How to effectively pierce armour with turks and their strength?

I was doing some custom battle on hard diff where hungarian dism feudal knights opposed:

1)Ottoman inf and they lost
2)JHI and they badly lost
3)hashashin and they won

the fact is arrows do nothing if fired towards the front of the dism feudal knights.

Unfortunately the Turks lack of crossbowmen, the real long range armor piecing unit.

To fill in the gap I think I can use Javelin or naffatun but they harder to use well and also the range is bad.

Other option is firing with HA from behind but still it takes a lot to kill an antire unit of dism feudal knights.

So what do you guys use against heavy infantry (gun powder apart)

Also my very big complaint is the fact that Sipahis don't have good stamina and morale while the Hungarian Nobles even more armoured than Sipahis have them. (not balanced)

So why in the description of the turks faction there is written:

"Outstanding mounted archers" ???

They are just poor (mamaluks have more stamina) Hungarian Nobles Byzantyne Vardariotai Cossacks and dvor more stamina morale and armour.

I think they should rebalance the turks or remove such a definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acemutha

So what do you guys use against heavy infantry (gun powder apart)

---

Heavier infantry (with AP if possible).
Heavy cav charges.
Better tactics and manouver (flank and rout them).
Heat, exhaustion and terrain (heavy inf are dead meat in desert)

I've ran some tests myself : 10 battles 1-on-1 in vanilla 1.2. JHI lose/win ratio was exactly 50%. Even when they lost, DFK were down to 10-15 men, so JHI are not too bad against DFK.
I ran the same test in LtC 3.0 - the Janissaries won all battles. So, if you're looking for better unit balance, try a mod. Lusted's Lands to Conquer does a great job at rebalancing.

And don't pay too much attention to descriptions and stats. They're notoriously unreliable as unit battle performance indicators. Just play the game and use your experience.

EDIT: sorry, I've just noticed you did the test on H diff. My test were on medium, so the above results may not be relevant.

Quote:

---

EDIT: sorry, I've just noticed you did the test on H diff. My test were on medium, so the above results may not be relevant.

---

The ai no longer gets stat bonuses on H and VH like in RTW.

Turks are good for early all cavalry armies. Later you can use Muskets, JHI, OI, Canon for "heavier" armies. The tests in custom are not entirely accurate because you will get a bonus in the campaign game => exp (if you trained well). Turks are much better than MTW:VI anyway, though, they can still be improved. Check Doug's missile cavalry guide in the guides forum if you decide to go all cavalry.

How did you lost with JHI? I tried it a couple of times i custom and won every time. Have you installed 1.2?

Actually, as a veteran Turk player, my tactic is never to engage knights 1 v 1 because nothing in the Turkish arsenal can withstand a long fight with them. The JHI were fairly good but as of 1.2, they are crappier since knights finally get their shield bonus.

Naffatuns are your friends. Put an Azab or Peasant in front as a meat shield and watch Europes elites fry in hell!!:beam:

How to effectively pierce armour with turks and their strength?

I think we are all missing the historical point. In history, not all countries HAD the same technological advancements and sometimes the less advanced race won. Look at Russia vs Germany in WWII. Russia was completely broke and was using completely outdated armory when Germany was - just to compare - was advanced during that time as the United States is now. On a one on one fight, Germany should have annialated Russia but due to other factors (War on two fronts, drained resources/manpower, wrong decessions made by those in power.) Russia was the country who took over Berlin.

Same kinda idea here. The Muslims nations did not have the armor, training, or even other things that the Catholic nations have. What the Muslim nations did have against the Catholics were overwelming numbers in their territories and a profound knowledge of how to fight in the desert, something the Catholics didn't have much of during that time.

Plus, armor piercing was a moot point if you outnumbered the enemy on the field by a sizeable force.

Well the turks didn't actually live in the desert. They had their ancestry from the steppes and were more suited to a dryer, colder climate hence their use for the composite bow which was a favorite among steppe armies. Although not portrayed in-game, the composite bow was much better than the longbow in terms of armor piercing and firing rate plus it was smaller allowing horsemen to use them. The only downside was in the moist Northern European weather, the bow would fall apart.

