because you lsot?!
    This isn't history though. Its a computer game that needs balancing, since one class of unit far outperfoms the others than what is interesting or reasonable.
    Replenishment should be tuned down but OP's is also wrong. As said, fighting doomed battles only to bleed the enemy should be an option, letting the winner having his army back would just make battles even more meaningless than they already are, not mentioning instance in which you can choose to retire if the reinforcements enter the map in bad position. Directly nerf ranged units or change the way difficulty scales are better ways to deal with ranged meta.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,693
    Rubz2293 said:

    Rubz2293 said:

    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.

    except... no. Most armies would have a supply train with ammo, and the troops would just resupply from that and/or by scavenging. And in history, ranged troops could actually be supplied mid battle...

    Maybe after a few battles or so, but ammunition should not be treated equal to unit reinforcements.



    Removing replenishment also would be wrong... units did get replenished afterall... the main issue is how to balance replenishment... making it excessively slow (outside of your recruitment centers) could drag down factions that rely on numbers, however giving those a major boost could in turn make them far stronger



    edit: btw. "is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army"

    What? So, you get your army back in a great shape just because you won? Your army gets flattened just because you lost? So, you'd basically ruin stuff like decimating the enemy but ultimately loosing, yet allowing your second army to defeat the weakened enemies because their armies are "intact" because they won... or in turn, you are able to save your army rather intact out of the battle, but it gets wiped out because you lsot?!
    This isn't history though. Its a computer game that needs balancing, since one class of unit far outperfoms the others than what is interesting or reasonable.
    reduce the Ranged damage, reduce ranged accuracy... stop the dumb as... stat balancing of higher tiers...

    Ammo is NOT equal to health and should not be treated as such. The reason those units outperform is not that ammo immediately replenishes, but the fact that CA screwed up the basic balancing, especially since there are races which rely more on ranged units, which would be heavily influenced by that change... and that includes the Dwarfs which usually aren't considered one of the top races of the game.

    And this has still little to do with history, but the simple fact that most armies, except maybe Greenskins etc. would have supply waggons with the stuff with them.

    And remember, this game has fliers and summons that can be brought down on Ranged... and by making ranged equivalent to health, ranged units would be screwed over twice when they end a battle in damaged shape...

    Aaalso, this would also hit garrisons... makes total sense for the defenders of Altdorf to need multiple turn to resupply their ammo...
    #RIP BORIS! KILLED BY CA AND GW WITH SHORTSIGHTED CRUELTY JUST TO SHOVE KOSTALTYN DOWN OUR THROATS!

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 520

    Rubz2293 said:

    Rubz2293 said:

    Ranged units ammo need to be slowly replenished like hp after a battle in Campaign. Now they magically have 100% ammo after a battle.

    If HP is the combat value of melee units that replenishes over time,then the same must be done for ranged units combat potential.

    except... no. Most armies would have a supply train with ammo, and the troops would just resupply from that and/or by scavenging. And in history, ranged troops could actually be supplied mid battle...

    Maybe after a few battles or so, but ammunition should not be treated equal to unit reinforcements.



    Removing replenishment also would be wrong... units did get replenished afterall... the main issue is how to balance replenishment... making it excessively slow (outside of your recruitment centers) could drag down factions that rely on numbers, however giving those a major boost could in turn make them far stronger



    edit: btw. "is to sack replenishment and instead have a mechanic where if you win you get your army back intact and if you loose the battle you loose the army"

    What? So, you get your army back in a great shape just because you won? Your army gets flattened just because you lost? So, you'd basically ruin stuff like decimating the enemy but ultimately loosing, yet allowing your second army to defeat the weakened enemies because their armies are "intact" because they won... or in turn, you are able to save your army rather intact out of the battle, but it gets wiped out because you lsot?!
    This isn't history though. Its a computer game that needs balancing, since one class of unit far outperfoms the others than what is interesting or reasonable.
    reduce the Ranged damage, reduce ranged accuracy... stop the dumb as... stat balancing of higher tiers...

    Ammo is NOT equal to health and should not be treated as such. The reason those units outperform is not that ammo immediately replenishes, but the fact that CA screwed up the basic balancing, especially since there are races which rely more on ranged units, which would be heavily influenced by that change... and that includes the Dwarfs which usually aren't considered one of the top races of the game.

    And this has still little to do with history, but the simple fact that most armies, except maybe Greenskins etc. would have supply waggons with the stuff with them.

    And remember, this game has fliers and summons that can be brought down on Ranged... and by making ranged equivalent to health, ranged units would be screwed over twice when they end a battle in damaged shape...

    Aaalso, this would also hit garrisons... makes total sense for the defenders of Altdorf to need multiple turn to resupply their ammo...
    Well yes ammo isn't something that can be used without thought. Even though you can scavenge things after a battle as you said, arrows break and bullets are lost. Ever played gholf? Then you will know how easy it is to lose something small and round.

    It takes time to produce weapons and munitions, is the Empire advanced enough to produce such weapons in a day after using all its ammunition the day before in a siege situation where they were cut off?

    It was just a possible suggestion from my side, but trying to align this with real world logistics is really strange to me. If that's the standard we use then this entire game should fall flat on it's face. Like can you imagine and raising and training an entire army of mammoths? Or steam tanks with 15th century technology?
Sign In or Register to comment.