Tactics Style

[Hold Steady]

I concede, dear Kommodus, yes indeed, Halberds are indeed the most versatile and dependable unit in the sense that they can take on anything to a certain extent. It's probably the best one can buy for it's money, for their cost is low, and in turn you get a highly armoured, very versatile (though a bit slow) unit.
In fact, in my army of choice, there would be a few of them, since they can fill the role of spear/polearm-men for defence against cav ánd defend against all kind of infantry, except the most elite of them. Still, I have an unexplained preference for Sword and axeman as shock troops, so where someone would bring Halberds, I would bring a mix of Halberds, sword/axemen and perhaps a few spear-bearing infantry or pikemen. For do not forget halberds are slow dudes, if the enemy has a lot of missile troops and some HA, it will be a drag to get to them in one piece. Because of their slow speed they are a bit difficult to use on the attack. My preference for sword/cav armies will probably be because I like to attack, and like it to be able to attack with speed.
Nevertheless, If you can take only a few troops, Halberds will be among them, mostcertainly on the defence and even on the attack I would rather not miss them. Superb troop type!

[derF]

Besides i think halberdiers are better used on infantry

How very strange. The halberd is a weapon devised specially to knock knights of their precious horses. And they do so excellently.

[Ash]

Between billmen and Swiss halberdiers, it seems to me that billmen generally have slightly better combat stats, but Swiss halberdiers have better morale. My preference is for the billmen.

Billmen are awesome for the English. If you train them in Mercia and with a good command general, they should like get V4-5.

That's enough to make minced meat out of most units the AI throws at you.

And they're good against infantry as well. They're good against anything as long as they're not overwhelmed. Only way to stop them (for the AI) is to use annoying horse archers.
For some reason Billmen are outstanding when storming a fortified position. They should get morale penalties for getting overwhelmed (only a small hole in the wall to go through) but I've seen them hack up units in no time.

My conclusion is massed Billmen can take out most things in sieges, although I rely mostly on spears, swords, longbowmen and cavalry on the battlefield for some reason.

[_Aetius_]

How very strange. The halberd is a weapon devised specially to knock knights of their precious horses. And they do so excellently.

They may have been used for that in the real world cutting down cavalry and there pretty good at it on the game but like mentioned they are more prone to routing than most other units.

They are great against cavalry but cavalry flank very very quickly and halberdiers flee very easily, hence why you might aswell send them to fight feudal men at arms and those kind of troops, besides like ive said why send halberdiers who can cut though medium and light infantry with ease to do the job of spearmen class troops or braver troops when you dont have to?

In my experience, halberdiers dont have to lose very many men before they run, whereas im confident that if billmen are surrounded that they will either cut there way out or give as much damage as they take id expect halberdiers to lose heart and run for it. I am never confident using halberdiers, i always find myself keeping an eye on them. Whereas billmen i know theyll do there job and will only run if i make a mistake sending them against better troops etc.

I know halberdiers are peasant/militia class troops according to the game but what i dont understand though is WHY is their morale set so low? i know one thing if i was armed with a halberd in the medieval era id be more confident than some guy whos been given second rate swords and out of date armour, yet for some reason halberdiers lose heart faster.

It is a matter of style and tactics and stuff though, ive never doubted halberdiers advantages i just think the morale is to big a deal to overlook when i can have men who have better morale to do the same job, may not have the killing power of halberdiers but any heavy cavalry will have a hard time getting through italian infantry or rus spearmen etc. Freeing up my halberdiers to cut there infantry to pieces.

I cant believe i forgot about CFK never seen 40 men cause so much carnage, beautiful!

[Kommodus]

Still, I have an unexplained preference for Sword and axeman as shock troops, so where someone would bring Halberds, I would bring a mix of Halberds, sword/axemen and perhaps a few spear-bearing infantry or pikemen.

I understand completely. There are some great axe units out there; I'm always extremely fond of VG when I play as the Byzantines. I don't own VI, but from what I've heard, there are some wonderful axe units there too, including huscarls and even more powerful variations. Some units of swordsmen really do make excellent shock weapons. Every unit has its merits, and just about every unit shines in its own moment. Thus, a balanced army such as the one you describe would be very effective.