As for why Muslims don't wear plate, well they have splint armor which is almost as good since its lighter and flexible which suits their military ethos of mobile warfare.

If you look at most paintings of Eastern armies, most troops(even the famed Janissaries) are seen wearing only cloth(possibly silk). Although cloth won't protect an arrow shot or a sword swing, the soldier can use their weapons(which are also smaller and lighter) much freely rather than sit in a spot fiddling clumsily with their weapons in hot, claustrophobic full plate.

Ya I really believe that muslims are not fairly balanced in this game for the fact that they can not use the style of warfare they used of hit and run with the overpowered european knights and waht not.

Plus always test on Normal b/c in hard and VH the Ai does have an advantage

I play the turks almost exclusively because of their location. JHI, even with the 1.2 nerf, it still owns almost all heavy infantry, let alone the lowest tier of heavy infantry, DFK.

play more custom battles, get the hang of the game and the use of flanking and rear raming tactics. also learn to kill opposing cavalry with your own cavalry and spear units conbine. missles units don't do much anymore in m2tw, even HA doesn't do much anymore if you don't have a full army of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l3asu

Ya I really believe that muslims are not fairly balanced in this game for the fact that they can not use the style of warfare they used of hit and run with the overpowered european knights and waht not.

Plus always test on Normal b/c in hard and VH the Ai does have an advantage

---

I also agree with what you said but would like to enter in the Zerg Factor.

In the game Starcraft, the Zerg race is the most weak but they can be very powerful as a horde, their units are cheap and are geared around a mass type of attack. In this game, you really can't control more than 20 (Could be 16?) unit brigades in combat, so you never can implement a horde type of attack. This post with the last post I summited I would like to state that I have absolutely no knowledge of the Muslim nations during that time period but focused on studying Medieval Europe. I could be wrong but they teach you in school Logical Reasoning and even Deductive Reasoning (If A=B and B=C, then A=C) makes you figure out how things are and work.

For instance
1. Saladin (Muslim) had a huge standing army
2. Christians after the crusades in Jerusalem we extrememly outnumbered when confronted.
3. Christians had better training, armor, and experience in combat
4. Both sides were equally motivated (Via their Religious faith) in keeping/taking Jerusalem and would almost fight to the death to obtain/keep it.

The outcome
Christians lost Jerusalem

Therefore, superior numbers can overcome almost any other advantage.

IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME BECAUSE OF MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS FIELD OF THE WORLD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l3asu

Ya I really believe that muslims are not fairly balanced in this game for the fact that they can not use the style of warfare they used of hit and run with the overpowered european knights and waht not.

Plus always test on Normal b/c in hard and VH the Ai does have an advantage

---

I honestly believe, looking at CA's track record, that balance issues aren't really the goal for CA because they focus almost exclusively toward Historical Accuracy to the best that they can without completely breaking the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

For instance
1. Saladin (Muslim) had a huge standing army
2. Christians after the crusades in Jerusalem we extrememly outnumbered when confronted.
3. Christians had better training, armor, and experience in combat
4. Both sides were equally motivated (Via their Religious faith) in keeping/taking Jerusalem and would almost fight to the death to obtain/keep it.

The outcome
Christians lost Jerusalem

Therefore, superior numbers can overcome almost any other advantage.

IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME BECAUSE OF MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS FIELD OF THE WORLD.

---

Well in period of the crusades Muslims were fighting more against each other then against the Crusaders. As example Saladin (when he attacked Jerusalem)
often send a part of his army to pillage and skirmish with the Fathimids (Egypt). Christians really did not have so much better training or arms.
I recently read great book, it describes crusade from Muslim point of view.Can`t remember name but if anyone is interested i can look it up.

This thread stared because JHI is peace of crap in 1.2. I did not install it but when this thread came up i patched the game and Janissary HI is crap. And it is at the top of the food chain cost and tech wise (in game).
And Janissary infantry was the greatest fighting force of their time. The Turks took a tribute in blood (they took healthy, strong boys from their conquered teritories) converted them to islam and trained them from from the moment they were old enough to hold a sword. In Medieval 1 total war they were kings and i dont know why they changed that in 1.2

As for WW2 the German tanks were not that superior to Russians, and had better performance but had so many major flaws. The engine itself was so complicated (it was technological wonder of the time) and very prone to breakdown. And it was nearly impossibile to repair them on field. And the cost and effort in producing them war really not worth it. Better have 28 Shermans
than 2 Tigers. And they actually stole a couple of ideas from Russians (the angle of frontal armor, for example, to better deflect shots). After all who ended the day alive at the Battle of Kursk? T-38 won the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

As for WW2 the German tanks were not that superior to Russians, and had better performance but had so many major flaws. The engine itself was so complicated (it was technological wonder of the time) and very prone to breakdown. And it was nearly impossibile to repair them on field. And the cost and effort in producing them war really not worth it. Better have 28 Shermans
than 2 Tigers. And they actually stole a couple of ideas from Russians (the angle of frontal armor, for example, to better deflect shots). After all who ended the day alive at the Battle of Kursk? T-38 won the war.

---

Actually, the German guns were top notch and the U.S. tanks that are currently deployed in Iraq use a gun that was developed in Germany. But I wasn't referring to just tanks, I was talking about all aspects of the conflict such as the Air Power as well as the infantry. Just like in WWII conflict between Germany and Russia, I am sure the Turks have an advantage over a Christian nation somewhere.

The other thing you mentioned was how the Muslim nations were conflicting with each other during the crusades, like I said before about Management problems causing problems, there you go.

But thanks for correcting me on the other things.

I get really confused by these threads as they simply don't equate with my expereince of the game. I have played Turks several times now and I've never noticed a problem with their units being out matched. Jannissary Infantry are pretty solid as are the dismounted Saphri and the vast numbers of mounted missile troops can usually deal with Christian armies even if they are heavy with crossbowmen.

I'm playing 1.2 on VH battle for the most part, so I'm puzzled why other people are experiencing such a different result. Are there different versions of the game out there or something?

Janissary HI is still strong in 1.2 if you place them in four or three ranks and set formation to loose and charge the enemy. Three ranks are better because you have a longer line but sometimes your unit does not "wrap" around knights to flank them joust stands there instead, so four ranks is safer. I played 10 battles vs. chilvaric knights, won them all with 49-67 soldiers remaining in unit (Huge unit scale, 120 when full). Played a couple vs. Venetian HI won them all with about 50 men left every time. One interesting thing is that i always killed enemy general fairly quickly, soon after the battle starts to shift in my favor. I lost my general only two times.

I agree with Didz. In my current campaign with the Turks (M/VH) I don't have any problem dealing with the christian armies. Since there were many crusades against me, I fought numerous battles against christians. I've seen it all, from armies full of peasants and pilgrims, to heavy armored knights, supported with crossbows and heavy cavalry. I've never lost a single battle (on VH difficulty).

My armies have usually 6-7 HA, mainly sipahies and some turkomans, 3-4 ottoman infantry (archers), general and the rest is infantry (JHI, halebard militia and saracen militia).

I put my infantry and archers far behind, if possible on a nice hilltop, and my HA in front. I move HA behind enemy, and to their flanks, creating a deadly crossfire, at the same time luring them to my infantry. When the enemy reaches my main line, they are exhausted, decimated, and with very low morale.

At this moment I charge them with my infantry. JHI and halebards attack the flanks, and my horse archers charge to the rear. The battle is over, with a very few casualties on my side, and almost 100% enemy dead.

i too do not see the priblem with playing the turks. 1on1 all there may not be an equivalant to armoured knights but wiht a combination of factors its not difficult to beat them.

you dont need to completely destroy a unit to make it rout. learn more about how to decrease morale rather than killing every man in the enemy army.

JHI should be a little harder to kill but their killing power is about right IMO.

"Originally Posted by Budwise

For instance
1. Saladin (Muslim) had a huge standing army
2. Christians after the crusades in Jerusalem we extrememly outnumbered when confronted.
3. Christians had better training, armor, and experience in combat
4. Both sides were equally motivated (Via their Religious faith) in keeping/taking Jerusalem and would almost fight to the death to obtain/keep it.