I also like to attack, but I admit my attacks are usually a bit more slow and methodical. Of course, there's those moments when the enemy reveals a weakness that must be exploited quickly, but since that usually means he's left some missile troops or artillery exposed, I'll usually make those quick attacks with cavalry.

I used to use a lot of spearmen and swordsmen. At the moment, spear/pike units are out of favor. They fall awfully quickly when flanked, and casualties start to mount pretty rapidly when they lose formation, which can happen even in a head-on engagement. Even though they move faster than halberdiers, their dependence on maintaining formation means that they actually turn more slowly, and thus seem more cumbersome and unwieldy. In my last campaign, I tried pikemen out for the first time, and found them uncomfortably vulnerable to missile weapons - even Swiss armoured pikemen. They can stop cavalry more effectively than anything, but they kill so slowly that they are sure to take casualties in the melee, even if their formation holds. Therefore, at this point I wouldn't use spearmen for much besides holding a narrow choke point. Of course, some factions rely on spearmen for their infantry core (such as the Turks, Gazis notwithstanding), and this changes things. Besides, some spear units, such as Saracen and Italian infantry, are really not that bad, and will perform well on most battlefields, despite the inherent weaknesses of spear units that I've mentioned.

As for swordsmen, I do like to have some of them around; as I said, they are good shock weapons and are very useful at times. I just have memories of sending large numbers of FMAA into large infantry clashes against infantry I considered inferior, and though my FMAA were usually victorious, they'd lose a whole lot of men before winning through. They showed great morale by sticking it out through mounting losses, but I'm just not comfortable losing half my men just to win a victory. I look for decisive wins. I've also had big groups of Byzantine infantry cut up by just a few elite heavy cavalry, or torn to shreds by enemy halberdiers.

But in the end, every unit has its purpose, and a balanced army will be very effective. We all have valid reasons for picking our favorite unit.

[derF]

I have the upmost respect for the Varangian Guard. They are elite and very effective against all troop types, even cavilry.

[Mithrandir]

Until they meet militia Sergs Bwhaha

[Kommodus]

I have the upmost respect for the Varangian Guard. They are elite and very effective against all troop types, even cavilry.

Yes, I did a few tests last night involving VG, and was surprised by some of the units they were able to beat. They handily defeated both Spanish lancers and JHI. I wanted to test them against Gothic knights but couldn't, since VG are not available to the Byzantines in the high period. As the Byzantines, I always use VG as my primary anti-cavalry unit, and they always do very well.

[gattamelata]

A tactic that I find particularly efficient in the early/high is to split my army into 2 groups. The bulk of the army will be formed by spears in the front to protect missiles units behind them and swords/axes ready to charge the enemy units pinned by the spearmen. The other group will be made of the same kind of units but it will be half of the size. The two groups will maneuver in such a way to stay perpendicularly each other and one facing the front of the enemy line and the other that will be on the flank of the enemy line. The cavalry will have a role that can change a lot depending on the nature of the battlefield. Sometimes it goes with the small group to enhance the flanking power. Other times act like a third fast group that have the goal to cut the enemy escape way.
Often the enemy will try to change his formation in order to face one of the two groups. This will trigger a long series of coordinate movements (this is a serious drawback in the desert!). The AI can’t decide whether to attack the main army or the small one: if his army will face the big group the small will cut his way through the flank, if it will face the small one…we will have some good time!
I can often drive the enemy army where I want and, there, I can start the slaughter. Sometimes a unit particularly eager to fight, leave the enemy army line and charge one of the two groups. In this case the missiles units will “soften” the target and then the cavalry (or swords) will finish the job. Once, fighting as the Spanish, against the Almohads I routed the all army after a single skirmish with a archers unit…but I think their general wasn’t that good.

[Ayachuco]

Yes, I did a few tests last night involving VG, and was surprised by some of the units they were able to beat. They handily defeated both Spanish lancers and JHI. I wanted to test them against Gothic knights but couldn't, since VG are not available to the Byzantines in the high period. As the Byzantines, I always use VG as my primary anti-cavalry unit, and they always do very well.

I think you will like my tactic, although it is a little time consuming. the name??? Neo-Byzantine
The real strength in this tactic is your main core. I only use this tactic when I have very balanced and big army. What I do is the set my main core in this formation from front to back Naphta, TA, VGs and BInf., then the katanks. I would move main core about 40 yds. away from the enemy. Then I use my ByzClrv, and PAllagion to attack my enemy. After 45 seconds of fighting i withdraw them and while i am withdrawing i send my main core to the enemy and let loose my naptha and TAs. After the napthas are out I call for a full infantry charge as a buffer for my katanks. Remember the PAs and ByzClrv, I use to attack the flanks. With the enemy in the crucible, its only a matter of time before they collapse and rout. I like to use against the Turks, give them a taste of their own medicine.

If a man has not discovered something he will die for, then he is not fit to live.

[macsen rufus]

Rock, paper, scissors - I guess everyone has their own style! And some people would no doubt flunk with someone else's army.

Someone asked what's the point of Abyssinian Guards - when I played Egypt, I rarely had Ghazis, but went for the Abs instead. Can't remember now whether they're elite or disciplined, but it is handy status. Because they don't vaporize on contact with the enemy like Ghazis do, I found I could do a lot more damage with them. Especially good at clearing the cowering foil-wrapped infidel from out of the trees, that's for sure.

I'm now doing Late Turks just to play with Janisseries. So far have my JHI flying out of Constantinople, and my Master Archer is ready next year. My current balance is 3 Saras, 1 JHI, 2 Otto, 2 Turk foot, 2 Turk horse, 2 Armenian heavies, 1 Turk Sipahi, 1 SoP (pref general), and the last 2 usually extra armour piercing, Slav Javs, extra Ottos, etc, depending on the balance of the enemy. Turkoman Horse are great for the desert.

For a bit of fun, I'm thinking about trying a solely 'spear'-based army, though may have to call JHI "spears" to make it work, lol. And I have no Jinetes yet.... Gotta get my emissaries to Spain with a big wad.

But what I hope to try is a 4 x Sara wall with 1 JHI either flank, backed up by 4 Slav Javs, 2 Jinetes, 2 Armenian heavies, 2 light steppe. Apart from the JHI, all spears, and 470 men on small units. Or maybe one of the Javs could be replaced by Muwahids....

Tactics have to vary with terrain, weather, enemy forces etc. There is a simple word for generals who always use the exact same (or predictable) tactics: vanquished!

Since getting addicted to this game, I've starting reading history again, and I'm amazed just how many crap generals there were then! It was more often that a battle was spectacularly lost than actually won by the other side. And mostly impetuousness, poor morale, or pride was at fault.

[Ash]

Since getting addicted to this game, I've starting reading history again, and I'm amazed just how many crap generals there were then! It was more often that a battle was spectacularly lost than actually won by the other side. And mostly impetuousness, poor morale, or pride was at fault.

Don't forget, generals didn't have the advantage you have as a game. You look from above your troops. You can rotate the camera. Your orders are followed out almost immediately. And you can pause the game to issue some more orders.

Generals in those days didn't have that kind of luxery, and often once the battle commenced it was pure chaos. Communication remained (and remains ) a problem on the battlefield.

Plus, the nobility were general the most well-trained forces on the battlefield, and they were battlewinning. However, they weren't exactly the types to listen to orders from their generals. Nobility comes with ego. This is reflected quite nicely with the impetious stat.

At Agincourt French knights got turned into pincushions after they decided they could charge up a hill straight through their own troops. Well brave they were, but no one is accusing them for being smart...:)

[Ludens]

Someone asked what's the point of Abyssinian Guards - when I played Egypt, I rarely had Ghazis, but went for the Abs instead. Can't remember now whether they're elite or disciplined, but it is handy status. Because they don't vaporize on contact with the enemy like Ghazis do, I found I could do a lot more damage with them. Especially good at clearing the cowering foil-wrapped infidel from out of the trees, that's for sure.

That's odd, because my Ghazis kept going even while they were getting slaughtered (and this wasn't with a seven-star general either). Abyssianian Guards have one huge drawback: they are bloody expensive. Their upkeep is way too high for unit that is basically a buffed-up Ghazi. And despite their better defence, they still get killed very quickly. I treat both Ghazis and Guards as fire-and-forget missiles, and for that purpose the Ghazis are better suited because they are faster, have a better morale and, most importantly, don't have a ridiculously high upkeep. If you try to be tactical, the more sturdy and more disciplined Abyssinian guards might help, but for enveloping and flanking cavalry works better.