The outcome
Christians lost Jerusalem

Therefore, superior numbers can overcome almost any other advantage.

IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME BECAUSE OF MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS FIELD OF THE WORLD."

Budwise

is this just your opinion or your conclusion based on facts? if so what facts are u basing this on?

Janisarries were one of the most highly trained units of the period. on what basis do u claim that the christian armies were better trained?

the holy lands were a place of constant warfare even before the crusaders arrived, among different muslim nations and also the Byzantine empire. the muslims armies had plenty of experience as well. these topics have been discussed on these forums wuite extensively with plenty of reference material mentioned. i suggest you do a search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

Janissary HI is still strong in 1.2 if you place them in four or three ranks and set formation to loose and charge the enemy.

---

I'm curious...why would you set the formation to Loose?

I usually form my infantry 3 or 4 ranks deep and keep them closed up for maximum unit cohesion. I even put then on Hold Formation if they are heading for a serious fight so that I maximise unit cohesion and increase their defense. Loose formations reduce morale and allow cavalry to exploit the gaps between the ranks. I can't think of any advantage to doing this unless you were under missile fire.

Ok guys maybe I didn't express myself well. I'm not saying I' m having probs with the turks, I'm saying that bows (turks don't have xbows) do very little vs Hungarian dism feudal knights (they seem stronger than those of other factions) even if fired from behind.

Also my test in custom battles were conducted on hard difficulty and my game version is 1.2.
What I do is simply click on the enemy and see the results and jhi lost anytime vs

Hungarian dism feudal knights
Moors' dism christian guards
Venetian Heavy Inf.
...


It is clear that naffatun (even javelin men but less effective) are the way but...only when the enemy inf is pinned down otherwise xbowmen wipe 'em out from far.

Also as I said sipahis should have the same high stamina as his hungarian counterpart. Remember that hungarian nobles are more armoured and if we exclude the fact that hungarian horses are better or hungarian armour better quality (not true) then stamina should be based on the armour's weight, so there is no point to give more stamina to sipahis.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are using grassy plain map and it's not really Jhi's native enviroment. Try a desert map. You might be surprised. OH and use VH as setting which is most realistic according to CA

Off topic, but to way on the debate over relative qualities and such of the Muslim and Christian troops during the crusades it is true that the levant was a scene of much fighting prior to the crusades and the Muslims were just as battlehardened as their Christian counterparts. On the quality of these troops it is recorded in the writings of various inhabitants of the region that although viewing the "Franks" as uncultured barbarians from the North the Muslim warriors quite admired the crusaders' fighting abilities, that is when they got the chance to fight head on.

The fact is, man for man in a straight on sluggfest the Europeans would win, but poor generalship, unfamiliarity with the geography of the region and desert warfare, and being poorly equipped for the heat meant that when the Muslim forces would finally meet them in battle head on they were too weak or worn down to use their superior brute force. The same would happen if the Muslims had invaded Northern Europe, in the dense forest they would lose their ability to maneuver, and they would be ill equipped for the colder rainier climate and be soundly beaten.

On topic: I agree about the sipahis. I guess ballistas could be used to deal with the heavy infantry from afar since the lack of x-bows.

1. put your Ottoman infantry off skirmish

2. when DFK are close to ottoman infantry, order them to attack DFK

3. enjoy good melee

4. order your JHI to flank DFK or to attack remains of DFK

5. buy new valor1 Ottoman infantry units in your fortress

Quote:

---

For instance
1. Saladin (Muslim) had a huge standing army
2. Christians after the crusades in Jerusalem we extrememly outnumbered when confronted.
3. Christians had better training, armor, and experience in combat
4. Both sides were equally motivated (Via their Religious faith) in keeping/taking Jerusalem and would almost fight to the death to obtain/keep it.

The outcome
Christians lost Jerusalem

Therefore, superior numbers can overcome almost any other advantage.

IF I AM WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME BECAUSE OF MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS FIELD OF THE WORLD.

---

Saladin's army was probably more levies and mercenaries than a 'standing army', and also held together relatively loosely, considering the diverse nationalities and religions included. I don't doubt that it was substantially larger than the crusaders' forces, but the crusaders had faced and inflicted stunning defeats on forces far superior to their own previously. The major difference between Saladin's forces and the earlier Fatimids that had faced Raymond and Godfrey was that he had a more significant and diverse force of cavalry.

Crp. Carrot is wrong in bringing up the Janissaries for the sake of this analogy, entirely because they are a couple of centuries outside the fall of Jerusalem, and also a Turkish, rather than Egyptian corps. Generally, the 'crusaders' (though I know a lot more about the First Crusade than this specific period) tended to be more martial, ferocious and better-trained than the surrounding Arabic states, partly because of the poorer knights dedicating a great deal of time to military training when young. On the other hand, there were certainly extremely well-trained and armed Islamic corps (most notably, in the Fatimid and later Ayyubid armies, the Mamluks and Sudanese soldiers) but the earlier Fatimid/Ayyubid forces were made up primarily of Berber and Turkish mercenaries rather than Egyptians.

I disagree with you completely on the numbers point. Bohemond with 700 'knights' on relatively pathetic horses defeated the 12,000-strong Aleppan army outside Antioch, and later, the Crusaders defeated Yaghi Siyan's *enormous* mixed army even though they were all half-starved at the time, solely because of superior discipline and determination. There are plenty of cases where superior numbers have proved useless, or even hampering. There are plenty of other examples of superior numbers being rendered useless and defeated.

Additionally, it's illogical to draw a conclusion from a single case (without a rational proof), particularly when the facts are unclear or unknown.

Quote:

---

the holy lands were a place of constant warfare even before the crusaders arrived, among different muslim nations and also the Byzantine empire. the muslims armies had plenty of experience as well.

---

Non sequitur. The fact that there had been plenty of battles in the region before 1097 is irrelevant when discussing a war fought 90 years later. I'd hazard a guess that due to culture and necessity, the average crusader would have more experience than the average Ayyubid mercenary of the 1180s.

Dismounted knights are tough, though targets. As noted, shields and their excellent armor means arrows have little direct effect from the front.

Which means that the points already made about crossfire and using HA to fire into their backs are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Which means that the points already made about crossfire and using HA to fire into their backs are right.

---

I think that, contrary to RTW, defense bonus for left and right side are the same (-50% of the shield value). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I'm curious...why would you set the formation to Loose?

---

On custom battle since installing 1.2 JHI were unable to beat DFK 1 on 1 even in desert. Considering the price of JHI and their AP abilities and also DFK penalties in desert and also being a huge fan MTW were JHI were the strongest unit in the game i experimented a little in custom battle and set them to loose formation.
The are now as good as in unpatched game. The only logical explanation is that they have more room to swing those halberds or whatever the are carrying.

im posting so i can make a thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I'm curious...why would you set the formation to Loose?

---

The only logical explanation is that they have more room to swing those halberds or whatever the are carrying.

---

There's more to it, at least when doing 1-on-1 tests : I think that loose formation diminishes the impact of DFK's charge, and having 10% more men at the start of the melee changes the outcome a lot. Also, having a wider line means some JHI wrap around the DFK flanks, getting even more of those mean axes in action. General's survivability is also better with a wider formation, since he is usually on the flank so there's less chance of him getting surrounded early or killed in the initial impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

How did you lost with JHI? I tried it a couple of times i custom and won every time. Have you installed 1.2?

---

A couple of times ain't enough. There's a lot of randomness, and general's death is unpredictable. I ran 10 tests, and got 5 losses / 5 wins (wide/close formation, grassy plain, medium)

Janissaries are just fine dealing with heavy infantry. You must protect them from missile attacks though... Pin the heavy infantry down with jhi and then charge the enemy from behind with qapukulu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars Moriendi

A couple of times ain't enough. There's a lot of randomness, and general's death is unpredictable. I ran 10 tests, and got 5 losses / 5 wins (wide/close formation, grassy plain, medium)

---

As i stated in my second post when i installed 1,2 i did 10 tests against DFK won every time with more than 50% of men remaining. Did about 10 against Venetian
Heavy Inf. with the same results, and a couple against various other troops. Won every time and almost always killed enemy general short time after i start winning (DFK has that "defeat is certain" when you hover mouse over them).
All test on that grass field map, with no hills or any obstacles. I just set the formation to loose and charge instantly set speed to 6 and wait results.
And DFK usually rout when they were down do 20-35 men.