BTW Ghazis actually have a higher morale than Abyssinian guards. The guards are elite, but that only helps when your troops start routing.

[macsen rufus]

Re Abs: The upkeep cost didn't really figure, I had trade cranked up so high it was impossible to spend everything even with every province building and training permanently. I also use them differently to Ghazis, in that they tend to protect my line rather than go charging into the enemy. I don't really like suicide troops, they're my people, digital or not, and it's such a waste

Maybe because I don't see them as buffed up ghazis is why I like em more?

Re crap generals: yeah, the game does give us certain advantages, and so does a few thousand years recorded history.... we know stuff some greats had to discover for themselves. I was thinking particularly abt one of the Scottish Kings (maybe David) who invaded England and decided his best tactic was to charge his highlanders straight uphill into English bows and knights, doh! If he'd had VI to practice with history may well be different.

[Ludens]

Re Abs: The upkeep cost didn't really figure, I had trade cranked up so high it was impossible to spend everything even with every province building and training permanently. I also use them differently to Ghazis, in that they tend to protect my line rather than go charging into the enemy. I don't really like suicide troops, they're my people, digital or not, and it's such a waste

Maybe because I don't see them as buffed up ghazis is why I like em more?

Exactly how do you use them? As pinning troops or as flankers? Because I don't see how they could function as pinning troops with their low defence stat and for flanking a unit of Ghazi will suffice as well. Or do you upgrade them?

Ghazis are good at dead-or-glory charges and at flanking, but not at pinning. As far as I can see, Abyssinian Guards can do dead-or-glory charges (but it is rather a waste of money) and can flank. However, they will kill slower than Ghazis, and killing power is the main requisite for flankers (for me at least).

Since Ghazis are religious fanatics, I have no compuction of sending them to their deaths. If someone is willing to die and their sacrifice will safe the lives of other people, then I think it worth the price. Sometimes, you have to be cruel in order to be kind.

[Kommodus]

Ludens: I think that what macsen rufus is saying is that he uses Abyssinian Guards similar to the way most of us use swordsmen - as front-line melee troops, whose purpose is to stand and engage in a head-on battle and kill effectively without running away or being destroyed too quickly.

How would they perform at this task? I'm really not sure, since I've never tried them. Their stats indicate a high attack and high morale, coupled with poor defense and armor. Thus, I'm sure they die quicker than you'd probably want. However, in my experience, sometimes a strength in one area can make up for a weakness in another. For example, halberdiers have such a low attack rating that you wouldn't expect them to do much damage. However, their armor and defense are so high that they will have plenty of time to rack up kills while their opponent tries unsuccessfully to penetrate their armor. It could be that in many situations, Abyssinian Guards will slaughter and rout their opponents so quickly that the Guards don't lose many men. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and it is certain that armor, weapon, and valour upgrades would significantly add to the Guards' survival ability.

So how would Guards differ from Ghazis in their usage and usefulness? Well, while Guards have a low defense rating, Ghazis have a MUCH lower defense rating, so even with plenty of upgrades, they will die very quickly in a head-on fight. They are also faster on their feet, which makes them a better flanker. As for holding a portion of a battle line, Guards will clearly be far better - both because of their better defense and because they are not the impetuous loose cannons that Ghazis are. Ghazis should be kept on the wings of an army, where they will be in a better position to flank, and be less tempted to go charging off on their own. Guards can stand and fight anywhere in a battle line, although as I've said, their low defense means they will not be the best for this task. Clearly, neither unit would be effective at pinning an enemy.

In the end, Guards are probably only worth having if you've got plenty of money. If you do, however, they would make a good addition to an army, since they can do things that Ghazis can't. If I were building a large, powerful Egyptian army, I would rather have a few Abyssinians in my "A" lineup to augment the Saracens, archers, and cavalry than only Ghazis. They would be better at surviving the initial battle and still being around when enemy reinforcements start marching onto the field.

[the tokai]

The problem with using abyssinians as front line troops is that front line troops are often the victim of cavalry charges and abyssians completely suck at receiving cavalry charges. Troops like abyssinian guards and ghazi's are most usefull as flankers and should be used as such. there are much better units for holding the line and you should be able to build those by the time you can build abyssinians.