A little of topic but how to get hashishin guild? And also Swordsmits guild.
And Knight order, playing Sicily i always get Hospitalers even i don`t go on a crusade, but with other catholics i have much more problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apostrophe

As i stated in my second post ...

---

Sorry, I missed that one :shame:
Strange though that your results differ so much from mine. I'll do some more tests and try to figure out what's wrong here.

About the guilds , see the FAQ, section 2.5, it has a lot of info and some links to excellent guides, everything you need to know should be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVX BELLORVM

I think that, contrary to RTW, defense bonus for left and right side are the same (-50% of the shield value). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

That would be news to me. I'll defer to anyone who's tested this.

(Double post)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

That would be news to me. I'll defer to anyone who's tested this.

---

I haven't tested this myself, I can only refer to the FUSIL and FAUST guides. There is also some discussion on this subject on the FUSIL and FAUST thread (posts #12 -#17).

Just to clarify, I'm talking about vanilla 1.2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DVX BELLORVM

I haven't tested this myself, I can only refer to the FUSIL and FAUST guides. There is also some discussion on this subject on the FUSIL and FAUST thread (posts #12 -#17).

Just to clarify, I'm talking about vanilla 1.2.

---

This would be easy to test. I'll do it tonight.

Put two HA units far apart, and have them both fire on a shielded infantry unit. Then see which HA unit gets more kills.

Well, that was weird.

I put two Mamluk archers wide on each side, with the commander's unit in the middle to draw the enemy forward. The single unit of English armored sergeants were decimated by the archers with the ones on the "shieldless" side killing 24 to the "shield side" Mamluks 13, almost two to one.

Then I did the same thing with foot archers. The ones facing the armored sergeant's shield side, in several tries, got just as many kills at the others if not more..

Now, before anybody starts the "bug" chorus, this was a hasty set of tries on during my lunch break. I'm going to look into this more carefully tonight.

Also, the foot archers stopped firing when their line of sight was blocked, even slightly, by a friendly unit. You could override them and order them to fire, but only a few of them would. The HA blazed away, no problem.

One side note I'd like to point out when discussing medieval historical accounts (such as the 700 Knights vs 12,000 Muslims battle described by Bohemond) is that Europeans usually point out only the number of actual Knights in a battle and not mentioning the personal retinues of each of those knights, which could range from a dozen or fewer men-at-arms to hundreds of mounted and dismounted troops.

So while Bohemond may have had 700 knights at Antioch, he must have had several thousand troops below the rank of knight along with him as well. Actual knights may have been better trained than the levies that formed the majority of Islamic armies, but the I think idea that European troops on the whole were of a vastly superior quality compared to their muslim counterparts is mostly propaganda.

OK lets go back to the turks and all muslim factions you go play multiplayer with egyptians and especially the turks against a good player and see if u can win, 10k 8 cav no ele/art standard stuff.

Come back with a saved game I dare you!

This is the wrong forum to discuss MP tactics and expliots.

i agree the anology of the Janissaries were wrong to make. thank you for pointing that out.

"Non sequitur. The fact that there had been plenty of battles in the region before 1097 is irrelevant when discussing a war fought 90 years later. I'd hazard a guess that due to culture and necessity, the average crusader would have more experience than the average Ayyubid mercenary of the 1180s."

i'm no history expert but from what little tests i have read of first crusade only a small percentage of the total hoard that arrived in the middle east were professional soldiers, and a large portion of the rest were men who had never fought in their life before. if this is correct then the avarage crusader would not have been better trained than a mecenery from the middle east.

i dont question the ability or a frankish knight but it was not purely fighting ability that won them the holy lands. nor was it sheer numbers of the muslims that made them lose it either. that was the point i was trying to make.