As for my own tactics, i like battles in wich the melee lasts very short, or better yet, where the battle is solved without a melee. horse archers are great for such a tactic so they are my favourite kind of unit. Foot archers are also nice because they can also defeat units without getting into contact with them, but unlike the horse archers they need some support to survive.

Altough they can be effective, i'm not a big fan of the catholic heavy slugging army's. They work but they lack subtlety. A good general doesn't need heavy troops to win his battles.

[macsen rufus]

Nice analysis, Kommodus, similar thinking to my own. I found the big drawback to Egyptians is the lack of swords (except when you get to proper handgunners). I mostly used the abs as flankers, cover for missile troops, or occasionally poised behind/between Saras to open the latest delivery of Canned Crusader stuck on the end of their spears.... I also love them for taking apart pinned cavalry, but in nearly all uses they have to be the hammer of a hammer and anvil tactic.

And as I pointed out before, they also excell in woods for some reason, and can operate alone there. Personally, I find the -1 attack a good bargain for the +3 defence.

Now with the Turks, I use ghazis occasionally, but I see them more as weak Otto's who've forgotten their bows, really ;)

[Serpent]

Militia sergs fall easily against good cavalry, but harbs dosent and I see them as mainly defensive units or attacking whit 6star general.

Problem is that they are really slow and they will get good deal archer fire before attacker can got his archers in range.....soon enough you can make them flee of battle arena and others will fallow.

[macsen rufus]

Now with the Turks, I use ghazis occasionally, but I see them more as weak Otto's who've forgotten their bows, really ;)

... and now I'm going to disagree with myself after the last battle I had (castle assault), because unexpected results forced me to F1 in utter dismay :lol: and I saw just how much more attack capacity the ghazis had than the ottos (V2 ghazi 6* att, v3 ottos 3* attack) Even so, I did have more ottos left after the melee... but I was not happy to have to send in my heir apparent (still mounted) into the castle to finish off what my infantry couldn't. As a rule, I usually don't let my general within missile range of a castle, due to that unexpected accuracy thing on your general's unit.....

Ho hum, well, it was a complacent assault, but I'm not replaying it now!

[Mithrandir]

Militia sergs fall easily against good cavalry, but harbs dosent and I see them as mainly defensive units or attacking whit 6star general.

Not at valour 3 and above...

[Saracen_Warrior]

Ghazi all the way. Varangian does everything ghazi does, but worse, excpet for holding a front line. But egypt has Saracen, who are much better ta that then varangian. Besides if you want to worry about holding the line, be a Christian and get some halberds. That hole, hold the line thing is obsolete for the Egyptian way of fighting.

If your an egyptian army you shouldnt be worrying about good front line troops. The best front line troop you get as Eggies is one of the first units you get. Saracen is what you need, use your brain to think of more important things, like whether or not to use lots of HA, or Hashishan. Hashishan rule, just dont make 16 untis of them.

[Alexius II Loukas]

Heya!

Well, since I ALWAYS play as the Romans (The Eastern ones, I hate saying Byzantines ) Her's my game plan.

I have found that since you never have enough forces to go on an actual offensive, that defense is a great way to go. This allows you to use your Byzantine Cavalry to it's greatest advantage, as lures for your infantry trap.
I only use Kataphraktoi for a counter flanking tool, as they get tired too quickly to engage in the melee right off, and you can't march them around to the right position.

I never bulk up armies, as well. I usually use my heirs, equip them with a guard force basically, and send them to attack or defend. Of course this only works in the earlier part of the game.

VG's are essential, but they build slowly, so I sometimes, if I have the money grab a semi large Mercenary force, and just rampage around until they are spent, and advance to where I want to. It's expensive, but it works.

[OlafTheBrave]

I alter my tactics to fit my faction but I think my favorite way to play is with axe-men. Ie Vikings or Varangians. I like to take my Vikings and groom them for valor from the start. I also constantly upgrade them. Obsolete! yeah right, seems in F1 my guys have better stats than the Ghulum Bodygards and Royal Knights they chew up. I like to have atleast two lines of them and alternate the lines to give the guys a rest. I do add in some heavy Cav for any cav needs but this is a foot army. My deffense are really mini-offensive actions. And there is nothing more satisfying to me than marching up a hill and slaughtering deffenders with my beffed up heavy hitters. While this may sound like the Catholic meat grinder it is not. There is very little pinning and flanking going on. Mostly it is straight up smash and eleminate.

[Ludens]

I found the big drawback to Egyptians is the lack of swords (except when you get to proper handgunners). I mostly used the abs as flankers, cover for missile troops, or occasionally poised behind/between Saras to open the latest delivery of Canned Crusader stuck on the end of their spears.... I also love them for taking apart pinned cavalry, but in nearly all uses they have to be the hammer of a hammer and anvil tactic.

I see, thanks for the explanation. When playing the Egyptians, I favour a more fluid style of battle, with lots of skirmishing and archery, preferably from horseback. I don't really need a special hammer unit, my royal Ghulams, aided by Mameluk horse archers and Faris, can take care of pinned enemy units. If necessary, Muwahids can do a very good job at flanking: they are fast, good morale, powerful charge and due to the rank bonus a good defence. You do need to have them at engage-at-will or else you will waste the charge, but they are very good light spearmen.

Ghazis and other hard hitters do not feature much in this kind of battle: when I engage the enemy should already be on the brink of routing.

[CherryDanish]

It's easy to critisise the Abyssinian units. They are expensive and difficult to justify. That said the unit is superb for dealing with almost any units once you get out of the desert and into the woods. Also they are excellent for taking on spearmen, halbs, and militia sergs in open field combat. That said, it's a lot of cost to take on relatively low cost units.

As stated elsewhere, I'm partial to specialised HA units like Faris, Boyers, SHC, Turkomen Horse, and Byz Cav, but for heaven's sakes, don't put them up against Western Catholic cav. I'm waiting on JHI to deal with the heavy western Cav units I'm facing in my Turkish campaign as I'm down to the final 4 right now and attacking in open field combat against heavy cav is rough. I try to engage my ghazi's on their cav in the woods, or use spear, missle and light cav to try and get them to charge my spear positions (with Turk infantry and Fatuwa behind the spears). It's a lot of work.

[_Aetius_]

My egyptian armies are cavalry heavy lots of mamluk HA units, ghulam cavalry mamluk cavalry etc, for infantry i tend to have saracens, muwahids and abyssinians i also tend to have significant numbers of italian and english mercenaries in my ranks to make up for some of egypts shortcomings and ive had alot of success this way.

Ive had little respect for horse archers especially light ones, but in my recent turkish campaign ive found that turcomans are spectacular HA's. No fewer than 4 victories against crusader armies are thanks to the turcomans, i stripped dozens of troops from the best of the crusader armies, not to mention the small units that all crusades have were swept up in melee charges and really the templar knights once the bane of my existance are now reduced by showers of arrows.

Ive now mastered horse archery and rarely lose more than a few HA's in a battle and once their finished i find swift charges from ghazis break up whatever infantry is left in the army and my hordes of cavalry can chase them down.

There was a close call once though when a german crusade and a spanish one arrived in Rum and would possibly have defeated me even after my HA's had caused there damage, but foolishing the german and spanish crusades fought each other and my army merely destroyed what survived.

[macsen rufus]

I make a lot of use of Turk Horse - v2s from tripoli/master, re-equipped with upgraded weapons, but no armour. Usually 6 out of my sixteen units, possibly with some steppe heavies thrown in too, if there are no SoP handy (I took Russia first for a change ...)

They are good for wearing the knights out before melee, and with the upgraded weapons they are still useful and dangerous light cav for taking out foot missiles and routers. They are even useful in sieges dismounted. The problem is I like so much I can't stop training them, they're everywhere now

[Manstein]

When I attack, I just send skimishers and archers to draw them out first, then attack head on with heavy infantry with ranged support. Then, I attack the flanks of the enemy with calvalry, and, when they break off, I halt my infantry and archers and send "fast" units to kill the routers.

When you attack the rear of an enemy, it's very likely that they'll rout and get killed from the behind. That's enough to draw them into a circle and destroy them.

If there are reinforcements that I know of, then, I'll just regroup and not follow the enemy so that I can await the next attack.

I mostly rely on infantry, archers, and heavy calvalry. That's where the Byzantines come in.

[Oleander Ardens]

Ha it has been some time since the last post here in the Main Hall, a shame for the great game MTW still is;

Here is a great discussion about the use of missile units in MTW in general, with creative use of the underused.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...6&page=3&pp=30

By the way: Szekely all the way


OA